TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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?

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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. 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).

In the case of LA, it seems likely that the major extensions, and those
slender access paths to them) to take in the airport and San Pedro were
done in order to give the city control over the airport and the port (at
San Pedro).

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

On 16/06/2013 01:26, Recliner wrote:
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.

I don't say that the LA city boundaries have been gerrymandered for
partisan advantage, but just looking at the map of the city's outline
tells you that there has been contrived adjustment over the years.

But this is not unusual in the USA. Even the states have had their
shapes and edges defined by Congress. Just look at the way that Alabama
and Georgia each have a bit of coastline on the Gulf of Mexico. There
was a time when all of that was part of the Florida panhandle and when
Alabama (though obviously not Georgia) was landlocked.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

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).

I don't know that any of the City of Los Angeles' boundary changes have
ever had any effect on city election outcomes. It's possible, I suppose,
but that weird shape would surely be the result of general, bi-partisan,
agreement on practical matters (eg, "Let's have city control of LAX and
of San Pedro port")?

Any straightforward gerrymandering would have had the potential loser
making vigorous complaint to Sacramento.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

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).

I don't know that any of the City of Los Angeles' boundary changes have
ever had any effect on city election outcomes. It's possible, I suppose,
but that weird shape would surely be the result of general, bi-partisan,
agreement on practical matters (eg, "Let's have city control of LAX and
of San Pedro port")?

Any straightforward gerrymandering would have had the potential loser
making vigorous complaint to Sacramento.

The gerrymandering is mutually agreed, to give each party safe seats. Two
neighbouring marginal areas can swap districts to make both safe for the
opposing parties, which suits both of them.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

On 16 June, 17:46, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2013 01:26, Recliner wrote:









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.

I don't say that the LA city boundaries have been gerrymandered for
partisan advantage, but just looking at the map of the city's outline
tells you that there has been contrived adjustment over the years.

IIRC San Pedro avoided being swallowed up by Long Beach, only to be
absorbed by Los Angeles.

But this is not unusual in the USA. Even the states have had their
shapes and edges defined by Congress. Just look at the way that Alabama
and Georgia each have a bit of coastline on the Gulf of Mexico.

Only Alabama, not Georgia.

There
was a time when all of that was part of the Florida panhandle and when
Alabama (though obviously not Georgia) was landlocked.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

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).

I don't know that any of the City of Los Angeles' boundary changes have
ever had any effect on city election outcomes. It's possible, I suppose,
but that weird shape would surely be the result of general, bi-partisan,
agreement on practical matters (eg, "Let's have city control of LAX and
of San Pedro port")?

Any straightforward gerrymandering would have had the potential loser
making vigorous complaint to Sacramento.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

On 17/06/2013 02:03, Recliner wrote:
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.

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).

I don't know that any of the City of Los Angeles' boundary changes have
ever had any effect on city election outcomes. It's possible, I suppose,
but that weird shape would surely be the result of general, bi-partisan,
agreement on practical matters (eg, "Let's have city control of LAX and
of San Pedro port")?

Any straightforward gerrymandering would have had the potential loser
making vigorous complaint to Sacramento.

The gerrymandering is mutually agreed, to give each party safe seats. Two
neighbouring marginal areas can swap districts to make both safe for the
opposing parties, which suits both of them.

But the shape of the city of LA is so bizarre that it can't have been
created in that form for electoral purposes. Neither the state nor the
federal government would have been fooled. It must have been done for
the purpose of control over transport services (subject to the
moth-eating in the form of Beverly Hills, etc).

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

On 17/06/2013 04:01, e27002 wrote:
On 16 June, 17:46, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2013 01:26, Recliner wrote:









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.

I don't say that the LA city boundaries have been gerrymandered for
partisan advantage, but just looking at the map of the city's outline
tells you that there has been contrived adjustment over the years.

IIRC San Pedro avoided being swallowed up by Long Beach, only to be
absorbed by Los Angeles.

But this is not unusual in the USA. Even the states have had their
shapes and edges defined by Congress. Just look at the way that Alabama
and Georgia each have a bit of coastline on the Gulf of Mexico.

Only Alabama, not Georgia.

My mistake.

I meant Mississippi and Alabama, both of which would otherwise be
landlocked.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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).

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2013 02:03, Recliner wrote:
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.

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).

I don't know that any of the City of Los Angeles' boundary changes have
ever had any effect on city election outcomes. It's possible, I suppose,
but that weird shape would surely be the result of general, bi-partisan,
agreement on practical matters (eg, "Let's have city control of LAX and
of San Pedro port")?

Any straightforward gerrymandering would have had the potential loser
making vigorous complaint to Sacramento.

The gerrymandering is mutually agreed, to give each party safe seats. Two
neighbouring marginal areas can swap districts to make both safe for the
opposing parties, which suits both of them.

But the shape of the city of LA is so bizarre that it can't have been
created in that form for electoral purposes. Neither the state nor the
federal government would have been fooled. It must have been done for the
purpose of control over transport services (subject to the moth-eating in
the form of Beverly Hills, etc).

Yes, it really is a bizarre shape -- presumably it's changed over time?
Maybe it has something to do with who paid to develop each area (putting in
roads, services, etc)?

Incidentally, state and federal governments do nothing to stop
gerrymandering: it's the same two parties who connive at it wherever they
can. It suits politicians at all levels to have seats that are cheap to
defend in elections. Senate seats can't be gerrymandered, but most others
can.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

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.

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

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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?

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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?

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.

TV Alert: BBC2 -- Running London's Roads
 

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.