let'em eat amotal

[Murthy Yenamandra]

In a previous message Burgess, John writes:
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't have a very good picture of London.
> 
> Unlike almost any other major city, London is distinctive exactly because 
> it doesn't really HAVE posh/poor areas.  Other than a general slide down 
> the economic scale in the Eastend (which encompasses the docklands), 
> London housing was and is notable for the fact that while on one block 
> there may be very expensive houses, on the next will be squalid little 
> apartments and sheds.  The rich have rubbed elbows with the poor in 
> London at least since the 12th Century. 
> 
> Today, you'll find more economic segregation, but only when you move way 
> out of the city.  Eaton Square, as an instance, has among the most 
> expensive property in the world, with 3 BR apartments going for 850,000 
> Pounds Sterling, for a 19-year _lease_.  Exactly behind that square are 
> council estates where the rents are city (of Westminster) subsidized 
> council flats. 
> 
> There are and there were bad areas, but nothing so geographically 
> distinct that one could effectively 'redirect' incoming V2s.
> 
> I perfectly understand the thrust of the original "them" post on the 
> subject. I'm saying that it makes no real sense.  With the V2's innate 
> lack of precision -- even by its designers and launchers -- the moving of 
> its putative ground zero by anyone in the Brit gov't offered absolutely 
> no assurance of hitting an "undesirable" target.  
> 
> In other words, the argument works only if you ignore basic, geographic 
> and sociological facts of London.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Murthy Yenamandra, Dept of CompSci, U of Minnesota. Email: yenamand at cs.umn.edu
   "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the
    swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the
    wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour  
    to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all ..."