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'm not saying that fudamentalists are liars Campbell, I'm saying that you would'nt recognise the truth if it bit you in the backside, simply because you are not capable of questioning anything outside of your very narrow mindset.
You prattle on about conversations that you've had with Demons & Angels & expect people to treat you seriously.
Well I don't, I think you are seriously deluded & you prove it with every post.
I'm not saying that fudamentalists are liars Campbell, I'm saying that you would'nt recognise the truth if it bit you in the backside, simply because you are not capable of questioning anything outside of your very narrow mindset.
You prattle on about conversations that you've had with Demons & Angels & expect people to treat you seriously.
Well I don't, I think you are seriously deluded & you prove it with every post.
Soon the Ark of Noah will be seen around the globe. How deep will your denial be? How will you ignore that truth? Will you tell others that it was built in place by the ancients useing oxygen? Or will you say anyone that considers it's reality, are the seriously deluded onces? Because that's all you guys got. You are reduced to calling anyone that presents evidence, or an arguement that refutes your worldview as being deluded. While at the sametime, ignoring the evidence presented. I would say, it is more of a narrow mindset that ignores evidence, then those who would consider it. Jesus Christ Himself confirmed the reality of Noah's flood in the Scriptures. Yet I suppose you would consider Him deluded as well.
Soon the Ark of Noah will be seen around the globe.
Would you like to put a time on "soon" Campbell 'cause I'm sure we'd like to hold you to that statement. A month, 6 months, a year?? Or will it just be another case of it never being produced and then you can come back with something daft like one of your days really meaning 1000 years??
This is a perfect example why you guys miss so much when it comes to Scripture. You quoted Genesis 8:4. And then stated the verse in question only said that the Ark rested on the (mountains) of Ararat. And because of this, you now believe Scripture is suggesting that the Ark could be on any number of mountains. Of course, if you had actually taken the time to read verse 5, you would of understood that the Ark landed on the highest mountain, of the mountains of Ararat.
5. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
The Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat on the (seventh month) yet the tops of the other mountains were not seen until the (tenth month). Which means the Ark landed on the highest mountain. Which just happens to be Mt. Ararat.
On a previous post I pointed out that Ararat is not the highest mountain in the area. There are plenty of other mountains in the middle eastern area. The only way the Ark could be on Ararat is if that is where it happened to be when the summit appeared. On that basis, it could have been anywhere, higher or lower and thus, the Bible reference to the 'First' peak appearing is meaningless and gives no guide to which mountain or which location.
Ararat 5,137 m/16,854 ft)
The highest mountains are , of course in the Himalayas and Karokorums. So you have to eliminate those. After that you get the American mountains so they have to be eliminated.
There are Chinese, African and Antarctic mountains that are higher. Already you are having to limit the 'highest mountain' to mean 'highest mountain in that area'
But in that area we get Rustaveli 5.201 and Dykh-Tau 5.198 (Georgia) and then we get Mt Ararat (Buyukagri Dagi) 5.165 Turkey, though Shah Fuladi (5.143) Afganistan is a contender
So there is an element of limiting the Ark to having been floating around the area of Ararat in order not to alight on the many higher ones further east.
Therefore, if it had been floating elsewhere it could have equally well not have alighted on Ararat and could have landed on Alum Kuh 4.840 or Sabalon Kuh 4.821 in Iran or a number of other Iranian peaks, all comfortably above 4,500.
The Bible is NO guide to the landing place
In addition to which, wouldn't it be more feasible for the Ark to happen to be floating in a area where it could alight on a reasonably low mountain, say Mount Tabor. 575 m (1,886 ft) which all the animals could have a reasonable chance of descending after eight months cooped up in floating hutch? Of course, there isn't an ark to be found on mount Tabor, but then there is no reason why there should be. Any more than it should be on any other mountain and, as yet there is no good evidence that there is.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-01-2010 at 08:38 AM..
Soon the Ark of Noah will be seen around the globe. How deep will your denial be?
You should ask that question to yourself. This is not the first time your denial of reality has continued with you dodging every question with utter nonsense.
Now a movie maker is making noise about finding a evidence, but he is treating it like a pay per view side show. He's out to make money off of fools, and he will likely succeed, as there are no shortage of fools. He's also creating hype to make a movie and boost ticket sales.
But while you wait on your proof, why don't you answer questions instead of deflecting them with "soon the blah blah blah"?
This is a perfect example why you guys miss so much when it comes to Scripture. You quoted Genesis 8:4. And then stated the verse in question only said that the Ark rested on the (mountains) of Ararat. And because of this, you now believe Scripture is suggesting that the Ark could be on any number of mountains. Of course, if you had actually taken the time to read verse 5, you would of understood that the Ark landed on the highest mountain, of the mountains of Ararat.
5. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
The Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat on the (seventh month) yet the tops of the other mountains were not seen until the (tenth month). Which means the Ark landed on the highest mountain. Which just happens to be Mt. Ararat.
You continually choose to make wild assumptions. I have indeed read the 5th verse. Numerous times over the numerous threads dealing with the subject of Noah's Ark. So don't tell me what I haven't read.
Please show me exactly which verse specifically states the landing place is Mt. Ararat (greater), the same place found in Turkey. The ONLY location it describes are MOUNTAINS (more than one), meaning a region.
Verse 5 does NOT say, "the Ark landed on the highest mountain." It only says the tops of other mountains were not seen until the tenth month. Depending on what side of any mountain it could have landed on, the direction viewing of "other mountains" would have been visible. It would not have to be the highest mountain. How do you know Mt Ararat (greater) was the same elevation then as it is today? For pete's sake, it's a volcano! To say otherwise is nothing more than wild speculation on your part. In other words, you haven't got the slightest idea which mountain it landed on.
Don't get me wrong, I can indeed see why it is easy for you or anyone to think Mt Ararat (greater) is THE mountain. It's the highest peak in the region, and there are indeed other mountains in the area with lower elevations. What you're failing to understand is that Mt Ararat (greater) although quiet right now, it's not a dormant or extinct volcano. It looks like it was quite active in the 3rd millennium BCE. Bodies and artifacts from the Bronze Age have been found buried under pyroclastic flows. That's not including the large 1840 earthquake. If Ararat has had a history of activity, how does 3000 to 2000 BCE fit with your estimated timeline as to when the Ark is thought to have landed there? Please keep in mind that it would have been quite active before the last known eruption. Mt Ararat (greater) would not have been a quiet, stable place to land on. It's pure speculation on your part to assume and claim Greater Ararat is without any question whatsoever is the landing site. You might believe that to be so, but the fact is that you're basing your belief entirely on pop sensationalism generated by past and present Ark searchers and presented to the mass media without a shred of reliable and tangible evidence.
For all you know (and you don't), Ararat could just as easily been much smaller than the surrounding mountains. It's fair to say that it has not always been the height it is today. Volcanoes can rapidly grow in height. Case in point, Parícutin in Mexico first appeared as a fissure in a Mexican cornfield on Feb. 20, 1943. It's present height is now about 9,186 feet. Even though it's essentially a cinder cone volcano, that's still pretty rapid growth (See video posted below). I don't know the rate of growth of Greater Ararat over the last 5000 or so years, but I'm sure it's reasonable to say there has at least been some growth over that span of time.
We've been though all this stuff before, but I'll say it again to refresh your short memory. Mt Ararat (greater) has had numerous names in the past. It has NOT always been known as Ararat. You can look up the names for yourself: Mount Ararat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In addition, I would suggest you go back and look at what Mr. Barak Sansal has to say about the likelihood that the Ark is located on Greater Ararat, as well as the likelihood of a translational error. Unless you are more skilled and familiar than Mr. Sansal, then you are making baseless assumptions purely on what you find from biased websites on the Internet. It's as simple as that. I'd say Mr. Sansal probably has a lot more credibility about the region, its history, geography, language and culture than you do.
You've repeatedly failed to show any knowledge on most of the subjects you've presented and claim to be evidence. When you've been provided with corrections on various related subjects, you completely dismiss them and resort to saying, "The Bible tells us..." Not only have you failed to show an understanding about the region, but you also fail to show an understanding about biblical text or any other historical references.
I have no problem acknowledging that I'm no expert on the subject of Mt Ararat (greater) or the biblical translation concerning the precise landing site of the Ark. But then neither are you. In my opinion, IF the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat, then there would probably no trace of it left today.
On a previous post I pointed out that Ararat is not the highest mountain in the area. There are plenty of other mountains in the middle eastern area. The only way the Ark could be on Ararat is if that is where it happened to be when the summit appeared. On that basis, it could have been anywhere, higher or lower and thus, the Bible reference to the 'First' peak appearing is meaningless and gives no guide to which mountain or which location.
Ararat 5,137 m/16,854 ft)
The highest mountains are , of course in the Himalayas and Karokorums. So you have to eliminate those. After that you get the American mountains so they have to be eliminated.
There are Chinese, African and Antarctic mountains that are higher. Already you are having to limit the 'highest mountain' to mean 'highest mountain in that area'
But in that area we get Rustaveli 5.201 and Dykh-Tau 5.198 (Georgia) and then we get Mt Ararat (Buyukagri Dagi) 5.165 Turkey, though Shah Fuladi (5.143) Afganistan is a contender
So there is an element of limiting the Ark to having been floating around the area of Ararat in order not to alight on the many higher ones further east.
Therefore, if it had been floating elsewhere it could have equally well not have alighted on Ararat and could have landed on Alum Kuh 4.840 or Sabalon Kuh 4.821 in Iran or a number of other Iranian peaks, all comfortably above 4,500.
The Bible is NO guide to the landing place
In addition to which, wouldn't it be more feasible for the Ark to happen to be floating in a area where it could alight on a reasonably low mountain, say Mount Tabor. 575 m (1,886 ft) which all the animals could have a reasonable chance of descending after eight months cooped up in floating hutch? Of course, there isn't an ark to be found on mount Tabor, but then there is no reason why there should be. Any more than it should be on any other mountain and, as yet there is no good evidence that there is.
Mt. Ararat is the highest mountain on the mountains of Ararat. And since this all happened just thousands of years ago and not millions, we can speak with confidence that Mt. Ararat is, and has remained the highest mountain of the mountains of Ararat. The Bible is not talking about other Middle Eastern areas, or the Himalayas, or Antarctic. (WHAT PART OF THE MOUNTAINS OF ARARAT DON"T YOU UNDERSTAND)? Wow, it amazes me how you guys want to fully ignore what the Bible clearly states. The Bible is telling you. The Ark landed on the (MOUNTAINS OF ARARAT,) on the seventh month. It was fixed on the highest mountain on the seventh month, and not until ten months, did the other mountains appear. This is not rocket science. The other mountains are without question speaking of the other Mountains of Ararat. God placed the Ark on Ararat because people for years have been able to walk up to the Ark, and walk down as well. Oh, and there is no good evidence that the Ark is there? LOL. We have people with camera still shots, and video walking around the wooden rooms below the ice. And you say there is no good evidence it is there? You have to be really in deep denial to make statements like that. And if the Ark was not there. Why are they now picking new members for the team to go back? And if the Ark was not there. Why for years have so many given eyewitiness accounts to the Ark being there? Others have given the same details that the team from China speak about. Do you just ignore everything from past history to the present?
Last edited by Campbell34; 06-01-2010 at 10:40 AM..
Soon the Ark of Noah will be seen around the globe. How deep will your denial be? How will you ignore that truth?
All a huge assumption of course. bigger question is: how will you ignore it?
Will you tell others that it was built in place by the ancients useing oxygen? Or will you say anyone that considers it's reality, are the seriously deluded onces? Because that's all you guys got. You are reduced to calling anyone that presents evidence, or an arguement that refutes your worldview as being deluded.
No, we've simply asked, over and over, for your honest answers to some very simple, logical questions. Overall, the entire concept is fatally flawed, and in fact functionally and technically impossible, for so many reasons. and yet, you persist.
While at the sametime, ignoring the evidence presented. I would say, it is more of a narrow mindset that ignores evidence, then those who would consider it.
Well, that leaves us out. You make the fatal mistake of assuming if you present some "evidence" in an open discussion, that it musttherefore be accepted, and never refuted.
Refuting is not ignoring, Tom; in fact, it's the opposite. We carefully consider. But if you were to say that God made little green bunnies to be served for dinner on the Ark, and we found out otherwise, that doesn't make your presentation even more valid, now does it?
You present nonsense, we prove it to be exactly that, and you go off and sulk.
Jesus Christ Himself confirmed the reality of Noah's flood in the Scriptures. Yet I suppose you would consider Him deluded as well.
No, I consider that he probably didn't even actually exist, but is in fact a simple construct of the Church to be an "everyman' for the beating, sheeple-masses, who couldn't, or were afraid to, try to communicate directly with a fearsome God. I mean, that's what all the true and obvious "evidence: that you ignore seems to clearly indicate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Would you like to put a time on "soon" Campbell 'cause I'm sure we'd like to hold you to that statement. A month, 6 months, a year?? Or will it just be another case of it never being produced and then you can come back with something daft like one of your days really meaning 1000 years??
Exactly so. Tom claimed the reliable production of a report from the Shanghai CTP* folks after their one and only fiasco trip up the slopes (they've only been there once, but now they need more funds to support their lavish lifestyles, so hey; trot it out again!). It was never produced. ]
[*CTP: Christian Theme Park. Check it out! Even the ways you can contribute. They take Amex™, so give generously, and give often!]
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
On a previous post I pointed out that Ararat is not the highest mountain in the area. There are plenty of other mountains in the middle eastern area. The only way the Ark could be on Ararat is if that is where it happened to be when the summit appeared. On that basis, it could have been anywhere, higher or lower and thus, the Bible reference to the 'First' peak appearing is meaningless and gives no guide to which mountain or which location.
So there is an element of limiting the Ark to having been floating around the area of Ararat in order not to alight on the many higher ones further east.
Why would it not have simply followed tyhe falling water levels down to a much lower level? why end up on an unlikely and inhospitable mountain top? That's just stupid. Of course, we also now this barge had no propulsion nor steering. Improbability number ... lesseee.... oh whatever...
Therefore, if it had been floating elsewhere it could have equally well not have alighted on Ararat and could have landed on Alum Kuh 4.840 or Sabalon Kuh 4.821 in Iran or a number of other Iranian peaks, all comfortably above 4,500.
The Bible is NO guide to the landing place
In addition to which, wouldn't it be more feasible for the Ark to happen to be floating in a area where it could alight on a reasonably low mountain, say Mount Tabor. 575 m (1,886 ft) which all the animals could have a reasonable chance of descending after eight months cooped up in floating hutch?
Again, why a mountain at all, what with the glorious guiding hand of God at it's helm? Why not a nice dry plain? Far more likely that it wouldn't get jammed into some very sharp and destructive rocks, especially in a stormy sea, and get broken up. remember what happened to old sailing vessels, which, BTW, did have actual steering systems & power, when they tried to navigate The Horn? Kah-smash-ooh!
but anyhow, details, detials, huh? Then, all the disembarking 800 million organisms, plus the other 200 million carry-off plants, fungi, and bacterial & viral cultures, would perish anyhow. That part's always ignored by our delusional boy, because he cannot possibly come up with a rational answer.
Of course, there isn't an ark to be found on mount Tabor, but then there is no reason why there should be. Any more than it should be on any other mountain and, as yet there is no good evidence that there is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native
You should ask that question to yourself. This is not the first time your denial of reality has continued with you dodging every question with utter nonsense.
Quite so, AN. Quite so. He presents a complete lack of rationale in any of the questions he selectively chooses to answer, ignores the others, and then has the audacity to call us out? Phunny!
Now a movie maker is making noise about finding a evidence, but he is treating it like a pay per view side show. He's out to make money off of fools, and he will likely succeed, as there are no shortage of fools. He's also creating hype to make a movie and boost ticket sales.
But while you wait on your proof, why don't you answer questions instead of deflecting them with "soon the blah blah blah"?
(Actually, I took Tom's bluffing suggestion to heart and directly offered my services & experience to them, as a more-than-credible and actual published scientist, but they wanted me to first pay my own way to their hokus conference which takes place, so they say (we'll see if even that takes place...) in Turkey.
Then, and only then, after I invest about $4000, they'd decide on me, or not. Of course, I"m not the only one who'd applied, and we're watching their response to a friend's application, (s)he being a known Christian, but also an honest scientist. I think we've "got 'em" , even legally, by their far more positive response to his/her, esp. since (s)he promises possible funding...
Sheesh; this was all too easy to read and play...)
So: next challenge: Tom, put your money where your wandering mouth is: you l as well, but do offer some finding; it'll likely go a long ways with this mottly group of felons. Hey; we could share a bunk in the Istanbul Marriott! Get to know each other, brother!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
You continually choose to make wild assumptions.
Please show me exactly which verse specifically states the landing place is Mt. Ararat (greater), the same place found in Turkey. The ONLY location it describes are MOUNTAINS (more than one), meaning a region.
Verse 5 does NOT say, "the Ark landed on the highest mountain." It only says the tops of other mountains were not seen until the tenth month. Depending on what side of any mountain it could have landed on, the direction viewing of "other mountains" would have been visible. It would not have to be the highest mountain. How do you know Mt Ararat (greater) was the same elevation then as it is today? For pete's sake, it's a volcano! To say otherwise is nothing more than wild speculation on your part. In other words, you haven't got the slightest idea which mountain it landed on.
What you're failing to understand is that Mt Ararat (greater) although quiet right now, it's not a dormant or extinct volcano. It looks like it was quite active in the 3rd millennium BCE.
Mt Ararat (greater) would not have been a quiet, stable place to land on.
(It's all..) generated by past and present Ark searchers and presented to the mass media without a shred of reliable and tangible evidence.
For all you know (and you don't), Ararat could just as easily been much smaller than the surrounding mountains. It's fair to say that it has not always been the height it is today. Volcanoes can rapidly grow in height. Case in point, Parícutin in Mexico first appeared as a fissure in a Mexican cornfield on Feb. 20, 1943.
This is why a credible geologist or volcanologist is a must as part of any credible expedition team. Whanna bet they don't have one, in the highly unlikely event they even get up there?
We've been though all this stuff before, but I'll say it again to refresh your short memory. Mt Ararat (greater) has had numerous names in the past. It has NOT always been known as Ararat. You can look up the names for yourself:
Unless you are more skilled and familiar than Mr. Sansal, then you are making baseless assumptions purely on what you find from biased websites on the Internet. It's as simple as that. I'd say Mr. Sansal probably has a lot more credibility about the region, its history, geography, language and culture than you do.
(????? say it isn't so Tom. And here I've been trusting your absolute knowledge about everything all this time! If you say it's "so", why then, it's obviously "so", right?)
You've repeatedly failed to show any knowledge on most of the subjects you've presented and claim to be evidence.
Ahmen! A-frickin'-men. Say it again, everyone! ahhh-men! A veritable factual black-hole of assumptive bare-bones made-up-on-the-fly pseudo-information. With no apparent end in sight!!
When you've been provided with corrections on various related subjects, you completely dismiss them(or, I'll add to your accurate commentary here, fail to even address them, ever) and resort to saying, "The Bible tells us..." Not only have you failed to show an understanding about the region, but you also fail to show an understanding about biblical text or any other historical references.
I have no problem acknowledging that I'm no expert on the subject of Mt Ararat (greater) or the biblical translation concerning the precise landing site of the Ark. But then neither are you. In my opinion, IF the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat, then there would probably no trace of it left today.
What, you mean with constant volcanic blasts, pyroclastic flows, receding and advancing glaciers, melt-water, storms, nesting eagles and their corrosive droppings, green bunnies, over-exuberant Turkish trinket hunters, and Shanghai Theme Parkers all clambering on, or physically overflowing it countless numbers of times?
You doubter you!
(PS: great video! Quite to the point, which will nonetheless be ignored. If Tom had such good stuff, he'd go berserk with glee, but alas: he never does. He just GORE's his way along. Damn the Evidence, huh?)
This truly is too easy, sadly so for desperate fundamentalist-literalists everywhere. It only highlights the growing lack of any credibility of their version of biblical events. For the intellectually honest reader at any rate.
GORE™, or The C34 principle that some minor event, any minor or imagined, often generated only in a lab, or only in someone's dreams, is then applied, with a Gratuitious (or Gross) Over-Reaching Exaggeration, to the entire global community, is tested here.
(some quick refresher examples, paraphrased from C34's own posts:
"Scientists are now finding underwater cities all around the world."
"Scientists are now finding dinosaur DNA in fossils, all around the world."
"they (???) are now finding dinosaur and human artifacts everywhere!"
"they are finding dinosaur footprints mixed with human footprints all over the world..."
Etc. etc. You get the bigger picture. All false, and known to be so.
It seems that Tom should review the Mexican volcano, in the link so thoughtfully provided by NightBazaar above,:
...and must now be globally applied (via the GORE™ principle) to all volcanoes. Therefore, no volcanic mountains, including Ararat, were even there a thousand years ago. The hinted-at phantom Ark would have to have been coughed up from the water-filled earth's mantle (another GORE episode, previously discussed...), having made it's gentle way up the volcanic eruption tube, tossed gently out on a floating, angelic clooud of cool Godly gasses, and then gently depositied into a fluffly bed of discarded angel's wing feathers, at a spot where it was forever after unaffected by the continuing pyroclastic upwellings, outpourings, frequent volcanic blasts and intermediary ice accumulations, flows, recessions. Oh, and weather.
Yeah; quite believable. I don't know why I doubted it for an instant, do you, Tom?
PS: this factoid just in regarding Ararat:
"The last eruption will have occurred somewhere in the last 10000 years. It seems that Ararat was active in the 3rd millennium BC; under the pyroclastic flows, artifacts from the early Bronze Age and remains of human bodies have been found.
According to a legend, a Roman emperor ordered a number of Roman soldiers who converted to Christianity (now called ten thousand martyrs of Mount Ararat) to be crucified on Mount Ararat.
"
So that's where that wood came from! Roman cruciforms! All documented. Bet you weren't aware of that, huh, Tom?
The answer at last, not to mention those Bronze-age (pre-God, even pre-Earth!) items buried under those measured and visible flows....
This is a perfect example why you guys miss so much when it comes to Scripture. You quoted Genesis 8:4. And then stated the verse in question only said that the Ark rested on the (mountains) of Ararat. And because of this, you now believe Scripture is suggesting that the Ark could be on any number of mountains. Of course, if you had actually taken the time to read verse 5, you would of understood that the Ark landed on the highest mountain, of the mountains of Ararat.
5. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
The Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat on the (seventh month) yet the tops of the other mountains were not seen until the (tenth month). Which means the Ark landed on the highest mountain. Which just happens to be Mt. Ararat.
See, this is the problem. Scripture is religious "truth", not scientific truth, and then only for the believer of a particular religion. Attempting to use science to prove spiritual truths is folly IMO. Because spiritual things are necessarily unprovable, you will never be able to use science to do so. Science is science; faith is faith and to use science to validate faith or faith to validate science makes no sense to me. I should think that the discoveries of science would only serve to increase your awe of Creator rather than trying to invalidate scientific discovery. YEC's stance of this shows me more and more that they like keeping Creator within the confines of a box (that box being defined by the bible) rather than realizing that it is much greater and beyond understanding than you could ever imagine. That being said, I personally do not blame the atheist for their stance, especially when what seems to be an almost desperate attempt to prove unseen things is being made to the point of falling on one's sword.
I do not understand the need to prove spiritual things. Either you believe in them or you do not. I should think that if Creator, God, Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Brahma, whatever you wish to call it wanted itself proven, it would do so and not need man to do it for him, her or it. I honestly don't think that Creator needs your, my or anyone else's help.
Why the incessant need to prove Scripture? I would think that you certainly are not doing it for yourself as I assume you are already decided. Why not just be happy in your faith and let it alone in that?
Last edited by Fullback32; 06-01-2010 at 12:02 PM..
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.
A real-life application of GORE™
