[Note: This topic is horribly off-topic for rec.arts.tv, and I shouldn't even respond to it, but I can't resist one post before I knock it off. If that makes me a big ol' hypocrite, so be it...]
In article <fjnkh1d0ju48sv3qcnlauqeng0j1lra5ck@4ax.com>, Brian Thorn <bthorn64@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:27:37 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:>
So why rebuild a city that stands at near sea level?
Below sea level. *Below*.
Because most buildings and utilities there are still intact, albeit> underwater and mud. It will be immensely faster and easier to repair> what's already
Except that it can't be "repaired" - the "city" is sinking something like 3 feet every 100 years.
there than to start over from scratch somewhere else,> and all those people are going to need homes and jobs as soon as> possible.
That's not even close to a good enough reason.
Outside of rehab'ing some of the historic districts, there is *zero* reason to put anyone else back in "old" New Orleans.
If they are allowed to rebuild it, it will the biggest boondoggle in human history.
There is no other viable solution but to essentially give up on at least 80-90% of the old "city".
Whether that means building a new city somewhere else in LA, or scattering the previous inhabitants to the four corners, I don't know.
But if they simple drain the water away, and rebuild as if nothing has happened, it will be a future tragedy waiting to happen, a travesty, and an outrage.
I hope the taxpayers refuse to stand for it.
-- CNN, FNC, MSNBC - I'M READY FOR MY CLOSE-UP!! "It is a decision of the Supreme Court... So this is almost as if God has spoken." - Nancy Pelosi (on KELO), 06/30/05 http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/
The Next SCOTUS Nominee 4 September 2005 09:16:19 [ permanent link ]
In article <1125809859.889480.53810@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Jax" <IlGreven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ian J. Ball sez:>
But if they simple drain the water away, and rebuild as if nothing has> >happened, it will be a future tragedy waiting to happen, a travesty, and> >an outrage.> >
I hope the taxpayers refuse to stand for it.>
Well, trust me, Ian. If the taxpayers refuse to stand for REBUILDING> NOLA, they'll also refuse to stand for RELOCATING NOLA.
It's the difference between pouring money down a rat hole, and a one-off expense. If forced to make the choice, I'll give you one guess which one the taxpayers will go for.
(Though, as I said, one option is to not rebuild at all, and simply resettle the people all over the place. But as a port near the mouth of the Mississippi River is likely needed, I don't see that one happening in toto...)
Which do you really think will cost more?
In the long-run? I think you can figure this one out.
Ian (Build me once, shame on you. Rebuild me twice (on sinking, below sea level land!), shame on me.)
-- CNN, FNC, MSNBC - I'M READY FOR MY CLOSE-UP!! "It is a decision of the Supreme Court... So this is almost as if God has spoken." - Nancy Pelosi (on KELO), 06/30/05 http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 05:16:19 GMT, "The Next SCOTUS Nominee, Ian J. Ball" <ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid> wrote:
In article <1125809859.889480.53810@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,> "Jax" <IlGreven@hotmail.com> wrote:>
Ian J. Ball sez:>>
But if they simple drain the water away, and rebuild as if nothing has>> >happened, it will be a future tragedy waiting to happen, a travesty, and>> >an outrage.>> >
I hope the taxpayers refuse to stand for it.>>
Well, trust me, Ian. If the taxpayers refuse to stand for REBUILDING>> NOLA, they'll also refuse to stand for RELOCATING NOLA. >
It's the difference between pouring money down a rat hole, and a one-off >expense. If forced to make the choice, I'll give you one guess which one >the taxpayers will go for.
The taxpayers won't be asked. I'm thinking putting all of those people in an area that is sinking 3/4 of an inch every year is a dumb idea, but I'm fairly sure they will rebuild it all right where it was. Then they will spend billions more to rebuild the levee and reinforce it.
(Though, as I said, one option is to not rebuild at all, and simply >resettle the people all over the place. But as a port near the mouth of >the Mississippi River is likely needed, I don't see that one happening >in toto...)
The port is still there. Much of the area is still intact with no flooding. So if they chose to bull doze all of the homes and find new places for the people that lost their homes there isn't much lost. At least not as long as the home cost is covered.
Which do you really think will cost more?>
In the long-run? I think you can figure this one out. >
Ian (Build me once, shame on you. Rebuild me twice (on sinking, below >sea level land!), shame on me.)
I just hope we don't see another major hurricane hit New Orleans in our lifetimes. At least that way we won't have to see disaster be repeated. I'm positive that another strong hurricane will hit that area again.
In article <1125809859.889480.53810@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,> "Jax" <IlGreven@hotmail.com> wrote:>
Ian J. Ball sez:>>
But if they simple drain the water away, and rebuild as if nothing has>>>happened, it will be a future tragedy waiting to happen, a travesty, and>>>an outrage.>>>
I hope the taxpayers refuse to stand for it.>>
Well, trust me, Ian. If the taxpayers refuse to stand for REBUILDING>>NOLA, they'll also refuse to stand for RELOCATING NOLA. >
It's the difference between pouring money down a rat hole, and a one-off > expense. If forced to make the choice, I'll give you one guess which one > the taxpayers will go for. >
(Though, as I said, one option is to not rebuild at all, and simply > resettle the people all over the place. But as a port near the mouth of > the Mississippi River is likely needed, I don't see that one happening > in toto...) >
Which do you really think will cost more?>
In the long-run? I think you can figure this one out. >
Ian (Build me once, shame on you. Rebuild me twice (on sinking, below > sea level land!), shame on me.)
<kelvinyany@gmail.com> wrote ...>> The taxpayers won't be asked. I'm thinking putting all of those people>> in an area that is sinking 3/4 of an inch every year is a dumb idea,>> but I'm fairly sure they will rebuild it all right where it was. Then>> they will spend billions more to rebuild the levee and reinforce it.>
Spending billions of dollars building new levees to protect a sinking> land is like duct taping a problem from a force beyond any human> prevention. And, of cause, if we don't spend that kind of money to> prop up weak infrastructure and low-income housing, I bet you the> outcries of RACISM. They can do want they want with the land just> don't ask for the rest of us to pay for it.
And yet when Denny Hastert suggested NOT rebuilding NO, he was universally attacked. Yes, everyone is thinking it, but he has been the only one with the guts to say it publically, and was then forced to back-pedal and apologize. Sad. And I'm a liberal!
Then the racism cry will further complicate matters, since it's the politicians making the decisions and racism accusations are their kryptonite. This is gonna be a mess.
The Next SCOTUS Nominee 4 September 2005 21:40:20 [ permanent link ]
In article <vbFSe.33033$PM3.6652@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "Jorabi" <jorabi@pobox.com> wrote:
<kelvinyany@gmail.com> wrote ...> >> The taxpayers won't be asked. I'm thinking putting all of those people> >> in an area that is sinking 3/4 of an inch every year is a dumb idea,> >> but I'm fairly sure they will rebuild it all right where it was. Then> >> they will spend billions more to rebuild the levee and reinforce it.> >
Spending billions of dollars building new levees to protect a sinking> > land is like duct taping a problem from a force beyond any human> > prevention. And, of cause, if we don't spend that kind of money to> > prop up weak infrastructure and low-income housing, I bet you the> > outcries of RACISM. They can do want they want with the land just> > don't ask for the rest of us to pay for it.>
And yet when Denny Hastert suggested NOT rebuilding NO, he was> universally attacked. Yes, everyone is thinking it, but he has> been the only one with the guts to say it publically, and was> then forced to back-pedal and apologize. Sad. And I'm a liberal!>
Then the racism cry will further complicate matters, since it's the> politicians making the decisions and racism accusations are their> kryptonite. This is gonna be a mess.
The environmentalists need to get on this one - if there was even an environmental disaster waiting to happens, it's rebuilding New Orleans and pretending that its very existence hasn't lead to wetland destruction and costal erosion over probably the last century.
-- CNN, FNC, MSNBC - I'M READY FOR MY CLOSE-UP!! "It is a decision of the Supreme Court... So this is almost as if God has spoken." - Nancy Pelosi (on KELO), 06/30/05 http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/
The Next SCOTUS Nominee 4 September 2005 21:49:27 [ permanent link ]
In article <8hclh19ho9l1464qngilk8veh6qk2lkg44@4ax.com>, Donna B <shallotpeel@delphiforums.com> wrote:
In rec.arts.tv on 3 Sep 2005 17:35:45 -0700 in Msg.#> <1125794145.578247.321950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,> kelvinyany@gmail.com wrote:>
If the residence of New Orleans wants to rebuild the hurricane prone> > land that is below sea level, then by all means do it... just don't ask> > the rest of us to pay for it.>
Fortunately many people don't feel the way you do about the residents of New> Orleans, Florida, Oklahoma City, New York City, hundreds of towns hit by> tornados & San Francisco & the Bay area after the Northridge earthquake.
The situations aren't even close to comparable, Donna. There are very good reasons not to rebuild New Orleans, prime among them the fact that it's *below* sea level (and sinking every minute), and we're entering a 30-year cyclical period of increased hurricane activity.
LA & San Fran. get (really) devastating earthquakes roughly once a century. New Orleans is likely to get Cat 4-5 hurricanes that will put it under the ocean every *5-10 years*.
There's no logical justification for rebuilding it. At least, not as a "residential"-type city.
-- CNN, FNC, MSNBC - I'M READY FOR MY CLOSE-UP!! "It is a decision of the Supreme Court... So this is almost as if God has spoken." - Nancy Pelosi (on KELO), 06/30/05 http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/
The Next SCOTUS Nominee 4 September 2005 21:52:02 [ permanent link ]
In article <o99mh1dc6284idui7gjufifmaedvssg6rq@4ax.com>, Brian Thorn <bthorn64@cox.net> wrote:
And being partially flooded in no way means the structure is ruined.> Foods happen all over, all the time, buildings and infrastructure are> repaired. This is just a flood on an enormous scale. New Orleans can> and will be repaired.
You haven't even dealt with the long-term implications. You haven't addressed all of the compelling reasons for not building there.
All you are doing is taking a look at the short-term costing (ignoring the long-term) as justification.
That's call 'penny-wise, pound-foolish'.
Ian (Or, 'throwing good money after bad.')
-- CNN, FNC, MSNBC - I'M READY FOR MY CLOSE-UP!! "It is a decision of the Supreme Court... So this is almost as if God has spoken." - Nancy Pelosi (on KELO), 06/30/05 http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/
The Next SCOTUS Nominee 5 September 2005 00:27:07 [ permanent link ]
In article <T%GSe.225676$gL1.96838@tornado.texas.rr.com>, "Justin Pate" <JP51307@yahoo.com> wrote:
They should take steps to preserve the historical structures of New Orleans,> but I see no reason why New Orleans should be anything but a giant museum> from now on.
Agreed.
Why would anybody want to move back there after what happened?
Unfortunately, a significant number of people will ignore the message they just got, and be obstinate, so (if the gov't acts responsibly) they'll be told "No".
But I'm not hopeful - there was a recent mud slide in Laguna Beach, Orange County and, despite the fact that houses were already destroyed *once previously* on the *very same hillside* a few years back, the city still wants to rebuild houses there *AGAIN* (making it round #3). Luckily FEMA refused to fund them this time (thank Ghu!). But that apparently isn't stopping Laguna Beach from trying.
Unfortunately much of gov't, and many people, are just too dense...
-- CNN, FNC, MSNBC - I'M READY FOR MY CLOSE-UP!! "It is a decision of the Supreme Court... So this is almost as if God has spoken." - Nancy Pelosi (on KELO), 06/30/05 http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/
In rec.arts.tv on Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:49:27 GMT in Msg.# <ijball***SPAM-No***-0DD50C.10492604092005@news-rdr-02.socal.rr.com>, "The Next SCOTUS Nominee, Ian J. Ball" <ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid> wrote:
The situations aren't even close to comparable, Donna. There are very > good reasons not to rebuild New Orleans, prime among them the fact that > it's *below* sea level (and sinking every minute), and we're entering a > 30-year cyclical period of increased hurricane activity. >
LA & San Fran. get (really) devastating earthquakes roughly once a > century. New Orleans is likely to get Cat 4-5 hurricanes that will put > it under the ocean every *5-10 years*. >
There's no logical justification for rebuilding it. At least, not as a > "residential"-type city.
I hope you'll see the reply I already made further up the thread. Otherwise, as is sometimes the case, we completely disagree. LOL That's the thing with us, we either vehemently agree or just as vehemently disagree. <G>
In rec.arts.tv on 5 Sep 2005 22:31:08 -0700 in Msg.# <1125984668.655221.96050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:
Among other things, in response to someone placing NOLA on an ocean, I had said, > "The city is not close to any ocean at all. The city is at the> Mississippi> River, Lake Pontchartrain & the Gulf of Mexico. ">
You don't think the Gulf of Mexico is an ocean? Oh, you're being> strict. Okay, so strictly speaking the Gulf of Mexico is a gulf in the> North Atlantic Ocean.
I grew up often visiting the Gulf of Mexico in MS & in AL, living very near both there & NOLA. The MS Gulf of Mexico is nothing like an ocean, in my experience. You may call it strict, or perhaps you meant literal, but I also call it real.
Forecast for NOLA calls for thunderstorms all week long. I wonder> what another inch of rain will do. Haven't seen one word in the press> predicting the results of more storms.
Hmm, I sure have, although it's all speculation, and about NOLA & about the MS/AL Gulf. I've seen people discussing it all along. You have any disaster on the ground & more of anything, even if that's just 'normal' precipitation, exacerbates the situation. This is the way it is in any disaster area, anytime.
I'm guessing you think we shouldn't have dredged out rivers, put in hydroelectric dams, systems of locks, etc.? Or are you just set on the way nature left things 200-ish years ago on the city of NOLA only?
In rec.arts.tv on 6 Sep 2005 08:55:28 -0700 in Msg.# <1126022127.989450.121370@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, electrictroy@gmail.com wrote:
Donna B wrote:> > I'm guessing you think we shouldn't have dredged out rivers, put in> > hydroelectric dams, systems of locks, etc.? Or are you just set on the way> > nature left things 200-ish years ago on the city of NOLA only?>
Building walls, dams, et cetera makes flooding *worse* not better.> Walls trap the river, making it run faster & more dangerously, and when> the wall is crested, the water comes out of the river like a tidal> wave. So instead of making New Orleans (and other river towns) safer,> you've made the Floods more hazardous & destructive.>
It's similar to the principle of woodland fires. Stop the little fires> & your fine, but you leave behind a jungle. So when the BIG fire> comes, it feeds off the jungle & becomes a firestorm that is so hot, it> turns the soil into glass, and nobody can stop it.>
It is better to allow nature freedom to release its energies in small> steps. Walls turn the river into a raging monster that will eventually> overflow the wall & create a tidal wave. BAD IDEA.
Right, that was my point in asking the question.
Although I would say that the goal is to find an optimum way to co-exist with nature.
Rico X. Partay 7 September 2005 02:32:22 [ permanent link ]
The Next SCOTUS Nominee, Ian J. Ball wrote:
It's the difference between pouring money down a rat> hole, and a one-off expense. If forced to make the> choice, I'll give you one guess which one the taxpayers> will go for.
Over the last three years, "the taxpayers" have happily poured a couple hundred billion dollars into a 13th century rat hole on the other side of the planet. Getting them to sit quietly while a few billion is spent on Nahlins would be a piece of cake.
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:431e1902$0$81175$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com...> The Next SCOTUS Nominee, Ian J. Ball wrote:>
It's the difference between pouring money down a rat>> hole, and a one-off expense. If forced to make the>> choice, I'll give you one guess which one the taxpayers>> will go for.>
Over the last three years, "the taxpayers" have happily poured a couple > hundred billion dollars into a 13th century rat hole on the other side of > the planet. Getting them to sit quietly while a few billion is spent on > Nahlins would be a piece of cake.>
Yup, if we can spend $200 billion on Iraq, I think we can do the same for our citizens.
In rec.arts.tv on 6 Sep 2005 22:10:16 -0700 in Msg.# <1126069816.625824.6400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hudsongrl@aol.com wrote:
Donna B wrote:> > In rec.arts.tv on 5 Sep 2005 22:31:08 -0700 in Msg.#> > <1125984668.655221.96050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "James Of Tucson"> > <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:> >
Among other things, in response to someone placing NOLA on an ocean, I had> > said,> > > "The city is not close to any ocean at all. The city is at the> > > Mississippi> > > River, Lake Pontchartrain & the Gulf of Mexico. "> > >
You don't think the Gulf of Mexico is an ocean? Oh, you're being> > > strict. Okay, so strictly speaking the Gulf of Mexico is a gulf in the> > > North Atlantic Ocean.> >
I grew up often visiting the Gulf of Mexico in MS & in AL, living very near> > both there & NOLA. The MS Gulf of Mexico is nothing like an ocean, in my> > experience. You may call it strict, or perhaps you meant literal, but I also> > call it real.>
i'd agree with you, if only you were right. Apparently there are some> who say the Gulf of Mexico is indeed an arm of the Atlantic Ocean:>
In rec.arts.tv on 7 Sep 2005 08:34:03 -0700 in Msg.# <1126107242.954056.116690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, electrictroy@gmail.com wrote:
Donna B wrote:> > <1126069816.625824.6400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hudsongrl@> > > > <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >
Among other things, in response to someone placing NOLA on an ocean, I had> > > > said,> > > > > "The city is not close to any ocean at all. The city is at the> > > > > Mississippi> > > > > River, Lake Pontchartrain & the Gulf of Mexico. "> > >
i'd agree with you, if only you were right. Apparently there are some> > > who say the Gulf of Mexico is indeed an arm of the Atlantic Ocean:> > > http://www.answers.com/topic/gulf-of-mexico> >
Perhaps some do say that. It is certainly more different than like an ocean.>
And yet when a hurricane comes by, the Gulf *has the same effect* as> the ocean. ...
Not really. The water is warmer. In many many places the Gulf is very shallow for far out. And, the Gulf can trap a storm in a way that the ocean does not. The Gulf is more closed. The Ocean is more open. You add in the continual counter-clockwise motion of a hurricane & the effect is very different inside the Gulf than out in the Ocean. It's like a basin.
.. bringing in a surge of water and flooding the city. So it> is accurate for the original poster to say New Orleans should not be> built in such a dangerous location.
They're entitled to their opinion, just as I am of mine that we have people living in different kinds of repeating danger zones & that the biggest problems with all of them have to do with overbuilding, not with building. And, as I said, but didn't get quoted, in learning an optimum level to live with Mother Nature.
In rec.arts.tv on 7 Sep 2005 09:26:13 -0700 in Msg.# <1126110373.268933.227060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hudsongrl@aol.com wrote:
Donna B wrote:> > In rec.arts.tv on 6 Sep 2005 22:10:16 -0700 in Msg.#> > <1126069816.625824.6400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hudsongrl@aol.com> > wrote:> >
Donna B wrote:> > > > In rec.arts.tv on 5 Sep 2005 22:31:08 -0700 in Msg.#> > > > <1125984668.655221.96050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "James Of Tucson"> > > > <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:> > > >
Among other things, in response to someone placing NOLA on an ocean, I had> > > > said,> > > > > "The city is not close to any ocean at all. The city is at the> > > > > Mississippi> > > > > River, Lake Pontchartrain & the Gulf of Mexico. "> > > > >
You don't think the Gulf of Mexico is an ocean? Oh, you're being> > > > > strict. Okay, so strictly speaking the Gulf of Mexico is a gulf in the> > > > > North Atlantic Ocean.> > > >
I grew up often visiting the Gulf of Mexico in MS & in AL, living very near> > > > both there & NOLA. The MS Gulf of Mexico is nothing like an ocean, in my> > > > experience. You may call it strict, or perhaps you meant literal, but I also> > > > call it real.> > >
i'd agree with you, if only you were right. Apparently there are some> > > who say the Gulf of Mexico is indeed an arm of the Atlantic Ocean:> > >
In rec.arts.tv on 7 Sep 2005 20:25:19 -0700 in Msg.# <1126149919.826398.60050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hudsongrl@aol.com wrote:
Donna B wrote:> > In rec.arts.tv on 7 Sep 2005 09:26:13 -0700 in Msg.#> > <1126110373.268933.227060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hudsongrl@aol.com> > wrote:> >
Donna B wrote:> > > > In rec.arts.tv on 6 Sep 2005 22:10:16 -0700 in Msg.#> > > > <1126069816.625824.6400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hudsongrl@aol.com> > > > wrote:> > > >
Donna B wrote:> > > > > > In rec.arts.tv on 5 Sep 2005 22:31:08 -0700 in Msg.#> > > > > > <1125984668.655221.96050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "James Of Tucson"> > > > > > <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > >
Among other things, in response to someone placing NOLA on an ocean, I had> > > > > > said,> > > > > > > "The city is not close to any ocean at all. The city is at the> > > > > > > Mississippi> > > > > > > River, Lake Pontchartrain & the Gulf of Mexico. "> > > > > > >
You don't think the Gulf of Mexico is an ocean? Oh, you're being> > > > > > > strict. Okay, so strictly speaking the Gulf of Mexico is a gulf in the> > > > > > > North Atlantic Ocean.> > > > > >
I grew up often visiting the Gulf of Mexico in MS & in AL, living very near> > > > > > both there & NOLA. The MS Gulf of Mexico is nothing like an ocean, in my> > > > > > experience. You may call it strict, or perhaps you meant literal, but I also> > > > > > call it real.> > > > >
i'd agree with you, if only you were right. Apparently there are some> > > > > who say the Gulf of Mexico is indeed an arm of the Atlantic Ocean:> > > > >
Perhaps some do say that. It is certainly more different than like an ocean.> > >
but, whether you perceive it as "different" or not, the gulf IS> > > classified as part of the Atlantic ocean.> >
You said yourself that some say that. Some say that. Some say other. Has> > nothing to do with perception.>
Donna, Donna, Donna, when I said "some say" i was being facetious.> That's why I posted the URL. You're one to always challenge, but> "facts" really aren't open to further debate.
Read your own link. There you find that some say but some don't. And, some that say then say that it connects to the Atlantic Ocean blah blah.
Agree about facts & debate, but, you can get lots of differing facts.
In rec.arts.tv on 8 Sep 2005 17:43:26 -0700 in Msg.# <1126226606.601680.95900@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hudsongrl@aol.com wrote:
Donna B wrote:> > In rec.arts.tv on 7 Sep 2005 20:25:19 -0700 in Msg.#> > <1126149919.826398.60050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hudsongrl@aol.com> > wrote:> >
Donna B wrote:> > > > In rec.arts.tv on 7 Sep 2005 09:26:13 -0700 in Msg.#> > > > <1126110373.268933.227060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hudsongrl@aol.com> > > > wrote:> > > >
Donna B wrote:> > > > > > In rec.arts.tv on 6 Sep 2005 22:10:16 -0700 in Msg.#> > > > > > <1126069816.625824.6400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hudsongrl@aol.com> > > > > > wrote:> > > > > >
Donna B wrote:> > > > > > > > In rec.arts.tv on 5 Sep 2005 22:31:08 -0700 in Msg.#> > > > > > > > <1125984668.655221.96050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "James Of Tucson"> > > > > > > > <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > > >
Among other things, in response to someone placing NOLA on an ocean, I had> > > > > > > > said,> > > > > > > > > "The city is not close to any ocean at all. The city is at the> > > > > > > > > Mississippi> > > > > > > > > River, Lake Pontchartrain & the Gulf of Mexico. "> > > > > > > > >
You don't think the Gulf of Mexico is an ocean? Oh, you're being> > > > > > > > > strict. Okay, so strictly speaking the Gulf of Mexico is a gulf in the> > > > > > > > > North Atlantic Ocean.> > > > > > > >
I grew up often visiting the Gulf of Mexico in MS & in AL, living very near> > > > > > > > both there & NOLA. The MS Gulf of Mexico is nothing like an ocean, in my> > > > > > > > experience. You may call it strict, or perhaps you meant literal, but I also> > > > > > > > call it real.> > > > > > >
i'd agree with you, if only you were right. Apparently there are some> > > > > > > who say the Gulf of Mexico is indeed an arm of the Atlantic Ocean:> > > > > > >
Perhaps some do say that. It is certainly more different than like an ocean.> > > > >
but, whether you perceive it as "different" or not, the gulf IS> > > > > classified as part of the Atlantic ocean.> > > >
You said yourself that some say that. Some say that. Some say other. Has> > > > nothing to do with perception.> > >
Donna, Donna, Donna, when I said "some say" i was being facetious.> > > That's why I posted the URL. You're one to always challenge, but> > > "facts" really aren't open to further debate.> >
Read your own link. There you find that some say but some don't. And, some> > that say then say that it connects to the Atlantic Ocean blah blah.> >
Agree about facts & debate, but, you can get lots of differing facts.>
um...my link didn't have differing facts.
Sure it did. But, you're right. This doesn't matter. It was just ironic that it was your own link.
All sections of the article> called it an arm or part of the Atlantic Ocean. See below:>
Gulf of Mexico>
Part of the Atlantic Ocean bordered by the southeast coast of the> United States and the east coast of Mexico.>
I don't know why we are belaboring such a simple thing. YOu seem to> have to have the last word...so you win. Go ahead <sigh>
