Worst OK Review Ever! UHHGGG !!

[Karried]

Hi all, I am so upset this morning after reading a post on a travel forum (that I had posted to previously)! User name is 'spiderturd' that should say something about his personality!
He goes on and on about how horrible OK is and is so insulting and demeaning! It doesn't help that all of the United States visits this board and can see his awful description of our state. I am so bummed! Can you go there and help? Maybe by responding in an educated, civil way to this post? I reported his post as inappropriate after reading all of the insults and slurs and horrible inaccurate descriptions of our state.

I think if a lot of us report his postings as inappropriate, he might go away. If you don't want to get upset or angry, don't read what he says but if you think you might want to reply, then go to:


http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic..._Oklahoma.html

[Pete]

Looks like they deleted his post and those that addressed him directly.

And there were lots of nice things said about OKC in that thread as well!

[Karried]

They did?! I'm so glad! It was horrible and yes there are nice things but this person had the most vile things to say about OK - thanks for checking and letting me know.

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

The post was appropriately dealt with to my knowledge.

It looks like that forum looks like a fine place to discuss cities anyway, so heck, I'm there!

[windowphobe]

As a general rule, I am disinclined to take any kind of advice from anyone who wishes to be known as "spiderturd."

[Karried]

LOL windowphobe, that's the best advice I've heard this year - thanks for putting it into perspective! I should have just squashed him like the lowly spiderturd he claims to be... but he was so brutal regarding our fine state... he made me mad!

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

And I generally regard windowphobes as nuts, but that's just my profession.

Did you read my testimony?

[Karried]

I did and responded accordingly- great post and very informative and insightful regarding our fine state

.... windowphobes... phobia of windows?

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

Hey it beats what I like to call "forumphobia."

[okcpulse]

As a general rule, everyone in this country has a right to there opinion. But keep this in mind, their opinions are for the most part based on experience. Maybe spiderturd (very disgusting username) got lost down in southeast Oklahoma in some rural microscopic town and got is a** kicked by some toothless redneck (hehehe). Who knows.

But you can't buy into opinions. They are mere feelings. Never facts. If someone's opinion were concrete, then a retail chain would open a store in Oklahoma City based on someone's opinion that it is "cool". No, companies and relocating people need facts.

What burns me, is the general belief that naysayers of Oklahoma think that the people who are pro-OKC have never been outside of Oklahoma. Heck, I only travel outside of the state every freakin' year. If these people believe that, they may very well be the stupidest people on the planet.

I read tripadvisor from time to time, but I want to experience these places for myself, and generally find that these posters are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

Oklahoma City can't please everybody, and for those who are displeased, find out what didn't meet their desires and let's keep on working.

[soonerguru]

There were some positive comments about OKC on there, but mostly they came from the posters on this board.

Some of the folks who lived here and moved on didn't have the nicest things to say, i.e. the comments about: lack of trees, lack of beauty, backwardness, extreme conservatism, etc. Can't say I entirely disagree with those comments.

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

Backwards? Oklahoma? Hardly! I refuse to believe that we are as backwards as say... Boston.

Lack of beauty? OK. I'll give them that. But Edmond and Norman do in fact have hills and trees. But yes, out west it is quite flat and treeless. Atleast OKC is the largest city that meats EPA standards.

Extreme conservatism? I'll give them that. But is it fact that it's bad to be conservative? Why do we have so many conservatives in America if so?

But what people fail to realize is the diferance between Elk City and Oklahoma City or Tulsa. Failing to realize that is utter ignorance and stupidity.

And people don't realize that we have more terrains than any other state as well. We have MANY mountains ranges, several forests, major rivers, and we also have the prairie, which isn't as dull and lifeless as people make it out to be. At least I'd rather be on the prairie than stranded on a desert island.

[BDP]

Extreme conservatism? I'll give them that. But is it fact that it's bad to be conservative? Why do we have so many conservatives in America if so?

I think the key here is "extreme". It's not conservatism per se that upsets people, but illiberal extremism that often puts a narrowly defined social cultural agenda ahead of liberty. unfortunately, in the political arena, this gets combined with conservatism. People don't want to go somewhere to be told how to live there lives and have their values legislatively dictated on them. Unfortunately, Oklahoma has a reputation for supporting such agendas, which results in it being associated with this extreme type of conservatism. I don't necessarily agree with it on a pure populace level, but there is evidence of it amongst the state's policy makers and the people we send to DC. Unfortunately, it has been customary lately for media and general opinion of geographic areas to be formed based on the politics of its elected representatives.

Why does such extremism exist in a country founded on liberty? Who knows? It probably has to do with insecurities and the fear of people being different. Or just a self righteous belief that one's own value structure trumps another's liberty. In any event, illiberal policies and intolerant agendas are not generally associated with growth and will be perceived as "backwards" by many. I guess things could change, and maybe they are. If America continues to eliminate liberties to advance belief structure, maybe Oklahoma will end up looking like a pioneer. Meanwhile, I'll be working to at least make it difficult for that to happen and make Oklahoma a great place for all kinds of people to live.

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

We don't send them to DC because they wanna control peoples lives. We send them to DC because they puleld one over us while they were playing good ole boy.

[okcpulse]

I don't think a treeless landscape is something worth complaining about. Too many people don't know that Oklahoma City literally sits on the ecoregional boundary of the Rocky Mountain rain shadow, which is why the trees start thickening between Broadway Extension and I-35.

I mean really, it's common freakin' geographical sense. What do you expect Oklahoma City to do? Ask mother nature for to re-terriform because there's a growing city out here?

I will say, our river as no trees along it, only because city leaders in the 1950's let the U.S. Army Corp. or Engineers clear out the greenery along the riverbanks when the river was straightened. I suppose we'd have to travel back 50 years to put a stop to the huge mistake that was made, but as of 2005, time travel still isn't possible. Trees were replanted along the river today, unfortunately it'll be 20 years before they mature.

[BDP]

We send them to DC because they puleld one over us while they were playing good ole boy.

Well, that too.

I don't think a treeless landscape is something worth complaining about.

And it's not like OKC is treeless. The neighborhoods north of downtown to I-44 have some nice trees. Heritage Hills, The Paseo, Edgemere, Crown Heights, Putnam Heights, and others along 23rd all have a good amount of trees. South to Grand Blvd. has good foliage as well. The east side has tons of trees and nice topography. It's far NW OKC, Edmond, and new Norman that lack the trees.

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

South to Grand is to dangerous a neighborhood to go tree-looking in. I would not recommend people to go tree-looking in any neighborhoods between I 40 and SW 59th Street. And the reason that the inner city has trees is because it's OLD.

Since I can't post more than 3 pics here, this is a link to where I already posted some pics of the inner north side.

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/...showtopic=2176

I will say, our river as no trees along it, only because city leaders in the 1950's let the U.S. Army Corp. or Engineers clear out the greenery along the riverbanks when the river was straightened. I suppose we'd have to travel back 50 years to put a stop to the huge mistake that was made, but as of 2005, time travel still isn't possible. Trees were replanted along the river today, unfortunately it'll be 20 years before they mature.

What river, that creek turned canal by Downtown?

But your right, 20 years from now that river will look awesome, with all of the parks and boardwalks we're putting down there. And imagine riverboats in front of Downtown!

[soonerguru]

We are not treeless, by any stretch, and there are an awful lot of openminded people here who welcome outsiders. We cannot be painted by such a broad brush, but we often are.

Think about how you view other places. You may shape your opinions on, say, Memphis, based on nothing more than traveling through it on I-40. Maybe you had a two-night business meeting there and the hotel where you stayed was ratty and the hotel staff dimwitted and uninformed. Maybe you got cussed out by a redneck when you pulled over to use the john. Is it fair to form an opinion based on such an incomplete picture? Probably not. But people do it. Heck, Okies do it when they go to New York City and spend all their time clustered in the tourist dreck of midtown. Is that all that New York has to offer? Heck, no, but that's how people form their opinions.

I think the current example involving the library thing is germane to the conversation. People from other parts of the country, let's say, places that have progressed a little further than OKC, would really be put off by that kind of intolerant attitude. No one is asking that state representative to "accept" homosexuality. She doesn't have to. But she feels so morally superior and afraid that she would actually withhold funding for our great new library because of a children's book. I don't know what you call that, but that would be considered extreme behavior in most big cities.

That woman can hate queers to her heart's content as far as I'm concerned, but she better keep her bible-thumping do-gooder ass out of my library and let me decide for myself what books I want to read -- and allow my children to read.

I have no problem with true conservatives. I have a HUGE problem with this theocratic, reactionary form of extremism that seems to be the rage with many in the modern Republican party.

They're welcome to their ideology, and I won't try to have their Ann Coulter books removed from the library, but I prefer personal choice and freedom, and that religious extremist view does not appear to be compatible with those ideals.

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

I think "hate" for queers is hypocritical. And you may call the whole gay marriage debate Christians shoving Christian ideals down athiest throats, but I call the whole gay marriage debate athiests shoving Athiest ideals down Christian throats. Both being equally as bad, though I would personally stay away from the athiest ideals.

[HOT ROD]

I think "hate" for queers is hypocritical. And you may call the whole gay marriage debate Christians shoving Christian ideals down athiest throats, but I call the whole gay marriage debate athiests shoving Athiest ideals down Christian throats. Both being equally as bad, though I would personally stay away from the athiest ideals.

So very true!!! but we all know, no offense Christains, that bible thumping Christians like to point the finger and then go to church and act like nothing happened.

Also, you guys might be making a big deal about the homosexual issue. I agree that alternative lifestyles is not something that should be shunned or to hide from as they are mostly positive active contributors to the fabric of Oklahoma City. In fact, the NW 39th GLBT District is more lively and has more urban attractions than Bricktown (if you exclude the arenas and ballpark).

I think the "fear" of homo has more to do with ignorance than it does anything moral or philosophical. Just like there used to be the same "fear" against Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, so on ... All based out of ignorance and ignorant people looking to make themselves feel better at the expense of someone else.

On the other hand, here in Seattle - a very liberal city with a large alternative population like OKC - we dont have homosexual books in the Children's section! And it didnt take a senator to make a law prohibiting it either - it was just common sense! All adult oriented material can not be found within the reach of children, its not a law here but it just makes sense.

Why is it that in Oklahoma civic leaders have to make conservative statements to scare fear into the populous (and ridicule the state nationally). Why couldnt there be a closed door meeting of the minds, to say "hey, we dont have any oral sex books within childrens reach so doesnt it make sense to keep the other adult material out of their reach??"

Isnt this a null issue?? Well, everywhere except Oklahoma where it was front page news!! Who cares about other's relations, you do what you do - judge not that ye be judged. for one thing, many creative class urbanites identify with the alternative crowd!! so if OKC is serious about attracting the creative class, then OKC needs to become more open minded about the diversity of people and their own beliefs.

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

Well I personally think that a childrens book that is SO VERY OBVIOUSLY just about gays and lesbians, is completely, and utterly inappropriate.

It is the same as if a book was about a straight couple having intercourse. An alternative sexuality is a subject that should be tackled after a child FIRST becomes aware of sexuality for crying out loud!

Oh, and I don't think that the 39th Street enclave is an official gay and lesbian district. It's like saying Oklahoma is an official hillbilly district, which is utterly nonsensical.

[BDP]

I think "hate" for queers is hypocritical. And you may call the whole gay marriage debate Christians shoving Christian ideals down athiest throats, but I call the whole gay marriage debate athiests shoving Athiest ideals down Christian throats. Both being equally as bad, though I would personally stay away from the athiest ideals.

The gay marriage debate kind of epitomizes the difference between old small government conservatism and the extreme big government neo-conservative movement. Our state's new marriage law is nothing more than an increase in the scope of government in an effort to control the behavior of individuals. There's nothing conservative about that. What people also missed is that the law statutorily prevents any unmarried person, gay or not, from having the same rights as married people. In effect, we have not only statutorily based access to the full rights offered by the state on marital status, but we have restricted that status to a certain class of citizens deemed inferior.

Conservatism or not, when you begin dividing society up and restricting rights based on something other than citizenship, you send the message that you are a restrictive society and that liberty and opportunity is limited. IMO, this is not the message of a community looking to grow and I think it is this kind of approach to policy making that many outsiders see as “backwards”.

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

Nice, blaming our cultural divisions on the conservatives, as if it's ALL our fault.

[BDP]

Nice, blaming our cultural divisions on the conservatives, as if it's ALL our fault.

Are you talking to me?

If you are saying that conservatives are exclusively responsible for such legislation, then maybe I am, but I doubt someone who supports such legislation would consider it blame. The law is specifically designed to make a statutory divide between gay culture and straight culture. That'd be like blaming the faucet for making water flow when I turn it. That’s what it is designed to do. So, I guess that, yes, as someone who against anti-liberty legislation, then I am blaming them for it. But people who favor it would call the cultural divide it creates a success, so I hardly doubt they'd consider my conclusions blame. They'd probably thank me for it.

It would be silly to say legislation that forbids rights to people who practice a certain social interaction doesn't create a cultural divde between that group and the rest of society. But I don't really see how me pointing that out means I am blaming all conservatives for every cultural divide. I don't know where that came form.

[HOT ROD]

Oh, and I don't think that the 39th Street enclave is an official gay and lesbian district.

Actually, it is an official GLBT district (and the only one in the state) and it is nationally recognized!!