On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, wrote:

On Feb 26, 7:09ÿÿpm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Arthur Figgis wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
wrote:
(a) the ?new name for the Imperial War Museum

National War Museum...

It's not a problem with Empire, which is purely a bit anachronistic.

Not purely - it's also a painful reminder to some people. It's ever so
slightly like having a theme park in Germany called Himmlerspassland or
something.

Hey, is that Godwin's law i can hear kicking in? Does that mean this
thread's over?

To equate the British Empire in any way with Nazi Germany is an insult
to the millions who served the Empire, in war and peace,

Rubbish. The British Empire was an operation built on the conquest of four
hundred million people who had done nothing to us to deserve it. There
were many positive things that came out of it, but you can't escape that
fact - by modern standards, it was a colossal string of international
crimes. That's simply a fact, and as such, cannot be an insult.

and whose sense of duty ensured that, for example, India was united and
governed with the smallest per capita civil service ever heard of.

A rather impressive way to spin the conquest of an entire subcontinent!
Have you considered a job with the Bush administration?

Why should one man's "painful reminder" outweigh another man's "proud
heritage"? I write as someone who is a descendant of one of the "forced
migrations" which the do-gooders might regard as a "painful reminder"
best avoided of which you write, but I do not see it that way: if that
had not happened, I would not be here today. There was good and bad
about the British Empire (as with all countries' histories) but that is
not a reason to erase its memory, or for those of us who are actually
proud of that history, and feel that we have benefited from it, to feel
ashamed of either fact.

I have at no point advocated renaming anything - i was merely pointing out
that for some people, the Empire was a Very Bad Thing, and thus that
celebrating it is a bit of a slap in the face to them.

So, would you also rename Trafalgar Square, Waterloo, Victoria, King
George and Canary Wharf and Canada Water Stations (and hundreds of other
place names) just because their origins might be questionable "painful
reminders" of our Imperial past?

Well, i wouldn't rename anything (well, i would, but not because of this -
having two stations called Edgware Road is intolerable, for example). But
if we consider it as a thought experiment, i don't see why Trafalgar
Square or Waterloo need renaming, since those are commemorating defeats of
a would-be conqueror, not conquests, nor anything named after monarchs,
since they had lives and reigns distinct from their empires. The names of
docks whose existence was built on the back of empire is an interesting
one, though; if there was a Slave Dock, would we be uncomfortable about
that? What about the slightly less in-your-face Jamaica Dock? New Yorkers
seem to be happy enough to have a station by that name!

tom

--
Not all legislation can be eye-catching, and it is important that the
desire to achieve the headlines does not mean that small but useful
measures are crowded out of the legislative programme. -- Select Committee
on Transport

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:34:54AM +0000, Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
Nonsense. If all I know is that my destination is on the Picadilly
line, I'm not going to get on a random train at (say) Victoria) and hope
it's going in the right direction. That way lies Brixton and Upminster
and other forms of depravity. No, I'm going to look at the damned map.
Yes, but I didn't going to say what *you* were going to do. You probably
don't need a message telling you to take your belongings when you leave
the train either. The announcements aren't designed for David Cantrell.

So who the hell *are* they designed for?

A tourist who doesn't know the system is at Victoria and wants to go to
Covent Garden. Does *he* get on a random train? No. He looks at the
map or asks someone for help. Because I distinctly remember there not
being any announcements at Victoria saying "if you want Covent Garden
take the Victoria line northbound and change at Green Park for an
eastbound Picadilly line train. If you want Baker Street, take the
Victoria line northbound to Oxford Circus and change for a northbound
Bakerloo line train, although you might like to take the bus instead.
Sit on the top deck, at the front and you'll get a great view of Marble
Arch as you go past".

Frankly I'm not at all sure who the announcements about luggage are for.
They're sure as hell not going to deter the one group of people who *do*
deliberately leave their stuff on trains. I refer, of course, to
litter-louts.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

You don't need to spam good porn

David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:34:54AM +0000, Michael Hoffman wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
Nonsense. If all I know is that my destination is on the Picadilly
line, I'm not going to get on a random train at (say) Victoria) and hope
it's going in the right direction. That way lies Brixton and Upminster
and other forms of depravity. No, I'm going to look at the damned map.
Yes, but I didn't going to say what *you* were going to do. You probably
don't need a message telling you to take your belongings when you leave
the train either. The announcements aren't designed for David Cantrell.

So who the hell *are* they designed for?

People who aren't as smart or able as you? It is possible to get on a
train knowing it is the right direction without knowing where exactly to
get off. It's also possible to know where to get off, but to forget. You
might similarly argue that strip maps and journey planners should be
removed from the train because people obviously know where they are
going before they get on the train.

Frankly I'm not at all sure who the announcements about luggage are for.

Actually I think these are silly. I would love to see an experiment
where we could see whether they actually reduce left items or not.
--
Michael Hoffman

Tom Anderson wrote:

I have at no point advocated renaming anything - i was merely
pointing out that for some people, the Empire was a Very Bad Thing,
and thus that celebrating it is a bit of a slap in the face to them.

I don't see how the title of a museum about war and weapons could avoid
upsetting anyone.

Well, i wouldn't rename anything (well, i would, but not because of
this - having two stations called Edgware Road is intolerable, for
example).

Since there are three huge roads called Edgware Road in London, and none of
them is actually in Edgware, having even one station called Edgware Road is
intolerable!

John Rowland wrote in message
:

Tom Anderson wrote:

I have at no point advocated renaming anything - i was merely
pointing out that for some people, the Empire was a Very Bad Thing,
and thus that celebrating it is a bit of a slap in the face to them.

I don't see how the title of a museum about war and weapons could
avoid upsetting anyone.

Well, i wouldn't rename anything (well, i would, but not because of
this - having two stations called Edgware Road is intolerable, for
example).

Since there are three huge roads called Edgware Road in London, and
none of them is actually in Edgware, having even one station called
Edgware Road is intolerable!

So you'd advocate renaming Oxford Street, York Way/Road and Liverpool Street
as well, would you?

I do agree that on the ground of cpnfusion, there should only be one station
with each name: Edgware Road, Shepherd's Bush and Hammersmith are candidates
for this rationalisation.

Martin Underwood wrote:
John Rowland wrote in message

Since there are three huge roads called Edgware Road in London, and
none of them is actually in Edgware, having even one station called
Edgware Road is intolerable!

So you'd advocate renaming Oxford Street, York Way/Road and Liverpool
Street as well, would you?

Oxford Street station was renamed a long time ago, and I do believe it
should be renamed again to St Giles. I am not aware of a station called York
Way, and renaming York Rd station would not pass a cost benefit analysis
these days.

As for Liverpool St, yes, it should be renamed, particularly since a number
of stations which have trains to London Liverpool St also have trains to
Liverpool Lime St.

cpnfusion

Huh? ;-)

there should only be one
station with each name: Edgware Road, Shepherd's Bush and Hammersmith
are candidates for this rationalisation.

I agree where the Shepherds Bushes are concerned because they are in quite
different places. I see no benefit in giving the Edgware Roads separate
names - I think they should both have the same name but a different one to
the one they have now. Hammersmith is fine - it's not the best interchange
on the map, but it isn't the worst either, and giving the stations different
names would only con people into avoiding interchanging there, thus wasting
their time and perhaps money.

John Rowland wrote:

Hammersmith is fine - it's not the best interchange
on the map, but it isn't the worst either, and giving the stations different
names would only con people into avoiding interchanging there, thus wasting
their time and perhaps money.

Like Bank/Monument?

I think it would be far better to make the names separate and put in
notations of distance to nearby stations much as Covent Garden has for
Leicester Square, and several stations have for nearby unconnected NR
stations.
--
Michael Hoffman

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, John Rowland wrote:

Martin Underwood wrote:
John Rowland wrote in message

Since there are three huge roads called Edgware Road in London, and
none of them is actually in Edgware, having even one station called
Edgware Road is intolerable!

So you'd advocate renaming Oxford Street, York Way/Road and Liverpool
Street as well, would you?

Oxford Street station was renamed a long time ago, and I do believe it
should be renamed again to St Giles. I am not aware of a station called York
Way, and renaming York Rd station would not pass a cost benefit analysis
these days.

I dunno - the cost side would be quite small, as there aren't exactly a
lot of signs to change.

As for Liverpool St, yes, it should be renamed, particularly since a
number of stations which have trains to London Liverpool St also have
trains to Liverpool Lime St.

Okay. What to? And why not just rename Liverpool instead?

cpnfusion

Huh? ;-)

pwned!

there should only be one station with each name: Edgware Road,
Shepherd's Bush and Hammersmith are candidates for this
rationalisation.

I agree where the Shepherds Bushes are concerned because they are in quite
different places. I see no benefit in giving the Edgware Roads separate
names

"Meet you at the front of Edgware Road station at half past six."

- I think they should both have the same name but a different one to the
one they have now.

That seems uniquely perverse.

Hammersmith is fine - it's not the best interchange on the map, but it
isn't the worst either, and giving the stations different names would
only con people into avoiding interchanging there, thus wasting their
time and perhaps money.

I take it Hammersmith is an official out-of-station interchange. ISTR
that, surprisingly, the trip between the Edgware Roads isn't. Is that
right?

tom

--
packaheomg sogma's

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

I have at no point advocated renaming anything - i was merely pointing
out that for some people, the Empire was a Very Bad Thing, and thus
that celebrating it is a bit of a slap in the face to them.

I don't see how the title of a museum about war and weapons could avoid
upsetting anyone.

I don't see why the *title* must upset people; some people might find the
very idea upsetting, but i think a name like the National War Museum,
British War Museum, Lambeth War Museum or whatever wouldn't upset anyone
who was happy with the concept itself.

Well, i wouldn't rename anything (well, i would, but not because of
this - having two stations called Edgware Road is intolerable, for
example).

Since there are three huge roads called Edgware Road in London,

Didn't know that; where are the other two?

and none of them is actually in Edgware,

As is normal for roads named after places!

tom

--
packaheomg sogma's

In message , John Rowland
writes
Tom Anderson wrote:

I have at no point advocated renaming anything - i was merely
pointing out that for some people, the Empire was a Very Bad Thing,
and thus that celebrating it is a bit of a slap in the face to them.

I don't see how the title of a museum about war and weapons could avoid
upsetting anyone.

Well, i wouldn't rename anything (well, i would, but not because of
this - having two stations called Edgware Road is intolerable, for
example).

Since there are three huge roads called Edgware Road in London, and none of
them is actually in Edgware, having even one station called Edgware Road is
intolerable!




According to the web site the museum is closed until the autumn, the
Depot at Acton is open this weekend (march 3/4 )
--
martyn dawe