View Full Version : NYT Greatest City on Earth?
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/08/14/arts/20090814-PHOTO_index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/arts/design/14photos.html?hpw
Yours
FPJ
35mmdelux
08-13-2009, 20:50
Id say its one of the greats.
35mmdelux
08-13-2009, 21:20
No it is actually "The City," no other city is referred to quite that way.
San Franisco is "The City." New York is called the Big Apple.
NY is "The City" ? .... delusions of grandeur. :rolleyes:
35mmdelux
08-13-2009, 21:41
Only moron mayors and T-shirt salesmen call it the "big apple." Manhattan is referred to as "the city," in new york state.
Never heard anyone in CA refer to it that way, so if you live in LA and say "I am going to "the city," everyone would know you are going to SF?
OK then... :D
Easy now. Remember RFF Golden Rule #2: No trolling that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum.
Paris is also called the City.
amateriat
08-14-2009, 00:13
Only moron mayors and T-shirt salesmen call it the "big apple." Manhattan is referred to as "the city," in new york state.
Never heard anyone in CA refer to it that way, so if you live in LA and say "I am going to "the city," everyone would know you are going to SF?
OK then... :D
Fred, you and I remember when, thanks to a certain iconic Mayor, it was once referred to as "Fun City." (Yes, with a bit of a smirk.)
But it's worse than that now. You see, too many people from the outer boroughs have this irritating habit of referring to Manhattan only as The City. As in, "Hey, I'm catching dinner with a friend in The City." Actually drives me up the wall. And the killer is that I was born in Manhattan. :rolleyes:
So, I say we're absolutely among the Great Cities of the World, without question. Been to Paris, and I say it's right up there, but, of course, so different. Establishing a pecking order is pointless for just that reason.
And, thanks to this Times piece, I've got a few more galleries to hit next week.
- Barrett
Greatest city? Paris! New York is very close, of course.
Roger Hicks
08-14-2009, 03:34
Working in 'the City' normally refers to London. Note that the definite article 'the' begins with a lower-case 't' while the 'C' in 'City' is upper-case.
But I'd agree with 35mmdelux: there are many 'great cities' including (from my own limited experience) London, Birmingham, York, Glasgow, Paris, Berlin, Cologne, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Athens, Lisbon, Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay, Istanbul, Beijing... No doubt there are others but I'm not arrogant enough to pretend that I'm acquainted with all of them.
Tashi delek,
R.
Hello:
Sorry to have skewed the dialogue with the "?". What about the photos? Any opinions?
yours
FPJ
Roger Hicks
08-14-2009, 03:47
Hello:
Sorry to have skewed the dialogue with the "?". What about the photos? Any opinions?
yours
FPJ
No. Took forever to open, so I gave up.
But a good enough photographer should be able to make anywhere look like the greatest city on earth. Especially if it has a bit of history, like (for example) Mdina in Malta or Venice.
Cheers,
R.
ZeissFan
08-14-2009, 03:47
The title confused me. Did you mean the New York Times (NYT) declared that New York was the greatest city on Earth? Or did you mean "NYC Greatest City on Earth?"
New York is an amazing city, and there are other equally amazing cities in the U.S. and around the globe.
I worked with a number of people whose career goal was to work in NYC, even if it meant living in a tiny efficiency for $1,000 a month or more.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/08/14/arts/20090814-PHOTO_index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/arts/design/14photos.html?hpw
Yours
FPJ
"The Greatest City on Earth"is the title of the slideshow.
The "?" was editorial on my part.
The moderator has also taken his perogative to shift the post from General Discussion to Travel.
yours
FPJ
Pherdinand
08-14-2009, 04:09
"The City" as in "Seax and The City", maybe.
Otherwise...
:) there are so many things NY misses as a city.
urban_alchemist
08-14-2009, 04:42
God I hate New Yorkers.
(Just don't tell my girlfriend - she's an Upper West Sider)...
EDITED TO ADD: I really hate New York too... 8 years since my last visit and no desire to go back.
kshapero
08-14-2009, 04:50
NYT Greatest City on Earth?
What does the T stand for?
kshapero
08-14-2009, 05:24
Times as in "New York Times" So New York Times is the greatest city on Earth?
The rest of the United States may hate New York, call it Sodom and Gomorra, damn its population with racial innuendos, chastise its position as the center of the financial world, but every two-bit politician running for dog catcher of Padookaville wants to get their photo at the site of the World Trade Center because they know that New York City with its frustrations, its sins, its diversity, its numbers, its dirt, its beauty, its opportunity, its disappointments, its plenty and its lack thereof, is America's best representation of itself and all its possibility. It simultaneously accepts and rejects all attempts at description or general statements about to its character. Whether or not it is the greatest city on the planet is a wasted discussion. It is what it is. Don't like it? Don't come visit. God knows there are plenty of people here already. But if you do come, please ask for freakin' directions from someone so you can stop blocking the sidewalk while looking at your map and I can get where I am going - which might be to the airport so I can go visit Paris or London or Tokyo or.....
Meanwhile, I think the Helen Levitt show is a nice little show. She is some kind of force. Never liked children very much by her own admission, but (and maybe because of that) she took great photos of them.
I also like that on any given day I can walk out the door of my apartment and go see 4 or 5 shows like these, shoot a couple rolls of film and have them developed by a top notch lab before I have to go home for dinner.
Andy Kibber
08-14-2009, 05:46
every two-bit politician running for dog catcher of Padookaville wants to get their photo at the site of the World Trade Center
Quote of the day?
New York seems ok. Manhattan is pretty straightforward: a big grid of numbered streets and avenues. Much harder to get lost than in London.
wgerrard
08-14-2009, 06:08
As Roger correctly mentioned, "the City" is an appellation given to a specific and smallish part of London, essentially the original Roman town.
In my experience, every large city that dominates a region is referred to as "the city" by that region's residents. As in: "Where are you going?" "I'm going into the city." Whether you are on the outskirts of New York, London, Paris, Toronto, San Francisco, etc., people know where you are going. Exceptions likely include such massive urban sprawls as Los Angeles which are collections of many municipalities among which the borders of the core city are invisible to most.
Roger Hicks
08-14-2009, 06:13
The rest of the United States may hate New York, call it Sodom and Gomorra, damn its population with racial innuendos, chastise its position as the center of the financial world, but every two-bit politician running for dog catcher of Padookaville wants to get their photo at the site of the World Trade Center because they know that New York City with its frustrations, its sins, its diversity, its numbers, its dirt, its beauty, its opportunity, its disappointments, its plenty and its lack thereof, is America's best representation of itself and all its possibility. It simultaneously accepts and rejects all attempts at description or general statements about to its character. Whether or not it is the greatest city on the planet is a wasted discussion. It is what it is. Don't like it? Don't come visit. God knows there are plenty of people here already. But if you do come, please ask for freakin' directions from someone so you can stop blocking the sidewalk while looking at your map and I can get where I am going - which might be to the airport so I can go visit Paris or London or Tokyo or.....
Meanwhile, I think the Helen Levitt show is a nice little show. She is some kind of force. Never liked children very much by her own admission, but (and maybe because of that) she took great photos of them.
I also like that on any given day I can walk out the door of my apartment and go see 4 or 5 shows like these, shoot a couple rolls of film and have them developed by a top notch lab before I have to go home for dinner.
Highlight: Quite.
Most inhabitants of Great Cities are absurdly parochial. You need to live outside a Great City to make realistic comparisons between them. And if you go to a Great City you need to live or stay inside it (I lived in Chelsea in the late 70s, and normally stay in the 3rd arrondissement in Paris when I visit) and not out in the bush.
Cheers,
R.
mfunnell
08-14-2009, 06:17
The rest of the United States may hate New YorkPerhaps they do, but I will point out that they hate LA worse. In Ecology of Fear Mike Davis points out that LA is destroyed in novels and movies at a greater rate than anywhere else (he easily counted 136 destructions between 1920 and 1996 - a year when LA's on-screen destruction was way above a high average). And not only that, when other cities (such as New York) are destroyed, this is generally intended to horrify the audience. When LA gets destroyed the audience is usually supposed to cheer (and mostly does).
...Mike
I have no idea actually, the article is titled:
A Chronicle of New York’s Darks and Lights, Captured by Savvy Street Photographers.
The slide show:
Capturing the City
I guess it is a typo, OP must have meant NYC?
The original title, at least as posted by the NYT early this morning, was "The Greatest City on Earth" and how is " Capturing the City". The phrase persists in the Ken Johnson quote in the sidebar.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/08/14/arts/20090814-PHOTO_index.html
NYT "Greatest City on Earth", where the quotes are implicit, could be an error but it was not a typo.
yours
FPJ
mfunnell
08-14-2009, 06:27
My studio was destroyed [..] when Godzila first sets foot in Manhattan. Well, that could put you off your breakfast :eek:
...Mike
Exactly. Thanks.
yours
FPJ
Roger Hicks
08-14-2009, 06:52
You lost me there! :confused:
Dear Fred,
Go to Paris, Berlin, St. Petersburg, etc. as an outsider and compare them.
Live in any of them -- especially if you have only ever lived in one -- and you rapidly become parochial.
Cheers,
R.
Very true, although the current recession has slowed the process a bit.
. . . Manhattan is dying as it becomes like Paris, the old parts of the city too expensive for the young, restaurants that are too expensive, apartments that cost 2 million, it is a rest home for the aging rich.
Brooklyn and Queens are the new "city," Manhattan a rest home with MoMA.
wgerrard
08-14-2009, 07:11
I think that is true in older cities, but these days few cities in the US even have a true "downtown" or "city" to refer to...
Agreed. I live in a medium-sized hunk of sprawl (pop. about 3 million) and never hear "the city" from anyone. Most spend their days going from one suburban-style development to another. Downtowns are small, in a perpetual state of renewal, but do have actual residents and shops.
As I see it, traditional street photography is very much a creature of those older traditional cities. I could, and have, walked for 90 minutes in my town and not come across a single person who wasn't in a car.
Been there couple of times, had to keep moving my car, might give it another shot if I can find a place to park. Hear the subways are good. W. 70th and the Park, nice place to shoot people pictures.
Only people I heard calling it "The City" were New Yorkers who could not get into University there and had to settle for Western Reserve as a rest stop on the way to graduate school. Rest of New York State seems to think of it a bit differently.
Big Apple has some sort of historical origin, forgot what it was.
I find Prague very livable, as is Paris, especially like the 5th and 6th Arr. Prague may be ruined when the Euro arrives.
Most large cities have their pluses and minuses, some are more famous than others for a cold shoulder to outsiders as a religion.
Letterman seems to like it, but he gets paid to.
Regards, John
Might want to try visiting without a car, though there's actually a lot more available parking in Manhattan than most tourists realize (a lot depends on day of week & time of day, though, like most cities).
Origins of "Big Apple": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Apple
Been there couple of times, had to keep moving my car, might give it another shot if I can find a place to park.
. . .
Big Apple has some sort of historical origin, forgot what it was.
Roger Hicks
08-14-2009, 07:40
I actually don't feel that a visit has ever given me much insight into any city, I totally miss everything that is really important. If anything most visitors to NYC seem to come away with a VERY parochial (limited) view. You need to rent an apartment and stay a few months to even get started, own a bicycle, find decent cheap food, find the libraries.
It took me years to understand exactly where the really good french fries are, and how really awful Peter Luger steaks are. :cool:
Dear Fred,
Um... yeah... parochial. If good chips and bad streaks are your measure of a city, the average French small town could probably compete with NYC.
I was thinking more of quality of life, libraries, art galleries, traffic, architecture, history...
Ever spent much time in Delhi? Or St. Petersburg? Or even (God help us all) Los Angeles?
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
08-14-2009, 07:41
I have lived in livable cities (madrid, milan, london) but I like the less livable ones, with more tension. I have heard good things about Prague, a city with a bit of an edge, but not impossible to find a comfortable life.
But as mentioned earlier, since I can live anywhere I want (as we all can), I am still leaning toward the following in no particular order, London, Berlin, Cairo, Hong Kong, Mexico City, Mysore, for an extended stay.
Sometimes, for a moment, I think of the country, but the realize I would have to own a car, and I simply despise cars.
Which is about as parochial as it gets...
Cheers,
R.
wgerrard
08-14-2009, 08:18
Very few of us have the time and money needed to finance an renting an apartment for a few months to see if we like a city. We either visit them for a few days or are swept into them by jobs and careers.
Among the things a city an provide, I know what are important to me and what are not. I judge a city -- as a possible place of residence -- by my ease of access to those things, whether on foot, by car, bus, or subway. An easy drive beats an obnoxious subway ride, and vice versa.
Much of an individual's preference for one city versus another is emotional. I don't particularly like NYC, but that's my taste. I lived for 20 years in the near D.C. suburbs, and haven't had a desire to return to the suburbs or the city since I left, but the place is certainly jampacked with amenities and is one of the few places in the States where a life without a car -- one of my long-time fantasies -- can be successfully managed. I like Boston, San Francisco, Toronto, and London, to which I'd likely move if only my income would magically double.
Roger Hicks
08-14-2009, 11:25
Very few of us have the time and money needed to finance an renting an apartment for a few months to see if we like a city. We either visit them for a few days or are swept into them by jobs and careers.
Exactly. And if we can't adapt to the good, and bypass the bad, it's our problem.
You can get to know anywhere, with time. But to confuse getting to know somewhere with what a place is like as compared with anywhere else, is grievously parochial. I love my village, but I am sure that there are many villages as good. I suspect there may be a few places that offer a better compromise, e.g. Arles (though I'm not sure). Choosing a city on the basis of branch libraries, on the assumption there are no other good libraries anywhere in the world, seems... well... parochial.
Cheers,
R
Parochial?
Is this "the word of the day"?
Roger Hicks
08-14-2009, 11:45
Parochial?
Is this "the word of the day"?
No, but it's the best word to describe people who imagine that their own parish (precinct, village, whatever) has a monopoly on excellence. NYC? OK. London? OK. Delhi? OK. St. Petersburg? OK. Paris? OK. But anyone -- New Yorker, Londoner, Parisian, whatever -- who thinks their city is THE BEST, simply because they are used to it, is being parochial and naive.
As are those who think that big cities are better than the countryside, or small towns better than either, etc. As with choice of focal length, it's personal choice. The trouble is, big city dwellers (the post originally read, 'New Yorkers') all too often tend to assume an air of superiority, for no defensible reason. The same is true of those who get up early and go to bed early, as against those who get up late and go to bed late. I suspect it may be something to do with puritanism and a dislike of comfort or peace and quiet.
Cheers,
R.
I'm out here on the left coast, but used to travel quite a bit to NYC on business. For the longest time, I thought "the city" referred specifically to Manhattan.
In any case, NYC as "the city" is implied just from the fact that another great US city is sometimes referred to as the "Second City."
Of course, for pure hedonsim, neither one compares to "Sin City."
Roger Hicks
08-14-2009, 12:05
Actually (and this is walking on thin ice) I have always felt your take on the US, was somehow based on your not knowing it, even though you were here.
Well, Fred, I could skate on equally thin ice by saying that your take on everything except New York and (possibly) teaching art is based substantially on ignorance: on your not having been anywhere else much, at least for any significant length of time. I spent 5 years in California (and 4 years in Malta and 3 years in Bermuda) and I've lived for 7 years in rural France. Where have you lived, outside the USA, and (as far as I recall) outside your home town or NYC?
As for 'renting apartments for a few weeks or months', most people (not you or me, obviously) have proper jobs and can't just bugger off to another country for months at a time. Even if we don't have proper jobs, there has to be something that makes us want to live in another city, village, town or whatever for more than a few days -- and I have to say that NYC has never had anything to attract me, as compared with many other places. Or London, though I've tried it. Or Delhi, though I have many friends there and have passed a couple of weeks at a stretch in the city.
NYC suits you. Fine. But I suspect there are more people right here on RFF who agree with me that NYC is no place to live, than who envy you or any other New Yorker, no matter how self-satisfied (or in some cases, presumably not yours) how self-deluded those New Yorkers may be. If I were to rent an apartment for 'a few weeks or months' I suspect I could write a list of at least 10 cities I'd rather be in. I remain amazed at the number of people who are besotted with the only city they know, though I suppose some (again, not you) are not old enough to know any better.
Cheers,
R.
wgerrard
08-14-2009, 12:21
I've lived in a number of places in the U.S. as well as in the UK, the Middle East and southern Africa. My less-than-profound conclusion is that big cities in each of those places are remarkably similar. They have much to offer and they have much that irritates. One's affection for a particular big city may well depend, I suspect, on one's tolerance of the irritations that must be endured to get to the good parts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/08/arts/critic-s-notebook-a-funny-new-yorker-map-is-again-the-best-defense.html?pagewanted=print
New Yorkers have a parochial view of the world - with themselves at the center of it. Steinberg's map has altered in detail but not perspective.
I have know Londoners, Parisians, Neapolitans, Edinburgunians and Haligonians. All are defined, proudly, by their citizenship of a city. I suspect Italy of being a polity of city states still.
I led a parochial life for over two decades as an Isthmusian.
We can let the New Yorkers alone.
yours
FPJ
Roger Hicks
08-14-2009, 12:26
Quite a few, but I have always kept a studio in the US at the same time. Four countries besides the US, all in Europe. Not as ignorant as you might imagine.
One not exactly a separate country, although they like to think of it that way.
Two listed in this thread, which makes me wonder if you actually read my posts? (I know they were a little long winded, to put it mildly, and this is not a test) :D
Bermuda?
Dear Fred,
Yes, but not always very carefully, and I'm not sure you said how long you lived there. I'll go back; check; and edit.
EDIT: Three, on my count: Madrid, Milan, London (well, Shepherds Bush). How carefully do you read your own posts? And how long were you in each?
Bermuda: 1966-1968, only about 32 months instead of 36. Why the query?
Cheers,
R.
Silva Lining
08-14-2009, 14:31
Slightly left-field, but I always believe that, in the UK at least, the definition of a CITY was a town that had its own cathedral. Hence relatively small towns like Wells in Somerset are actually Cities. Also the Queen, if she so wishes, can grant city status to a town, which is how my better half's home town of Newry, Norn Iron has become a CITY...
Me, well I was born in the country but moved to London, (Not the City of London though!) I love London it's a truly great city for so many reasons, not all of them good. I also love New York and have spent some time there and hope to spend some more, but my favourite city would probably be Edinburgh......
Personally speaking, I eschew (my candidate for the new "word of the day") parochial discussions about home towns. But I thought NYC was known as "The Naked City" and "Gotham City". How many different names does that place need?
wgerrard
08-14-2009, 15:00
Slightly left-field, but I always believe that, in the UK at least, the definition of a CITY was a town that had its own cathedral. Hence relatively small towns like Wells in Somerset are actually Cities. Also the Queen, if she so wishes, can grant city status to a town, which is how my better half's home town of Newry, Norn Iron has become a CITY...
Me, well I was born in the country but moved to London, (Not the City of London though!) I love London it's a truly great city for so many reasons, not all of them good. I also love New York and have spent some time there and hope to spend some more, but my favourite city would probably be Edinburgh......
As far as I know, you are correct about the cathedral thing, although I don't know if that has any legal impact.
Here in the States, I believe the individual states determine who gets the city brand and who doesn't.
Paris is also called the City.
No way. Paris (France) is a town.
In French "Citie" or "Cité" equates with "The projects" or in the UK a "Council estate".
In UK English when people refer to "The City" it is not London but only the business/financial district: The City of Westminster.
I LOVE NEW YORK.
New York is truly a great city.
But my favorite is Sydney, Australia.
ZeissFan
08-14-2009, 16:36
I've been lucky enough to live and/or work in Los Angeles, New York, Texas, Maine, Pittsburgh, New Jersey, Germany, London, Brussels, Hong Kong and Beijing, as well as spend time in a lot of other places.
The more you see, the more you want to see, and after a while, you begin to realize that every place has its good and bad, interesting and dull. I've always felt grateful to have been able to see all of these places and always look forward to seeing more before I check out -- lens first, hopefully.
ZeissFan
08-14-2009, 16:38
Here in the States, I believe the individual states determine who gets the city brand and who doesn't.
That's right. It's more of a legal definition, according to that municipality's bylaws, charter and such. That's why there are hamlets, boroughs, municipalities and cities and other designations.
I'd have to agree.... but then again I was born here...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2620/3747449540_bcedc22bdc_o.jpg
Andrew Sowerby
08-14-2009, 16:58
I have know Londoners, Parisians, Neapolitans, Edinburgunians and Haligonians. All are defined, proudly, by their citizenship of a city. I suspect Italy of being a polity of city states still.
Halifax, Nova Scotia? Surely not! Dartmouthians (the Brooklyn of Halifax) perhaps ... :D
Silva Lining
08-14-2009, 17:06
In UK English when people refer to "The City" it is not London but only the business/financial district: The City of Westminster.
No, its not. The City of Westminster is quite distinct from the City of London (which does contain the financial district).
Westminster was until 17th Century a separate settlement from the Walled City of London and was based around Westminster Abbey (hence its city status),
The City of London is based around the Cathedral of St Paul and contains the Square Mile or financial district.
These two cities along with Southwark form the three original settlements that grew in to modern day London.
Sorry to be pedantic:o
I just don`t understand what this whole controversy is about. If it`s printed in the NYT, then it must be true.:rolleyes:
Regards
You guys slay me. First off, everyone knows Toronto is the centre of the universe.
Secondly, the best city is NO CITY, i.e. where the flock do you think your food , lumber and iron ore come from? Unless you have an urban farm and enough vegetation to offset your CO2 production, why talk about you superiority?
Unless you have an urban farm and enough vegetation to offset your CO2 production, why talk about you superiority?
Good point. I'll stop breathing.
On second thought... maybe I'll just skip every tenth breath to reduce my useless CO2 production.
photobizzz
08-14-2009, 19:06
I really liked living in N. Virginia with easy access to Washington DC, wouldn't want to live in DC but truly loved the downtown atmosphere!
mfunnell
08-14-2009, 20:38
What a weird conversation.
New York is without a doubt one of the world's Great Cities, and belongs on anybody's "Greatest City on Earth" short-list. And it would be (IMO) pretty much impossible to agree on any reasonably objective criteria to select among such cities to determine a single "Greatest".
But if the local newspaper (which is also a "world newspaper") wants to engage in a little civic pride and boosterism, then so what? If there's a touch of parochialism about that then I'd submit that it's of the least problematic kind, and hardly unique to New York.
As to whether New York is a "great city" to live in (regardless of it's "Great City" status), I imagine that's a matter of personal circumstances and taste. And if some New Yorkers want to "look down" on those from elsewhere, I'd be wondering what they're so insecure about.
I've lived in Sydney, on and off, for a while now, having lived lots of other places (unfortunately, never New York). I find Sydney a great city to live in, for me personally. Sydney may be be somewhat influential but it isn't a "Great City" in the sense of New York or Bejing or London - and so be it. I look neither up to nor down on anyone from anywhere else based on where they're from or where they live - whether here in Oz or anywhere else. I make only a slight exception in the case of Melbourne - not because there's anything wrong with Melbourne (a very nice city indeed, as I found when I lived there) but simply because some Melbournians will react in amusing ways given even the slightest provocation about Australia's "old rivalry". Perhaps that's small-minded and parochial of me, but sometimes I take my amusement where I can get it.
Could it be that some New Yorkers do the same thing some times? It wouldn't surprise me.
...Mike
emraphoto
08-14-2009, 20:43
amsterdam
hergla
Gabriel M.A.
08-14-2009, 20:55
When it comes to education, crime, infrastructure, health and cleanliness, I think Vienna is the "greatest" city.
Then again, "greatest" is one of those U.S. qualifiers that gets thrown around so frequently it's really lost its meaning.
I'd say Vienna is the bestestestest. Then there's Paris. And I love Paris.
Calling your own city the "Greatest" is like entering a humility contest, if you enter, you are disqualified. ;-)
As to the car thing, with flying so cheap and so much fun, and with visiting some of the other "Greatest" cities on the same trip, a car is transportation in and out, did not do much driving within the city, just from one side of the street to the other ahead of the tow truck.
Another great thing about NYC, Air Travel Hub--you can be quickly and cheaply get almost anywhere else, very many non stop.
Reminds me of the summers in Paris when I would walk into a travel agency on the corner and basically go where ever they had a good flight that week.
Got me to Morocco, Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and Prague.
Paris has a further advantage of good train service.
NY may become as in the words of Yogi Berra -- "No one goes there anymore because it is so crowded".
Regards, John
tmfabian
08-14-2009, 23:54
mmmm....traffic
also, no one from texas is offended by something other than texas being the greatest?
(all sarcasm, all the time)
Yes, my post was (somewhat) sarcastic, and meant to point out that "greatest" is non-sensical in evaluating almost anything. Boosterism? Bah. Except for Leaf Nation, of course! :D
Gumby: Feel free to breathe as much as you want. We like having you around. :)
FS Vontz
03-05-2010, 08:57
Webmaster has ruined my reading.
bagdadchild
03-09-2010, 05:38
NYC may well be the greatest city but Cairo is the Mother of all cities, the Mother of the world!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2000/jul/15/cairo.egypt.shortbreaks
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.