|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
: : You MUST have a Dallas in the UK. All of our (US) cities are : named after cities in England. Oh, then it would be NewDallas : wouldn't it? Never mind. : : Not quite. I there is a Dallas in Scotland. I've also been near to Berlin in : New Hampshire and an other in Wisconsin. There is not a Berlin in England as : far as I'm aware. : -- : Mark He made a huge mistake writing "all of our (US) cities are named after cities in England." How does he explain Tahlequah, San Antonio, Henrietta, Minneapolis, and Phoenix to name just a few.... Pat in TX |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Pat wrote:
You MUST have a Dallas in the UK. All of our (US) cities are named after cities in England. Oh, then it would be NewDallas wouldn't it? Never mind. Not quite. I there is a Dallas in Scotland. I've also been near to Berlin in New Hampshire and an other in Wisconsin. There is not a Berlin in England as far as I'm aware. -- Mark He made a huge mistake writing "all of our (US) cities are named after cities in England." How does he explain Tahlequah, San Antonio, Henrietta, Minneapolis, and Phoenix to name just a few.... Yeah, just a few. Large midwestern cities: Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cincinnati Large west coast cities: San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Seattle Not of lot of British names there. -- Mike Kruger A new Florida poll shows President Bush winning the state by twenty thousand lawyers. - Andy Borowitz |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Pat wrote:
You MUST have a Dallas in the UK. All of our (US) cities are named after cities in England. Oh, then it would be NewDallas wouldn't it? Never mind. Not quite. I there is a Dallas in Scotland. I've also been near to Berlin in New Hampshire and an other in Wisconsin. There is not a Berlin in England as far as I'm aware. -- Mark He made a huge mistake writing "all of our (US) cities are named after cities in England." How does he explain Tahlequah, San Antonio, Henrietta, Minneapolis, and Phoenix to name just a few.... Yeah, just a few. Large midwestern cities: Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cincinnati Large west coast cities: San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Seattle Not of lot of British names there. -- Mike Kruger A new Florida poll shows President Bush winning the state by twenty thousand lawyers. - Andy Borowitz |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Simon Brooke wrote:
Pat ') wrote: Dallas, for example, is spread out over many miles. That made it more difficult for bicycle commuting and easier for automobile commuting. Chicken, meet egg. Egg, meet chicken. I'm sure you two will get along just fine. Simon, thinking there must be something odd in the Texas gene pool. Pitiful though it is, all noteworthy Texas cities save one have done most of their geographical development during the epoch of the wanton automobile. The sole exception is Galveston, which lies on a small island and had already spread within most of its current boundaries during the 19th century. Being both well-contained and totally flat with a mild climate (by Texas standards), Galveston is a great place to ride a bicycle. That is, if you can stand sacrificing your bike to the rust gods pretty often. Chalo Colina |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:47:47 -0500, "Pat" wrote:
He made a huge mistake writing "all of our (US) cities are named after cities in England." How does he explain Tahlequah, San Antonio, Henrietta, Minneapolis, and Phoenix to name just a few.... I'm sure there's a Tahlequah in Rutland... Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:47:47 -0500, "Pat" wrote:
: : You MUST have a Dallas in the UK. All of our (US) cities are : named after cities in England. Oh, then it would be NewDallas : wouldn't it? Never mind. : : Not quite. I there is a Dallas in Scotland. I've also been near to Berlin in : New Hampshire and an other in Wisconsin. There is not a Berlin in England as : far as I'm aware. : -- : Mark He made a huge mistake writing "all of our (US) cities are named after cities in England." How does he explain Tahlequah, San Antonio, Henrietta, Minneapolis, and Phoenix to name just a few.... Pat in TX Those are just the exceptions that prove the rule. Some cities are actually named after Dutch cities. HEY! How do you manage to get a Newsday address? -- and you shouldn't use it without some spam protection in it or the bots are going to get you. Must be a different Newsday if you're in Texas. I'm near the one in New York. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:28:31 +0200, Elisa Francesca Roselli
wrote: Simon Brooke wrote: Chicken, meet egg. Egg, meet chicken. I'm sure you two will get along just fine. Since it has reached the point that many communities do not even have sidewalks for pedestrians, let alone cyclable routes, I do think there is a vicious circle in operation. You get urbanization based on the car, and then you end up making it impossible to live any other way. And then you get the SUV lobbies and the oil addiction and the irreversible need to consume so much that there would have to be 9 planets to make it sustainable. EFR Ile de France I read once that automobile manufacturers, during the beginning of the urge to push cars on everyone, bought up trolley lines just so they could close them down. They have done everything possible to make public transportation as lousy as it can be. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
dgk wrote:
I read once that automobile manufacturers, during the beginning of the urge to push cars on everyone, bought up trolley lines just so they could close them down. They have done everything possible to make public transportation as lousy as it can be. Not entirely true. Trolley lines where on their way out during the 1920's and 30's anyways. Automobile manufacturers bought up some trolley lines with the intention of replacing the trollies with buses; you know, that "other" form of mass transit. Personal cars to go to personal places didn't really become widespread until post-WWII with the construction of the federal highway system. SMH |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Harding wrote:
dgk wrote: I read once that automobile manufacturers, during the beginning of the urge to push cars on everyone, bought up trolley lines just so they could close them down. They have done everything possible to make public transportation as lousy as it can be. Not entirely true. Trolley lines where on their way out during the 1920's and 30's anyways. This is true. Unfotunate, but true. Automobile manufacturers bought up some trolley lines with the intention of replacing the trollies with buses; you know, that "other" form of mass transit. Personal cars to go to personal places didn't really become widespread until post-WWII with the construction of the federal highway system. Los Angeles is the usual subject of this conspiracy theory, that auto, tire, and oil companies bought up the trolley lines to dismantle them, and make everyone dependent on cars. In fact, a partnership of GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil did purchase Los Angeles' famous Red Car trolleys after WWII. But actually, it was to hedge their bets with an uncertain future, by owning another piece of the transportation pie in a rapidly growing city. Who knew -- would there be another Great Depression, with no one able to afford cars? Would the postwar peace last? Would steel prices rise? How about oil? Also,.the switch to buses was probably inevitable, but they wanted in on the trolley market in case that didn't happen. If it was profitable to build trolleys, they would have done that too. They kept the trolleys running for another decade or so, in spite of declining ridership and huge losses. But the final nail in the coffin was the citizens of Los Angeles banging down the doors of City Hall, demanding the trolleys be removed because they were blocking traffic. Ultimately it was the public who chose the automobile, all by themselves. Matt O. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:36:00 -0400, ,
"Matt O'Toole" wrote: Ultimately it was the public who chose the automobile, all by themselves. Victims of sophisticated PR techniques than were generally not recognised as such. That was in a time when people believed their governments' and industries'. So when an "official" told them a diesel bus is more efficient than a railway car or the fumes were safe to breath, they fell for it. -- zk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|