So in History class they told me about the third Punic War. Where the Romans burned all of Carthage to the ground, then took everybody who survived as slaves.
Today I was browsing Wikipedia, and apparently there's still a city there. What exactly does it take to get rid of this thing? Hell, in WWII we burned Dresden to ground, nuked two Japanese cities, and Hitler did his damnedest to get rid of London, a=but all those are still there today. It can be *done* there are a few ruins of cities that somehow died, I know the Mayans lost a few cities, though exactly why seems to be a bit fuzzy. Jericho is a ruin too, but that supposedly took divine intervention. and God doesn't return my emails.
So how exactly do we get rid of it, if burning it down doesn't actually work?
The Romans not only burned Carthage they actually salted the ground around it so it would not be able to support crops. Hard core effort at killing that city and it did not die.
Not actually true. That was made up in the 19th century, there's no mention of it before then.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 20, 2010, 06:03:56 AM
Not actually true. That was made up in the 19th century, there's no mention of it before then.
Fuckers from the 1800's deceiving me with their slanderous lies.
Does that mean that perhaps salting the earth could kill a city? We've got nastier things to salt it with than rocksalt now after all.
Maybe. They salt the streets a lot of places though, doesn't seem to stop people from living in them.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 20, 2010, 06:13:48 AM
Maybe. They salt the streets a lot of places though, doesn't seem to stop people from living in them.
I suppose because nowadays, most food isn't grown within large urban centers.
Lead plumbing, state mandated religion, and private fire departments.
ETA: Oh, and good timing.
Quote from: Felix on January 20, 2010, 06:48:33 AM
Lead plumbing, state mandated religion, and private fire departments.
ETA: Oh, and good timing.
I hate to be the one to ruin the fun, but even lead plumbing doesn't do the trick if it builds up a protective layer of minerals. That's why the ancient Romans didn't all get poisoned; there was a lot of calcium in the water that accumulated and acted as a barrier between their water and their plumbing.
Or so I hear.
Okay.
Quote from: Felix on January 20, 2010, 06:48:33 AM
Mercury pollution, state mandated religion, and private fire departments.
ETA: Oh, and good timing.
Fixed.
I love how there is a thread to discuss how to survive societal collapse, and another thread gets jacked so we can discuss how to make it happen.
/Threadjack
Quote from: Felix on January 20, 2010, 07:20:54 AM
Okay.
Quote from: Felix on January 20, 2010, 06:48:33 AM
Mercury pollution, state mandated religion, and private fire departments.
ETA: Oh, and good timing.
Fixed.
I love how there is a thread to discuss how to survive societal collapse, and another thread gets jacked so we can discuss how to make it happen.
/Threadjack
I wouldn't think it's a threadjack. All these ideas do answer the OP's question, after all.
Ooh, and mercury poisoning's a good one because it causes long lasting crippling effects, and can even be congenital. See Minamata and Niigata, etc.
That's where I got the idea.
History is an abbatoir.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 20, 2010, 05:53:43 AM
So in History class they told me about the third Punic War. Where the Romans burned all of Carthage to the ground, then took everybody who survived as slaves.
Today I was browsing Wikipedia, and apparently there's still a city there. What exactly does it take to get rid of this thing? Hell, in WWII we burned Dresden to ground, nuked two Japanese cities, and Hitler did his damnedest to get rid of London, a=but all those are still there today. It can be *done* there are a few ruins of cities that somehow died, I know the Mayans lost a few cities, though exactly why seems to be a bit fuzzy. Jericho is a ruin too, but that supposedly took divine intervention. and God doesn't return my emails.
So how exactly do we get rid of it, if burning it down doesn't actually work?
They tend not to just disapear because cities are built in good places to build cities. (Except Tucson, and anywhere in Canada).
Assuming the civilization has enough resources and political will, they will rebuild it no matter how slowly because, well, it was a good place to build a city.
Quote from: Nast on January 20, 2010, 06:21:07 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 20, 2010, 06:13:48 AM
Maybe. They salt the streets a lot of places though, doesn't seem to stop people from living in them.
I suppose because nowadays, most food isn't grown within large urban centers.
really wonder about that, how it'll affect the trees and other greens in coming spring. they salted the fuck out of our streets when we had that snow in the past few weeks.
Having been to Carthage I can easily explain why it is still there.
The only four ancient things I found were:
A burial ground for children (Cartheraginian)
A bath house (Roman)
A port (everyone)
Dinosaurs in a museum (stolen from all over Tunisa)
So the Romans burnt it to the ground, then rebuilt it, which was disapointing because they don't seem to have thought that far ahead with Greece.
London rebuilt itself, and uses massive fires as a method of pest control anyway. In Germany Dresden and Hamburg were destroyed totally. People built new stuff and kept calling the area the same name, but they are both new cities.
So basicly the way to destroy a city is kill everyone who knows its name, expecially people with building skills.
Where Troy is supposed to be, they found like 9 different cities built on top of one another with the last one actually being the Roman settlement of Ilium. The level in which is considered Homeric Troy, "Troy VII", nothing is left but fragments of walls. Sparta didn't fuck around.
What is a city?
Is it the buildings that stand? If so, then when those buildings fall down and are replaced, is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it the people that make it the city? If so, when they die is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it just the label that makes a city? If so, then to destroy it, you simply rename it.
Or use Godzilla.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 04:20:30 PM
What is a city?
Is it the buildings that stand? If so, then when those buildings fall down and are replaced, is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it the people that make it the city? If so, when they die is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it just the label that makes a city? If so, then to destroy it, you simply rename it.
Or use Godzilla.
The City exists independently of these things.
Wherever 3 or more humans gather together in the name of stupidity, The City is with them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:22:02 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 04:20:30 PM
What is a city?
Is it the buildings that stand? If so, then when those buildings fall down and are replaced, is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it the people that make it the city? If so, when they die is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it just the label that makes a city? If so, then to destroy it, you simply rename it.
Or use Godzilla.
The City exists independently of these things.
Wherever 3 or more humans gather together in the name of stupidity, The City is with them.
Well that makes it even easier.... Just get Godzilla and Mothra and kill all humans.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:22:02 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 04:20:30 PM
What is a city?
Is it the buildings that stand? If so, then when those buildings fall down and are replaced, is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it the people that make it the city? If so, when they die is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it just the label that makes a city? If so, then to destroy it, you simply rename it.
Or use Godzilla.
The City exists independently of these things.
Wherever 3 or more humans gather together in the name of stupidity, The City is with them.
Well that makes it even easier.... Just get Godzilla and Mothra and kill all humans.
If it were really, honestly that easy, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Because we'd be monster poop.
TGRR,
Would be on the phone to Japan as we speak.
It wouldn't work, due to Gamara.
(http://www.henshinonline.com/images/gamera_returns_01.jpg)
I want a coke!
DAMN YOU FLYING RADIOACTIVE TURTLE!!!!
I want a coke!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:36:29 PM
I want a coke!
(http://www.canpages.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/image-of-cocaine.jpg)
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 04:20:30 PM
What is a city?
Is it the buildings that stand? If so, then when those buildings fall down and are replaced, is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it the people that make it the city? If so, when they die is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it just the label that makes a city? If so, then to destroy it, you simply rename it.
Or use Godzilla.
A city is an idea.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 04:20:30 PM
What is a city?
Is it the buildings that stand? If so, then when those buildings fall down and are replaced, is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it the people that make it the city? If so, when they die is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it just the label that makes a city? If so, then to destroy it, you simply rename it.
Or use Godzilla.
A city is an idea.
Right, right. All that concrete and steel is just a figment of our imagination.
So is the sewer system, the electrical infrastructure, and the garbage removal.
Just an idea.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:22:27 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 04:20:30 PM
What is a city?
Is it the buildings that stand? If so, then when those buildings fall down and are replaced, is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it the people that make it the city? If so, when they die is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it just the label that makes a city? If so, then to destroy it, you simply rename it.
Or use Godzilla.
A city is an idea.
Right, right. All that concrete and steel is just a figment of our imagination.
So is the sewer system, the electrical infrastructure, and the garbage removal.
Just an idea.
What is the difference between a large town and a small city?
And a city needs none of those things. In England any settlement can be given a charter and become a city, in other places you need a cathedral or have a certain population size.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:27:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:22:27 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:19:33 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 20, 2010, 04:20:30 PM
What is a city?
Is it the buildings that stand? If so, then when those buildings fall down and are replaced, is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it the people that make it the city? If so, when they die is it still the city, or is it a new one?
Is it just the label that makes a city? If so, then to destroy it, you simply rename it.
Or use Godzilla.
A city is an idea.
Right, right. All that concrete and steel is just a figment of our imagination.
So is the sewer system, the electrical infrastructure, and the garbage removal.
Just an idea.
What is the difference between a large town and a small city?
And a city needs none of those things. In England any settlement can be given a charter and become a city, in other places you need a cathedral or have a certain population size.
Not disagreeing! A city is just an idea, words don't mean anything, lolpinealismfnord!
TGRR,
A mile wide and an inch deep.
Yes, its a shame that a the city is a easily defined concept all over the world, otherwise people could use weak semantic arguments in the face of the word having a lack of substance.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:39:16 PM
Yes, its a shame that a the city is a easily defined concept all over the world, otherwise people could use weak semantic arguments in the face of the word having a lack of substance.
Semantic arguments are an idea.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:39:16 PM
Yes, its a shame that a the city is a easily defined concept all over the world, otherwise people could use weak semantic arguments in the face of the word having a lack of substance.
Semantic arguments are an idea.
Let's not be anti-Semantic now...
Quote from: Suu on January 20, 2010, 05:42:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:39:16 PM
Yes, its a shame that a the city is a easily defined concept all over the world, otherwise people could use weak semantic arguments in the face of the word having a lack of substance.
Semantic arguments are an idea.
Let's not be anti-Semantic now...
:crankey:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:39:16 PM
Yes, its a shame that a the city is a easily defined concept all over the world, otherwise people could use weak semantic arguments in the face of the word having a lack of substance.
Semantic arguments are an idea.
Yes. :D
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:43:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:39:16 PM
Yes, its a shame that a the city is a easily defined concept all over the world, otherwise people could use weak semantic arguments in the face of the word having a lack of substance.
Semantic arguments are an idea.
Yes. :D
Then what are you complaining about?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:43:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:39:16 PM
Yes, its a shame that a the city is a easily defined concept all over the world, otherwise people could use weak semantic arguments in the face of the word having a lack of substance.
Semantic arguments are an idea.
Yes. :D
Then what are you complaining about?
I'm not.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:45:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:43:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:39:16 PM
Yes, its a shame that a the city is a easily defined concept all over the world, otherwise people could use weak semantic arguments in the face of the word having a lack of substance.
Semantic arguments are an idea.
Yes. :D
Then what are you complaining about?
I'm not.
Good.
Was I deep enough for Starbucks™?
I have no idea, my city doesn't have one.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:42:53 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 20, 2010, 05:42:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:39:16 PM
Yes, its a shame that a the city is a easily defined concept all over the world, otherwise people could use weak semantic arguments in the face of the word having a lack of substance.
Semantic arguments are an idea.
Let's not be anti-Semantic now...
:crankey:
:thanks:
Thats right.
I don't have a clue how shallow peoples thinking is in Starbucks.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:55:18 PM
Thats right.
I don't have a clue how shallow peoples thinking is in Starbucks.
But if you have no idea, you have nowhere to live.
Your words, not mine.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:46:19 PM
Was I deep enough for Starbucks™?
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:48:21 PM
I have no idea, my city doesn't have one.
In America you all live in Starbucks?
I see why you don't like people talking about different cities.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:59:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 05:46:19 PM
Was I deep enough for Starbucks™?
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 05:48:21 PM
I have no idea, my city doesn't have one.
In America you all live in Starbucks?
I see why you don't like people talking about different cities.
You said a City was an idea. You then said you have no idea.
So where do you live?
Not in a city?
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:02:03 PM
Not in a city?
Everything is a City. You said there was no difference, for example between a small City and a large town. We can logically infer that there is thus no difference between a city--->town--->village--->hamlet--->single dwelling--->Belgium.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:04:00 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:02:03 PM
Not in a city?
I'm not playing along anymore.
I thought you might have a good point worth hearing to start with.
Everything is a City. You said there was no difference, for example between a small City and a large town. We can logically infer that there is thus no difference between a city--->town--->village--->hamlet--->single dwelling--->Belgium.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:04:00 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:02:03 PM
Not in a city?
Everything is a City. You said there was no difference, for example between a small City and a large town. We can logically infer that there is thus no difference between a city--->town--->village--->hamlet--->single dwelling--->Belgium.
Yeah, i'm not playing along anymore.
I thought you might have a good point to start with.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:08:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:04:00 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:02:03 PM
Not in a city?
I'm not playing along anymore.
I thought you might have a good point worth hearing to start with.
Everything is a City. You said there was no difference, for example between a small City and a large town. We can logically infer that there is thus no difference between a city--->town--->village--->hamlet--->single dwelling--->Belgium.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:04:00 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:02:03 PM
Not in a city?
Everything is a City. You said there was no difference, for example between a small City and a large town. We can logically infer that there is thus no difference between a city--->town--->village--->hamlet--->single dwelling--->Belgium.
Yeah, i'm not playing along anymore.
I thought you might have a good point to start with.
Liberate yourself from the vice-like grip of my spurious logic!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_David%27s
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:11:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_David%27s
Wales is just an idea.
A hairy, filthy idea.
Actually I think you are at Starbucks level now.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Actually I think you are at Starbucks level now.
We've been at Starbucks level since your first post in this thread. Which is just an idea on an idea of a board on an idea of an interbutts.
Solopsism always brings out my dickish side.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:14:35 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Actually I think you are at Starbucks level now.
We've been at Starbucks level since your first post in this thread. Which is just an idea on an idea of a board on an idea of an interbutts.
Not really. This thread is about not being able to destroy a city, so a city being a vague concept is fine to talk about. Of all the threads to push "semantic integrity OR NOTHING" this is one of the worst. I understand what urks you so much, but here it actually is one of the reasons you can't kill a city easily.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:17:08 PM
Solopsism always brings out my dickish side.
Watch out, there are grammar nazi snipers.
The OP inspired me to try writing something again... I don't know if it is worth a damn or in the right spirit at all, but I figured I'd try anyway. If this would be better on its own or something, lemme know and I can delete it and move it.
A city is a collection of buildings; how to destroy a city has been covered extensively. New buildings may be erected, but they are not the same city, no matter how much people may cling to the old name. A city is a physical thing, like any physical thing, eventually, left untended, it will be rendered into nothingness.
The City is far more resilient. It doesn't care what you do to the city. The bricks and buildings are really just a host, for a far more insidious parasite. You can do what you want to the city, and The City will keep calling people back there, to rebuild it, to keep it going.
There are cities where the heart has been ripped out. Hideous, half-dead half-alive abominations that continue to exist despite the mind-numbing despair of the inhabitants. When the purpose for the settlement has long since passed, when the mines have run dry or the factories have closed, The City is still there, even as the city crumbles all around it. Buildings stop being maintained, crime and desperation- ever present in all cities, of course- become even more rampant and obvious.
This was more common in the old days, back when Gold Fever meant that new cities might spring up and dissolve in a matter of weeks. Some poor souls would be left behind, due to illness, or tiredness, or simply because they were sure that they could Make Something here. This was the kind of fever which led to men tearing the ground bloody with their fingernails. Certain that if they could find just one scrap more of gold, then all the good times would come rolling back again. Then they could clothe their city in the latest styles, and they wouldn't need to fear any more.
Oh yes, killing a city is as easy as hitting the jobs of the people who live there. Destroy the purpose and the ability for the city to live up to what it used to be, and it will wither and rot. The City will live on inside it, throbbing wetly away as healthy as ever. But as the city is peeled away by recession and need, The City's face becomes clearer underneath the layers of grime.
I don't think it is possible to even scratch The City. All I know is, when it's eyes, bloodshot and insane, are forced to focus enough on anything that it takes notice, stripped out of its comfortable shell, I wouldn't want to be the one looking up at it.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:20:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:14:35 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:13:34 PM
Actually I think you are at Starbucks level now.
We've been at Starbucks level since your first post in this thread. Which is just an idea on an idea of a board on an idea of an interbutts.
Not really. This thread is about not being able to destroy a city, so a city being a vague concept is fine to talk about. Of all the threads to push "semantic integrity OR NOTHING" this is one of the worst. I understand what urks you so much, but here it actually is one of the reasons you can't kill a city easily.
Tell it to Timgad.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on January 20, 2010, 06:26:07 PM
The OP inspired me to try writing something again... I don't know if it is worth a damn or in the right spirit at all, but I figured I'd try anyway. If this would be better on its own or something, lemme know and I can delete it and move it.
A city is a collection of buildings; how to destroy a city has been covered extensively. New buildings may be erected, but they are not the same city, no matter how much people may cling to the old name. A city is a physical thing, like any physical thing, eventually, left untended, it will be rendered into nothingness.
The City is far more resilient. It doesn't care what you do to the city. The bricks and buildings are really just a host, for a far more insidious parasite. You can do what you want to the city, and The City will keep calling people back there, to rebuild it, to keep it going.
There are cities where the heart has been ripped out. Hideous, half-dead half-alive abominations that continue to exist despite the mind-numbing despair of the inhabitants. When the purpose for the settlement has long since passed, when the mines have run dry or the factories have closed, The City is still there, even as the city crumbles all around it. Buildings stop being maintained, crime and desperation- ever present in all cities, of course- become even more rampant and obvious.
This was more common in the old days, back when Gold Fever meant that new cities might spring up and dissolve in a matter of weeks. Some poor souls would be left behind, due to illness, or tiredness, or simply because they were sure that they could Make Something here. This was the kind of fever which led to men tearing the ground bloody with their fingernails. Certain that if they could find just one scrap more of gold, then all the good times would come rolling back again. Then they could clothe their city in the latest styles, and they wouldn't need to fear any more.
Oh yes, killing a city is as easy as hitting the jobs of the people who live there. Destroy the purpose and the ability for the city to live up to what it used to be, and it will wither and rot. The City will live on inside it, throbbing wetly away as healthy as ever. But as the city is peeled away by recession and need, The City's face becomes clearer underneath the layers of grime.
I don't think it is possible to even scratch The City. All I know is, when it's eyes, bloodshot and insane, are forced to focus enough on anything that it takes notice, stripped out of its comfortable shell, I wouldn't want to be the one looking up at it.
There is only one City, and we all live there (and nobody lives anywhere else), so you can't destroy it without destroying all the humans on Earth.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:26:22 PM
Tell it to Timgad.
Didn't everyone who actually knew where it was die?
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:37:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:26:22 PM
Tell it to Timgad.
Didn't everyone who actually knew where it was die?
Eventually...it just got eaten by the desert in the 7th century. It's gone.
I don't see your point.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:41:50 PM
I don't see your point.
You CAN kill a City.
By that standard, and your definition, ideas can be killed.
Isn't that a nice thought to warm you on a cold winter's day?
But I already said that.
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:51:03 PM
But I already said that.
Where? I must have missed that.
You can't kill the city
The city will live on
Villages tried to kill the city
But they failed, as they were smite to the ground
Towns tried to kill the city
But they failed, as they were stricken down to the ground
Conurbations tried to kill the city Hahahahahaha
They failed, as they were thrown to the ground
Aargh! yaow!
[Singing]
No-one can destroy the city
The city will strike you down with a vicious blow
We are the vanquished foes of the city
We tried to win for why we do not know
Conurbations tried to destroy the city, but the city had its way
Towns then tried to dethrone the city, but the city was in the way
Villages tried to destroy the city, but the city was much too strong
Hamlets tried to defile the city, but hamlets were proven wrong
Yea!
Cities!
They come from surplus trade goods!
\
(http://www.broadwayworld.com/columnpic/tenaciousd.jpg)
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 20, 2010, 02:02:25 PM
Quote from: Nast on January 20, 2010, 06:21:07 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 20, 2010, 06:13:48 AM
Maybe. They salt the streets a lot of places though, doesn't seem to stop people from living in them.
I suppose because nowadays, most food isn't grown within large urban centers.
really wonder about that, how it'll affect the trees and other greens in coming spring. they salted the fuck out of our streets when we had that snow in the past few weeks.
It never hurts the grass in Salt Lake (we use overwatering to kill that). The nice drainage system ensures all the salt gets swept into the ecosystem instead of staying in the city.
Ok, so thinking about this, Salt Lake exists pretty much because people come here when there's no place else left to go. So all I have to do to kill this city is to fix the rest of the world.
Great, that should be easy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:04:00 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:02:03 PM
Not in a city?
Everything is a City. You said there was no difference, for example between a small City and a large town. We can logically infer that there is thus no difference between a city--->town--->village--->hamlet--->single dwelling--->Belgium.
Actually he said there WAS a difference. even if they have the same amount of people and infrastructure. That difference is the idea.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 04:36:29 PM
I want a coke!
We'll get you your coke after we figure out how to stop the giant monster attacking the City!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 09:11:43 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 08:40:54 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:51:30 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:51:03 PM
But I already said that.
Where? I must have missed that.
My first post on the thread.
Then what are you arguing about?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 20, 2010, 11:32:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2010, 06:04:00 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on January 20, 2010, 06:02:03 PM
Not in a city?
Everything is a City. You said there was no difference, for example between a small City and a large town. We can logically infer that there is thus no difference between a city--->town--->village--->hamlet--->single dwelling--->Belgium.
Actually he said there WAS a difference. even if they have the same amount of people and infrastructure. That difference is the idea.