A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dahon Bikes Again and New Commuting Crisis



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old October 27th 04, 10:47 PM
Pat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


: 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.

What do you mean "those are just the exceptions that prove the rule." ??What
rule? The silly one that he stated ALL OUR US CITIES ARE NAMED AFTER CITIES
IN ENGLAND? Explain how having numerous cities not named after English
cities proves any rule?

Pat in TX
:


Ads
  #52  
Old October 28th 04, 06:50 PM
RJ Webb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



You MUST have a Dallas in the


There is one in Scotland.. Near Elgin

One to watch is Newark NJ.. Named New Ark of the Covenant , not after
the the English town

Richard Webb
  #53  
Old October 28th 04, 09:19 PM
Pat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


:
: One to watch is Newark NJ.. Named New Ark of the Covenant , not after
: the the English town
:
: Richard Webb

That's interesting. It's a pity they don't pronounce it that way.

Pat in TX (where we have a Cut and Shoot and a Gunbarrel City, among other
odd town names)


  #54  
Old October 29th 04, 03:38 AM
Leo Lichtman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pat" wrote: (clip) Explain how having numerous cities not named after
English
cities proves any rule?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I believe the original version was, "It is the exception that PROBES the
rule. IOW, an exception forces us to examine the rule more closely. On a
sense, "proves" can be seen to have that meaning also, but it has been
widely used with the opposite meaning. I have heard it argued that, since
there cannot be an exception unless there is a rule, the exception gives the
rule validity. I don't accept that.


  #55  
Old October 29th 04, 09:46 AM
Pettifogger Jarnoyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Pat" wrote: (clip) Explain how having numerous cities not named
after English
cities proves any rule?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I believe the original version was, "It is the exception that PROBES
the rule. IOW, an exception forces us to examine the rule more
closely. On a sense, "proves" can be seen to have that meaning also,
but it has been widely used with the opposite meaning. I have heard
it argued that, since there cannot be an exception unless there is a
rule, the exception gives the rule validity. I don't accept that.


The word "proves" in the well-known phrase or saying "exception which proves
the rules", has the meaning "tests". Manufacturers of motorcars, for
example, are known to test their vehicles on "proving grounds".

--

Pettifogger Jarnoyce B.Sc


  #56  
Old October 29th 04, 10:17 AM
Dave Kahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message ...
"Pat" wrote: (clip) Explain how having numerous cities not named after
English
cities proves any rule?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I believe the original version was, "It is the exception that PROBES the
rule. IOW, an exception forces us to examine the rule more closely. On a
sense, "proves" can be seen to have that meaning also, but it has been
widely used with the opposite meaning. I have heard it argued that, since
there cannot be an exception unless there is a rule, the exception gives the
rule validity. I don't accept that.


http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm

--
Dave...
  #57  
Old October 31st 04, 07:21 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt O'Toole wrote:

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.


No, it was to sell the bus as a replacement for the rail cars.


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.


Nope, no profit in -operating- trolleys, that's why they had to go.



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.


Funny, that's not how my grandmother and mother remember it, having lived
all their lives in LA....

--

-TTFN

-Steven


  #58  
Old November 1st 04, 09:16 PM
Jym Dyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 ...


=v= Judging from the rest of your message, you're using the
phrase "conspiracy theory" to be dismissive. But in fact the
parties to this travesty were actually found guilty of ...
conspiracy!

... in spite of declining ridership and huge losses.


=v= Your narrative sidesteps the caue of declining ridership of
these streetcars. City Lines deliberately cut back service and
ran these things into the ground, so duh, of course there was
declining ridership. They replaced comfortable streetcars with
uncomfortable lurching busses (made by GM, using tires by
Firestone, and guzzling gas from Standard Oil).

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.


=v= "The citizens of Los Angeles?" A representative sample,
a rent-a-mob, or a handful of dupes?

Ultimately it was the public who chose the automobile, all
by themselves.


=v= The public "chose" (and continues to "choose") what the
transportation infrastructure supports. Which is not by any
stretch of the imagination an "all by themselves" situation.
_Jym_
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.