Metric Iron-Age shoe

Vocaboly.com
Vocabulary builder software for SAT, TOEFL, GRE, GMAT and more

FAQ

Memberlist

Profile

Metric Iron-Age shoe
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 34, 35, 36 Next

Vocaboly.com Forum Index -> alt.usage.english

Author

Message

Frances Kemmish
Guest

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 5:13 am Post subject: Re: The town centre

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

Quote:

On 13 May 2005, the Omrud wrote

Laura F. Spira spake thusly:

I remember being told as a child that all the measurements of
distance to London were taken from Marble Arch - I have no idea
if this is true but I grew up believing that Marble Arch was bang
in the middle of London, although I was bit puzzled that we
called visiting Oxford Street "going up West". On reflection,
this may be the source of some of my difficulties with direction
(hi, Phil!) since I now realise that we were in fact travelling
south eastwards on that journey.

I thought the measurements were taken from Charing Cross.

I think that's right -- from the point where the statue looks down
Whitehall.

When I worked for the Post Office, London Weighting allowance was based
on the distance from the statue at Charing Cross.

Fran

Brian Wickham
Guest

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 7:09 am Post subject: Re: The town centre (was: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:14:06 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

Quote:

I personally think of the center of New York as being Bryant Park, but I
wouldn't expect anyone to agree with that, although I suppose I would
expect anyone to agree with that general location. That's within the
very large area that all would agree serves as New York's present-day city

Interesting. I've often thought that "Bryant Park" was an Indian name
meaning "Place Not To Go To"! It has only been in recent years that
Bryant Park has been fit for human habitation.

If any place has ever been the center, or more precisely "the heart",
of NY then it would be Central Park.

Quote:

I never felt that Chicago had a precise center. It has two central
districts, I'd say, the Loop and the commercial area north of the River
around where Michigan Avenue and Rush Street and places like that are (a
subset of what used to be called "da Near Nort'").

Seattle has a central district (downtown Seattle, of uncertain
definition), which is not the same as its so-called "Central District"
(which is the name of the neighborhood where the white people in
Seattle have segregated black people into). Perhaps Pioneer Square is
supposed to function as a center point, but I'm really not sure. It
occurs to me that the bizarre (even by Queens standards) address numbering
system used in Seattle

Harrumph! I may be the only person alive who is willing to defend the
Queens house numbering system. It is simplicity itself and I have
read that it was borrowed from Philadelphia. Imagine that!

Take an address, say, 37-15 64 Street. We know it's on 64 Street and
it is between 37 Avenue and 38 Avenue (or the next highest actual
avenue) and since "15" is fairly close to "01" it isn't very far from
the corner of 37 Avenue. You don't need a calculator to find the
cross street and half the work is done for you if you want to consult
a map. From the information above it wouldn't take a brain surgeon to
figure out that 64-15 37 Avenue would be right around the corner.

Sure. It isn't elegant, but it's logical and a child can figure it
out.

By comparison, Brooklyn has a nonexistent numbering system. Ever
since the advent of the automobile New Yorkers have been saying,
"Every time I drive to Brooklyn I get lost!"

Brian

"Smoke on your pipe and stuff that in it!" Chita Rivera

Laura F. Spira
Guest

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 7:09 am Post subject: Re: The town centre

Paul Wolff wrote:

Quote:

In message <d62g7u$3qd$1@news.wss.yale.edu>, Areff <me@privacy.net> writes

Charles Riggs wrote:

Where is a city's centre and must a city have one?

Doesn't London use Charing Cross
as the basis for its numbering system? Isn't Trafalgar Square the center
point of present-day London? Discuss.

Laura says Marble Arch for distance measures, but maybe that's an Oxford
view: Marble Arch is on the A40 road to Oxford. I think that Charing
Cross is the basis for most mileage chart distances to and from London.

Since London is grown around two cities, London and Westminster, I'd try
as ever to be logical and look at the connecting axis of Fleet Street
and The Strand running from the City through Temple Bar to Trafalgar
Square, which is just up Whitehall from Parliament Square, home of the
Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey, and a carriage drive up The
Mall from Buck House; I'd draw a midpoint at The Aldwych, and say that
there, where you find the Royal Courts of Justice and the Beeb (once if
not still in its World Service persona at Bush House), is a good English
compromise for the centre of London.

But I asked my wife where the centre of Greater London lies, and it
turns out that the true answer to be believed at all times in this
household is Charing Cross, after all.

This seems to confirm the general view
http://rodcorp.typepad.com/photos/variousthings/centrelondon_mileage.html

so my informant was obviously wrong.

I can't find a sufficiently detailed postcode map on line but another
version of the centre would lie at the point where WC1 and WC2 meet EC1
and EC4.

--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Laura F. Spira
Guest

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 7:09 am Post subject: Re: The town centre

Paul Wolff wrote:

Quote:

I'm a Londoner! I was told this *long* before we took the A40 westwards.

[..]
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Tony Cooper
Guest

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 7:10 am Post subject: Re: The town centre (was: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:39:11 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

Quote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 18:43:10 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net
wrote:

You serious? I thought that Rush Street and the Gold Coast were parts of
"the Near North", as it was traditionally defined. Otherwise wouldn't you
have to carve those things out of the Near North, awkwardly, the way
various little communities are carved out of Los Angeles the city?

No, you *live* Near North. You *party* on Rush Street (even if you
drink at a bar that is off-Rush, and *live* or *shop* on the Gold
Coast. The difference between living Near North and on the Gold Coast
is status.

Okay, then that's just silly. That's like people in Brooklyn Heights who
write their addresses as "Brooklyn Heights, NY" as though they were in
Queens or something.

Sure it's silly. When you attempt to define your status by your
address, you are being silly. But is that not the way of things with
many people?

I've been to Westchester County. There are some nice areas there,
and there are some very ordinary places there. Tell me, though, that
you haven't come across people that manage to tell you they live in
Westchester County that do so with the clear intent of letting you
know they've "made it".

Quote:

I hear ya. My second (or third, depending on how you count) apartment in
Chicago was, I've said, in/on the Gold Coast, but I don't think it really
was -- too far west I think. It surprises me that you would consider
something to be too far east to be in/on the Gold Coast (unless you were
underwater), but my understanding of Chicago geography never really got
past the hazy stage.

The area that I'm referring to included Passavant Hospital (now called
Northwestern Memorial Hospital) , the VA Hospital, Northwestern
University's downtown campus, and a really great bar that I now forget
the name of. A famous landmark bar of the 60s, too.

Walk due north for two blocks from my old apartment and you're in the
Gold Coast area.

Quote:

Okay, according to one web page, the boundaries of the Gold Coast are:
Lake Michigan on the east,

Mostly.

Quote:

North Avenue on the north,

OK.

Quote:

Oak Street on the south,

Uhhh, I'd go a few blocks south of Oak to draw the line.

Quote:

and Clark and Rush streets on the west.

Nonsense. At least at that time. Rush, OK, but Clark was a blighted
area for at least two blocks east. of Clark. I saw a man die on Clark
Street one night the first month after moving to Chicago. He stumbled
out of a bar with a knife sticking out his side and bled to death on
the sidewalk.

Quote:

I lived on Dearborn a block or two south of Division.
I don't understand that Clark and Rush thing, but another web page puts
the western boundary all the way to LaSalle, which even I know is
ridiculous. Based on your 1960s/1970s perspective, did I live in/on the
Gold Coast?

I can't remember that specific area. I know Division and I know
Dearborn, but I can't remember the make-up of the neighborhood.

Quote:

I get the sense that most of the "Near North" neighborhoods were in
serious decline until about five or ten years ago.

They've gone up and down for 40 years that I know of.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL

Mark Brader
Guest

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 2:23 pm Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe

Ross Howard writes:

Quote:

Among many other things I didn't know... I read only last night ...
that a centimetre is supposed to be some teeny-weeny base-10 fraction
of the length of the quadrant of the Paris meridian (in other words,
a line that runs over the Earth's surface from the equator, through
Paris, to the North Pole).

It *was*.

Quote:

Since we now know that the Earth is squashed at the poles, this
suggests either that centimetres are a bit longer than they really
should be or that the circumference of the earth is actually four
times ten to some power plus a bit extra.

The *polar* circumference is 40,000 km (or would be if that definition
was still in use and the four quadrants of the great circle containing
the Paris meridian were equal). The equatorial circumference is larger.

If you take an object and fasten a string to it (or more lazily, take
some electrical appliance and dangle it by its cord), and suspend it
from a point 1 meter above the object's center of mass and set it
swinging, you'll find that a single swing takes just about 1 second.
This is not a coincidence: it was the basis of the original idea for
how long to make the meter.

However, it was quickly realized that the "seconds pendulum" would
not provide a satisfactory definition of the meter. The weight of an
object is not constant all over the Earth's surface; most obviously,
both directly because of the Earth's rotation and indirectly due to
the resulting oblate shape, it's about 1/200 less at the equator than
at the poles. So the best that could be done was to say that the meter
was the length of a seconds pendulum *at a particular place*.

Now that might be acceptable from a technical point of view, but not a
political one. If the particular place chosen was in France, then the
metric system would be viewed as a French system and not one to be
adopted internationally.

So someone came up with another idea. They noticed that a quarter-
circumference of the Earth was pretty nearly 10,000,000 times the length
of a seconds pendulum, and proposed that the meter should be defined
as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.
Now that was the same everywhere (and the South Pole would do just as
well, too), so it answered the political objection.

Unfortunately, there was again a technical objection. Not only was the
accurate measurement of such distances still a couple of hundred years
in the future, but it wasn't at all clear whether the distance would
be the same for all possible quarter-meridians.

So it was proposed to survey a long section of a *particular* meridian,
calculate the latitude at each end, compute the length of the entire
quarter-meridian, and derive the definition from that. And this was
the plan adopted.

This was definitely a compromise solution. The survey project would
be years of work and was only necessary for the political reason that
it would relate the meter to the Earth as a whole; and yet it did not
exactly do that either, because only the Paris meridian was being
measured and made the standard.

But it was done -- the meridian was surveyed from Barcelona to Dunkirk,
in the middle of the French Revolution and a war between France and Spain.
If you'd like to read about it, I recommend Ken Alder's 2002 book "The
Measure of All Things" (see his web site <http://www.kenalder.com>).
The meter did indeed get launched into international adoption, even
though the survey wasn't really as accurate as the people who did it
thought it was -- as they would have found out of they'd tried it again.

However, the quarter-meridian did not remain the official standard.
After a metal standard meter bar was made, the bar itself became the
standard (and of course, it was kept in Paris -- but by then this
didn't matter). In the 20th century, as different forms of measurement
became more and more precise, the standard meter was changed twice to
successive things that could be measured more accurately. First it was
a certain number of wavelengths of monochromatic light produced by a
particular experiment; now it is the distance traveled by light in a
vacuum in a specified time, so the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s
by definition.
--
Mark Brader | "... [A]toms and universes are the same. All the
Toronto | world is recursive, and that's why we never
msb@vex.net | know where to begin." -- Charles Goldfarb

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Mark Brader
Guest

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: The town centre (was: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe)

Brian Wickham writes:

Quote:

Yes, yes. The trouble is, it's *misspelled*. Are there *any* other
places where they put the hyphen in the middle of the number like that?

When I lived in Edmonton (40+ years ago), it used to be common practice
to put a hyphen between the house number and street number, for greater
legibility. My last address there was 12219 51st St., which if it
existed in Queens would be written with "122-19"; but the way we
commonly wrote it was "12219-51st St." In English usage.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I asked you for a *good* reason,
msb@vex.net | not a *terrific* one!" --Maxwell Smart (Agent 86)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Ross Howard
Guest

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe

On Sat, 14 May 2005 08:23:57 -0000, msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrought:

Quote:

Ross Howard writes:
Among many other things I didn't know... I read only last night ...
that a centimetre is supposed to be some teeny-weeny base-10 fraction
of the length of the quadrant of the Paris meridian (in other words,
a line that runs over the Earth's surface from the equator, through
Paris, to the North Pole).

It *was*.

Since we now know that the Earth is squashed at the poles, this
suggests either that centimetres are a bit longer than they really
should be or that the circumference of the earth is actually four
times ten to some power plus a bit extra.

The *polar* circumference is 40,000 km (or would be if that definition
was still in use and the four quadrants of the great circle containing
the Paris meridian were equal). The equatorial circumference is larger.

If you take an object and fasten a string to it (or more lazily, take
some electrical appliance and dangle it by its cord), and suspend it
from a point 1 meter above the object's center of mass and set it
swinging, you'll find that a single swing takes just about 1 second.
This is not a coincidence: it was the basis of the original idea for
how long to make the meter.

However, it was quickly realized that the "seconds pendulum" would
not provide a satisfactory definition of the meter. The weight of an
object is not constant all over the Earth's surface; most obviously,
both directly because of the Earth's rotation and indirectly due to
the resulting oblate shape, it's about 1/200 less at the equator than
at the poles. So the best that could be done was to say that the meter
was the length of a seconds pendulum *at a particular place*.

Now that might be acceptable from a technical point of view, but not a
political one. If the particular place chosen was in France, then the
metric system would be viewed as a French system and not one to be
adopted internationally.

So someone came up with another idea. They noticed that a quarter-
circumference of the Earth was pretty nearly 10,000,000 times the length
of a seconds pendulum, and proposed that the meter should be defined
as 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.
Now that was the same everywhere (and the South Pole would do just as
well, too), so it answered the political objection.

Unfortunately, there was again a technical objection. Not only was the
accurate measurement of such distances still a couple of hundred years
in the future, but it wasn't at all clear whether the distance would
be the same for all possible quarter-meridians.

So it was proposed to survey a long section of a *particular* meridian,
calculate the latitude at each end, compute the length of the entire
quarter-meridian, and derive the definition from that. And this was
the plan adopted.

This was definitely a compromise solution. The survey project would
be years of work and was only necessary for the political reason that
it would relate the meter to the Earth as a whole; and yet it did not
exactly do that either, because only the Paris meridian was being
measured and made the standard.

But it was done -- the meridian was surveyed from Barcelona to Dunkirk,
in the middle of the French Revolution and a war between France and Spain.
If you'd like to read about it, I recommend Ken Alder's 2002 book "The
Measure of All Things" (see his web site <http://www.kenalder.com>).
The meter did indeed get launched into international adoption, even
though the survey wasn't really as accurate as the people who did it
thought it was -- as they would have found out of they'd tried it again.

However, the quarter-meridian did not remain the official standard.
After a metal standard meter bar was made, the bar itself became the
standard (and of course, it was kept in Paris -- but by then this
didn't matter). In the 20th century, as different forms of measurement
became more and more precise, the standard meter was changed twice to
successive things that could be measured more accurately. First it was
a certain number of wavelengths of monochromatic light produced by a
particular experiment; now it is the distance traveled by light in a
vacuum in a specified time, so the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s
by definition.

Sometimes, just sometimes, AUE is everything it used to be.

Thanks, Mark.

--
Ross Howard

Wood Avens
Guest

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe

On Sat, 14 May 2005 08:23:57 -0000, msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

Quote:

If you take an object and fasten a string to it (or more lazily, take
some electrical appliance and dangle it by its cord), and suspend it
from a point 1 meter above the object's center of mass and set it
swinging, you'll find that a single swing takes just about 1 second.
This is not a coincidence: it was the basis of the original idea for
how long to make the meter.

You've just explained to me something I've known for fifty years but
hadn't properly understood until now.

My father, who was an architect, was the sort of person who carried in
his pockets a small assortment of miscellaneous odds and ends which
generally came in useful at unexpected moments, frequently not for
their originally-intended purpose. He developed a reputation in his
office for always being able to produce the thing his colleagues
happened to want, however unlikely. One day, as he told it, they were
discussing musical forms of some sort, and someone said, jestingly,
"Oh, I expect Noel has a metronome in his pocket!"

Being an architect, he naturally had a small tape measure in his
pocket, which he pulled out and used, to mingled acclaim and
bogglement, for precisely this purpose.

(There are pocket metronomes which work in just this way, and are
marked off according to time, but I think it was actually a
tape-measure in this case.)

--

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Areff
Guest

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: The town centre (was: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe)

Brian Wickham wrote:

Quote:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:14:06 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net
wrote:

I personally think of the center of New York as being Bryant Park, but I
wouldn't expect anyone to agree with that, although I suppose I would
expect anyone to agree with that general location. That's within the
very large area that all would agree serves as New York's present-day city

Interesting. I've often thought that "Bryant Park" was an Indian name
meaning "Place Not To Go To"! It has only been in recent years that
Bryant Park has been fit for human habitation.

True. Back in the day I wouldn't have said Bryant Park was the center, but
I would have picked some nearby spot (maybe the Library).

Quote:

If any place has ever been the center, or more precisely "the heart",
of NY then it would be Central Park.

I disagree. The upper half of it is as remote as anything. But I have a
Midtown perspective/bias.

Quote:

Problem is, there's no true grid, so unless you know where the particular
cross streets are it won't help you.

Areff
Guest

Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: The town centre (was: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe)

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

Quote:

In April, 1977 (I think; maybe 1978), while living in Alberta, I spent
what I now call a fortnight in New York. Stayed entirely in Manhattan
except for a return trip on the Staten Island ferry to take pictures.
(I didn't disembark; just made the return trip.)

It was during a transit strike, and on the first Sunday I'd arranged to
meet some friends up around Central Park. No buses or subway, so I
walked; and as a planning/architecture type, I turned it into a
"photograph some buildings" trek.

You sure it wasn't 1980? There was a 12-day subway strike in 1980, and the
NYCTA's own website claims it was the first that had taken place since
1966.

Aaron Davies
Guest

Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 2:08 am Post subject: Re: The town centre

Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Quote:

I've heard that the long-blighted area around Columbia University has been
transformed so radically in the past few years that it's being called the
new Upper West Side or something like that (it's above the Upper West Side
proper).

Ineed, tho the locals are doing their best to prevent it. Columbia is
continuing to push for the "Morningside Heights" name for the area (most
of which it owns). I had friends there who used to call Columbia
"USWH"--"University of South-west Harlem".
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.

Aaron Davies
Guest

Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 2:13 am Post subject: Re: The town centre

Brian Wickham <bwickham@NO~SPAM.nyc.rr.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:14:06 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Seattle has a central district (downtown Seattle, of uncertain
definition), which is not the same as its so-called "Central District"
(which is the name of the neighborhood where the white people in Seattle
have segregated black people into). Perhaps Pioneer Square is supposed
to function as a center point, but I'm really not sure. It occurs to me
that the bizarre (even by Queens standards) address numbering system
used in Seattle

Harrumph! I may be the only person alive who is willing to defend the
Queens house numbering system. It is simplicity itself and I have read
that it was borrowed from Philadelphia. Imagine that!

Take an address, say, 37-15 64 Street. We know it's on 64 Street and it
is between 37 Avenue and 38 Avenue (or the next highest actual avenue) and
since "15" is fairly close to "01" it isn't very far from the corner of 37
Avenue. You don't need a calculator to find the cross street and half the
work is done for you if you want to consult a map. From the information
above it wouldn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that 64-15 37 Avenue
would be right around the corner.

My biggest problem with Queens addressing during the few times I've been
there is the tendency to have multiple streets with the same name but
different "street type"--i.e., I once walked down a street in Whitestone
and passed 22nd St., 22nd Ave., and 22nd Blvd.--one after another[1]!
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.

[1] Or something like that. (It was three or four years ago.)

Harvey Van Sickle
Guest

Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 2:36 am Post subject: Re: The town centre (was: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe)

On 14 May 2005, Areff wrote

Quote:

Brian Wickham wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:14:06 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net
wrote:

I personally think of the center of New York as being Bryant
Park,

-snip-

Quote:

Interesting. I've often thought that "Bryant Park" was an Indian
name meaning "Place Not To Go To"! It has only been in recent
years that Bryant Park has been fit for human habitation.

True. Back in the day I wouldn't have said Bryant Park was the
center, but I would have picked some nearby spot (maybe the
Library).

I'll bore you with my Bryant Park story.

In April, 1977 (I think; maybe 1978), while living in Alberta, I spent
what I now call a fortnight in New York. Stayed entirely in Manhattan
except for a return trip on the Staten Island ferry to take pictures.
(I didn't disembark; just made the return trip.)

It was during a transit strike, and on the first Sunday I'd arranged to
meet some friends up around Central Park. No buses or subway, so I
walked; and as a planning/architecture type, I turned it into a
"photograph some buildings" trek.

There's a curved-base building facing the north side of Bryant Park, so
I went into the park to find a better angle. Entered from (I think)
the west side; took some pictures; then went to exit from the north-
east corner. (It's a long time ago, but I think I've got the compass
points right.) The north-east access was closed off for repair works
or something, so I turned around to go back the way I came.

At which point, two well-dressed black guys, one of whom was clearly in
charge, came forward. The conversation went:

Him: Hi; watcha' up to.

Me: Taking some pictures of buildings.

Him: We don't get many strangers in our park.

Me: Well, I wanted to shoot that building [thinking "thank god it's
odd-looking enough"], and I figured I'd get a better angle from here.
[Further thought: "they'll want the film from the camera; that's OK,
I'll happily oblige".]

Him: You got any money?

Me: Not a lot (pulls out wallet) -- just a few dollars. (Hands over
folder with about ten dollars, my passport and other stuff.)

Him: (Finding some extra notes in there) What's this?

Me: Oh, yeah -- some Canadian money; sorry -- forgot about that.

Him: [Checks out funny monopoly-coloured money; hands the whole thing
back.] Have a good holiday.

Me: Thanks. [Makes tracks out of Bryant Park.]

I dined out on that: I'm the guy who was so naive, even the Bryant
Park guys let me alone.

--
Cheers, Harvey

Canada for 30 years; S England since 1982.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)

Wood Avens
Guest

Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 3:26 am Post subject: Re: The town centre (was: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:32:02 +0000 (UTC), Areff <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

Quote:

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
In April, 1977 (I think; maybe 1978), while living in Alberta, I spent
what I now call a fortnight in New York. Stayed entirely in Manhattan
except for a return trip on the Staten Island ferry to take pictures.
(I didn't disembark; just made the return trip.)

It was during a transit strike, and on the first Sunday I'd arranged to
meet some friends up around Central Park. No buses or subway, so I
walked; and as a planning/architecture type, I turned it into a
"photograph some buildings" trek.

You sure it wasn't 1980? There was a 12-day subway strike in 1980, and the
NYCTA's own website claims it was the first that had taken place since
1966.

I remember the 1980 strike; it must have been around Easter; I had a
six-month secondment to SUNY, Stony Brook, and my ex-husband visited
(from Norway, at the time), and we walked all over Manhattan. The
weather was perfect for it. I know we saw far more of the city than
we'd have done without the strike.

--

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

	Vocaboly.com Forum Index -> alt.usage.english	All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 34, 35, 36 Next
Page 4 of 36

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Office Forum Access Forum Electronics Windows Server Exchange Server
New Topics Powered by phpBB