Maybe it's because you're a Londoner...

[howlinchickhowl]

There is a really incredibly lame and mildly offensive poster campaign happening in the Tube at the moment,  that I really cannot abide.

It is a campaign that, for all intents and purposes, is about how awesome London is, which, yeah, it is. I love London a lot, and it's got some great stuff going for it.

However, this campaign is not only about how

Comments

[meko00]

Ah.

Well, actually.... while not being a Londoner much less English, I do own a pair of old school knee-high heavy leather w. rubber mould boots, but they're the kind you use on real hikes, with thick woollen socks and blister patches. Hi, used to be a scout mainly for the yay, opportunity to walk for days carrying heavy stuff on your back-aspect. Couldn't possibly wear them in town. But according to walking dot org, you Brits do have hiking boots as well as walking boots. Have only been able to track down lower newfangled, high-tech ones that seem... like cheating. Admittedly, I'm probably at least 15 years out of date, but still.

For other kinds of walking, I prefer my Vibram five fingers, though they are less than optimal if you walk a lot on hard surfaces. I try to walk on grass as much as possible. And, oh yeah, some people think I walk very fast indeed.

Mmm, sushi. Tomorrow, I'll be listening to Paul Auster in person. He writes gorgeous prose, that man.

[howlinchickhowl]

Eeee, so, it seems like in my rant of rage it came across like I was anti-people who have hiking boots, which I am not, although I don't know anyone in England who calls them hiking boots, even if that's what they are, because we simply don't call it "hiking", there are just different degrees of walking over here

[meko00]

Oh no, it didn't. You didn't. I just felt the overpowering urge to talk about walking. Though our usage differs from UK as well as US... and I haven't really looked into the English terms because I've never felt the need. In boot terms, I guess they distinguish due to sturdiness.

Mmm, well... such people can be found over here too. Only, less cool, obviously. Not being Londoners and all. But maybe the wording was just unfortunate and the intended meaning was less offensive? I'm not fond of advertisements generally because they always seem so fake, but I know they serve a purpose. Supposedly.

:-)

Mmm. Theatre's generally good, too. The thing tonight was a cross, really. A talk with a couple of short readings and then signing afterward (never been into that, personally). Packed. And a bit... well, it was interesting, but Auster tends to write about writers and/or readers of different kinds in NYC, so he's best in small doses.

[howlinchickhowl]

Ok good :) Talking about walking is always acceptable.

Obviously, Londoners are the coolest, just by virtue of being Londoners. I have been thinking about it, and I really don't know what the intention was, it is essentially trying to get Londoners to contact them with stories about their life in London, but I assume the stories they want are those akin to the ones they have used as examples, so I think they're just trying to appeal to a certain type of Londoner, which is incidentally the type of Londoner I periodically want to smash in the face for being so unbearably smug.

Some adverts are worthwhile, most are just trash, but I like the new iphone4 advert

mainly because it doesn't say anything that isn't true, which I appreciate