489-499 King Street West | Proposal | 22 st | 97 m | | Office |Downtown

[Marcanadian]

Originally Posted by ONE HUMAN

Was never trying to be funny. Not trying to be mean either. Sorry it's annoying to you, but I find all these spelling and grammar mistakes very annoying. And I'll provide whatever feedback or commentary I choose. I don't tell other people what to post, and believe me, I disagree with a lot of what's said on here. Also, English is his first language, so there goes that arguement. Thanks for coming out though.

I believe the word you're looking for is 'argument'.

[ONE HUMAN]

Originally Posted by Marcanadian

I believe the word you're looking for is 'argument'.

So true. Thanks.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Dev.z

But it's a little naive to say that Allied is somehow being greedy proposing this. They're a public company, its pretty much they're entire mandate to be greedy.

So on one hand you're saying they're greedy, and the next you're saying its naive to say that they're being greedy.

[Innsertnamehere]

He's saying that its naive to be angry at Allied for being greedy.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

He's saying that its naive to be angry at Allied for being greedy.

I know, but his statement is ridiculous and stating the obvious. I'm stating that profit (which is the same thing as greed) is the end game of all businesses and he's telling me that it's naive to get angry about it? Gee, really?

Naive? It's naive to believe that businesses care about heritage preservation and things like that. If your chief aim is profit, a large component of what fuels that is greed. Perhaps he's taking offense to the comparison.

[Dev.z]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I know, but his statement is ridiculous and stating the obvious. I'm stating that profit (which is the same thing as greed) is the end game of all businesses and he's telling me that it's naive to get angry about it? Gee, really?

Naive? It's naive to believe that businesses care about heritage preservation and things like that. If your chief aim is profit, a large component of what fuels that is greed. Perhaps he's taking offense to the comparison.

When you answer a question with "GREED" in 48 point font you definitely reveal yourself to be a kind of idealist who probably thinks they know the true way the world should work. If you answered the questions by saying, "because they want to maximize profits", that'd be different, albeit a little boring. You could always keep the large font for effect though.

If these types of comments are so obvious to you why can't you get your own argument straight. You first state that profit and greed are the same thing (which they aren't). You then say greed is a large component of what makes up profit. So which is it?

And really? You're going to say that you stated profit is the endgame of all businesses? You wrote "Greed". You didn't state anything about anything.

Greed is defined as an excessive desire for wealth and possessions. Making a profit is not an excessive desire, it's a necessity to how the world works. Economic rents or profits are what get people to use their capital, it's not greed at all - its something required because without it, it makes more sense to do nothing at all. But why am I telling you this? It's all so obvious and simple. I'll let it simmer and you can reduce it down to a single, catch-all buzzword. Lose the bold though, it screams "Try-Hard".

[Dev.z]

Originally Posted by ONE HUMAN

So true. Thanks.

Karma is truly a B___h.

[ONE HUMAN]

Originally Posted by Dev.z

Karma is truly a B___h.

Ha! I don't think you understand the meaning of Karma.

[Dev.z]

Originally Posted by ONE HUMAN

Ha! I don't think you understand the meaning of Karma.

Ya - pretty sure I do. Also pretty sure you were on the receiving end of it.

[ONE HUMAN]

Originally Posted by Dev.z

Ya - pretty sure I do. Also pretty sure you were on the receiving end of it.

How so? Please explain.

[ONE HUMAN]

Anyway, back on topic...

Does anyone know the exact history of 489 King St. W.? When was it built and who was the architect? Also, is there no heritage designation for this structure?

[cruzin4u]

Originally Posted by ONE HUMAN

Anyway, back on topic...

Does anyone know the exact history of 489 King St. W.? When was it built and who was the architect? Also, is there no heritage designation for this structure?

Allied REITs website usually gives some information on their properties.

http://www.alliedreit.com/en_toronto.php

Specifically - http://www.alliedreit.com/en_toronto-kingw489.php

Mentions that the building is CIRCA 1925.

[ONE HUMAN]

Thanks. I can't find any info that it's a City of Toronto's Heritage Property, so it's probably not. However, I think it should be. These are the kind of buildings we need to save.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Dev.z

When you answer a question with "GREED" in 48 point font you definitely reveal yourself to be a kind of idealist who probably thinks they know the true way the world should work.

Perhaps you should just read what's written and avoid wild assumptions about people you've never met. The beauty of the English language is the ability to convey a point easily and precisely. That you managed to take 5 letters and turn that into a swamp of confusion, postulation, and presumption is nothing short of mind boggling.

1 five letter word was sufficient to answer his question. All that's been revealed is that you have an issue with my word choices and draw conclusions that aren't there.

[Dev.z]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Perhaps you should just read what's written and avoid wild assumptions about people you've never met. The beauty of the English language is the ability to convey a point easily and precisely. That you managed to take 5 letters and turn that into a swamp of confusion, postulation, and presumption is nothing short of mind boggling.

1 five letter word was sufficient to answer his question. All that's been revealed is that you have an issue with my word choices and draw conclusions that aren't there.

No, what I was saying is that it's not greed as simply put as you suggest. That's all. I didn't mean to make it into a huge distraction, I just disagreed with your assessment and wanted to expand the thought. But after all the digression, yes - it would suck if this building were lost. I think we can all agree on that.

*This post is subject to spelling and grammar corrections by One Human*

[isaidso]

Alright, lets move on.

[Elnerico]

Ewww, it's like the putting the ass in the front.