Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Austin is maybe not so different fromColumbia...

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 3 May 2004, Nathan Odle wrote:

> Everything I read about Austin has "gay" in it.  I am pretty sure
> it's becoming the San Francisco of the South.  I don't think
> Columbia quite has that reputation...yet...

Actually, I was pointing more at the utter buffoonery involved.  
I'm still awed at the impressive effort put in by our own Mizzou
frat boys blowing up their own cannon.  But when a cry of "Ooh!  
Naked people!" gets people to overturn a barge...that's competitive. 

But as far as "gay" goes, I had thought it was clear that Atlanta 
was the SF of the south.  Austin is just a college town of a million 
people, so, yeah, I guess there are going to be more than ordinary 
number of gay people there.

OK, so let's do the numbers:

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/states/texas/2000Census_state_tx_general.htm#INC

So for Texas places, Austin is third (after Dallas and Galveston).  
Atlanta has a rate over twice as high in the Georgian numbers, and
the places in Georgia with higher rates all look like suburbs.  
Columbia is 5th in the the incorporated places for Missouri, but 3
of the ones ahead of us are essentially different ways to spell "St.  
Louis"  while the other is KC.  These are all numbers imputed from 
the census data, and so have some oddities and problems.  And they 
also only purport to measure couples.

jking


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion