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.
So why the complaining when I listed cities based solely on their city proper population?
Sorry, but I am standing firm. Whether anyone here likes it or not the facts stand. It isn't going by how people "feel" it is numbers which can't be argued with.
My next post is going to be GDP by metro area, I'll enjoy watching people say that I am incorrect when they are flying stridently against the facts.
Keep standing firm Imelda...I tried to help you understand, but you continue to revel in embarassing yourself. Several people have explained this to you, and you have chosen to ignore the explanations.
And thanks for hijacking the thread. This WAS an interesting thread for the first few pages. Now it's dead.
So why the complaining when I listed cities based solely on their city proper population?
Sorry, but I am standing firm. Whether anyone here likes it or not the facts stand. It isn't going by how people "feel" it is numbers which can't be argued with.
My next post is going to be GDP by metro area, I'll enjoy watching people say that I am incorrect when they are flying stridently against the facts.
Go back and read the last part of your initial post and this will tell you why.
Keep standing firm Imelda...I tried to help you understand, but you continue to revel in embarassing yourself. Several people have explained this to you, and you have chosen to ignore the explanations.
Several people have been talking about metro areas, cities with a small geographic foot print versus a large geographic foot print, etc
I have been talking solely about city proper populations
What is this for? I'll tell you, I've run into some stubborn folks on this site, but you take the prize. I have never encountered someone who continues to argue his case for THIS long after the error of his logic has been explained to him in very clear terms. Congratulations.
What is this for? I'll tell you, I've run into some stubborn folks on this site, but you take the prize. I have never encountered someone who continues to argue his case for THIS long after the error of his logic has been explained to him in very clear terms. Congratulations.
So GDP doesn't count as a way to define a "big" city? What about public transit? Population density?. Clearly a new listing post is made to change the topic since I stand alone in the arena ranking cities based on their population within city limits.
So GDP doesn't count as a way to define a "big" city? What about public transit? Population density? You have been one of the rudest people I have met on this site.
I have not been rude at all to you...I've politely disagreed with you, and that's it. I am the rudest person you've met in all of your 3 days on this site? That's funny...You really are defensive aren't you?
Please refrain from personal attacks. They aren't allowed on city-data.
I have not been rude at all to you...I've politely disagreed with you, and that's it. I am the rudest person you've met in all of your 3 days on this site? That's funny...You really are defensive aren't you?
Please refrain from personal attacks. They aren't allowed on city-data.
Yes you are, you are trying to get arguments started for no apparent reason. Now you are questioning the listing of metro areas based on GDP! Surely GDP matters just a little with regards to a metro areas size and whether or not it is defined as "big"
If you want to continue this go ahead and do it via 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.