Battle of the Mississippi River Cities (New Orleans, Memphis, St. Louis, St. Paul (Minneapolis) (comparison, cons)

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by montymontage

Caesarstl

Though your posts are perfectly fine, you've made a terrible, terrible error.

quick fix: rename the poll question, "Queen of the Mississippi: After Minneapolis/St Paul could either Memphis, St. Louis, or New Orleans take 2nd place?"

If you'll notice, I have not argued that the Twin Cities are "Queen of the Mississippi" (mostly because I don't even really know what that term means).

Instead, I have simply pointed out that to contend that they are not river cities is sort of ridiculous. Which it is.

[Caesarstl]

Originally Posted by srsmn

Lol. I will point you this-a-way:

I'm aware of the metro sizes, obviously the Twin Cities is the biggest and I've already said (in the post you quoted no less) that I understand why it's considered the best metro, but... It is def not the "Queen of the Mississippi." There is a big difference between cities that are on/by rivers and "river cities." St. Louis and New Orleans ARE the Mississippi.

You said that Minneapolis and St. Paul are not river cities. I told you that that was asinine.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

Or, you know, keep pretending I'm pompous. Instead of right. Like I actually am.

Tell you where you're wrong? I just did in my last post to you where I pointed out your sarcastic, false accusations... O I see you're just going to ignore when you get called out on something like the previously quoted:

Just because they don't have the Jazz and Blues history of the delta does not mean that they are not river cities.


Or the amusing first half of your pompous and condescending post:

Twain was from Hannibal, first of all, so none of these metros really gets to "claim" him.

However, he spent plenty of time in the Twin Cities, and all over the Upper Mississippi.

He helped name White Bear Lake, for goshsake. The steamer that he took on his famous voyage in Life on the Mississippi was literally named The Minneapolis.

You completely mixed up what I was saying and what other posters were saying, and then, like cheese, launched an unwarranted personal attack. Very mature and helpful for the discussion. Let me ask you then, do you put New Orleans and St. Louis in the same level of being river cities as St. Paul and or Minneapolis? I see in your next post you say, "I don't even really know what that term means," when referring to the "Queen of the Mississippi" question, yet you feel the need to condescendingly attack others' interpretations without understanding them... or not as it seems with a Minneapolis poster, Drewcifer, who said the following:

Originally Posted by Drewcifer

Minneapolis isn't really a river city though, it is on the river but not of it. St Paul is a different story, but on its own it isn't a city of the same magnitude as St Louis or New Orleans.

To which you responded with:

Originally Posted by srsmn

I've heard this argument, but not sure if I agree.

The only reason there is a Minneapolis is because of the mills. The only reason there were mills is because of naturally occurring falls on the river.

Now, it feels a lot different from St. Paul, Memphis, St. Louis, or New Orleans, in that Minneapolis has less of the preserved historic neighborhoods. But I wouldn't say that it is not a river city.

Very balanced there, way to show your true colors!

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by Caesarstl

Twain was from Hannibal, first of all, so none of these metros really gets to "claim" him.

However, he spent plenty of time in the Twin Cities, and all over the Upper Mississippi.

He helped name White Bear Lake, for goshsake. The steamer that he took on his famous voyage in Life on the Mississippi was literally named The Minneapolis.

You asked Cheese where Mark Twain was from. I told you the answer. Hannibal, MO.

So, what point were you trying to make by bringing up Mark Twain?

Why bring him up in the first place, if he wasn't relevant?

You completely mixed up what I was saying and what other posters were saying, and then, like cheese, launched an unwarranted personal attack. Very mature and helpful for the discussion.[

1. You said the Twin Cities were not "river cities." That was my only contention. I do not see how I misinterpreted that (very false) claim.

2. I did not personally attack you. I told you that you don't know what you are talking about. And it is clear that you do not.

Let me ask you then, do you put New Orleans and St. Louis in the same level of being river cities as St. Paul and or Minneapolis?

Yes.

I see in your next post you say, "I don't even really know what that term means," when referring to the "Queen of the Mississippi" question,

Because "Queen of the Mississippi" isn't really a term that is finitely defined, at least contemporaneously. Unless one is talking about casino ships.

I am not sure that "Queen of the Mississippi" even has any historical context. If you asked me what city is "Paris of the Prairies," I would obviously say Chicago. Because that term is rooted in a rich historical context.

"Queen of the Mississippi," when referring to cities (not riverboats) is not rooted in the same context, so I do not know how to define it. Because it is a new term (to my knowledge), so it has no qualified definition

yet you feel the need to condescendingly attack others' interpretations without understanding them... or not as it seems with a Minneapolis poster, Drewcifer, who said the following:



To which you responded with:



Very balanced there, way to show your true colors!

I dig the sarcasm, but I do not see how my statements are contradictory.

I told Drewcifer that I think he/she is wrong, just like I told you that I think you are wrong.

Minneapolis and St. Paul are river cities. You said they are not. You are wrong.

But this seems to be a bit of a distraction. Do you care to back up your outrageous claim, or just play the victim?

You say repeatedly that I have misconstrued your argument. These quotes are straight out from the horse's mouth, as it were:

I perfectly understand why the Twin Cities would be picked as the best metro, but Queen of the Mississippi? Come on, it doesn't belong in this conversation at all...

There is a big difference between cities that are on/by rivers and "river cities." St. Louis and New Orleans ARE the Mississippi.

I've already made it quite clear that I don't care to contend that Minneapolis or St. Paul (or any city) is "Queen of the Mississippi."

But do you care to back up your argument about how they are not "river cities" at all? Or, would you prefer to just hang out up there on the cross a bit longer?

This is your opportunity to clarify yourself, so there is no room for misinterpretation. You seem to have been pining for this opportunity. If I were you, I'd take it.

[srsmn]

Also, and I hate to point this out, but Cheese Plate has been inordinately polite to you.

And the first person to throw out a personal insult in this discussion was you.

It appears as though you like to dish it out, but not take it. I have trouble with folks like that, as do most people.

[Caesarstl]

Originally Posted by srsmn

You asked Cheese where Mark Twain was from. I told you the answer. Hannibal, MO.

No, I did not ask him where Mark Twain was from, I said, "Btw, you know where Mark Twain is from right?" Reading comprehension again...

So, what point were you trying to make by bringing up Mark Twain?

Why bring him up in the first place, if he wasn't relevant?

See above and how you misread what I said; furthermore, I didn't even bring up Mark Twain... there's another reading comprehension mistake of yours...


1. You said the Twin Cities were not "river cities." That was my only contention. I do not see how I misinterpreted that (very false) claim.

2. I did not personally attack you. I told you that you don't know what you are talking about. And it is clear that you do not.

The fact that you don't view this as condescending says a whole lot about your character... So does btw your response to a Twin Cities poster and how polite you were to him (not to mention your somewhat different stance in that response)



Yes.



Because "Queen of the Mississippi" isn't really a term that is finitely defined, at least contemporaneously. Unless one is talking about casino ships.

I am not sure that "Queen of the Mississippi" even has any historical context. If you asked me what city is "Paris of the Prairies," I would obviously say Chicago. Because that term is rooted in a rich historical context.

"Queen of the Mississippi," when referring to cities (not riverboats) is not rooted in the same context, so I do not know how to define it. Because it is a new term (to my knowledge), so it has no qualified definition

Fair enough as it was left open by the OP, just don't attack others in their interpretations.

I dig the sarcasm, but I do not see how my statements are contradictory.

I told Drewcifer that I think he/she is wrong, just like I told you that I think you are wrong.

No, you didn't... You said to Drewcifer, "I've heard this argument, but not sure if I agree." You insulted me by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and saying I was being asinine. Are you even serious right now? I've been directly quoting you, are you not even reading your own posts correctly? I'm not sure how you even feel you have a leg to stand on when 2/3rds of your first response to me had nothing to do with what I was saying. I just pointed out two of these mistakes above (I did not bring up Mark Twain, nor did I ask cheese where he was from because I already know, I've been there!) Calm down and read slower!

Minneapolis and St. Paul are river cities. You said they are not. You are wrong.

But this seems to be a bit of a distraction. Do you care to back up your outrageous claim, or just play the victim?

You say repeatedly that I have misconstrued your argument. These quotes are straight out from the horse's mouth, as it were:

I perfectly understand why the Twin Cities would be picked as the best metro, but Queen of the Mississippi? Come on, it doesn't belong in this conversation at all...

There is a big difference between cities that are on/by rivers and "river cities." St. Louis and New Orleans ARE the Mississippi.

I've already made it quite clear that I don't care to contend that Minneapolis or St. Paul (or any city) is "Queen of the Mississippi."

But do you care to back up your argument about how they are not "river cities" at all? Or, would you prefer to just hang out up there on the cross a bit longer?

This is your opportunity to clarify yourself, so there is no room for misinterpretation. You seem to have been pining for this opportunity. If I were you, I'd take it.

I'm glad you've finally settled on your stance that they're 100% river cities, earlier in this thread you said the following to Drewcifer, "I've heard this argument, but not sure if I agree." Still haven't addressed your ridiculous double standard, which was your post right before you addressed mine no less! I've pointed out several separate instances, including new ones in this post, where you have misread what I've said and posted things to me that make no sense at all as a response to my posts. As for what you've quoted, I've been quoting you all along btw but you seem to not want to address them, I'm glad we've got something that I've actually said now! I also asked you this, "Let me ask you then, do you put New Orleans and St. Louis in the same level of being river cities as St. Paul and or Minneapolis?" It'd be great if you'd answer it.

Now, for my thoughts on why I don't think the Twin Cities belongs in this conversation. Minny was a mill town, for flour, lumber, and electricity that were based around the falls. Alright, as people say the city wouldn't exist without the falls which do of course come from the river, so QED the Twin Cities are linked to the river. Sure, but the problem with this thinking is that cities throughout history tend to be founded on waterways for obvious reasons (they all generally use the waterway in some way), and you can pretty much say the exact same thing about all of them (that they wouldn't exist without the river being there). This connection to the river is nothing like that of the other cities which is why I feel it does not belong in this conversation at all, there is nothing rude about saying that (especially when I've said I understand perfectly well why people think it's the best metro), for me it does not fit what I would think of for a "Queen of the Mississippi" and how it stands out from the others illustrates this further. St. Paul certainly fits in much better (but people certainly aren't voting for just St. Paul), but it is completely outdone in scale by St. Louis (at one time was only outdone by NY for commercial tonnage, having over 150 steamboats lined up at a time and also for a while being the largest northern port for many bigger steamboats that couldn't get past the rapids north of St. Louis) and New Orleans. Heck, not just in the golden age of the river but what about other times? Someone mentioned native americans, what about Cahokia? It's one of only 23 UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the US and was regarded as the largest and most advanced native civilization north of Mexico. What about today? I didn't say anything about culture, even though you and cheese seem to think I did... Btw, for some of the MN and WI posters, I know St. Louis is pretty South for you guys, but it's not regarded as being in the Lower Mississippi.

Originally Posted by srsmn

Also, and I hate to point this out, but Cheese Plate has been inordinately polite to you.

And the first person to throw out a personal insult in this discussion was you.

It appears as though you like to dish it out, but not take it. I have trouble with folks like that, as do most people.

No, I most certainly was not the first person to through out insults, but this is pointless to debate as you apparently don't view condescendingly telling someone they have no clue what they're talking about and saying they're asinine as insults... I don't find this type of behavior to be inordinately polite, but I guess we were raised quite differently.

[srsmn]

No, I did not ask him where Mark Twain was from, I said, "Btw, you know where Mark Twain is from right?" Reading comprehension again...

At this point, you are playing semantics. Either own your intentions, or I'm done with you.

By this same token, I could say "No, I never told you you didn't have a clue. I said you didn't know what you were talking about."

Re:

this is pointless to debate as you apparently don't view condescendingly telling someone they have no clue what they're talking about

Either don't put words in my mouth, or quit nitpicking on semantics. You can't have it both ways.

On the subject of personal attacks, your first post to me:

Quite a pompous attitude you have there ....You and Cheese need to work on your reading comprehension a bit, it's quite a fall off of your imaginary high horse...

Your second post to me:

Or the amusing first half of your pompous and condescending post:....Very mature and helpful for the discussion. ....

Your most recent post to me:

No, I did not ask him where Mark Twain was from, I said, "Btw, you know where Mark Twain is from right?" Reading comprehension again...there's another reading comprehension mistake of yours...The fact that you don't view this as condescending says a whole lot about your character...Still haven't addressed your ridiculous double standard, which was your post right before you addressed mine no less!

So, you have called me pompous, immature, questioned my reading comprehension and my character, all in the span of....what? 36 hours?

The only thing I said to you in my initial post that seems even a bit contentious is that I told you you didn't know what you were talking about.

Your first post to me after that? All of the sudden I have a pompous attitude and I'm immature.

I will reiterate: if you are going to dish it out, be prepared to take it.

I don't mind being called pompous or immature or a bad reader on City-Data, but I am also not the one whining about "personal attacks" incessantly.

Either stay away from them yourself, or quit the whining.

Calm down and read slower!

I don't get the impression that I'm the one who needs to calm down, here....

I'm glad you've finally settled on your stance that they're 100% river cities, earlier in this thread you said the following to Drewcifer, "I've heard this argument, but not sure if I agree."

You are again being purposefully transliteral.

When somebody says that he "is not sure that he agrees" with somebody else, it is generally assumed to mean that he does not agree with that person.

I apologize for the lack of clarity, but if you take the post as a whole (instead of cherry-picking) you will see that I provided Drewcifer with very good reasons about why I did not agree.

My stance on this has not changed. I believed that there was very little room for misinterpretation of what I originally said, but if there was, or if you were confused, then I am sorry for my miscommunication.

More importantly, though, Drewcifer's argument for why the Twin Cities would not be considered river cities was tempered and rational. Yours was this:

I perfectly understand why the Twin Cities would be picked as the best metro, but Queen of the Mississippi? Come on, it doesn't belong in this conversation at all...

Clearly, it belongs in the conversation if the OP put it there, so how is this productive at all?

You have to understand that when you speak in absolutes like that, it will elicit a response. Again, think about your own words, intentions, willingness to misinterpret, and what offends you before you play victim.

I also asked you this, "Let me ask you then, do you put New Orleans and St. Louis in the same level of being river cities as St. Paul and or Minneapolis?" It'd be great if you'd answer it.

I answered this already.

This connection to the river is nothing like that of the other cities which is why I feel it does not belong in this conversation at all, there is nothing rude about saying that (especially when I've said I understand perfectly well why people think it's the best metro), for me it does not fit what I would think of for a "Queen of the Mississippi" and how it stands out from the others illustrates this further. St. Paul certainly fits in much better (but people certainly aren't voting for just St. Paul), but it is completely outdone in scale by St. Louis (at one time was only outdone by NY for commercial tonnage, having over 150 steamboats lined up at a time and also for a while being the largest northern port for many bigger steamboats that couldn't get past the rapids north of St. Louis) and New Orleans. Heck, not just in the golden age of the river but what about other times? Someone mentioned native americans, what about Cahokia? It's one of only 23 UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the US and was regarded as the largest and most advanced native civilization north of Mexico.

So St. Louis is a river city and Minneapolis is not because St. Louis had more steamboats? Got it.

What I have bolded seems incredibly subjective, to me. Perhaps so subjective that one would be wise to examine this belief before one said matter-of-factly that the Twin Cities "don't belong [in the conversation about river cities] at all!"

[srsmn]

Originally Posted by Caesarstl

No, I most certainly was not the first person to through out insults, but this is pointless to debate as you apparently don't view condescendingly telling someone they have no clue what they're talking about and saying they're asinine as insults...

Again, we have a problem with selective reading.

This seems to have been a pet peeve of yours, so I would think you would do less of it in my posts:

You said that Minneapolis and St. Paul are not river cities. I told you that that was asinine.

That is what I told you. That your contention that the Twin Cities are not river cities is asinine. Not that you are asinine.

For somebody that gets so worked up about reading comprehension, you do not seem to practice what you preach.

I don't find this type of behavior to be inordinately polite, but I guess we were raised quite differently.

I said that Cheese Plate was being polite, not me. Where has Cheese Plate been anything but polite to you?

Also:
Wow. Just wow.

You honestly do not think that you are being insulting, right now?

Again, I don't mind if you personally insult me. It is just an internet forum.

But I don't understand how you justify taking every little thing so darn personally if you throw around stuff like what I bolded above, so flippantly.

Make up your mind, or I'm done with this.

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by srsmn

So St. Louis is a river city and Minneapolis is not because St. Louis had more steamboats? Got it.

AND, some of those steamboats became permanent STL fixtures, in the form of McDonald's, Burger King and KFC restaurants! That is one of my favorite memories of living in STL -- the steamboat restaurants.

This is meant to be cheeky, and not taken seriously. FWIW I think everybody should just move on.....internet fights rarely gain positive traction.

[sacrelicio]

Lived is MSP my whole life, I can't begin to understand how it's not a "river city." Sure, MPLS doesn't have much in the way of current river recreation, but that's because of the falls and how industrialized the river is in downtown. St. Paul is more of a river recreation city because there isn't a dang waterfall right in downtown.

[AtlasTraveler]

"Queen" of the Mississippi is obviously NOLA. That's the question in this thread. Nola has the extravagance, excess and impracticality of a Queen...

Yes, the Twin Cities are the best functioning, but a Queen, not. The Twin Cities are IMHO very bland and boring - especially in comparison to the Queen New Orleans.