"Hatunen" wrote in message
news:kai0j1dkr231viqtn7vr3dkgch2q99irk5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:32:24 GMT, "TOliver"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pooh Bear" wrote...
> >> Morgans wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> I hate being abusive, but I'm getting really close.
> >>
> >> I doubt that NYC is much different to London in many ways.
> >>
> >> What was your point ? Did you have one ?
> >>
> >His point was your seeming lack of comprehension of the relative vastness
> >and the scattered and thin population of much of the US. Our cities
> >"sprawl" along with the suburbs, public transit is almost unknown in
cities
> >of less than 100,000, commercial intercity bus service has declined to
> >almost railroad type infrequency and few destinations, and all of the
"good"
> >suggestions you make seem almost laughable in the face of the realities
with
> >which most of us live. IIRC, New Mexico, with 1.5 million, is about the
> >size of the Scuppered H'aisles. Texas, with a lot more people, well
over
> >20,000,000, covers a chunk of Earth surface certainly as large as Western
> >Europe, but has vast "empties" and counties larger than Belgium with
> >populations ranging from less than 1,000 to 4-5,000 or so. The largest
> >county, Brewster, has no land line telephone service, but its own "coop"
> >cellular carrier, with every school kid having his/her own telephone
provide
> >free (along with a few minutes of free time to call home for
emergencies).
> >Towers were much cheaper than new hard wiring. In that part of the
state,
> >school bus rides of more than 50 miles each way are common.
>
> He didn't say any of that. He said London and NY were probably
> comparable as to transit. I took him to mean the city of New
> York, not the entire state, and having been to both London and NY
> the city, they are indeed roughly comparable with respect to
> transit.
>
> By the bye, it usually doesn't matter much, but there is no New
> York City; it is the city of New York, which makes the use of
> "New York" somewhat embiguous unless the context is clear. Since
> he was talking transit, the context was clear at least to me.
>
> Similarly, there is no Quebec City and there is no Mexico City.
Why, then, is it the New York City Department of Education?
http://www.opt-osfns.org/opt/
And what about the official New York City web site?
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/portal/index.jsp?front_door=true
And if there is no Mexico City, what is its proper name?
I'm not up on naming conventions so I'm asking.
Paul Nixon
|