At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young lady^Wrecorded
announcement was telling people to get off there for the museum. I take
it that it has re-opened then?

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

When one has bathed in Christ there is no need to bathe a second time
-- St. Jerome, on why washing is a vile pagan practice
in a letter to Heliodorus, 373 or 374 AD

David Cantrell wrote:
At Covent Garden station this morning the charming young lady^Wrecorded
announcement was telling people to get off there for the museum. I take
it that it has re-opened then?

Not according to their web site.

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport museum"
and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport, which
no longer exists.
--
Michael Hoffman

Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

John Rowland wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". Bah.
Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

Given it combines three unfashionable concepts, I'm sure it is only a
matter of time before it becomes the Oppressed Indigenous Persons'
Conflict-Resolution Interactive Visitor Experience. Or something.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
...

Given it combines three unfashionable concepts, I'm sure it is only a
matter of time before it becomes the Oppressed Indigenous Persons'
Conflict-Resolution Interactive Visitor Experience. Or something.

LOL. Submitted to alt.humor.best-of-usenet

Ian

On Feb 23, 4:27�pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". *Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

I agree that dark forces probably want to rename the Imperial War
Museum (like the Imperial War Graves Commission was renamed the
Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the 1960s), but that would be a
mistake since the wars which are remembered and exhibited there are
from the Imperial era.

Likewise the Order of the British Empire was founded in 1902 at the
height of the Empire and the medals of the order bear the insignia of
Edward VII who was monarch at the time, and it would be an insult to
and denial of history to rename it now.

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism). How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

Marc.

wrote:

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism).

Is that really the reason?

How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

I don't usually say either, usually a London Bus.
--
Michael Hoffman

"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism).

Is that really the reason?

How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

I don't usually say either, usually a London Bus.

I'm even more perverse. I'd call it a "bus". "London Transport Bus", or
even "Transport for London Bus" is a triple tautology, surely, for someone
standing at a bus stop in London...

--
Michael Hoffman

On Feb 24, 1:18 am, " wrote:
On Feb 23, 4:27?pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". ?Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

I agree that dark forces probably want to rename the Imperial War
Museum (like the Imperial War Graves Commission was renamed the
Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the 1960s), but that would be a
mistake since the wars which are remembered and exhibited there are
from the Imperial era.

Likewise the Order of the British Empire was founded in 1902 at the
height of the Empire and the medals of the order bear the insignia of
Edward VII who was monarch at the time, and it would be an insult to
and denial of history to rename it now.

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism). How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

Marc.

I agree with you about the LT museum but not about the rest. The War
Graves Commission was renamed after the the Imperial system of
government had ceased to exist for the represented countries. The
British Empire was already in terminal decline by the time of WWII.

I would also support a new system of honours which makes no mention of
the former empire. Although the empire will always be a part of our
history and heritage I see no point in continuing to celebrate it as
if it still existed. There is no insult or dishonour to previous
recipients of the various 'Empire' medals since there is no need to
abolish or rename previous honours, just create some new ones for
future recipients. Like Edward VII did in 1902.

On Feb 25, 4:44�pm, "umpston" wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:18 am, " wrote:





On Feb 23, 4:27?pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

And I notice that the announcement was about "London's transport
museum" and not the "London Transport museum". ?Bah.

Well, it is not a museum that is strictly about London Transport,
which no longer exists.

I guess they should rename the Imperial War Museum then.

I agree that dark forces probably want to rename the Imperial War
Museum (like the Imperial War Graves Commission was renamed the
Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the 1960s), but that would be a
mistake since the wars which are remembered and exhibited there are
from the Imperial era.

Likewise the Order of the British Empire was founded in 1902 at the
height of the Empire and the medals of the order bear the insignia of
Edward VII who was monarch at the time, and it would be an insult to
and denial of history to rename it now.

Similarly, it was a silly act of vandalism to rename the London
Transport Museum just because London Transport happened to cease to
exist (itself a silly act of vandalism). How many people, when
referring to a London bus say "a Transport for London bus" as opposed
to a "London Transport bus" even nowadays?

Marc.

I agree with you about the LT museum but not about the rest. *The War
Graves Commission was renamed after the the Imperial system of
government had ceased to exist for the represented countries. *The
British Empire was already in terminal decline by the time of WWII.

I would also support a new system of honours which makes no mention of
the former empire. *Although the empire will always be a part of our
history and heritage I see no point in continuing to celebrate it as
if it still existed. *There is no insult or dishonour to previous
recipients of the various 'Empire' medals since there is no need to
abolish or rename previous honours, just create some new ones for
future recipients. *Like Edward VII did in 1902.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So what would you choose as (a) the new name for the Imperial War
Museum and (b) the replacement for the Order of the British Empire?

Just curious!

I see no need to change names for change's sake, and since honours are
archaic and pertaining to history by their very nature (e.g. very few
women and even fewer men wear garters in the 21st Century!), and
nobody but a fool could forget, with the ritualistic self-flagellation
indulged by the intelligentsia in the media and elsewhere that the
British Empire was the most evil concept since Original Sin, perhaps
it does no harm to keep us all in mind of that most ignominious period
of our history lest we should ever be tempted to repeat it!

Just joking!

Marc.