On Jun 11, 2:01*pm, Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:
On Jun 11, 1:52 am, Richard wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:31:04 -0500, Recliner

wrote:
From:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02yyh1c

Quote:
Filmed over a year, this six-part series from the makers of The Tube is the
story of the individuals who keep the system working - from nightbus
drivers to roadmenders to the controllers running it all. But it's also the
story of our capital now, as the city expands faster than ever.

Part 1 of 6 on BBC2, Tuesday 18/6/13 at 2100.

The hype consistently misuses the word "City", when the writer means
County or Region. *The City of London has a population of 7.3
THOUSAND. *It had considerably less before the Barbican was
constructed.

I see no incorrect references to the "the City". The lower case "city"
means the whole of London to any sensible person, which may not include Mr
Auer Hudson. I don't think the programme or the audience is interested in a
pedantic rehearsal of the various historical county structures that make up
modern London, just how the clogged traffic is kept flowing. It's a story
about London's traffic, not its historic local government structures.

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.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:52:46 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:

On Jun 11, 2:01*pm, Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:
On Jun 11, 1:52 am, Richard wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:31:04 -0500, Recliner


The hype consistently misuses the word "City", when the writer means
County or Region. *The City of London has a population of 7.3
THOUSAND. *It had considerably less before the Barbican was
constructed.

I see no incorrect references to the "the City". The lower case "city"
means the whole of London to any sensible person, which may not include Mr
Auer Hudson. I don't think the programme or the audience is interested in a
pedantic rehearsal of the various historical county structures that make up
modern London, just how the clogged traffic is kept flowing. It's a story
about London's traffic, not its historic local government structures.

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?

I'm not sure what the vernacular of London is these days? Perhaps it's
Polish or Russian, or maybe it's Urdu. It's certainly changed in the
40+ years I've lived and worked in this city. And, no, I don't live in
the City.

On 15 June, 03:36, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:52:46 -0700 (PDT), e27002









wrote:
On Jun 11, 2:01*pm, Recliner wrote:
e27002 wrote:
On Jun 11, 1:52 am, Richard wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:31:04 -0500, Recliner

The hype consistently misuses the word "City", when the writer means
County or Region. *The City of London has a population of 7.3
THOUSAND. *It had considerably less before the Barbican was
constructed.

I see no incorrect references to the "the City". The lower case "city"
means the whole of London to any sensible person, which may not include Mr
Auer Hudson. I don't think the programme or the audience is interested in a
pedantic rehearsal of the various historical county structures that make up
modern London, just how the clogged traffic is kept flowing. It's a story
about London's traffic, not its historic local government structures.

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?

I'm not sure what the vernacular of London is these days? Perhaps it's
Polish or Russian, or maybe it's Urdu. It's certainly changed in the
40+ years I've lived and worked in this city. And, no, I don't live in
the City.

NB Your vivid imagination does NOT compensate for your ignorance.

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.
--
Roland Perry

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.

That's true, but we refer to the city as a whole.

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.

Thank you.

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?

In message

, at 10:46:50 on Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Recliner
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.

That's true, but we refer to the city as a whole.

Who are "we". Surely not the ones who refer to Central London as a whole
as "Town"?
--
Roland Perry

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.

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.