On 17 June, 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2013 04:11, e27002 wrote:









On 16 June, 17:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2013 13:39, Recliner wrote:
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.

Adjustments of city boundaries in the USA are decided by the state
government, not by the cities themselves. State boundaries are adjusted
by the national government.

Are you sure? *I can recall localities petitioning County Judge/Chief
Executives for City Status in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. *This
varies to according the Laws of the State in Question.

City status is not the same as an adjustment of boundaries (which latter
must entail a loss or gain for someone else).

Although counties do have unincorporated areas. If a city absorbs one
it is not a loss to another city.

On 18/06/2013 03:49, e27002 wrote:
On 17 June, 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2013 04:11, e27002 wrote:









On 16 June, 17:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2013 13:39, Recliner wrote:
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.

Adjustments of city boundaries in the USA are decided by the state
government, not by the cities themselves. State boundaries are adjusted
by the national government.

Are you sure? I can recall localities petitioning County Judge/Chief
Executives for City Status in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This
varies to according the Laws of the State in Question.

City status is not the same as an adjustment of boundaries (which latter
must entail a loss or gain for someone else).

Although counties do have unincorporated areas. If a city absorbs one
it is not a loss to another city.

But it's a loss (however defined) to the county.

On 18 June, 03:02, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2013 03:49, e27002 wrote:









On 17 June, 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2013 04:11, e27002 wrote:

On 16 June, 17:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2013 13:39, Recliner wrote:
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.

Adjustments of city boundaries in the USA are decided by the state
government, not by the cities themselves. State boundaries are adjusted
by the national government.

Are you sure? *I can recall localities petitioning County Judge/Chief
Executives for City Status in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. *This
varies to according the Laws of the State in Question.

City status is not the same as an adjustment of boundaries (which latter
must entail a loss or gain for someone else).

Although counties do have unincorporated areas. *If a city absorbs one
it is not a loss to another city.

But it's a loss (however defined) to the county.

The County does not, AFIK, see it as a loss, rather as a gain.

On 18/06/2013 14:48, e27002 wrote:
On 18 June, 03:02, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2013 03:49, e27002 wrote:









On 17 June, 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2013 04:11, e27002 wrote:

On 16 June, 17:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2013 13:39, Recliner wrote:
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.

Adjustments of city boundaries in the USA are decided by the state
government, not by the cities themselves. State boundaries are adjusted
by the national government.

Are you sure? I can recall localities petitioning County Judge/Chief
Executives for City Status in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This
varies to according the Laws of the State in Question.

City status is not the same as an adjustment of boundaries (which latter
must entail a loss or gain for someone else).

Although counties do have unincorporated areas. If a city absorbs one
it is not a loss to another city.

But it's a loss (however defined) to the county.

The County does not, AFIK, see it as a loss, rather as a gain.

Fair enough.

But if the county gains, someone is losing the equivalent.

On Jun 18, 11:32*am, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2013 14:48, e27002 wrote:





On 18 June, 03:02, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2013 03:49, e27002 wrote:

On 17 June, 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2013 04:11, e27002 wrote:

On 16 June, 17:50, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2013 13:39, Recliner wrote:
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.

Adjustments of city boundaries in the USA are decided by the state
government, not by the cities themselves. State boundaries are adjusted
by the national government.

Are you sure? *I can recall localities petitioning County Judge/Chief
Executives for City Status in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. *This
varies to according the Laws of the State in Question.

City status is not the same as an adjustment of boundaries (which latter
must entail a loss or gain for someone else).

Although counties do have unincorporated areas. *If a city absorbs one
it is not a loss to another city.

But it's a loss (however defined) to the county.

The County does not, AFIK, see it as a loss, rather as a gain.

Fair enough.

But if the county gains, someone is losing the equivalent.


The new City gains control of its own affairs. The County is no
longer responsible for Policing and Fire protection. Although, I am
aware of Cities that contract these services out from the County
Sherrif's and Fire Departments. There may even be cases of services
being contracted from neighboring municipalities.

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.

Quoteon the run from the cops, debt collectors or
cuckolded husbands?/quote is way below my level SoB.

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:23:14 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:

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.

Quoteon the run from the cops, debt collectors or
cuckolded husbands?/quote is way below my level SoB.

So who were you on the run from? And, more to the point, how would
you correct the mayor's description of London?

On Friday, 21 June 2013 03:54:28 UTC-7, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:23:14 -0700 (PDT), e27002

wrote:



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.



Quoteon the run from the cops, debt collectors or

cuckolded husbands?/quote is way below my level SoB.



So who were you on the run from?

Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?

You also are pretty mobile, from whom are YOU running?


And, more to the point, how would

you correct the mayor's description of London?

What makes you believe I owe you anything?

When did Boris become arbiter of correct English utilization?

e27002 wrote:
On Friday, 21 June 2013 03:54:28 UTC-7, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:23:14 -0700 (PDT), e27002


And, more to the point, how would
you correct the mayor's description of London?

What makes you believe I owe you anything?

When did Boris become arbiter of correct English utilization?

I didn't say he was. Indeed, I asked how you would correct him, as you
appear to be an expert on this subject.

On Sunday, 23 June 2013 08:43:22 UTC-7, Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:

On Friday, 21 June 2013 03:54:28 UTC-7, Recliner wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:23:14 -0700 (PDT), e27002





And, more to the point, how would

you correct the mayor's description of London?



What makes you believe I owe you anything?



When did Boris become arbiter of correct English utilization?



I didn't say he was. Indeed, I asked how you would correct him, as you

appear to be an expert on this subject.

Try "London is special. For
centuries, it has been amongst the greatest conurbations of the world. But a metropolis
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."

Not that It is well written, or true.

Conversation closed.