When you said this:
Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever.
Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes, I don't get agitated any more.
This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.
You didn't mean what you said.
But it's not your fault, it's my fault.
I see.I think that if that's your definition of third-world, then East St. Louis, New Orleans, Vancouver, Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are "third-world cities".
You were actually repsonding to a rather overgrown wall of words.
That large chunk included this, written by me, a while back:
"The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high."
I'M too tired to dig out the thing that the "as I attempted to explain above" refers to, but I do recall it: about the increasingly fractal nesting and intermingling of cultures everywhere. This, incidentally, is pretty much the same as what Nigel now tells me is the colloquial use of the terms.
You need to be acquainted with East St. Louis. It fits your definition to a T.