|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
: 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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
: : 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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|