Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have said over and over that when its too close to call,it ridiculous to make a case for or against.It JUST IS.However you got to admit,you were surprised yourself that it was not as wide as you made it out to be originally.I said over and over because it makes since that Dallas or Houston by totals alone will win in every category.That is a misrepresentation of exactly what is the real truth.
My whole thing is that I can handle Atlanta not being in the top 5,but its should be based on "real and current" data rather than what "once was".If an argument is going to be made,then lets be TOTALLY honest.
This whole thing started with HOUSTON.Houston has ALWAYS made these claims,so it should be the one that should be scrutinized the most.
Because out of these three; Houston is obviously the clear winner and makes a very good case for top 5.
I have said over and over that when its too close to call,it ridiculous to make a case for or against.It JUST IS.However you got to admit,you were surprised yourself that it was not as wide as you made it out to be originally.I said over and over because it makes since that Dallas or Houston by totals alone will win in every category.That is a misrepresentation of exactly what is the real truth.
My whole thing is that I can handle Atlanta not being in the top 5,but its should be based on "real and current" data rather than what "once was".If an argument is going to be made,then lets be TOTALLY honest.
This whole thing started with HOUSTON.Houston has ALWAYS made these claims,so it should be the one that should be scrutinized the most.
Fair enough. I dont agree with you, but I respect your assesment of the debate.
Take Chicago out, and replace with SF, and we agree.
No way Chicago ranks higher than #5. Anything higher is just mindless boosterism.
It's not boosterism...I don't live in Chicago, and I've visited San Francisco more often than I have Chicago. It's just factual information as well as popular opinion expressed in this thread.
Take Chicago out, and replace with SF, and we agree.
No way Chicago ranks higher than #5. Anything higher is just mindless boosterism.
Welcome back Dementor!
Placing Chicago higher than #5 is not mindless boosterism...the only thing "mindless" I see here is your constant unfounded bashing of Chicago. People have given you numerous reasons as to why Chicago is (at least) the #4 city in the country yet you constantly ignore all logic.
I don't think there's any question that Chicago is more important than San Francisco. I would put it at #4 overall with San Francisco #5.
Haha, I honestly didn't see this post before posting mine. We're all on the same page it sounds.
You copied!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
