TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

On 15/06/2013 11:36, Recliner wrote:

wrote:
Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:

[ ... ]

You have difficulty avoiding responding to my posts without a snide
remarks. Mention this to your therapist. He may be able to help.
London has been my past home for a sum total of eight years.
Variously, I lived in Surbiton, Motspur Park, Maida Vale, The West End
(Hanson Street), New Malden, and Shepherds Bush. The term "the city"
always referred to, and only referred to, the square mile (actually
1.6 square miles) of the City of London. This was true even when the
term was utilized within the City of Westminster! So, by your
imputation none of my neighbors, or colleagues, were sensible people.

Neither Edgware, nor Morden are in "the city" any more than Lancaster
and Long Beach are in the City of Los Angeles. Both Lancaster and
Long Beach are certainly in the County of Los Angeles.
Spend some time in London; you will become accustomed to the
vernacular.

Wow, you lived in six well-separated London areas in just eight years
-- presumably you were on the run from the cops, debt collectors or
cuckolded husbands? No wonder you needed therapy when you finally
escaped to the US, although from your previous posts, I get the
impression that you've kept up your peripatetic existence in the
States as well. I'm afraid I've never met a therapist, so I'll have
trouble discussing your case with one -- is it compulsory to use them
in the US, along with gun ownership? In this country, few people feel
the need for either. Perhaps that's why you left.

I've visited the US around 70 times since 1979 but, fortunately, very
few of my itineraries included LA. I have to confess that I regarded
Long Beach as part of LA when I dined under the Spruce Goose there. I
now realise my grave error in not mastering the political geography of
the city before visiting it. Even worse, I made the critical mistake
of thinking that Disneyland and LAX were in LA when I was there. Was I
also wrong in thinking that Hollywood was in LA?

If you're interested in the answers, they a

(a) Long Beach is in LA county but isn't part of the city of Los Angeles
(it's a city in its own right);

(b) Disneyland is in Anaheim, about thirty miles from the nearest part
of the city of LA; Anaheim is in Orange County;

(c) LAX is indeed within the city of Los Angeles, though this appears to
have been achieved by contrivance; the shape of the municipality is odd,
to say the least:

http://tinyurl.com/mwmua75

Just look at that narrow finger of territory heading south (parallel
with I-110) to take in San Pedro, but not Long Beach, which is adjacent
to it.

(d) Hollywood and Belair lie within the city of LA, but adjacent areas
are outside the city (eg, Burbank, Beverly Hills and - oddly - North
Hollywood).

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2013 11:36, Recliner wrote:

wrote:
Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:

[ ... ]

You have difficulty avoiding responding to my posts without a snide
remarks. Mention this to your therapist. He may be able to help.
London has been my past home for a sum total of eight years.
Variously, I lived in Surbiton, Motspur Park, Maida Vale, The West End
(Hanson Street), New Malden, and Shepherds Bush. The term "the city"
always referred to, and only referred to, the square mile (actually
1.6 square miles) of the City of London. This was true even when the
term was utilized within the City of Westminster! So, by your
imputation none of my neighbors, or colleagues, were sensible people.

Neither Edgware, nor Morden are in "the city" any more than Lancaster
and Long Beach are in the City of Los Angeles. Both Lancaster and
Long Beach are certainly in the County of Los Angeles.
Spend some time in London; you will become accustomed to the
vernacular.

Wow, you lived in six well-separated London areas in just eight years
-- presumably you were on the run from the cops, debt collectors or
cuckolded husbands? No wonder you needed therapy when you finally
escaped to the US, although from your previous posts, I get the
impression that you've kept up your peripatetic existence in the
States as well. I'm afraid I've never met a therapist, so I'll have
trouble discussing your case with one -- is it compulsory to use them
in the US, along with gun ownership? In this country, few people feel
the need for either. Perhaps that's why you left.

I've visited the US around 70 times since 1979 but, fortunately, very
few of my itineraries included LA. I have to confess that I regarded
Long Beach as part of LA when I dined under the Spruce Goose there. I
now realise my grave error in not mastering the political geography of
the city before visiting it. Even worse, I made the critical mistake
of thinking that Disneyland and LAX were in LA when I was there. Was I
also wrong in thinking that Hollywood was in LA?

If you're interested in the answers, they a

(a) Long Beach is in LA county but isn't part of the city of Los Angeles
(it's a city in its own right);

(b) Disneyland is in Anaheim, about thirty miles from the nearest part of
the city of LA; Anaheim is in Orange County;

(c) LAX is indeed within the city of Los Angeles, though this appears to
have been achieved by contrivance; the shape of the municipality is odd, to say the least:

http://tinyurl.com/mwmua75

Just look at that narrow finger of territory heading south (parallel with
I-110) to take in San Pedro, but not Long Beach, which is adjacent to it.

(d) Hollywood and Belair lie within the city of LA, but adjacent areas
are outside the city (eg, Burbank, Beverly Hills and - oddly - North Hollywood).

As you say, the city of LA has a strange, gerrymandered shape. But do
locals routinely distinguish between which of these districts are within
the city of LA and which are simply close to it? While I know that
Disneyland is in Orange County, I also think of Disneyland=LA, Disney
World=Orlando.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

On 15 June, 17:17, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2013 11:36, Recliner wrote:

wrote:
Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:

[ ... ]









You have difficulty avoiding responding to my posts without a snide
remarks. *Mention this to your therapist. *He may be able to help.
London has been my past home for a sum total of eight years.
Variously, I lived in Surbiton, Motspur Park, Maida Vale, The West End
(Hanson Street), New Malden, and Shepherds Bush. *The term "the city"
always referred to, and only referred to, the square mile (actually
1.6 square miles) of the City of London. *This was true even when the
term was utilized within the City of Westminster! *So, by your
imputation none of my neighbors, or colleagues, were sensible people.
Neither Edgware, nor Morden are in "the city" any more than Lancaster
and Long Beach are in the City of Los Angeles. *Both Lancaster and
Long Beach are certainly in the County of Los Angeles.
Spend some time in London; you will become accustomed to the
vernacular.
Wow, you lived in six well-separated London areas in just eight years
-- presumably you were on the run from the cops, debt collectors or
cuckolded husbands? *No wonder you needed therapy when you finally
escaped to the US, although from your previous posts, I get the
impression that you've kept up your peripatetic existence in the
States as well. I'm afraid I've never met a therapist, so I'll have
trouble discussing your case with one -- is it compulsory to use them
in the US, along with gun ownership? *In this country, few people feel
the need for either. Perhaps that's why you left.
I've visited the US around 70 times since 1979 but, fortunately, very
few of my itineraries included LA. I have to confess that I regarded
Long Beach as part of LA when I dined under the Spruce Goose there. I
now realise my grave error in not mastering the political geography of
the city before visiting it. Even worse, I made the critical mistake
of thinking that Disneyland and LAX were in LA when I was there. Was I
also wrong in thinking that Hollywood was in LA?

If you're interested in the answers, they a

(a) Long Beach is in LA county but isn't part of the city of Los Angeles
(it's a city in its own right);

(b) Disneyland is in Anaheim, about thirty miles from the nearest part
of the city of LA; Anaheim is in Orange County;

(c) LAX is indeed within the city of Los Angeles, though this appears to
have been achieved by contrivance; the shape of the municipality is odd,
to say the least:

http://tinyurl.com/mwmua75

Just look at that narrow finger of territory heading south (parallel
with I-110) to take in San Pedro, but not Long Beach, which is adjacent
to it.

(d) Hollywood and Belair lie within the city of LA, but adjacent areas
are outside the city (eg, Burbank, Beverly Hills and - oddly - North
Hollywood).

And, West Hollywood is its own City.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

On 2013\06\16 01:26, Recliner wrote:

As you say, the city of LA has a strange, gerrymandered shape.

Except it isn't gerrymandering, because the shape is not controlled by
government but by public choice. On Entourage, one of the characters
tried to sweet-talk the mayor of the neighbouring city (played by the
Homer Simpson actor) to enlarge the city to include his house.

In Britain by comparison, the borders of local government are all
controlled from above, and bits of Lancashire and Yorkshire have been
reassigned to universal local chagrin.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2013\06\16 01:26, Recliner wrote:

As you say, the city of LA has a strange, gerrymandered shape.

Except it isn't gerrymandering, because the shape is not controlled by
government but by public choice. On Entourage, one of the characters
tried to sweet-talk the mayor of the neighbouring city (played by the
Homer Simpson actor) to enlarge the city to include his house.

In Britain by comparison, the borders of local government are all
controlled from above, and bits of Lancashire and Yorkshire have been
reassigned to universal local chagrin.

If it's controlled by politicians from the affected districts, then it's
gerrymandering. It's a major problem in the US House, where the politicians
on both sides have conspired together with political redistricting to make
most seats safe. That makes the real elections the primaries, not the
general election, and leads to the election of ever more extreme
politicians (who get and stay in by appealing to activists, not the
electorate as a whole).

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

On 15 June, 16:22, Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:
On 15 June, 09:37, Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:
On 15 June, 08:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
15:52:46 on Fri, 14 Jun 2013, e27002
remarked:

Spend some time in London; you will become accustomed to the
vernacular.

For locals it always used to be "going up to town" for the West End etc.

Correct Roland.

This is getting really silly. For example, what do you suggest Boris should
have said when he was quoted as aiming to make "London the 'greatest city
on earth'".

Or look at this book's
title:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Johnsons-Lif.../dp/0007418930

How would you re-write this blurb for his book: "London is special. For
centuries, it has been amongst the greatest cities of the world. But a city
is nothing without its people. This sparkling new history of London, told
through a relay-race of great Londoners shows in one, personality-packed
book that the ingenuity, diversity, creativity and enterprise of London are
second to none."

Surely you wouldn't pedantically complain that the City of London is only a
small place with few residents, and therefore London isn't one of the
world's great cities?

If you want to have a conversation, cut the rudeness and personal
attacks.

Ah, I promise never to call you ignorant, your remarks snide, or call you
rude. But then, I never have, and nor have I made comments about your
intelligence. So perhaps you'd care to respond to my perfectly polite query
about how you'd like to correct the mayor of London's description of
London? It's obviously a subject you understand better than him or me.

You do not consider "presumably you were on the run from the cops,
debt collectors or
cuckolded husbands?" rude, crude and vulgar?

You "conciliatory" post fails the sincerity test, by a wide margin.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

On 2013\06\16 12:27, Basil Jet wrote:

In Britain by comparison, the borders of local government are all
controlled from above, and bits of Lancashire and Yorkshire have been
reassigned to universal local chagrin.

I meant "unanimous local chagrin". The adjectives "universal" and
"local" shouldn't really be put together ;-)

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

On 16 June, 10:14, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2013\06\16 12:27, Basil Jet wrote:



In Britain by comparison, the borders of local government are all
controlled from above, and bits of Lancashire and Yorkshire have been
reassigned to universal local chagrin.

I meant "unanimous local chagrin". The adjectives "universal" and
"local" shouldn't really be put together ;-)

Your points are well taken. The UK's top heavy administration leaves
something to be desired.

Your English utilization is exemplary. If only all posters took such
care!

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

e27002 wrote:
On 15 June, 16:22, Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:
On 15 June, 09:37, Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:
On 15 June, 08:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
15:52:46 on Fri, 14 Jun 2013, e27002
remarked:

Spend some time in London; you will become accustomed to the
vernacular.

For locals it always used to be "going up to town" for the West End etc.

Correct Roland.

This is getting really silly. For example, what do you suggest Boris should
have said when he was quoted as aiming to make "London the 'greatest city
on earth'".

Or look at this book's
title:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Johnsons-Lif.../dp/0007418930

How would you re-write this blurb for his book: "London is special. For
centuries, it has been amongst the greatest cities of the world. But a city
is nothing without its people. This sparkling new history of London, told
through a relay-race of great Londoners shows in one, personality-packed
book that the ingenuity, diversity, creativity and enterprise of London are
second to none."

Surely you wouldn't pedantically complain that the City of London is only a
small place with few residents, and therefore London isn't one of the
world's great cities?

If you want to have a conversation, cut the rudeness and personal
attacks.

Ah, I promise never to call you ignorant, your remarks snide, or call you
rude. But then, I never have, and nor have I made comments about your
intelligence. So perhaps you'd care to respond to my perfectly polite query
about how you'd like to correct the mayor of London's description of
London? It's obviously a subject you understand better than him or me.

You do not consider "presumably you were on the run from the cops,
debt collectors or
cuckolded husbands?" rude, crude and vulgar?

You "conciliatory" post fails the sincerity test, by a wide margin.

I was entirely sincere in promising never to descend to your level.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

On 16 June, 12:33, Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:
On 15 June, 16:22, Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:
On 15 June, 09:37, Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:
On 15 June, 08:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
15:52:46 on Fri, 14 Jun 2013, e27002
remarked:

Spend some time in London; you will become accustomed to the
vernacular.

For locals it always used to be "going up to town" for the West End etc.

Correct Roland.

This is getting really silly. For example, what do you suggest Boris should
have said when he was quoted as aiming to make "London the 'greatest city
on earth'".

Or look at this book's
title:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Johnsons-Lif.../dp/0007418930

How would you re-write this blurb for his book: "London is special. For
centuries, it has been amongst the greatest cities of the world. But a city
is nothing without its people. This sparkling new history of London, told
through a relay-race of great Londoners shows in one, personality-packed
book that the ingenuity, diversity, creativity and enterprise of London are
second to none."

Surely you wouldn't pedantically complain that the City of London is only a
small place with few residents, and therefore London isn't one of the
world's great cities?

If you want to have a conversation, cut the rudeness and personal
attacks.

Ah, I promise never to call you ignorant, your remarks snide, or call you
rude. But then, I never have, and nor have I made comments about your
intelligence. So perhaps you'd care to respond to my perfectly polite query
about how you'd like to correct the mayor of London's description of
London? It's obviously a subject you understand better than him or me.

You do not consider "presumably you were on the run from the cops,
debt collectors or
*cuckolded husbands?" rude, crude and vulgar?

You "conciliatory" post fails the sincerity test, by a wide margin.

I was entirely sincere in promising never to descend to your level.

You descend upwards? Wow.