Official defacement?
 

Getting on the tube at Tottenham Court Road just now, I noticed that one
of the little advertisement posters had a small sticker on it, as is
sometimes done by protesters of various kinds.

Except that this one said something like:

Using prepay on your Oyster? Always remember to touch in and out
by putting the card flat against the reader.

Huh? Who would do this unofficially? Yet why do it officially?

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Official defacement?
 

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:11:14 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:
Getting on the tube at Tottenham Court Road just now, I noticed that one
of the little advertisement posters had a small sticker on it, as is
sometimes done by protesters of various kinds.

Except that this one said something like:

Using prepay on your Oyster? Always remember to touch in and out
by putting the card flat against the reader.

Huh? Who would do this unofficially? Yet why do it officially?

Is this an intriguing marketing strategy? Your eye is often drawn to
the defacement stickers... perhaps TfL are using this to their
advantage?

It does seem rather odd. Was it a TfL poster on which the sticker
appeared?

Sam

Official defacement?
 

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

Getting on the tube at Tottenham Court Road just now, I noticed that one
of the little advertisement posters had a small sticker on it, as is
sometimes done by protesters of various kinds.

Except that this one said something like:

Using prepay on your Oyster? Always remember to touch in and out
by putting the card flat against the reader.

Huh? Who would do this unofficially?

Some sort of underground organisation?

Sorry.

More seriously, i think it probably is a TfL metasubvertisment. A cousin
of viral marketing, i suppose.

tom

--
see im down wid yo sci fi crew

Official defacement?
 

In article , Sam Holloway
writes
It does seem rather odd. Was it a TfL poster on which the sticker
appeared?

No, McDonalds.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Official defacement?
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
Getting on the tube at Tottenham Court Road just now, I noticed that one
of the little advertisement posters had a small sticker on it, as is
sometimes done by protesters of various kinds.

Except that this one said something like:

Using prepay on your Oyster? Always remember to touch in and out
by putting the card flat against the reader.

Huh? Who would do this unofficially? Yet why do it officially?

Sounds more likely that some wag has taken the sticker off a ticket wallet
and stuck it on the nearest suitable spot

Official defacement?
 

Robin Mayes wrote:

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...

Getting on the tube at Tottenham Court Road just now, I noticed that one
of the little advertisement posters had a small sticker on it, as is
sometimes done by protesters of various kinds.

Except that this one said something like:

Using prepay on your Oyster? Always remember to touch in and out
by putting the card flat against the reader.

Huh? Who would do this unofficially? Yet why do it officially?


Sounds more likely that some wag has taken the sticker off a ticket wallet
and stuck it on the nearest suitable spot

If it was yellow and about 1cm x 4cm, then I think that's what it would
have been, since they comne stuck on the wallets (as a bit of an
afterthought I think).

Official defacement?
 

In article t, Dave
Newt writes
If it was yellow and about 1cm x 4cm, then I think that's what it would
have been, since they comne stuck on the wallets (as a bit of an
afterthought I think).

Aha! It was. Mystery solved. Thanks.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Official defacement?
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
Getting on the tube at Tottenham Court Road just now, I noticed that one
of the little advertisement posters had a small sticker on it, as is
sometimes done by protesters of various kinds.

Except that this one said something like:

Using prepay on your Oyster? Always remember to touch in and out
by putting the card flat against the reader.

Huh? Who would do this unofficially? Yet why do it officially?

Makes me want to go armed with big stickers reading "St Giles' Circus"
and correct the name of the station once and for all!

Official defacement?
 

James wrote:
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in
message ...
Getting on the tube at Tottenham Court Road just now, I noticed
that one of the little advertisement posters had a small
sticker on it, as is sometimes done by protesters of various
kinds.

Except that this one said something like:

Using prepay on your Oyster? Always remember to touch in
and out by putting the card flat against the reader.

Huh? Who would do this unofficially? Yet why do it officially?

Makes me want to go armed with big stickers reading "St Giles'
Circus" and correct the name of the station once and for all!

I didn't know there was more than one saint called Gile.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Official defacement?
 

Richard J. wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 31 Oct 2004:


Makes me want to go armed with big stickers reading "St Giles'
Circus" and correct the name of the station once and for all!

I didn't know there was more than one saint called Gile.

Er - hello? The OP was entirely correct in his usage of the apostrophe
there - if you have a name ending with "S", and wish to denote something
belonging to the bearer of that name, the apostrophe goes after it.
James' shoes, Thomas' gloves..... Mind you, it is arguable that, as the
Circus doesn't actually belong to St Giles, he doesn't need an
apostrophe.....
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

Official defacement?
 

Mrs Redboots wrote:
Richard J. wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 31 Oct 2004:


Makes me want to go armed with big stickers reading "St Giles'
Circus" and correct the name of the station once and for all!

I didn't know there was more than one saint called Gile.

Er - hello? The OP was entirely correct in his usage of the
apostrophe there - if you have a name ending with "S", and wish to
denote something belonging to the bearer of that name, the
apostrophe goes after it. James' shoes, Thomas' gloves.....

Er, no. James's, Thomas's. Go and read Eats, Shoots & Leaves again.

Mind you, it is arguable that, as the Circus doesn't actually
belong to St Giles, he doesn't need an apostrophe.....

.... which I think is the official view also. (St Giles High Street is
certainly spelt that way. Not sure about the Circus, which doesn't seem
to have an official existence.)
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Official defacement?
 

Richard J. wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:

Mrs Redboots wrote:

Er - hello? The OP was entirely correct in his usage of the
apostrophe there - if you have a name ending with "S", and wish to
denote something belonging to the bearer of that name, the
apostrophe goes after it. James' shoes, Thomas' gloves.....

Er, no. James's, Thomas's. Go and read Eats, Shoots & Leaves again.

That usage is accepted nowadays, but it is not what I was taught 45
years ago! Lynne Truss is, I think, younger than I am.

Mind you, it is arguable that, as the Circus doesn't actually
belong to St Giles, he doesn't need an apostrophe.....

... which I think is the official view also. (St Giles High Street is
certainly spelt that way. Not sure about the Circus, which doesn't seem
to have an official existence.)

It's the bit round Centrepoint, isn't it?
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

Official defacement?
 

Mrs Redboots wrote:
Richard J. wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:

Mrs Redboots wrote:

Er - hello? The OP was entirely correct in his usage of the
apostrophe there - if you have a name ending with "S", and wish to
denote something belonging to the bearer of that name, the
apostrophe goes after it. James' shoes, Thomas' gloves.....

Er, no. James's, Thomas's. Go and read Eats, Shoots & Leaves
again.

That usage is accepted nowadays, but it is not what I was taught 45
years ago! Lynne Truss is, I think, younger than I am.

Sir Ernest Gowers, in Plain Words (1948) said that the James's form was
"favoured" especially for monosyllabic names like Giles, and by 1965 (in
Fowler's Modern English Usage which he edited) it was quoted as a
definite rule. So your teacher was a bit out of date, clinging to an
outdated rule that is not considered correct today.

Mind you, it is arguable that, as the Circus doesn't actually
belong to St Giles, he doesn't need an apostrophe.....

... which I think is the official view also. (St Giles High Street
is certainly spelt that way. Not sure about the Circus, which
doesn't seem to have an official existence.)

It's the bit round Centrepoint, isn't it?

Yes indeed, but I meant that there's no road that officially has that
name, so it's difficult to find an authoritative spelling.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Official defacement?
 

"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
Mrs Redboots wrote:
Richard J. wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 1 Nov 2004:

... which I think is the official view also. (St Giles High Street
is certainly spelt that way. Not sure about the Circus, which
doesn't seem to have an official existence.)

It's the bit round Centrepoint, isn't it?

Yes indeed, but I meant that there's no road that officially has that
name, so it's difficult to find an authoritative spelling.

My 1970-ish AtoZ has St Giles Circ in the index.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Official defacement?
 

"Richard J." wrote in message
k...

So your teacher was a bit out of date, clinging to an
outdated rule that is not considered correct today.

Your the one whose out of date, since rules of grammar have been completely
abolished... or if they haven't, they might as well of been.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Official defacement?
 

John Rowland wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
k...

So your teacher was a bit out of date, clinging to an
outdated rule that is not considered correct today.

Your the one whose out of date, since rules of grammar have been
completely abolished... or if they haven't, they might as well of
been.

Your loosing your touch, John. Didn't you know their back in fashion
again?
http://www.qca.org.uk/news/2586_9792.html

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Official defacement?
 

In article , Mrs Redboots
writes
Er - hello? The OP was entirely correct in his usage of the
apostrophe there - if you have a name ending with "S", and wish to
denote something belonging to the bearer of that name, the
apostrophe goes after it. James' shoes, Thomas' gloves.....
Er, no. James's, Thomas's. Go and read Eats, Shoots & Leaves again.

Agreed - it's Giles's.

That usage is accepted nowadays, but it is not what I was taught 45
years ago! Lynne Truss is, I think, younger than I am.

But I think Beowulf and Edward III are older. The derivation from Middle
English is clear.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Official defacement?
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article , Mrs Redboots
writes
Er - hello? The OP was entirely correct in his usage of the
apostrophe there - if you have a name ending with "S", and wish to
denote something belonging to the bearer of that name, the
apostrophe goes after it. James' shoes, Thomas' gloves.....
Er, no. James's, Thomas's. Go and read Eats, Shoots & Leaves again.

Agreed - it's Giles's.

But no-one says St Giles's Circus. If Ms Truss was being properly
descriptive, she would state that words ending in an "s" are a bloody
mess when it comes to possessives. The one thing which everyone agrees
must be avoided is the "Jame's" style punctuation.