On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:34:56 -0700, "khobar"
wrote:
>"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
I see a lot of usage of "NYC", which is a common shorthand for
the city, but at a glance I don't see any use of "New York City".
I didn't look that hard, though.
There's a lot of confusion about it, even at state and municipal
level, but N.Y., N.Y. is the correct moniker, not N.Y.C., N.Y.
But the US Post ofice calls it "New York, NY"
>And if there is no Mexico City, what is its proper name?
"Mexico". Or more fully, "Mexico, D.F."
>I'm not up on naming conventions so I'm asking.
There are cities that have "City" in their name. For instance,
the city of Oklahoma City. It is OKC, OK, or postally "Oklahoma
City, OK".
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |