Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT(-ish) - Kansas City
136 views
Skip to first unread message
Guy Barry
May 19, 2015, 7:44:40 AM5/19/15
to
Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
--
Guy Barry
simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
--
Guy Barry
Richard Yates
May 19, 2015, 8:08:00 AM5/19/15
to
of the early town, and the city founders finally settled on this
geographic term for the town’s name. The Kansas River was named after
the Kansa Indian tribe located in the area."
http://www.kclibrary.org/kchistory/why-kansas-city-located-missouri-instead-kansas
Guy Barry
May 19, 2015, 8:16:44 AM5/19/15
to
"Richard Yates" wrote in message
news:9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com...
Thanks. In that case my question should perhaps have been "why is the state
of Kansas named after a river that flows through another state?"
--
Guy Barry
news:9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com...
of Kansas named after a river that flows through another state?"
--
Guy Barry
James Hogg
May 19, 2015, 9:23:51 AM5/19/15
to
--
James
Peter T. Daniels
May 19, 2015, 9:49:46 AM5/19/15
to
to avoid having miscreants' past catch up with them: they request info from
the KC authorities, but forget to check both).
There are Springfields all over the country -- the old E-W US highway that runs
through the capital of Illinois happens to pass through about half a dozen
of them in successive states. (The very last credit at the end of *The Simpsons
Movie* reads "Filmed on location in Springfield, XXXXXXXXXX," with the name
of the state "redacted" CIA-style, with heavy black marker over it.)
New Jersey has Union City, Union Township, and Union County, all in different
places.
One minor problem solved by the introduction of ZIP codes in 1963 was that there
could be more than one town in a state with the same name, so addresses had
to mention the county as well. (I think one of them was Clinton in NY -- there
was an important governor of the state by that name long before there was a
president or two of that name.)
Wayne Brown
May 19, 2015, 10:37:47 AM5/19/15
to
River flows through or along the borders of nine other states in addition
to the state of Mississippi.
--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>
ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)
Jerry Friedman
May 19, 2015, 10:39:31 AM5/19/15
to
On 5/19/15 6:16 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
> "Richard Yates" wrote in message
> news:9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
>>> As a
>>> simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>> Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>>> How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
Would this be a good time to bring up Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and
> "Richard Yates" wrote in message
> news:9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
>>> As a
>>> simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>> Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>>> How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
Indiana, Pennsylvania?
>> "The Kansas, or Kaw, River flows into the Missouri River near the site
>> of the early town, and the city founders finally settled on this
>> geographic term for the town’s name. The Kansas River was named after
>> the Kansa Indian tribe located in the area."
>>
>> http://www.kclibrary.org/kchistory/why-kansas-city-located-missouri-instead-kansas
>>
>
> Thanks. In that case my question should perhaps have been "why is the
> state of Kansas named after a river that flows through another state?"
to be just a matter of how its tributatries are named). However,
Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Colorado, and possibly Tennessee are.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
May 19, 2015, 11:36:01 AM5/19/15
to
will cause you additional confusion. East St Louis is a city in
Illinois across the Mississippi River from St Louis, Missouri. Neither
is in the state of Mississippi.
Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
longer the east end of London.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
Cheryl
May 19, 2015, 11:58:23 AM5/19/15
to
more than a few kilometers, but I used to live in the east end of my
adopted city. Now I live in the central part of the city, and what is
now the east end used to be largely bogs and barrens. There's been no
name change yet, although if the periodic fights between the people who
want a much larger city and the people who want to maintain the
surrounding small towns are ever won by the city, all those surrounding
areas will undergo a name change.
The weird situation that used to puzzle me until I learned a bit more
history was that Hudson Bay and the Hudson River aren't close to each
other, although both are named for the same person.
Cheryl
pensive hamster
May 19, 2015, 12:00:36 PM5/19/15
to
On Tuesday, 19 May 2015 14:49:46 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[...]
(Athens, Alabama; Athens, Arkansas; Athens, California;
Athens, Georgia; Athens, Illinois ...) and 23 Paris-es.
Canada only has two Paris-es, while France and Denmark
have one each
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_%28disambiguation%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_%28disambiguation%29
[...]
> There are Springfields all over the country -- the old E-W US highway that runs
> through the capital of Illinois happens to pass through about half a dozen
> of them in successive states. (The very last credit at the end of *The Simpsons
> Movie* reads "Filmed on location in Springfield, XXXXXXXXXX," with the name
> of the state "redacted" CIA-style, with heavy black marker over it.)
According to Wikipedia, in America there are 22 Athens-es
> through the capital of Illinois happens to pass through about half a dozen
> of them in successive states. (The very last credit at the end of *The Simpsons
> Movie* reads "Filmed on location in Springfield, XXXXXXXXXX," with the name
> of the state "redacted" CIA-style, with heavy black marker over it.)
(Athens, Alabama; Athens, Arkansas; Athens, California;
Athens, Georgia; Athens, Illinois ...) and 23 Paris-es.
Canada only has two Paris-es, while France and Denmark
have one each
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_%28disambiguation%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_%28disambiguation%29
LFS
May 19, 2015, 12:03:06 PM5/19/15
to
On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
> longer the east end of London.
>
Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
>
> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
> longer the east end of London.
>
London. The West End hasn't changed either.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Garrett Wollman
May 19, 2015, 12:03:26 PM5/19/15
to
In article <GmF6x.482070$ob3.1...@fx47.am4>,
There are two cities called "Kansas City". One of them is in
Wyandotte County, Kansas; the other is in Jackson, Clay, Platte, and
Cass Counties, Missouri. They happen to be on opposite sides of the
Missouri River from each other, which was western border of Missouri
when the latter became a state in 1820 (Kansas remaining unorganized
territory at the time).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
Not quite.
>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
There are two cities called "Kansas City". One of them is in
Wyandotte County, Kansas; the other is in Jackson, Clay, Platte, and
Cass Counties, Missouri. They happen to be on opposite sides of the
Missouri River from each other, which was western border of Missouri
when the latter became a state in 1820 (Kansas remaining unorganized
territory at the time).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Will Parsons
May 19, 2015, 12:03:48 PM5/19/15
to
On Tuesday, 19 May 2015 2:39 PM UTC, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 5/19/15 6:16 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Richard Yates" wrote in message
>> news:9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
>>>> As a
>>>> simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>>> Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>>>> How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
> Would this be a good time to bring up Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and
> Indiana, Pennsylvania?
I don't know about Indiana, but the state of Wyoming owes its name to
> On 5/19/15 6:16 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Richard Yates" wrote in message
>> news:9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
>>>> As a
>>>> simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>>> Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>>>> How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
> Would this be a good time to bring up Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and
> Indiana, Pennsylvania?
Wyoming valley in Pennsylvania.
--
Will
Peter T. Daniels
May 19, 2015, 1:41:04 PM5/19/15
to
On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 10:39:31 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> Would this be a good time to bring up Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and
> Indiana, Pennsylvania?
The state of Wyoming is named for the valley in Pennsylvania. I think they're
> Would this be a good time to bring up Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and
> Indiana, Pennsylvania?
pronounced differently.
"Indiana" seems a fairly obvious coinage and could turn up anywhere.
The noisome one is Miami University of Ohio.
Tony Cooper
May 19, 2015, 1:43:39 PM5/19/15
to
On Tue, 19 May 2015 17:03:02 +0100, LFS
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>
>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>> longer the east end of London.
>>
>
>Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
>London. The West End hasn't changed either.
It was my impression that the East End is a smaller area that is no
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>
>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>> longer the east end of London.
>>
>
>Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
>London. The West End hasn't changed either.
longer the east end of London, and that East London is what extends to
the other suburbs.
Am I wrong?
Peter T. Daniels
May 19, 2015, 1:44:29 PM5/19/15
to
On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 11:36:01 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
> >simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
> >Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
> >How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
> I hope that East St Louis is not mentioned on the radio because it
> will cause you additional confusion. East St Louis is a city in
> Illinois across the Mississippi River from St Louis, Missouri. Neither
> is in the state of Mississippi.
East Chicago is in Indiana, West New York is in New Jersey -- but East New
> On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
> >simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
> >Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
> >How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
> I hope that East St Louis is not mentioned on the radio because it
> will cause you additional confusion. East St Louis is a city in
> Illinois across the Mississippi River from St Louis, Missouri. Neither
> is in the state of Mississippi.
York is inside New York City.
The line in *Guys and Dolls* that one of the gangsters hails from "East
Cicero, Illinois" gets a huge laugh in Chicago and silence elsewhere.
I don't remember whether they left it in the movie.
Will Parsons
May 19, 2015, 1:45:38 PM5/19/15
to
On Tuesday, 19 May 2015 5:41 PM UTC, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 10:39:31 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
>> Would this be a good time to bring up Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and
>> Indiana, Pennsylvania?
>
> The state of Wyoming is named for the valley in Pennsylvania. I think they're
> pronounced differently.
No, they're pronounced the same.
> On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 10:39:31 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
>> Would this be a good time to bring up Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and
>> Indiana, Pennsylvania?
>
> The state of Wyoming is named for the valley in Pennsylvania. I think they're
> pronounced differently.
--
Will
Guy Barry
May 19, 2015, 2:24:40 PM5/19/15
to
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
news:f42eb68a-d95e-434b...@googlegroups.com...
' Kansas City (often abbreviated as "KCK" to differentiate it from its
adjacent namesake, Kansas City, Missouri) is the third-largest city in the
state of Kansas, the county seat of Wyandotte County, and the third-largest
city of the Kansas City metropolitan area. It is part of a consolidated
city-county government known as the "Unified Government".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City,_Kansas '
So Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas have a single city
government between them?
--
Guy Barry
news:f42eb68a-d95e-434b...@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 7:44:40 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As
>> a
>> simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>> Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>> How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
>They're two different cities (a fact sometimes used by lazy fiction-writers
>to avoid having miscreants' past catch up with them: they request info from
>the KC authorities, but forget to check both).
This is what I can't work out. Wikipedia tells me:
>On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 7:44:40 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As
>> a
>> simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>> Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>> How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
>They're two different cities (a fact sometimes used by lazy fiction-writers
>to avoid having miscreants' past catch up with them: they request info from
>the KC authorities, but forget to check both).
' Kansas City (often abbreviated as "KCK" to differentiate it from its
adjacent namesake, Kansas City, Missouri) is the third-largest city in the
state of Kansas, the county seat of Wyandotte County, and the third-largest
city of the Kansas City metropolitan area. It is part of a consolidated
city-county government known as the "Unified Government".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City,_Kansas '
So Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas have a single city
government between them?
--
Guy Barry
Joe Fineman
May 19, 2015, 2:31:18 PM5/19/15
to
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
> As a simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently
> some of Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri.
They are two cities, one in each state. As Ogden Nash pointed out,
> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
> As a simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently
> some of Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri.
"Kansas City, Kansas shows that even Kansas City needn't be
Missourible".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: If you don't like the fortune, don't eat the cookie. :||
Guy Barry
May 19, 2015, 2:37:50 PM5/19/15
to
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
news:fetmlatjle3ksaeep...@4ax.com...
You're right, Tony, and Laura's wrong. London extends much further east
than the East End. For example, Barking - where my great-aunt lived until
her death a couple of weeks ago - is a London borough, despite being some
way east of districts like Bow (part of the London Borough of Tower
Hamlets), which are regarded as part of the East End.
--
Guy Barry
news:fetmlatjle3ksaeep...@4ax.com...
than the East End. For example, Barking - where my great-aunt lived until
her death a couple of weeks ago - is a London borough, despite being some
way east of districts like Bow (part of the London Borough of Tower
Hamlets), which are regarded as part of the East End.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
May 19, 2015, 2:49:39 PM5/19/15
to
"Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:841tic8...@verizon.net...
they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Kansas_City,_Missouri_and_Kansas_City,_Kansas
--
Guy Barry
>
>"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
>> As a simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently
>> some of Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri.
>
>They are two cities, one in each state. As Ogden Nash pointed out,
>"Kansas City, Kansas shows that even Kansas City needn't be
>Missourible".
Are they part of the same metropolitan area? The following article suggests
>"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
>> As a simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently
>> some of Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri.
>
>They are two cities, one in each state. As Ogden Nash pointed out,
>"Kansas City, Kansas shows that even Kansas City needn't be
>Missourible".
they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Kansas_City,_Missouri_and_Kansas_City,_Kansas
--
Guy Barry
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
May 19, 2015, 2:57:37 PM5/19/15
to
The East End (of London) is part of East London. East london has an
official definition. The East End is not officially defined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
Waltham Forest.
....
The East End of London is a subset of East London, corresponding to
areas closer to the ancient City.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_End_of_London
The East End of London, also known simply as the East End, is an
area of London, England, east of the Roman and medieval walled City
of London and north of the River Thames. Although not defined by
universally accepted formal boundaries, the River Lea can be
considered another boundary. For the purposes of his book, _East End
Past_, Richard Tames regards the area as coterminous with the London
Borough of Tower Hamlets: however, he acknowledges that this narrow
definition excludes parts of southern Hackney, such as Shoreditch
and Hoxton, which many would regard as belonging to the East End.
Others again, such as Alan Palmer, would extend the area across the
Lea to include parts of the London Borough of Newham; while parts of
the London Borough of Waltham Forest and London Borough of Hackney
are also sometimes included.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Guy Barry
May 19, 2015, 3:14:07 PM5/19/15
to
"Jerry Friedman" wrote in message news:mjfhv0$e0o$1...@news.albasani.net...
Guy Barry
May 19, 2015, 3:16:56 PM5/19/15
to
"Jerry Friedman" wrote in message news:mjfhv0$e0o$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>
>On 5/19/15 6:16 AM, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Richard Yates" wrote in message
>> news:9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
>>>> As a
>>>> simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>>> Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that
>>>> right?
>>>> How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
>Would this be a good time to bring up Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and Indiana,
>Pennsylvania?
Ever been to Wales in Yorkshire?
>> "Richard Yates" wrote in message
>> news:9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
>>>> As a
>>>> simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>>> Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that
>>>> right?
>>>> How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
>Would this be a good time to bring up Wyoming, Pennsylvania, and Indiana,
>Pennsylvania?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir//Wales,+Sheffield,+South+Yorkshire+S26/@53.3422608,-1.2944834,14z/data=!4m13!1m4!3m3!1s0x48799e5e937c326f:0x2dac9807a8be42f0!2sWales,+Sheffield,+South+Yorkshire+S26!3b1!4m7!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x48799e5e937c326f:0x2dac9807a8be42f0!2m2!1d-1.2966629!2d53.3414328
(Sorry for content-free post last time - and I'm too drunk to work out how
to get a short URL for the above reference.)
--
Guy Barry
John Dawkins
May 19, 2015, 4:26:52 PM5/19/15
to
In article <FdL6x.757385$AG5.7...@fx34.am4>,
No. That "Unified Government" refers to Kansas City, KS and the county
(in Kansas) within which it sits.
--
J.
(in Kansas) within which it sits.
--
J.
Peter T. Daniels
May 19, 2015, 5:10:04 PM5/19/15
to
sort of unified administration, maybe like Miami-Dade in Florida.
Metro Areas need not be confined to a single state. I wonder what the second-
largest city in the KCMA is, if KCM is #1 and KCK is #3. But Metro Areas are a
census concept, not an administrative concept -- bistate authorities like
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey* produce nothing but headaches
(and bad architecture).
Originally the "Port of New York Authority," and my mother's generation always
called it the "Port of Authority." Now we say "Port Authority" and it can refer
either to the organization that Christie uses as a slush fund, or to the bus
terminal just (south)west of Times Square.
Peter T. Daniels
May 19, 2015, 5:11:03 PM5/19/15
to
Will Parsons
May 19, 2015, 5:30:23 PM5/19/15
to
both agree - accent on the second syllable, just like the state.
--
Will
Horace LaBadie
May 19, 2015, 5:40:32 PM5/19/15
to
Tony Cooper
May 19, 2015, 6:01:11 PM5/19/15
to
both the city and the county share services. One police force, for
example, is responsible for the entire area of Wynadotte County and
the area within the city limits of Kansas City, Kansas.
This is not standard in the US. In this area, for example, we have a
police that is responsible for the area within the city limits of
Orlando, and a police force that is responsible for the area within
all of Orange County *except* within the City of Orlando. We do not
have a unified city-county government.
The police force is just one example of a service.
Kansas City, Missouri is sprawled out over four counties: Jackson,
Clay, Platte, and Cass. It does not seem there is a unified
city-county government involved.
It is not uncommon here for *some* services to be shared even though
there is no city-county government. There may be one fire department
that services both city and county calls, but that's not the case in
KC, Missouri.
Both KCs are in one "metropolitan area", but that's more of a
statistical term than a government term. Again about Orlando, the
metropolitan area here covers several cities and three counties.
Robert Bannister
May 19, 2015, 8:32:12 PM5/19/15
to
On 20/05/2015 12:03 am, LFS wrote:
> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>
>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>> longer the east end of London.
>>
>
> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>
In Essex true and administered by Essex County Council for some
> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>
>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>> longer the east end of London.
>>
>
> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>
purposes, but they have London post codes or at least had under the old
system. The place where I lived, Woodford Green, didn't have London post
code in those days, but South Woodford, one tube stop away, did.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
Katy Jennison
May 19, 2015, 8:42:10 PM5/19/15
to
On 19/05/2015 17:03, LFS wrote:
> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>
>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>> longer the east end of London.
>>
>
> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>
There's a fair bit of east London between the East End and Essex. Most
> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>
>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>> longer the east end of London.
>>
>
> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>
of the London borough of Redbridge, for instance, couldn't be called the
East End even by the liberal exercise of a poetic licence.
When I lived in Ilford, Essex (just over the border), an aspiring poet
who also lived there described it pretentiously as "London's Essex fringe".
--
Katy Jennison
Jerry Friedman
May 19, 2015, 8:47:34 PM5/19/15
to
On 5/19/15 12:24 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
...
> ' Kansas City (often abbreviated as "KCK" to differentiate it from its
> adjacent namesake, Kansas City, Missouri)
...
I'd actually wondered what the counterpart of "KC MO" was.
--
Jerry Friedman
...
> ' Kansas City (often abbreviated as "KCK" to differentiate it from its
> adjacent namesake, Kansas City, Missouri)
I'd actually wondered what the counterpart of "KC MO" was.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
May 19, 2015, 10:19:43 PM5/19/15
to
by that double-barrelled name.
Albury is a large (by Australian standards) rural city in New South
Wales. Just across the river, which also happens to be the state border,
is the much smaller Victorian town of Wodonga. In many ways Wodonga is
just a suburb of Albury. Legally, though, the towns are entirely
distinct because they're in different states.
If you drive north from Melbourne on the Hume Freeway, all the signs
point to Wodonga, and there is no mention of Albury. It's only as you
get closer that you're told that you should take the Wodonga exit to get
to South Albury.
There used to be a border post where southbound cars were searched for
illegal fruit. I was once caught with a ham and tomato sandwich that I'd
bought in Albury ten minutes earlier. The border guards kindly allowed
me to eat my lunch before crossing, and they didn't tell me not to use
toilets in Victoria.
Now the border posts are gone and there are better bridges, so it's
easier for people to live in Wodonga and work in Albury.
There's a similar "twin city" on the NSW-Queensland border, and there
it's a lot harder to tell where the state border is -- it runs along
city streets.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
May 19, 2015, 11:34:44 PM5/19/15
to
On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 10:19:43 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 20/05/15 04:49, Guy Barry wrote:
> > "Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:841tic8...@verizon.net...
> >>
> >> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> >>
> >>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
> >>> As a simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently
> >>> some of Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri.
> >>
> >> They are two cities, one in each state. As Ogden Nash pointed out,
> >> "Kansas City, Kansas shows that even Kansas City needn't be
> >> Missourible".
> >
> > Are they part of the same metropolitan area? The following article
> > suggests they are:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Kansas_City,_Missouri_and_Kansas_City,_Kansas
>
> Let me add Australia's Albury-Wodonga to the mix. It's often referred to
> by that double-barrelled name.
>
> Albury is a large (by Australian standards) rural city in New South
> Wales. Just across the river, which also happens to be the state border,
> is the much smaller Victorian town of Wodonga. In many ways Wodonga is
> just a suburb of Albury. Legally, though, the towns are entirely
> distinct because they're in different states.
That's more like the "Quad Cities" in the northwest corner of Illinois
> On 20/05/15 04:49, Guy Barry wrote:
> > "Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:841tic8...@verizon.net...
> >>
> >> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> >>
> >>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
> >>> As a simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently
> >>> some of Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri.
> >>
> >> They are two cities, one in each state. As Ogden Nash pointed out,
> >> "Kansas City, Kansas shows that even Kansas City needn't be
> >> Missourible".
> >
> > Are they part of the same metropolitan area? The following article
> > suggests they are:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Kansas_City,_Missouri_and_Kansas_City,_Kansas
>
> Let me add Australia's Albury-Wodonga to the mix. It's often referred to
> by that double-barrelled name.
>
> Albury is a large (by Australian standards) rural city in New South
> Wales. Just across the river, which also happens to be the state border,
> is the much smaller Victorian town of Wodonga. In many ways Wodonga is
> just a suburb of Albury. Legally, though, the towns are entirely
> distinct because they're in different states.
and adjacent (just across the Mississippi) Iowa. Chicagoans are always
trying to remember their names, because the fourth one is pretty nsignificant.
Rock Island, IL; Moline, IL; Davenport, IA; and, oh yes, Bettendorf, IA.
BTW the second largest city in IL is Rockford. No demerits for never having
heard of it.
Tony Cooper
May 19, 2015, 11:42:18 PM5/19/15
to
On Tue, 19 May 2015 20:34:42 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>BTW the second largest city in IL is Rockford. No demerits for never having
>heard of it.
It used to be, but is no more. Aurora is the second largest city in
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>BTW the second largest city in IL is Rockford. No demerits for never having
>heard of it.
Illinois with almost 50,000 more inhabitants than Rockford.
My wife is from Rockford, and we were married in Rockford. At that
time, Rockford was the second largest city in Illinois.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
charles
May 20, 2015, 4:15:21 AM5/20/15
to
In article <cs2309...@mid.individual.net>,
Post Codes have nothing to do with local government. They were decided upon
by the Post Office and related to their delivery methods.
This is why, for instance, many of the Scottish Western Isles had PA
(Paisley) for their code - their post went through Glasgow Airport - alsoa
PA code.
--
From KT24 in Surrey
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
by the Post Office and related to their delivery methods.
This is why, for instance, many of the Scottish Western Isles had PA
(Paisley) for their code - their post went through Glasgow Airport - alsoa
PA code.
--
From KT24 in Surrey
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
Guy Barry
May 20, 2015, 4:18:43 AM5/20/15
to
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:cs2309...@mid.individual.net...
purpose. The London Boroughs of Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Havering,
Redbridge and Waltham Forest, which were all part of Essex before the
creation of the Greater London Council in 1965, have not been in Essex since
then.
>The place where I lived, Woodford Green, didn't have London post code in
>those days, but South Woodford, one tube stop away, did.
The London postal area is larger than the pre-1965 London County Council
area, but rather smaller than the current Greater London area. For example,
East Ham has a London postcode (E6), but most of Barking has an Essex
postcode (IG11). Both areas were in Essex before 1965 and in Greater London
afterwards.
--
Guy Barry
news:cs2309...@mid.individual.net...
>
>On 20/05/2015 12:03 am, LFS wrote:
>> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>>> longer the east end of London.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
>> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>>
>In Essex true and administered by Essex County Council for some purposes,
>but they have London post codes or at least had under the old system.
None of Greater London is administered by Essex County Council for any
>On 20/05/2015 12:03 am, LFS wrote:
>> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>>> longer the east end of London.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
>> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>>
>In Essex true and administered by Essex County Council for some purposes,
>but they have London post codes or at least had under the old system.
purpose. The London Boroughs of Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Havering,
Redbridge and Waltham Forest, which were all part of Essex before the
creation of the Greater London Council in 1965, have not been in Essex since
then.
>The place where I lived, Woodford Green, didn't have London post code in
>those days, but South Woodford, one tube stop away, did.
area, but rather smaller than the current Greater London area. For example,
East Ham has a London postcode (E6), but most of Barking has an Essex
postcode (IG11). Both areas were in Essex before 1965 and in Greater London
afterwards.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
May 20, 2015, 4:20:23 AM5/20/15
to
"Katy Jennison" wrote in message news:mjgl8v$35t$1...@news.albasani.net...
>There's a fair bit of east London between the East End and Essex. Most
>of the London borough of Redbridge, for instance, couldn't be called the
>East End even by the liberal exercise of a poetic licence.
I've sometimes wondered where Walford is meant to be.
--
Guy Barry
>There's a fair bit of east London between the East End and Essex. Most
>of the London borough of Redbridge, for instance, couldn't be called the
>East End even by the liberal exercise of a poetic licence.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
May 20, 2015, 4:22:09 AM5/20/15
to
"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnmlo27h....@amelia.local...
>
>In message <9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com>
> Richard Yates <ric...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
>Yes.
No one. Hence the quote marks.
--
Guy Barry
>
>In message <9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com>
> Richard Yates <ric...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As
>>>a
>>>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As
>>>a
>>>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>
>Yes.
>
>>>How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
>Who says it is the wrong state?
>>>How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
No one. Hence the quote marks.
--
Guy Barry
charles
May 20, 2015, 5:02:45 AM5/20/15
to
In article <BrX6x.470594$L15....@fx06.am4>, Guy Barry
Actually, the Poat Code areas for London are slightly more complex. Those
that were in the old LCC area (E*, N*, NW*, SE*, SW* & W*) are the Inner
London Postal Area. The Outer London Postal Area - mainly the parts that
are now in the GLC area use codes : EN, IG, RM, DA, BR, TN, CR, SM, KT. TW,
HA, UB. I happen to live in one of these zones, outside the GLC area, not
even in a district that adjoins the GLC, but that's the way the mail is
routed.
that were in the old LCC area (E*, N*, NW*, SE*, SW* & W*) are the Inner
London Postal Area. The Outer London Postal Area - mainly the parts that
are now in the GLC area use codes : EN, IG, RM, DA, BR, TN, CR, SM, KT. TW,
HA, UB. I happen to live in one of these zones, outside the GLC area, not
even in a district that adjoins the GLC, but that's the way the mail is
routed.
Guy Barry
May 20, 2015, 5:23:12 AM5/20/15
to
"charles" wrote in message
news:54c6a7d3...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
postcode. Here's a map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_postal_district#/media/File:LONDON_post_town_map.svg
The area marked as "London" is rather larger than the old LCC area, which is
the one marked in grey on this map:
http://wikitravel.org/upload/shared//thumb/7/7d/Outer_Inner_London_Boroughs.png/320px-Outer_Inner_London_Boroughs.png
I didn't realize this for some time - I lived close to the border between
the London Boroughs of Greenwich and Bexley, where the postal boundary
actually *was* the old LCC boundary, and assumed it must have been the same
everywhere else. It wasn't.
--
Guy Barry
news:54c6a7d3...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>
>In article <BrX6x.470594$L15....@fx06.am4>, Guy Barry
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> The London postal area is larger than the pre-1965 London County Council
>> area, but rather smaller than the current Greater London area. For
>> example, East Ham has a London postcode (E6), but most of Barking has an
>> Essex postcode (IG11). Both areas were in Essex before 1965 and in
>> Greater London afterwards.
>
>
>Actually, the Poat Code areas for London are slightly more complex. Those
>that were in the old LCC area (E*, N*, NW*, SE*, SW* & W*) are the Inner
>London Postal Area. The Outer London Postal Area - mainly the parts that
>are now in the GLC area use codes : EN, IG, RM, DA, BR, TN, CR, SM, KT. TW,
>HA, UB.
But as I said above, East Ham wasn't in the old LCC area, but had a London
>In article <BrX6x.470594$L15....@fx06.am4>, Guy Barry
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> The London postal area is larger than the pre-1965 London County Council
>> area, but rather smaller than the current Greater London area. For
>> example, East Ham has a London postcode (E6), but most of Barking has an
>> Essex postcode (IG11). Both areas were in Essex before 1965 and in
>> Greater London afterwards.
>
>
>Actually, the Poat Code areas for London are slightly more complex. Those
>that were in the old LCC area (E*, N*, NW*, SE*, SW* & W*) are the Inner
>London Postal Area. The Outer London Postal Area - mainly the parts that
>are now in the GLC area use codes : EN, IG, RM, DA, BR, TN, CR, SM, KT. TW,
>HA, UB.
postcode. Here's a map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_postal_district#/media/File:LONDON_post_town_map.svg
The area marked as "London" is rather larger than the old LCC area, which is
the one marked in grey on this map:
http://wikitravel.org/upload/shared//thumb/7/7d/Outer_Inner_London_Boroughs.png/320px-Outer_Inner_London_Boroughs.png
I didn't realize this for some time - I lived close to the border between
the London Boroughs of Greenwich and Bexley, where the postal boundary
actually *was* the old LCC boundary, and assumed it must have been the same
everywhere else. It wasn't.
--
Guy Barry
Adam Funk
May 20, 2015, 6:00:05 AM5/20/15
to
On 2015-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> One minor problem solved by the introduction of ZIP codes in 1963 was that there
> could be more than one town in a state with the same name, so addresses had
> to mention the county as well. (I think one of them was Clinton in NY -- there
> was an important governor of the state by that name long before there was a
> president or two of that name.)
Have the duplicate town-state combinations been changed since then? I
was under the impression that they weren't "allowed" in the USPS
addressing standards.
--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. (David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995)
> One minor problem solved by the introduction of ZIP codes in 1963 was that there
> could be more than one town in a state with the same name, so addresses had
> to mention the county as well. (I think one of them was Clinton in NY -- there
> was an important governor of the state by that name long before there was a
> president or two of that name.)
Have the duplicate town-state combinations been changed since then? I
was under the impression that they weren't "allowed" in the USPS
addressing standards.
--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. (David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995)
Guy Barry
May 20, 2015, 6:29:23 AM5/20/15
to
"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:uc1nlalddr6l7nqro...@4ax.com...
>The East End (of London) is part of East London. East london has an
>official definition. The East End is not officially defined.
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
>
> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
> Waltham Forest.
Whoa, stop. I don't know whose "official definition" that is, but it
doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've heard. East
London is mostly definitely north of the Thames, whereas Bexley, Greenwich
and Lewisham are all south of the Thames. They might be referred to as
"south-east London" or possibly as "south London", but never as "east
London".
The Wikipedia article contradicts itself. Under "geography" it says "East
London is located in the lower Thames valley. The major rivers of East
London are the Thames that forms the southern boundary..." and goes on to
give an overview of seven boroughs (Barking & Dagenham, Hackney, Havering,
Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest), all of which are
north of the Thames.
Where do those "official London sub-regions" come from? They must be
relatively recent - I lived in Plumstead (in the London borough of
Greenwich) in the 70s and 80s and would never have regarded myself as a
resident of east London in any sense.
--
Guy Barry
news:uc1nlalddr6l7nqro...@4ax.com...
>The East End (of London) is part of East London. East london has an
>official definition. The East End is not officially defined.
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
>
> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
> Waltham Forest.
doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've heard. East
London is mostly definitely north of the Thames, whereas Bexley, Greenwich
and Lewisham are all south of the Thames. They might be referred to as
"south-east London" or possibly as "south London", but never as "east
London".
The Wikipedia article contradicts itself. Under "geography" it says "East
London is located in the lower Thames valley. The major rivers of East
London are the Thames that forms the southern boundary..." and goes on to
give an overview of seven boroughs (Barking & Dagenham, Hackney, Havering,
Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest), all of which are
north of the Thames.
Where do those "official London sub-regions" come from? They must be
relatively recent - I lived in Plumstead (in the London borough of
Greenwich) in the 70s and 80s and would never have regarded myself as a
resident of east London in any sense.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
May 20, 2015, 6:32:00 AM5/20/15
to
"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:3mZ6x.74939$Q41....@fx25.am4...
> East London is mostly definitely north of the Thames
of "-ly" substantially changed the meaning.
--
Guy Barry
LFS
May 20, 2015, 6:58:43 AM5/20/15
to
On 19/05/2015 19:37, Guy Barry wrote:
> "Tony Cooper" wrote in message
> news:fetmlatjle3ksaeep...@4ax.com...
>> longer the east end of London, and that East London is what extends to
>> the other suburbs.
>>
>> Am I wrong?
>
> You're right, Tony, and Laura's wrong. London extends much further east
> than the East End. For example, Barking - where my great-aunt lived
> until her death a couple of weeks ago - is a London borough, despite
> being some way east of districts like Bow (part of the London Borough of
> Tower Hamlets), which are regarded as part of the East End.
>
Hm. My understanding was that Tower Hamlets marks the end but the
boundaries are clearly contestable. I found this quite interesting:
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/5/7.html
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
> "Tony Cooper" wrote in message
> news:fetmlatjle3ksaeep...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 17:03:02 +0100, LFS
>> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>>>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>>>> longer the east end of London.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
>>> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>>
>> It was my impression that the East End is a smaller area that is no
>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 17:03:02 +0100, LFS
>> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>>>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>>>> longer the east end of London.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
>>> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>>
>> longer the east end of London, and that East London is what extends to
>> the other suburbs.
>>
>> Am I wrong?
>
> You're right, Tony, and Laura's wrong. London extends much further east
> than the East End. For example, Barking - where my great-aunt lived
> until her death a couple of weeks ago - is a London borough, despite
> being some way east of districts like Bow (part of the London Borough of
> Tower Hamlets), which are regarded as part of the East End.
>
Hm. My understanding was that Tower Hamlets marks the end but the
boundaries are clearly contestable. I found this quite interesting:
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/5/7.html
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Peter T. Daniels
May 20, 2015, 8:58:21 AM5/20/15
to
had transpired before then, it would have been almost as big news as Chicago
(technically) falling to Third City.
Peter T. Daniels
May 20, 2015, 9:00:05 AM5/20/15
to
On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 12:09:22 AM UTC-4, Lewis wrote:
> In message <9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com>
> Richard Yates <ric...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> > <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
> >>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
> >>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>
> Yes.
That's the sort of mistake that happens when one chooses not to read any of
> In message <9q9mla50q61jsdp6g...@4ax.com>
> Richard Yates <ric...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> > <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
> >>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
> >>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>
> Yes.
the prior messages in a thread. Has Screwy Lewie "killfiled" _everyone_ who
explained the true situation of the TWO DIFFERENT cities?
Peter T. Daniels
May 20, 2015, 9:01:43 AM5/20/15
to
On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 4:18:43 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
> None of Greater London is administered by Essex County Council for any
> purpose. The London Boroughs of Newham, Barking
Were there many hatters there?
> None of Greater London is administered by Essex County Council for any
> purpose. The London Boroughs of Newham, Barking
Peter T. Daniels
May 20, 2015, 9:06:44 AM5/20/15
to
On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 6:00:05 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2015-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > One minor problem solved by the introduction of ZIP codes in 1963 was that there
> > could be more than one town in a state with the same name, so addresses had
> > to mention the county as well. (I think one of them was Clinton in NY -- there
> > was an important governor of the state by that name long before there was a
> > president or two of that name.)
>
> Have the duplicate town-state combinations been changed since then? I
> was under the impression that they weren't "allowed" in the USPS
> addressing standards.
Seems unlikely, since the introduction of the national ZIP codes in 1963 was
> On 2015-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > One minor problem solved by the introduction of ZIP codes in 1963 was that there
> > could be more than one town in a state with the same name, so addresses had
> > to mention the county as well. (I think one of them was Clinton in NY -- there
> > was an important governor of the state by that name long before there was a
> > president or two of that name.)
>
> Have the duplicate town-state combinations been changed since then? I
> was under the impression that they weren't "allowed" in the USPS
> addressing standards.
said to have mitigated that "problem." But one would have to find an example --
what I saw was a photograph of an old envelope in a "Guide to Stamp Collecting"
book that noted the phenomenon, and that was a very long time ago (I actively
engaged in philately between 1965 and 1975).
LFS
May 20, 2015, 9:57:10 AM5/20/15
to
different evidence:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2010/sep/22/eastenders-tube-map
The geographical locations of Weatherfield and Ambridge seem far more
well established.
Charles Bishop
May 20, 2015, 9:59:23 AM5/20/15
to
In article <3mZ6x.74939$Q41....@fx25.am4>,
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip-geographical designations of London]
people who have an interest, not in descriptions of an area, but real
estate values or to make the area "sound" better. Examples from here are
referring to an area in San Francisco as SoMa (South of Market) as the
area became desirable with the Silicone Valley boom and expansion into
San Francisco. Closer to me now, Snidely mentioned the San Fernando
Valley and it's patchwork of "cities". There was and is Granada Hills,
but as more expensive houses were built within its boundaries, people
wanted their are to be distinctive, so there is now North Hills, and
West Hills. Sometimes these areas have their own post office which makes
them somewhat official, but most of the time they don't so there is no
real reason for the distinction.
In general, people want their areas to be distinctive and
distinguishable from areas around them, especially if the areas around
them are seen to be less desirable.
--
charles
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip-geographical designations of London]
>
> Where do those "official London sub-regions" come from? They must be
> relatively recent - I lived in Plumstead (in the London borough of
> Greenwich) in the 70s and 80s and would never have regarded myself as a
> resident of east London in any sense.
If England is like America in this way, the designations come from
> Where do those "official London sub-regions" come from? They must be
> relatively recent - I lived in Plumstead (in the London borough of
> Greenwich) in the 70s and 80s and would never have regarded myself as a
> resident of east London in any sense.
people who have an interest, not in descriptions of an area, but real
estate values or to make the area "sound" better. Examples from here are
referring to an area in San Francisco as SoMa (South of Market) as the
area became desirable with the Silicone Valley boom and expansion into
San Francisco. Closer to me now, Snidely mentioned the San Fernando
Valley and it's patchwork of "cities". There was and is Granada Hills,
but as more expensive houses were built within its boundaries, people
wanted their are to be distinctive, so there is now North Hills, and
West Hills. Sometimes these areas have their own post office which makes
them somewhat official, but most of the time they don't so there is no
real reason for the distinction.
In general, people want their areas to be distinctive and
distinguishable from areas around them, especially if the areas around
them are seen to be less desirable.
--
charles
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
May 20, 2015, 11:44:35 AM5/20/15
to
from the Big Brother House and the George Lucas Stage (Star Wars
trilogy).
http://underground-history.co.uk/images/walford.jpg
The real station that serves them is Elstree and Borehamwood.
If this combination of reality, fiction and aliens is all too much and
causes irretrievable mental confusion there is the Forest Care Village
nearby.
http://www.carehome.co.uk/carehome.cfm/searchazref/20001040BORA
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Sneaky O. Possum
May 20, 2015, 12:32:33 PM5/20/15
to
Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mjglj3$3go$1
@news.albasani.net:
It's only just now occurred to me that Niagara Falls, NY and Niagara Falls,
Ontario are in an analogous situation, separated as they are by their
namesake river. But they have an advantage over the two Kansas Cities in
that they're located in different nations, making it easy to infer that
they're separate polities.
--
S.O.P.
@news.albasani.net:
Ontario are in an analogous situation, separated as they are by their
namesake river. But they have an advantage over the two Kansas Cities in
that they're located in different nations, making it easy to infer that
they're separate polities.
--
S.O.P.
Katy Jennison
May 20, 2015, 12:45:07 PM5/20/15
to
On 20/05/2015 11:29, Guy Barry wrote:
> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
> news:uc1nlalddr6l7nqro...@4ax.com...
>
>> The East End (of London) is part of East London. East london has an
>> official definition. The East End is not officially defined.
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
>>
>> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
>> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
>> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
>> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
>> Waltham Forest.
>
> Whoa, stop. I don't know whose "official definition" that is, but it
> doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've heard.
> East London is mostly definitely north of the Thames, whereas Bexley,
> Greenwich and Lewisham are all south of the Thames. They might be
> referred to as "south-east London" or possibly as "south London", but
> never as "east London".
>
Hear, hear. Nothing south of the river is "east London". I've lived in
> "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
> news:uc1nlalddr6l7nqro...@4ax.com...
>
>> The East End (of London) is part of East London. East london has an
>> official definition. The East End is not officially defined.
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
>>
>> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
>> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
>> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
>> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
>> Waltham Forest.
>
> Whoa, stop. I don't know whose "official definition" that is, but it
> doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've heard.
> East London is mostly definitely north of the Thames, whereas Bexley,
> Greenwich and Lewisham are all south of the Thames. They might be
> referred to as "south-east London" or possibly as "south London", but
> never as "east London".
>
several of these boroughs, you know.
--
Katy Jennison
Garrett Wollman
May 20, 2015, 1:35:07 PM5/20/15
to
>"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
>news:uc1nlalddr6l7nqro...@4ax.com...
>>The East End (of London) is part of East London. East london has an
>>official definition. The East End is not officially defined.
>>
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
>>
>> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
>> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
>> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
>> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
>> Waltham Forest.
>
>Whoa, stop. I don't know whose "official definition" that is, but it
>doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've
heard.
According to
>news:uc1nlalddr6l7nqro...@4ax.com...
>>The East End (of London) is part of East London. East london has an
>>official definition. The East End is not officially defined.
>>
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
>>
>> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
>> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
>> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
>> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
>> Waltham Forest.
>
>Whoa, stop. I don't know whose "official definition" that is, but it
>doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've
heard.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sub_regions_used_in_the_London_Plan>,
it is the official definition used for planning and administrative
purposes in The London Plan 2011. See Map 2.1 on page 10 of the PDF
at <http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LP2011%20Chapter%202.pdf>.
So I guess you can say it's Boris's "official definition".
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
snide...@gmail.com
May 20, 2015, 2:48:09 PM5/20/15
to
("Bend-In-The-River")
/dps
Guy Barry
May 20, 2015, 3:05:26 PM5/20/15
to
"Charles Bishop" wrote in message
news:ctbishop-AB568C...@news.individual.net...
area, and I'm sure the residents of the London borough of Bexley would far
rather consider themselves "south" or "south-east" than "east". (Actually
they'd probably rather call themselves "Kent" and pretend they're not part
of London at all.)
--
Guy Ba
news:ctbishop-AB568C...@news.individual.net...
>
>In article <3mZ6x.74939$Q41....@fx25.am4>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip-geographical designations of London]
>>
>> Where do those "official London sub-regions" come from? They must be
>> relatively recent - I lived in Plumstead (in the London borough of
>> Greenwich) in the 70s and 80s and would never have regarded myself as a
>> resident of east London in any sense.
>
>If England is like America in this way, the designations come from
>people who have an interest, not in descriptions of an area, but real
>estate values or to make the area "sound" better.
Not in this case. East London is generally regarded as an unfashionable
>In article <3mZ6x.74939$Q41....@fx25.am4>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip-geographical designations of London]
>>
>> Where do those "official London sub-regions" come from? They must be
>> relatively recent - I lived in Plumstead (in the London borough of
>> Greenwich) in the 70s and 80s and would never have regarded myself as a
>> resident of east London in any sense.
>
>If England is like America in this way, the designations come from
>people who have an interest, not in descriptions of an area, but real
>estate values or to make the area "sound" better.
area, and I'm sure the residents of the London borough of Bexley would far
rather consider themselves "south" or "south-east" than "east". (Actually
they'd probably rather call themselves "Kent" and pretend they're not part
of London at all.)
--
Guy Ba
Guy Barry
May 20, 2015, 3:18:45 PM5/20/15
to
"LFS" wrote in message news:cs3i5i...@mid.individual.net...
genuine "EastEnders" (just), whereas a location between Walthamstow and
Stratford would presumably be Leyton, which isn't considered part of the
East End (although it may be part of the Orient).
--
Guy Barry
>
>On 20/05/2015 09:20, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Katy Jennison" wrote in message news:mjgl8v$35t$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> There's a fair bit of east London between the East End and Essex.
>>> Most of the London borough of Redbridge, for instance, couldn't be
>>> called the East End even by the liberal exercise of a poetic licence.
>>
>> I've sometimes wondered where Walford is meant to be.
>>
>
>Some say between Walthamstow and Stratford. This article provides different
>evidence:
>
>http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2010/sep/22/eastenders-tube-map
Well, that location (Bromley-by-Bow) would certainly make the residents
>On 20/05/2015 09:20, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Katy Jennison" wrote in message news:mjgl8v$35t$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> There's a fair bit of east London between the East End and Essex.
>>> Most of the London borough of Redbridge, for instance, couldn't be
>>> called the East End even by the liberal exercise of a poetic licence.
>>
>> I've sometimes wondered where Walford is meant to be.
>>
>
>Some say between Walthamstow and Stratford. This article provides different
>evidence:
>
>http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2010/sep/22/eastenders-tube-map
genuine "EastEnders" (just), whereas a location between Walthamstow and
Stratford would presumably be Leyton, which isn't considered part of the
East End (although it may be part of the Orient).
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
May 20, 2015, 3:27:17 PM5/20/15
to
"Garrett Wollman" wrote in message
news:mjigk8$2bbb$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
with Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark (all south of the
Thames) forming the "south east" sub-region, while Barking & Dagenham,
Havering, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and the City of
London (all north of the Thames) formed a so-called "north east" region,
more or less coinciding with what most people would regard as "east London".
The Thames is the most obvious natural boundary in London, particularly on
the eastern side, where there are relatively few river crossings. What mad
planning bureaucrat decided to lump three of the south-eastern boroughs in
with east London? It's almost as insane as Humberside.
--
Guy Barry
news:mjigk8$2bbb$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
>
>In article <3mZ6x.74939$Q41....@fx25.am4>,
>Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
>>news:uc1nlalddr6l7nqro...@4ax.com...
>>>The East End (of London) is part of East London. East london has an
>>>official definition. The East End is not officially defined.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
>>>
>>> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
>>> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
>>> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
>>> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
>>> Waltham Forest.
>>
>>Whoa, stop. I don't know whose "official definition" that is, but it
>>doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've
>heard.
>
>According to
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sub_regions_used_in_the_London_Plan>,
>it is the official definition used for planning and administrative
>purposes in The London Plan 2011. See Map 2.1 on page 10 of the PDF
>at <http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LP2011%20Chapter%202.pdf>.
>
>So I guess you can say it's Boris's "official definition".
Oh, right. And yet from 2008 to 2011 they had a far more sensible division,
>In article <3mZ6x.74939$Q41....@fx25.am4>,
>Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
>>news:uc1nlalddr6l7nqro...@4ax.com...
>>>The East End (of London) is part of East London. East london has an
>>>official definition. The East End is not officially defined.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
>>>
>>> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
>>> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
>>> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
>>> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
>>> Waltham Forest.
>>
>>Whoa, stop. I don't know whose "official definition" that is, but it
>>doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've
>heard.
>
>According to
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sub_regions_used_in_the_London_Plan>,
>it is the official definition used for planning and administrative
>purposes in The London Plan 2011. See Map 2.1 on page 10 of the PDF
>at <http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LP2011%20Chapter%202.pdf>.
>
>So I guess you can say it's Boris's "official definition".
with Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark (all south of the
Thames) forming the "south east" sub-region, while Barking & Dagenham,
Havering, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and the City of
London (all north of the Thames) formed a so-called "north east" region,
more or less coinciding with what most people would regard as "east London".
The Thames is the most obvious natural boundary in London, particularly on
the eastern side, where there are relatively few river crossings. What mad
planning bureaucrat decided to lump three of the south-eastern boroughs in
with east London? It's almost as insane as Humberside.
--
Guy Barry
Message has been deleted
Jerry Friedman
May 20, 2015, 3:42:38 PM5/20/15
to
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
May 20, 2015, 3:48:03 PM5/20/15
to
Hungaria, which was between China and Hungary and also between France
and Spain. (Yes, he was being deliberately silly.)
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
May 20, 2015, 4:00:49 PM5/20/15
to
On 20/05/2015 3:42 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Guy Barry wrote: ...
>>>> ' Kansas City (often abbreviated as "KCK" to differentiate it
>>>> from its adjacent namesake, Kansas City, Missouri)
>>> ...
>>> I'd actually wondered what the counterpart of "KC MO" was.
>> It's only just now occurred to me that Niagara Falls, NY and
>> Niagara Falls, Ontario are in an analogous situation, separated as
>> they are by their namesake river. But they have an advantage over
>> the two Kansas Cities in that they're located in different nations,
>> making it easy to infer that they're separate polities.
> Likewise Nogales, Ariz. and Sonora, except the river part.
And the two Saults Ste-Marie, in Michigan and Ontario, on either side of
>>> Guy Barry wrote: ...
>>>> ' Kansas City (often abbreviated as "KCK" to differentiate it
>>>> from its adjacent namesake, Kansas City, Missouri)
>>> ...
>>> I'd actually wondered what the counterpart of "KC MO" was.
>> It's only just now occurred to me that Niagara Falls, NY and
>> Niagara Falls, Ontario are in an analogous situation, separated as
>> they are by their namesake river. But they have an advantage over
>> the two Kansas Cities in that they're located in different nations,
>> making it easy to infer that they're separate polities.
> Likewise Nogales, Ariz. and Sonora, except the river part.
St. Mary's River. Wp says they were one city under French and then
British rule, until the boundary commissioners caught up with them.
Jerry Friedman
May 20, 2015, 4:02:02 PM5/20/15
to
On 5/19/15 9:34 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 10:19:43 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 20/05/15 04:49, Guy Barry wrote:
>>> "Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:841tic8...@verizon.net...
>>>> "Kansas City, Kansas shows that even Kansas City needn't be
>>>> Missourible".
>>>
>>> Are they part of the same metropolitan area? The following article
>>> suggests they are:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Kansas_City,_Missouri_and_Kansas_City,_Kansas
>>
>> Let me add Australia's Albury-Wodonga to the mix. It's often referred to
>> by that double-barrelled name.
>>
>> Albury is a large (by Australian standards) rural city in New South
>> Wales. Just across the river, which also happens to be the state border,
>> is the much smaller Victorian town of Wodonga. In many ways Wodonga is
>> just a suburb of Albury. Legally, though, the towns are entirely
>> distinct because they're in different states.
>
> That's more like the "Quad Cities" in the northwest corner of Illinois
> and adjacent (just across the Mississippi) Iowa.
And many other examples. I think St. Louis and East St. Louis have been
mentioned, as have Portland, Ore., and Vancouver, Wash. In my native
state there's Cincinnati, Oh., and across from it Covington, Ky.
A three-way-ish international one is Las Cruces, N. M., El Paso, Tex.,
and Cd. Juárez, Chih.
"For the river at Wheeling, West Virginia,
Has only two shores:
The one in hell, the other
In Bridgeport, Ohio.
And nobody would commit suicide, only
To find beyond death
Bridgeport, Ohio."
--James Wright, "In Response to a Rumor That the Oldest Whorehouse in
Wheeling, West Virginia Has Been Condemned"
> Chicagoans are always
> trying to remember their names, because the fourth one is pretty nsignificant.
> Rock Island, IL; Moline, IL; Davenport, IA; and, oh yes, Bettendorf, IA.
...
Also East Moline, Ill. Wikipedia says that despite some people's
efforts, "Quint Cities" never caught on.
--
Jerry Friedman
> On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 10:19:43 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 20/05/15 04:49, Guy Barry wrote:
>>> "Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:841tic8...@verizon.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
>>>>> As a simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently
>>>>> some of Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri.
>>>>
>>>> They are two cities, one in each state. As Ogden Nash pointed out,
>>>> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning.
>>>>> As a simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently
>>>>> some of Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri.
>>>>
>>>> "Kansas City, Kansas shows that even Kansas City needn't be
>>>> Missourible".
>>>
>>> Are they part of the same metropolitan area? The following article
>>> suggests they are:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhoods_of_Kansas_City,_Missouri_and_Kansas_City,_Kansas
>>
>> Let me add Australia's Albury-Wodonga to the mix. It's often referred to
>> by that double-barrelled name.
>>
>> Albury is a large (by Australian standards) rural city in New South
>> Wales. Just across the river, which also happens to be the state border,
>> is the much smaller Victorian town of Wodonga. In many ways Wodonga is
>> just a suburb of Albury. Legally, though, the towns are entirely
>> distinct because they're in different states.
>
> That's more like the "Quad Cities" in the northwest corner of Illinois
> and adjacent (just across the Mississippi) Iowa.
And many other examples. I think St. Louis and East St. Louis have been
mentioned, as have Portland, Ore., and Vancouver, Wash. In my native
state there's Cincinnati, Oh., and across from it Covington, Ky.
A three-way-ish international one is Las Cruces, N. M., El Paso, Tex.,
and Cd. Juárez, Chih.
"For the river at Wheeling, West Virginia,
Has only two shores:
The one in hell, the other
In Bridgeport, Ohio.
And nobody would commit suicide, only
To find beyond death
Bridgeport, Ohio."
--James Wright, "In Response to a Rumor That the Oldest Whorehouse in
Wheeling, West Virginia Has Been Condemned"
> Chicagoans are always
> trying to remember their names, because the fourth one is pretty nsignificant.
> Rock Island, IL; Moline, IL; Davenport, IA; and, oh yes, Bettendorf, IA.
...
Also East Moline, Ill. Wikipedia says that despite some people's
efforts, "Quint Cities" never caught on.
--
Jerry Friedman
snide...@gmail.com
May 20, 2015, 4:25:41 PM5/20/15
to
On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 10:35:07 AM UTC-7, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <3mZ6x.74939$Q41....@fx25.am4>,
> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
> >news:uc1nlalddr6l7nqro...@4ax.com...
> >>The East End (of London) is part of East London. East london has an
> >>official definition. The East End is not officially defined.
> >>
> >>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
> >>
> >> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
> >> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
> >> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
> >> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
> >> Waltham Forest.
> >
> >Whoa, stop. I don't know whose "official definition" that is, but it
> >doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've
> heard.
>
> According to
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sub_regions_used_in_the_London_Plan>,
> it is the official definition used for planning and administrative
> purposes in The London Plan 2011. See Map 2.1 on page 10 of the PDF
> at <http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LP2011%20Chapter%202.pdf>.
Which page is labeled "46". Chapter 1 starts on page 15; I wonder where pages 1-14 are?
> In article <3mZ6x.74939$Q41....@fx25.am4>,
> Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
> >news:uc1nlalddr6l7nqro...@4ax.com...
> >>The East End (of London) is part of East London. East london has an
> >>official definition. The East End is not officially defined.
> >>
> >>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
> >>
> >> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
> >> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
> >> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
> >> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
> >> Waltham Forest.
> >
> >Whoa, stop. I don't know whose "official definition" that is, but it
> >doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've
> heard.
>
> According to
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sub_regions_used_in_the_London_Plan>,
> it is the official definition used for planning and administrative
> purposes in The London Plan 2011. See Map 2.1 on page 10 of the PDF
> at <http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LP2011%20Chapter%202.pdf>.
>
> So I guess you can say it's Boris's "official definition".
>
/dps
charles
May 20, 2015, 4:32:39 PM5/20/15
to
In article <Td57x.651919$sZ5.1...@fx14.am4>, Guy Barry
It's an obvious excuse to build a bridge - just like Humberside
--
From KT24 in Surrey
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
--
From KT24 in Surrey
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18
snide...@gmail.com
May 20, 2015, 4:47:02 PM5/20/15
to
<URL:http://www.designboom.com/architecture/thomas-heatherwick-discloses-new-renderings-of-garden-bridge-11-07-2013/>
/dps
Guy Barry
May 20, 2015, 4:50:15 PM5/20/15
to
"charles" wrote in message
news:54c6e6b7...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
Well they built this I suppose - the "Emirates Air Line" cable car, which
links the North Greenwich peninsula with the Royal Docks:
http://www.emiratesairline.co.uk/
I travelled on it last month and, while it's undoubtedly a remarkable
technical achievement and a fantastic tourist attraction, it doesn't really
go anywhere that most people want to go.
--
Guy Barry
news:54c6e6b7...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
links the North Greenwich peninsula with the Royal Docks:
http://www.emiratesairline.co.uk/
I travelled on it last month and, while it's undoubtedly a remarkable
technical achievement and a fantastic tourist attraction, it doesn't really
go anywhere that most people want to go.
--
Guy Barry
Adam Funk
May 20, 2015, 5:45:06 PM5/20/15
to
--
But the government always tries to coax well-known writers into the
Establishment; it makes them feel educated. [Robert Graves]
Adam Funk
May 20, 2015, 5:45:07 PM5/20/15
to
On 2015-05-20, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <3mZ6x.74939$Q41....@fx25.am4>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip-geographical designations of London]
>>
>> Where do those "official London sub-regions" come from? They must be
>> relatively recent - I lived in Plumstead (in the London borough of
>> Greenwich) in the 70s and 80s and would never have regarded myself as a
>> resident of east London in any sense.
>
> If England is like America in this way, the designations come from
> people who have an interest, not in descriptions of an area, but real
> estate values or to make the area "sound" better. Examples from here are
> referring to an area in San Francisco as SoMa (South of Market) as the
...but if it's downhill from the market, they won't call it "Down
> In article <3mZ6x.74939$Q41....@fx25.am4>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip-geographical designations of London]
>>
>> Where do those "official London sub-regions" come from? They must be
>> relatively recent - I lived in Plumstead (in the London borough of
>> Greenwich) in the 70s and 80s and would never have regarded myself as a
>> resident of east London in any sense.
>
> If England is like America in this way, the designations come from
> people who have an interest, not in descriptions of an area, but real
> estate values or to make the area "sound" better. Examples from here are
> referring to an area in San Francisco as SoMa (South of Market) as the
Market".
--
The history of the world is the history of a privileged few.
--- Henry Miller
Peter T. Daniels
May 20, 2015, 5:59:55 PM5/20/15
to
snide...@gmail.com
May 20, 2015, 6:04:10 PM5/20/15
to
On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 6:59:23 AM UTC-7, Charles Bishop wrote:
> referring to an area in San Francisco as SoMa (South of Market) as the
> area became desirable with the Silicone Valley boom
I thought Carol Doda worked in North Beach.
> referring to an area in San Francisco as SoMa (South of Market) as the
> area became desirable with the Silicone Valley boom
/dps
Paul Wolff
May 20, 2015, 6:23:18 PM5/20/15
to
On Wed, 20 May 2015, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> posted:
Please now tell me that a sault is a saut, so that the two Saults
Ste-Marie are leaps across the St Mary's River from each to the other.
--
Paul
Ste-Marie are leaps across the St Mary's River from each to the other.
--
Paul
Paul Wolff
May 20, 2015, 6:53:19 PM5/20/15
to
On Wed, 20 May 2015, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> posted:
In descending elevation, and roughly following the course of the Ampney
Brook in Gloucestershire, are Ampney Knowle above the 122m contour,
Ampney Riding below it, Ampney St Mary, Ampney Crucis, Ampney St Peter,
and then Down Ampney (around 85m), after which the Thames.
I must visit Ampney St Peter, with its population of just 47, but
possessed of St Peter's church, a stout, Saxon-looking building.
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampney_St_Peter#/media/File:Ampney_St_P
eter_church.jpg>. It's hardly an hour from here.
PTD may know that the vicarage in Down Ampney was the birthplace of RVW,
composer of the Down Ampney hymn tune.
--
Paul
Brook in Gloucestershire, are Ampney Knowle above the 122m contour,
Ampney Riding below it, Ampney St Mary, Ampney Crucis, Ampney St Peter,
and then Down Ampney (around 85m), after which the Thames.
I must visit Ampney St Peter, with its population of just 47, but
possessed of St Peter's church, a stout, Saxon-looking building.
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampney_St_Peter#/media/File:Ampney_St_P
eter_church.jpg>. It's hardly an hour from here.
PTD may know that the vicarage in Down Ampney was the birthplace of RVW,
composer of the Down Ampney hymn tune.
--
Paul
Robert Bannister
May 20, 2015, 7:43:32 PM5/20/15
to
Redbridge is only marginally in London and I'd find it hard to think of
Barking or Dagenham as being even near London. I had to look up
Havering, and find that that too is in the wilds of rural Essex. Perhaps
it's the influence of Hornchurch, Barking, Upminster, etc. all being on
a tube line, but that doesn't work with some other tune lines that go
miles out of London, or at least I can't imagine anyone claiming
Chalfont or Amersham were in London.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
Robert Bannister
May 20, 2015, 7:51:49 PM5/20/15
to
On 20/05/2015 4:18 pm, Guy Barry wrote:
> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
> news:cs2309...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> On 20/05/2015 12:03 am, LFS wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>>>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>>>> longer the east end of London.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
>>> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>>>
>> In Essex true and administered by Essex County Council for some
>> purposes, but they have London post codes or at least had under the
>> old system.
>
> None of Greater London is administered by Essex County Council for any
> purpose. The London Boroughs of Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Havering,
> Redbridge and Waltham Forest, which were all part of Essex before the
> creation of the Greater London Council in 1965, have not been in Essex
> since then.
>
>> The place where I lived, Woodford Green, didn't have London post code
>> in those days, but South Woodford, one tube stop away, did.
>
> The London postal area is larger than the pre-1965 London County Council
> area, but rather smaller than the current Greater London area. For
> example, East Ham has a London postcode (E6), but most of Barking has an
> Essex postcode (IG11). Both areas were in Essex before 1965 and in
> Greater London afterwards.
>
Crazy. London still stops at the Lea in my mind, although I admit that
Woolwich, which is about as far east as Barking, feels like London.
Deptford Creek wasn't big enough, but the River Lea kept everyone except
the Vikings out for a while.
> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
> news:cs2309...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> On 20/05/2015 12:03 am, LFS wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>>>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>>>> longer the east end of London.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
>>> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>>>
>> In Essex true and administered by Essex County Council for some
>> purposes, but they have London post codes or at least had under the
>> old system.
>
> None of Greater London is administered by Essex County Council for any
> purpose. The London Boroughs of Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Havering,
> Redbridge and Waltham Forest, which were all part of Essex before the
> creation of the Greater London Council in 1965, have not been in Essex
> since then.
>
>> The place where I lived, Woodford Green, didn't have London post code
>> in those days, but South Woodford, one tube stop away, did.
>
> The London postal area is larger than the pre-1965 London County Council
> area, but rather smaller than the current Greater London area. For
> example, East Ham has a London postcode (E6), but most of Barking has an
> Essex postcode (IG11). Both areas were in Essex before 1965 and in
> Greater London afterwards.
>
Crazy. London still stops at the Lea in my mind, although I admit that
Woolwich, which is about as far east as Barking, feels like London.
Deptford Creek wasn't big enough, but the River Lea kept everyone except
the Vikings out for a while.
Robert Bannister
May 20, 2015, 7:57:24 PM5/20/15
to
On 20/05/2015 8:42 am, Katy Jennison wrote:
> who also lived there described it pretentiously as "London's Essex fringe".
>
I'd have said even Stratford was only on the very edge of the East End,
even though parts of it might be within the sound of Bow bells.
> On 19/05/2015 17:03, LFS wrote:
>> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>>> longer the east end of London.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
>> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>>
>
>> On 19/05/2015 16:35, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Cities do tend to spread beyond their original borders. The East End
>>> of London - originally just east of the walled City of London - is no
>>> longer the east end of London.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is. Beyond the East End are the suburbs of Essex, which are not
>> London. The West End hasn't changed either.
>>
>
> There's a fair bit of east London between the East End and Essex. Most
> of the London borough of Redbridge, for instance, couldn't be called the
> East End even by the liberal exercise of a poetic licence.
>
> When I lived in Ilford, Essex (just over the border), an aspiring poet
> of the London borough of Redbridge, for instance, couldn't be called the
> East End even by the liberal exercise of a poetic licence.
>
> who also lived there described it pretentiously as "London's Essex fringe".
>
I'd have said even Stratford was only on the very edge of the East End,
even though parts of it might be within the sound of Bow bells.
Robert Bannister
May 20, 2015, 7:59:54 PM5/20/15
to
On 20/05/2015 4:20 pm, Guy Barry wrote:
> "Katy Jennison" wrote in message news:mjgl8v$35t$1...@news.albasani.net...
> "Katy Jennison" wrote in message news:mjgl8v$35t$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> There's a fair bit of east London between the East End and Essex.
>> Most of the London borough of Redbridge, for instance, couldn't be
>> called the East End even by the liberal exercise of a poetic licence.
>
>> Most of the London borough of Redbridge, for instance, couldn't be
>> called the East End even by the liberal exercise of a poetic licence.
>
> I've sometimes wondered where Walford is meant to be.
>
It seems to be another name for Borehamwood near Elstree. North rather
>
than what it's E20 designation suggests.
Robert Bannister
May 20, 2015, 8:04:07 PM5/20/15
to
On 20/05/2015 9:57 pm, LFS wrote:
West Ham and Bow Road?
> On 20/05/2015 09:20, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Katy Jennison" wrote in message news:mjgl8v$35t$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> There's a fair bit of east London between the East End and Essex.
>>> Most of the London borough of Redbridge, for instance, couldn't be
>>> called the East End even by the liberal exercise of a poetic licence.
>>
>> I've sometimes wondered where Walford is meant to be.
>>
>
>> "Katy Jennison" wrote in message news:mjgl8v$35t$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> There's a fair bit of east London between the East End and Essex.
>>> Most of the London borough of Redbridge, for instance, couldn't be
>>> called the East End even by the liberal exercise of a poetic licence.
>>
>> I've sometimes wondered where Walford is meant to be.
>>
>
> Some say between Walthamstow and Stratford. This article provides
> different evidence:
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2010/sep/22/eastenders-tube-map
So what happened to Bromley-by-Bow which is the station I see between
> different evidence:
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2010/sep/22/eastenders-tube-map
West Ham and Bow Road?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
May 20, 2015, 8:27:28 PM5/20/15
to
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/LP2011%20contents-intro.pdf
which, like other parts, is url-ed from:
http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/the-london-plan
>>
>> So I guess you can say it's Boris's "official definition".
>>
>
>Good enough.
>
>/dps
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Tony Cooper
May 20, 2015, 8:39:53 PM5/20/15
to
On Thu, 21 May 2015 07:43:26 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
>>>>>
>>>>> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
>>>>> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
>>>>> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
>>>>> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
>>>>> Waltham Forest.
>>>>
>>>> Whoa, stop. I don't know whose "official definition" that is, but it
>>>> doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've
>>> heard.
I should know more about East London after tonight. I'm taping
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London
>>>>>
>>>>> East London is a term referring to part of London, capital of the
>>>>> United Kingdom. The official definition is that East London includes
>>>>> the London boroughs of Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich,
>>>>> Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, and
>>>>> Waltham Forest.
>>>>
>>>> Whoa, stop. I don't know whose "official definition" that is, but it
>>>> doesn't coincide with any definition of "east London" that I've
>>> heard.
"Ripper Street", Season 3. I didn't see Season 1 or 2, but it
shouldn't be hard to pick up...evil guy lurking in dark streets.
I don't expect authentic. Though tonight's episode is set in
Whitechapel, the show is filmed in Manchester, Loughborough, and
Dublin.
http://www.bbcamerica.com/ripper-street/
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
snide...@gmail.com
May 20, 2015, 8:45:43 PM5/20/15
to
I would have been as busy as the Shakespeare Monkeys trying to puzzle out
those links myself.
/dps
Peter T. Daniels
May 20, 2015, 10:17:10 PM5/20/15
to
Steve Hayes
May 20, 2015, 11:20:16 PM5/20/15
to
On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
I believe it's on the Mississippi, and I can never remember whether it
or Minneapolis/St Paul (which I believe straddle the same river) are
the "Twin Cities". Perhaps they both (or all four) are.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Tony Cooper
May 20, 2015, 11:52:49 PM5/20/15
to
On Thu, 21 May 2015 05:23:50 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
>>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>>How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
>I believe it's on the Mississippi, and I can never remember whether it
>or Minneapolis/St Paul (which I believe straddle the same river) are
>the "Twin Cities". Perhaps they both (or all four) are.
While there are more than one set of "twin cities" in the US, the term
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
>>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>>How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
>I believe it's on the Mississippi, and I can never remember whether it
>or Minneapolis/St Paul (which I believe straddle the same river) are
>the "Twin Cities". Perhaps they both (or all four) are.
"Twin Cities" is applied only to Minneapolis-St Paul.
Easy to remember if you think about the professional baseball team
located in Minneapolis: The Minnesota Twins.
That may not work forever, though. Baseball franchises are sold and
moved. Nothing of this sort is planned for the Twins, but it could
happen.
Some baseball teams who have moved to other cities have retained their
old name, and some have taken a new name.
The Montreal Expos moved to Washington, DC and became the Washington
Nationals in 2005. Washington, DC had been without a baseball team
because the Washington Senators moved to Arlington (Dallas area) Texas
and became the Texas Rangers.
Back in 1968, the Kansas City Athletics moved to Oakland, California
and became the Oakland Athletics.
Professional football (our kind) teams do the same, and sometimes the
names don't fit. The Houston Oilers were aptly named for a team that
played in a state known for the "oil bidness", but kept "Oilers" for a
while as the Tennessee Oilers. They are now the Tennessee Titans.
(Personally, I don't associate Tennessee with either oil or
mythological Greek beings, but I guess "Banjo Pluckers" doesn't
resonate in the locker room.)
I'm not sure (but Jerry would know) if cardinals are a common bird in
Arizona, but the St Louis Cardinals became the Arizona Cardinals when
they moved to that state. I think they were the Phoenix Cardinals
for a time. Oh, and the St Louis Cardinals were the Chicago Cardinals
before that move.
Richard Yates
May 21, 2015, 12:39:18 AM5/21/15
to
On Wed, 20 May 2015 23:52:46 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 May 2015 05:23:50 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
>>>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>>>How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>>
>>I believe it's on the Mississippi, and I can never remember whether it
>>or Minneapolis/St Paul (which I believe straddle the same river) are
>>the "Twin Cities". Perhaps they both (or all four) are.
>
>While there are more than one set of "twin cities" in the US, the term
>"Twin Cities" is applied only to Minneapolis-St Paul.
>
>Easy to remember if you think about the professional baseball team
>located in Minneapolis: The Minnesota Twins.
>
>That may not work forever, though. Baseball franchises are sold and
>moved. Nothing of this sort is planned for the Twins, but it could
>happen.
>
>Some baseball teams who have moved to other cities have retained their
>old name, and some have taken a new name.
Those that do not change the name with the move can become a
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 May 2015 05:23:50 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
>><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
>>>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>>>How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>>
>>I believe it's on the Mississippi, and I can never remember whether it
>>or Minneapolis/St Paul (which I believe straddle the same river) are
>>the "Twin Cities". Perhaps they both (or all four) are.
>
>While there are more than one set of "twin cities" in the US, the term
>"Twin Cities" is applied only to Minneapolis-St Paul.
>
>Easy to remember if you think about the professional baseball team
>located in Minneapolis: The Minnesota Twins.
>
>That may not work forever, though. Baseball franchises are sold and
>moved. Nothing of this sort is planned for the Twins, but it could
>happen.
>
>Some baseball teams who have moved to other cities have retained their
>old name, and some have taken a new name.
bafflement, as in:
Utah Jazz
Los Angeles Lakers
Los Angeles Dodgers
Peter Moylan
May 21, 2015, 12:49:58 AM5/21/15
to
On 21/05/15 09:51, Robert Bannister wrote:
> Crazy. London still stops at the Lea in my mind, although I admit that
> Woolwich, which is about as far east as Barking, feels like London.
> Deptford Creek wasn't big enough, but the River Lea kept everyone except
> the Vikings out for a while.
I know nothing of all these places you're all talking about, but I keep
> Crazy. London still stops at the Lea in my mind, although I admit that
> Woolwich, which is about as far east as Barking, feels like London.
> Deptford Creek wasn't big enough, but the River Lea kept everyone except
> the Vikings out for a while.
seeing mention of Barking. Is it the origin of the phrase "barking mad"?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Garrett Wollman
May 21, 2015, 12:50:15 AM5/21/15
to
In article <mqjqlapp57nf6g5ld...@4ax.com>,
*eastern* border of Missouri, dividing St. Louis, Mo., from East
St. Louis, Illinois.
(Let's not get into the traditional state abbreviations beyond noting
that "Miss." is taken.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
>>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>>How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
>I believe it's on the Mississippi
Nope. Kansas City is on the Missouri River. The Mississippi is the
>On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:44:37 +0100, "Guy Barry"
><guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Someone mentioned "Kansas City, Missouri" on the radio this morning. As a
>>simple ignorant Brit, I can't get my head round it. Apparently some of
>>Kansas City is in Kansas, but most of it is in Missouri. Is that right?
>>How did it end up mainly in the "wrong" state?
>
>I believe it's on the Mississippi
*eastern* border of Missouri, dividing St. Louis, Mo., from East
St. Louis, Illinois.
(Let's not get into the traditional state abbreviations beyond noting
that "Miss." is taken.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Tony Cooper
May 21, 2015, 1:06:02 AM5/21/15
to
On Thu, 21 May 2015 14:49:55 +1000, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
>On 21/05/15 09:51, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> Crazy. London still stops at the Lea in my mind, although I admit that
>> Woolwich, which is about as far east as Barking, feels like London.
>> Deptford Creek wasn't big enough, but the River Lea kept everyone except
>> the Vikings out for a while.
>
>I know nothing of all these places you're all talking about, but I keep
>seeing mention of Barking. Is it the origin of the phrase "barking mad"?
Will whomever answers this let me know if the Isle of Dogs is in
Barking.
I understand that one theory about the origin of the name is that it's
a corruption of Isle of Dykes.
If that's so, was it - like a US baseball team - moved from or to the
Isle of Lesbos?
wrote:
>On 21/05/15 09:51, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> Crazy. London still stops at the Lea in my mind, although I admit that
>> Woolwich, which is about as far east as Barking, feels like London.
>> Deptford Creek wasn't big enough, but the River Lea kept everyone except
>> the Vikings out for a while.
>
>I know nothing of all these places you're all talking about, but I keep
>seeing mention of Barking. Is it the origin of the phrase "barking mad"?
Barking.
I understand that one theory about the origin of the name is that it's
a corruption of Isle of Dykes.
If that's so, was it - like a US baseball team - moved from or to the
Isle of Lesbos?
charles
May 21, 2015, 1:49:44 AM5/21/15
to
In article <8feidBBw...@wolff.co.uk>, Paul Wolff
Anf there are the villages of Chipping Norton, Chipping Sodbury, Chipping
Camden as well as Loose Chippings
Camden as well as Loose Chippings
R H Draney
May 21, 2015, 1:53:24 AM5/21/15
to
Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:m1kqla936bkkcmr66...@4ax.com:
> Professional football (our kind) teams do the same, and sometimes the
> names don't fit. The Houston Oilers were aptly named for a team that
> played in a state known for the "oil bidness", but kept "Oilers" for a
> while as the Tennessee Oilers. They are now the Tennessee Titans.
>
> (Personally, I don't associate Tennessee with either oil or
> mythological Greek beings, but I guess "Banjo Pluckers" doesn't
> resonate in the locker room.)
I used to like to refer to them as the Houston Eulers....
If you think football-team names become inappropriate after a move, it's
worse in other sports...the New Orleans Jazz (which works) moved in 1979
and became the Utah Jazz (which anyone who's ever heard Donny and Marie
knows is downright silly)....
The canonical relocated team was the Brooklyn Dodgers, so yclept because
their players were adept at dodging Brooklyn's many trolley cars...there
was far less opportunity to practice this skill in Los Angeles....
> I'm not sure (but Jerry would know) if cardinals are a common bird in
> Arizona, but the St Louis Cardinals became the Arizona Cardinals when
> they moved to that state. I think they were the Phoenix Cardinals
> for a time. Oh, and the St Louis Cardinals were the Chicago Cardinals
> before that move.
I'd only seen cardinals (the bird) in books, and always as a painting,
never a photograph, until a visit to Old Tucson back in the early
'90s...had always assumed that the real thing was probably a bricky
reddish-brown color that the illustrators exaggerated into that
impossible primary shade of red...then, while seated at a picnic table
resting from walking around the theme park, I happened to look up at the
overhanging branch of a palo verde tree, and I'll be damned if the thing
wasn't actually scarlet!...r
news:m1kqla936bkkcmr66...@4ax.com:
> Professional football (our kind) teams do the same, and sometimes the
> names don't fit. The Houston Oilers were aptly named for a team that
> played in a state known for the "oil bidness", but kept "Oilers" for a
> while as the Tennessee Oilers. They are now the Tennessee Titans.
>
> (Personally, I don't associate Tennessee with either oil or
> mythological Greek beings, but I guess "Banjo Pluckers" doesn't
> resonate in the locker room.)
If you think football-team names become inappropriate after a move, it's
worse in other sports...the New Orleans Jazz (which works) moved in 1979
and became the Utah Jazz (which anyone who's ever heard Donny and Marie
knows is downright silly)....
The canonical relocated team was the Brooklyn Dodgers, so yclept because
their players were adept at dodging Brooklyn's many trolley cars...there
was far less opportunity to practice this skill in Los Angeles....
> I'm not sure (but Jerry would know) if cardinals are a common bird in
> Arizona, but the St Louis Cardinals became the Arizona Cardinals when
> they moved to that state. I think they were the Phoenix Cardinals
> for a time. Oh, and the St Louis Cardinals were the Chicago Cardinals
> before that move.
never a photograph, until a visit to Old Tucson back in the early
'90s...had always assumed that the real thing was probably a bricky
reddish-brown color that the illustrators exaggerated into that
impossible primary shade of red...then, while seated at a picnic table
resting from walking around the theme park, I happened to look up at the
overhanging branch of a palo verde tree, and I'll be damned if the thing
wasn't actually scarlet!...r
Guy Barry
May 21, 2015, 3:03:35 AM5/21/15
to
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:cs4kh1...@mid.individual.net...
>
>On 21/05/2015 3:26 am, Guy Barry wrote:
>> Oh, right. And yet from 2008 to 2011 they had a far more sensible
>> division, with Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark (all
>> south of the Thames) forming the "south east" sub-region, while Barking
>> & Dagenham, Havering, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest
>> and the City of London (all north of the Thames) formed a so-called
>> "north east" region, more or less coinciding with what most people would
>> regard as "east London".
>
>Not so sure about "most people", although you did say "more or less".
I meant "most people who currently live in London or know it". I believe
>On 21/05/2015 3:26 am, Guy Barry wrote:
>> Oh, right. And yet from 2008 to 2011 they had a far more sensible
>> division, with Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark (all
>> south of the Thames) forming the "south east" sub-region, while Barking
>> & Dagenham, Havering, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest
>> and the City of London (all north of the Thames) formed a so-called
>> "north east" region, more or less coinciding with what most people would
>> regard as "east London".
>
>Not so sure about "most people", although you did say "more or less".
you left the UK in 1971, when the GLC was a mere six years old. I was born
in 1966 and have never known London on anything other than its current
boundaries (essentially unchanged since the creation of the GLC in 1965).
>Redbridge is only marginally in London and I'd find it hard to think of
>Barking or Dagenham as being even near London.
weeks ago in her nineties, would have still thought of it as Essex, but I
can't imagine that many of the current residents do. Wikipedia says:
"Barking is an area of east London, England, and forms part of the London
Borough of Barking and Dagenham. It is 8.8 miles (14.2 km) east of Charing
Cross and is one of 35 major centres identified in the London Plan. It was
historically a fishing and agrarian settlement in the county of Essex and
formed an ancient parish. Its economic history is characterised by a shift
to market gardening, and industrial development to the south adjacent to the
River Thames. The railway station opened in 1854 and has been served by the
London Underground since 1908. As part of the suburban growth of London in
the 20th century, Barking significantly expanded and increased in
population, primarily due to the development of the London County Council
estate at Becontree in the 1920s, and it became a municipal borough in 1931.
It has formed part of Greater London since 1965."
>I had to look up Havering, and find that that too is in the wilds of rural
>Essex. Perhaps it's the influence of Hornchurch, Barking, Upminster, etc.
>all being on a tube line, but that doesn't work with some other tune lines
>that go miles out of London, or at least I can't imagine anyone claiming
>Chalfont or Amersham were in London.
Buckinghamshire. The District line, on the other hand, is entirely in
London. The Tube map has nothing to do with it - otherwise you'd have to
claim that huge swathes of south and south-east London (such as Dulwich or
Blackheath) aren't in London because they're not on the Tube.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
May 21, 2015, 3:35:18 AM5/21/15
to
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:cs4l0h...@mid.individual.net...
>
>On 20/05/2015 4:18 pm, Guy Barry wrote:
>> The London postal area is larger than the pre-1965 London County Council
>> area, but rather smaller than the current Greater London area. For
>> example, East Ham has a London postcode (E6), but most of Barking has an
>> Essex postcode (IG11). Both areas were in Essex before 1965 and in
>> Greater London afterwards.
>>
>Crazy. London still stops at the Lea in my mind,
Have you *been* to east London recently? It's just one big urban sprawl all
>On 20/05/2015 4:18 pm, Guy Barry wrote:
>> The London postal area is larger than the pre-1965 London County Council
>> area, but rather smaller than the current Greater London area. For
>> example, East Ham has a London postcode (E6), but most of Barking has an
>> Essex postcode (IG11). Both areas were in Essex before 1965 and in
>> Greater London afterwards.
>>
>Crazy. London still stops at the Lea in my mind,
the way to Hornchurch and Romford. Most Londoners nowadays regard the
boundary as more or less delineated by the M25.
>although I admit that Woolwich, which is about as far east as Barking,
>feels like London.
always part of the old LCC area, even though it was some way east of places
north of the river (like East Ham) which weren't. I'm not sure why the
boundaries were drawn up that way.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
May 21, 2015, 3:38:51 AM5/21/15
to
"Peter Moylan" wrote in message news:mjjo3e$ppf$1...@dont-email.me...
"There are a couple of stories which link 'barking mad' with the east London
suburb of Barking. One is that the phrase owes its origin to a mediaeval
asylum for the insane which was part of Barking Abbey. The second story
isn't a suggested origin, just a neat 1980s joke at the expense of Margaret
Thatcher. She was known by those who disliked her as 'Daggers' Thatcher -
not from a reputation for stabbing colleagues in the back, but because she
was said to be 'three stops past Barking' [Dagenham is three stations beyond
Barking on the London Underground].
The problem with the asylum tale is the date - it is far too early. 'Barking
mad' isn't mediaeval and began to appear in the language only around the
beginning of the 20th century. [...]
A much more prosaic derivation, that the phrase refers to mad and possibly
rabid dogs, is a more probable source."
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/barking-mad.html
--
Guy Barry
>
>On 21/05/15 09:51, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> Crazy. London still stops at the Lea in my mind, although I admit that
>> Woolwich, which is about as far east as Barking, feels like London.
>> Deptford Creek wasn't big enough, but the River Lea kept everyone except
>> the Vikings out for a while.
>
>I know nothing of all these places you're all talking about, but I keep
>seeing mention of Barking. Is it the origin of the phrase "barking mad"?
Probably not, although there's a folk-etymology that suggests it might be:
>On 21/05/15 09:51, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> Crazy. London still stops at the Lea in my mind, although I admit that
>> Woolwich, which is about as far east as Barking, feels like London.
>> Deptford Creek wasn't big enough, but the River Lea kept everyone except
>> the Vikings out for a while.
>
>I know nothing of all these places you're all talking about, but I keep
>seeing mention of Barking. Is it the origin of the phrase "barking mad"?
"There are a couple of stories which link 'barking mad' with the east London
suburb of Barking. One is that the phrase owes its origin to a mediaeval
asylum for the insane which was part of Barking Abbey. The second story
isn't a suggested origin, just a neat 1980s joke at the expense of Margaret
Thatcher. She was known by those who disliked her as 'Daggers' Thatcher -
not from a reputation for stabbing colleagues in the back, but because she
was said to be 'three stops past Barking' [Dagenham is three stations beyond
Barking on the London Underground].
The problem with the asylum tale is the date - it is far too early. 'Barking
mad' isn't mediaeval and began to appear in the language only around the
beginning of the 20th century. [...]
A much more prosaic derivation, that the phrase refers to mad and possibly
rabid dogs, is a more probable source."
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/barking-mad.html
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
May 21, 2015, 3:42:47 AM5/21/15
to
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
news:lmpqlapk0a1vm0eke...@4ax.com...
>Will whomever answers this let me know if the Isle of Dogs is in
>Barking.
No. And it's not an island either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Dogs
--
Guy Barry
news:lmpqlapk0a1vm0eke...@4ax.com...
>Will whomever answers this let me know if the Isle of Dogs is in
>Barking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Dogs
--
Guy Barry
Message has been deleted
Guy Barry
May 21, 2015, 3:43:59 AM5/21/15
to
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:cs4lnj...@mid.individual.net...
--
Guy Barry
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages