There was a MJ thread started several days ago, the subject of which was about changing the name of the city to somehow incorporate the word Obama, or something of that nature. I never read it because I would never see the point of changing the name of our city toward a living politician. Perhaps the thread was a joke. I could'nt find it.
In any case, this made me wonder about the fact that Jacksonville is one of only two cities in the top 100 populous cities to have “… ville†at the end of it. The other one is Louisville, which has a population of a little over 600,000, while Jacksonville has a little over 800,000.
I recall how, on earlier threads about Jacksonville, some individuals, who perhaps had a low self-image themselves, suggested that too many Jacksonvillians had a low self-image as a whole so to speak, regarding Jacksonville itself, saying perhaps that, if it were possible, Jacksonville had a low self-image.
Hmmmmm. How can this be? A city, having a low self-image? Possible I suppose, and given what I’ve sensed over the years, perhaps a probable condition with some here in our city. It’s not an earthshaking realization of course, as I suspect the “feeling†occurs in many cities throughout the world.
But this gets back to the name, “Jacksonvilleâ€. Is it possible for a city to be saddled with a name which perpetually cultivates, however slightly, a low self-image? For example, look at the syllable “villeâ€. Other than Louisville, which has a population of a little over 600,000, most other cities having the “ville†tacked onto the end of a name are relatively small towns. The next one, below Louisville, is Fayetteville, having around 200,000. After this, the cities having “ville†attached are actually small towns.
The fact that “Louisville†is pronounced quite often with such little emphasis on the “villeâ€, most of any negative impact of the "ville" is removed. Jacksonville must be pronounced with the full sound of “villeâ€.
In any case, my point is that “ville†implies “small†in America, as ninety-nine percent of the time the town having “ville†attached is in fact a small town. How did we get saddled with a name which perpetually implies smallness? And should we accept it?
In order to remove one of the perpetually negative, although subtle, pressures within our city, I want to propose that we drop “villeâ€, and become Jackson, Florida. I think there is a Jackson county in Florida, but a quick search found no city or town in Florida named Jackson. There is of course Jackson, Mississippi.
Names are important to one’s self-image. Look at the names of automobiles for example. The Cadillac “Escalade†would never be named the Cadillac Scrounge, Cadillac Bum, or Cadillac Dirt. The people buying a Cadillac demand an uplifting name. Imagine an auto named a Pontiac Erratic, or a Ford Fart? Or a Dodge Defective? How about a Jeep Fickle? How about a Chevy Cower. Or a Toyota Descend? Or an Oldsmobile Hell?
My point is that we just might have been saddled with a perpetual negative to our city because of its name, quite understandable of course, as it was in fact at one time a small town. Should we consider getting a new name, having a more positive sound? If so, perhaps it could be Jackson. “JACKSON†alone sounds quite profound and bold, and is much easier to say. The single and more powerful sounding name "Jackson" is closer perhaps to the man Andrew Jackson, who was indeed a powerful sort of a man, not a “villeâ€. Let’s give him his due.
If we were not alone with the “villeâ€, it wouldn’t be so obviously bad. For example, if New York was “Yorkvilleâ€, and Chicago was “Chicagavilleâ€, or San Francisco was “Friscovilleâ€, then our “Jacksonville†would be aligned with the great cities in name too, and not only in potential. As it is, we are aligned with the hundreds of little towns in America having endings in "ville" too.
If this post causes a growing momentum of dissatisfaction with the name “Jacksonvilleâ€, then perhaps some might have a better suggestion for a new name, one without a “ville†tagging along at the end.
In any case, I sense the subtle pressure downward to the spirit, and to the self-image of many Jacksonvillians, as a result of having the “ville†tagged on the end of Jackson. What do you think? Am I nuts? Should I try to sleep more at 3:00 a.m. instead of posting midnight thoughts on MJ? Does anyone have a better suggestion for a new name? We would all have to change city names on all of our letterhead. After all, look at cities all over the world that have changed their names. Leningrad to St. Petersburg for example.
^Leningrad was originally St. Petersburg. (Czar Peter the Great named it after himself) Then Lenin renamed it Leningrad. Then Stalin named it Stalingrad. Then it was renamed Leningrad. A few years ago it was again renamed St. Petersburg.
As for Jackson, there is already a Jackson in Mississippi. Its an even bigger dump than what people think of Jacksonville.
SMH at this thread. *sigh*
Quote from: BackinJax05 on July 16, 2012, 04:53:45 AM
^Leningrad was originally St. Petersburg. (Czar Peter the Great named it after himself) Then Lenin renamed it Leningrad. Then Stalin named it Stalingrad. Then it was renamed Leningrad. A few years ago it was again renamed St. Petersburg.
As for Jackson, there is already a Jackson in Mississippi. Its an even bigger dump than what people think of Jacksonville.
Wrong on about three items BackinJax. I'm almost certain the Tsar did not name the new city after himself, but he named it after St. Peter. The Soviets named it Leningrad right after the Revolution, a name which it held until it became again St. Peterburg after the fall of the Soviets. Stalingrad was a few hundred miles away.
The fact of there being Jackson, Mississippi is not relevant to the principles about which I'm getting at on the thread. And I completely appose your reference to Jacksonville as a dump. Perhaps if you feel it is a dump, as perhaps your life might be in a slump, in which case you might change your posting name to LeavingJax12, and move on. We need positive, progressive people here in Jacksonville. Seems as though you are wrong on a lot of things BackinJax. Are you educated.... just asking?
lol wow... harsh.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2012, 07:13:24 AM
Quote from: BackinJax05 on July 16, 2012, 04:53:45 AM
^Leningrad was originally St. Petersburg. (Czar Peter the Great named it after himself) Then Lenin renamed it Leningrad. Then Stalin named it Stalingrad. Then it was renamed Leningrad. A few years ago it was again renamed St. Petersburg.
As for Jackson, there is already a Jackson in Mississippi. Its an even bigger dump than what people think of Jacksonville.
Wrong on about three items BackinJax. I'm almost certain the Tsar did not name the new city after himself, but he named it after St. Peter. The Soviets named it Leningrad right after the Revolution, a name which it held until it became again St. Peterburg after the fall of the Soviets. Stalingrad was a few hundred miles away.
The fact of there being Jackson, Mississippi is not relevant to the principles about which I'm getting at on the thread. And I completely appose your reference to Jacksonville as a dump. Perhaps if you feel it is a dump, as perhaps your life might be in a slump, in which case you might change your posting name to LeavingJax12, and move on. We need positive, progressive people here in Jacksonville. Seems as though you are wrong on a lot of things BackinJax. Are you educated.... just asking?
I know I'm being pedantic here, but the Soviets didn't change the name to Leningrad until after Lenin died. And when they did, they changed it to Leningrad from Petrograd, not St Petersburg.
Quote from: Adam W on July 16, 2012, 07:53:21 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2012, 07:13:24 AM
Quote from: BackinJax05 on July 16, 2012, 04:53:45 AM
^Leningrad was originally St. Petersburg. (Czar Peter the Great named it after himself) Then Lenin renamed it Leningrad. Then Stalin named it Stalingrad. Then it was renamed Leningrad. A few years ago it was again renamed St. Petersburg.
As for Jackson, there is already a Jackson in Mississippi. Its an even bigger dump than what people think of Jacksonville.
Wrong on about three items BackinJax. I'm almost certain the Tsar did not name the new city after himself, but he named it after St. Peter. The Soviets named it Leningrad right after the Revolution, a name which it held until it became again St. Peterburg after the fall of the Soviets. Stalingrad was a few hundred miles away.
The fact of there being Jackson, Mississippi is not relevant to the principles about which I'm getting at on the thread. And I completely appose your reference to Jacksonville as a dump. Perhaps if you feel it is a dump, as perhaps your life might be in a slump, in which case you might change your posting name to LeavingJax12, and move on. We need positive, progressive people here in Jacksonville. Seems as though you are wrong on a lot of things BackinJax. Are you educated.... just asking?
I know I'm being pedantic here, but the Soviets didn't change the name to Leningrad until after Lenin died. And when they did, they changed it to Leningrad from Petrograd, not St Petersburg.
Absolutely right Adam . _ _ . Thanks. I'll bet you've heard the story about the fellow who was born in St. Petersburg, was a juvenile in Petrograd, matured in Leningrad, and died in St. Petersburg, all the while living in the same city. I think the Soviets wanted to remove the religious name St. Petersburg from the city so they could begin the process of having a non-religious state.
It's not the name "Jacksonville" that is holding this community back. At a bird's eye level, it's our overall will to fully embrace creativity and innovation within a compact setting.
^^I agree Lake. I have heard others argue this as well. What about Nashville? the "ville" doesnt seem to hold them back.
Ville is French for city - as in Cadillac' Coup Deville, not exactly a small car. I am willing to bet you, Ron, that you would gag at the cost to the city and private enterprise of erasing the suffix from all of the places where the city's name appears.
Frankly, I think you were either kidding when you posited this idea or else had a snootfull - not that I'm opposed to that. If we have an image problem - and I don't doubt it for a moment - the cure is not as simple as a name change.
That said, however, I would endorse getting rid of the "Bold new city of the South" tag line. We ain't that - bold, nor new - not even in just the Southeast, and not even in just Florida. Maybe we could be the Bold Old City of Northeast Florida. Or go back to River City by the Sea. Hey, how about "Jacksonville. The Redneck Rivera Ain't Got Nuthin' on Us."
Quote from: I-10east on July 16, 2012, 06:33:58 AM
SMH at this thread. *sigh*
I-10east, if "smh" means "saddens my heart", fear not, as you will find in my post no denigrating effort on my part regarding our wonderful city on the river, but only a discussion about certain principles which I find interesting, and which might have subtle pressures upon images of our city, as might exist in its name. In case you haven't really read the post I am not saying that there is in fact reason to feel inferior about our city, or to suggest that anyone should have an inferiority complex about our city, but only to acknowledge the eariler references to these emotions on earlier threads in MJ.
I am suggesting that the naming of something, such as automobiles and cities can be somewhat important, as the name can apply a postive or a negative to one's image of it, and therefore have subtle affects to it over many years. I apologize if, as I've engaged the naming idea, I've given the impression that I am not proud of our city, as I am confident in its future. A careful reading of my post should allow most to see that I am only discussing principles.
One might ask at this point, as if we might wish to treat seriously this experiment at discussing a naming principle, if the awkwardness of changing the name of our city will be offset by the rewards of doing so. My post, while somewhat serious, is also just an exercise in principles, realizing that the real consequences or benefits of an action from it has probably not enough weight to warrant serious attention.
I agree basically Lake and fsujax. Again, my focus is on the idea of a name. Surely what the people living in a city actually do is the crucial thing, if one is to have progress. I wanted to point out the idea that there are subtle, but sometimes important, almost hidden, consequences of some "thing", such as a name in this case, the long range effect of which might be a little more important than we might suspect.
Quote from: WmNussbaum on July 16, 2012, 08:25:14 AM
Ville is French for city - as in Cadillac' Coup Deville, not exactly a small car. I am willing to bet you, Ron, that you would gag at the cost to the city and private enterprise of erasing the suffix from all of the places where the city's name appears.
Frankly, I think you were either kidding when you posited this idea or else had a snootfull - not that I'm opposed to that. If we have an image problem - and I don't doubt it for a moment - the cure is not as simple as a name change.
That said, however, I would endorse getting rid of the "Bold new city of the South" tag line. We ain't that - bold, nor new - not even in just the Southeast, and not even in just Florida. Maybe we could be the Bold Old City of Northeast Florida. Or go back to River City by the Sea. Hey, how about "Jacksonville. The Redneck Rivera Ain't Got Nuthin' on Us."
Correct Wm, the cure is not as simple as a name change. However, as in many trips from A to B, there are many obstacles in the way that must be overcome, and many assets to be gathered to get one there, some being less obvious than others, almost invisible, sometimes never discovered, and thus the goal of reaching "B" is delayed, or never reached.
But yes, at 3:00 a.m. I do have my one nightly beer.
The 'ville is such a part of the name I rarely think of it as separate piece. I never even thought about it until I met these two French-Canadian ladies and showed them around Jax years ago. They would ask me (in their adorable French-Canadian accents) So vwhy does Jacksonville have ville at the of tha name? Jackson-city? no? Why doesn't every American city have a ville at the name?
I had no response. I just took them to the zoo.
Thanks Wm and David. I never thought about the origin of "ville". I thought I knew everything. But back to one my points.... Statistically the use of the suffix "ville" is with towns and cities having small populations, even down to the level over several hundreds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Bloody_Andrew_Jackson
Quote from: fsujax on July 16, 2012, 08:17:36 AM
^^I agree Lake. I have heard others argue this as well. What about Nashville? the "ville" doesnt seem to hold them back.
I mean nevermind Nashville is 602,000 strong...
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2012, 08:04:36 AM
It's not the name "Jacksonville" that is holding this community back. At a bird's eye level, it's our overall will to fully embrace creativity and innovation within a compact setting.
I agree. The city can be whatever we want it to be. And Jacksonville can be THE "ville." Or at least a ville to rival Nashville.
Ville de Montreal does't sound very backwoods....Do the Spanish rednecks live in Seville? Amityville is my favorite...
I had always thought "ville" was short for village. Anyway, I'm for keeping it "Jacksonville"...if we're so proud of our heritage, doesn't that include our name? Wasn't it Jacksonville that was rebuilt after the Great Fire? I wouldn't want to call it anything else...except maybe nickname it DeVille (after the Jaguars' mascot!) instead of "bold new city of the south" or whatever it is, now.
I like the edginess of JAX....
I strongly dislike the ville at the end, and dislike only "jackson" just as much :P
Im for renaming if it werent for having to change every sign, name (Jacksonville Jaguars), etc.
and what about the name recognition?
Again, all signs point to "Jax". :P
When Isaiah Hart laid out the town and named it after Andrew Jackson, it was a "ville" if you want to say "ville" pertains to small. The population was about 100 at the time. Who knew at the time it would become a large city? Other river towns along the St. Johns have not grown to the same degree.
The real question is why it's named that instead of Wacca Pilatka, Cowford, Fort Caroline or Hogansville after Lewis Hogans. I guess if you plat the town, you get to pick the name. ;)
The fact there is another town named Jackson is pretty meaningless. There are cities named Miami, Orlando and Jacksonville in at least a half dozen other states.
Reminds me of corporations who have bad reputations and spend their multiples of millions to rebrand but never change their actual behavior. Now, they have two names with a negative association. One, is sufficient, no?It's not the name that makes a city it's the city that makes the name.
New York, implies exactly that, a new York. Not refined. Not developed. Just created. Etc. I doubt anyone looks at New York and thinks "Well, why are they still calling themselves "new"? This is hardly accurate! It is time to go to Greenland where location names make sense!"
If we were called New Jackson I suppose we would be having a discussion about how "new" diminishes our history and belittles our heritage...
If we ever get to the point where our city wants to spend millions on finding a new name, that will be my last straw. To me, it will symbolize a total lack of articulated intelligent leadership. And, I just don't have the stomach to watch our local advertising agencies drooling at the prospect of making a cool million by having a series of superficial brainstorm meetings,
"So, what do you guys think of Jacksonia...?"
"I like it but it reminds of Estonia and I don't know much about Estonia but it feels poor."
"What about Newer York?"
"Yeah, that makes a lot of sense."
Besides, we live in the age of irony. The "ville" should be embraced.
Quote from: TheCat on July 16, 2012, 02:09:46 PM
It's not the name that makes a city it's the city that makes the name.
That pretty much says it all.
I have a friend who wishes Isaiah D Hart had named the city Hart City after himself - so the football team could be the Hart City Breakers.
I think that is way better than the Jaguars. So I'm happy to support Hart City as a second choice. But I like the name Jacksonville.
Why couldn't we do something similar to our friend to the north, The Bronx. I wouldn't mind seeing "Welcom to The Jax" on our interstate billboards and "The Jax Jaguars" playing on Monday Night Football.... :)
I think I share the same sentiment with many others here. Jacksonville is a great name and changing it would be a negative. Still, if we are one of only two major cities with the ville in our name it makes us unique and we should be able to use that to our advantage. Hell, who knows if having the "ville" will be trendy again one day. Also, the "ville" fits us because we are a little big city. :)
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2012, 08:36:10 AM
Quote from: I-10east on July 16, 2012, 06:33:58 AM
SMH at this thread. *sigh*
I-10east, if "smh" means "saddens my heart", fear not, as you will find in my post no denigrating effort on my part regarding our wonderful city on the river, but only a discussion about certain principles which I find interesting, and which might have subtle pressures upon images of our city, as might exist in its name.
Nope, it means "shaking my head". In a sense, you hit the nail on the head, with 'sadden my heart'. It does sadden my heart to think that some people have such an inferiority complex about this city, that they will consider the drastic actions in changing the name of it. No offense, I'm just really tired of these 'Lets change the name of the city" threads, this has got to be atleast the fifth one. Most cities NEVER change their name, and even the very rare occasion that it does happen, it's at the pace of a drunk snail, it's like epochal. What's the city that relatively changed their name what, Mumbai, from Bombay, because of cultural reasons? So changing the name of not only Jacksonville, but ANY city, will basically fall on deaf ears. It's safe to say that in our lifetimes, we will never see no name change to Jax, I don't think that I'm going out on a limb with that. The name of the city is Jacksonville, can we please move on?
Quote from: Jason on July 16, 2012, 02:48:24 PM
I think I share the same sentiment with many others here. Jacksonville is a great name and changing it would be a negative. Still, if we are one of only two major cities with the ville in our name it makes us unique and we should be able to use that to our advantage. Hell, who knows if having the "ville" will be trendy again one day. Also, the "ville" fits us because we are a little big city. :)
Agreed. I kind of like the "ville" in our little big city's name--it gives off a bit of a romantic and rustic Continental vibe that this Francophile personally finds appealing.
And we always coulda been stuck with something like "Jacksonburgh" or worse.
QuoteIf we ever get to the point where our city wants to spend millions on finding a new name, that will be my last straw. To me, it will symbolize a total lack of articulated intelligent leadership. And, I just don't have the stomach to watch our local advertising agencies drooling at the prospect of making a cool million by having a series of superficial brainstorm meetings,
+ 1000!! :o
Nah! I rather think, if we're going to do this, we should come up with something groundbreaking. Might I suggest:
Lactobacillus acidophilis, Florida
or maybe
Spirogyra, Florida
although
Aardvark, Florida, does have a ring to it.
I have not lived in Jacksonville in over 20 years, but it is still close to my heart. That is where my life started. I have to say that I am not quit up to date on all the problems in the area, but I do know that whatever problems is in the area, has nothing to do with the name. The problems runs deeper than the name, and changing the name is not going to make things better. If you are having trouble in your life, do you think that just by changing your name is going to fix your problems? No! You have to fix the source of the problems and not try and cover them up with a name change. If the name changes, it will always be Jacksonville, Florida to me, and most likely millions more.
The problem is not the name, it is the inferiority complex, which has proven very difficult to remove or lessen. Creating a great urban core WOULD do it, IMO.
There are no great cities without a great DT. For good or bad, everyone in every city feels an 'ownership' in it's Downtown.
Another thing that would help is a decent 'branding' campaign. I've often said that Jacksonville doesn't have a bad reputation as much as it has NO reputation, which is a better situation to have.
While I think Jax should not be the 'official' name, it SHOULD be as commonly used as 'Hotlanta' or 'San Fran' or 'Motor City' are to their cities.
Quote from: vicupstate on July 16, 2012, 07:08:06 PM
The problem is not the name, it is the inferiority complex, which has proven very difficult to remove or lessen. Creating a great urban core WOULD do it, IMO.
There are no great cities without a great DT. For good or bad, everyone in every city feels an 'ownership' in it's Downtown.
Another thing that would help is a decent 'branding' campaign. I've often said that Jacksonville doesn't have a bad reputation as much as it has NO reputation, which is a better situation to have.
While I think Jax should not be the 'official' name, it SHOULD be as commonly used as 'Hotlanta' or 'San Fran' or 'Motor City' are to their cities.
We've been branded for years... J A X ! From the 1800's on, our citizens were known as 'JAXSON'S' (as in DeVille, somebody in the NFL got an A in history)
And we've sold ourselves as:
'The City Beautiful'
'The Gateway City' (ref. our rail terminals)
'The Florida Crown'
'The Bold New City of The South'
'The River City'
'The River City by The Sea'
'The First Coast'
...and lately one that I actually LOVE!
THE HISTORIC COAST... AMERICA'S HISTORIC COAST... etc.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 16, 2012, 03:47:09 PM
QuoteIf we ever get to the point where our city wants to spend millions on finding a new name, that will be my last straw. To me, it will symbolize a total lack of articulated intelligent leadership. And, I just don't have the stomach to watch our local advertising agencies drooling at the prospect of making a cool million by having a series of superficial brainstorm meetings,
+ 1000!! :o
They won't have to! We are doing it for them for free right here. LOL
If I had known that there had been previous name change threads on MJ, I probably wouldn’t have had the thought experiment about city names. In any case, it looks like even though there might be a subtle relationship between the suffix “ville†and the hundreds of small “ville†towns in America, a change is not to be.
As several MJ persons have pointed out, the cost of changing a name would be prohibitive. Others have suggested that a name doesn’t make a city, but the city makes the name. Makes good sense. Onward with solid improvements in our city core.
So I failed to begin a momentum to change Jacksonville to Jackson. Insomnia. I must do something else at two or three in the morning other than try to think of ways to engage MJ. Perhaps if I read more at 3:00 a. m., and talked less, my eventual talk would make more sense.
The feedback was thoughtful and productive. Thanks to all MJ posters for giving it. :)
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2012, 07:13:24 AM
Quote from: BackinJax05 on July 16, 2012, 04:53:45 AM
^Leningrad was originally St. Petersburg. (Czar Peter the Great named it after himself) Then Lenin renamed it Leningrad. Then Stalin named it Stalingrad. Then it was renamed Leningrad. A few years ago it was again renamed St. Petersburg.
As for Jackson, there is already a Jackson in Mississippi. Its an even bigger dump than what people think of Jacksonville.
Wrong on about three items BackinJax. I'm almost certain the Tsar did not name the new city after himself, but he named it after St. Peter. The Soviets named it Leningrad right after the Revolution, a name which it held until it became again St. Peterburg after the fall of the Soviets. Stalingrad was a few hundred miles away.
The fact of there being Jackson, Mississippi is not relevant to the principles about which I'm getting at on the thread. And I completely appose your reference to Jacksonville as a dump. Perhaps if you feel it is a dump, as perhaps your life might be in a slump, in which case you might change your posting name to LeavingJax12, and move on. We need positive, progressive people here in Jacksonville. Seems as though you are wrong on a lot of things BackinJax. Are you educated.... just asking?
OK. So I was wrong. No need for a personal attack. Seems as though you are overly sensitive on a lot of things, ron. Are you a moron? .... Just asking :)
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2012, 09:46:00 AM
Thanks Wm and David. I never thought about the origin of "ville". I thought I knew everything. But back to one my points.... Statistically the use of the suffix "ville" is with towns and cities having small populations, even down to the level over several hundreds.
You never thought of alot of things, ronnie. You thought you knew everything; you know hardly anything.
Quote from: BackinJax05 on July 17, 2012, 02:41:00 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2012, 07:13:24 AM
Quote from: BackinJax05 on July 16, 2012, 04:53:45 AM
^Leningrad was originally St. Petersburg. (Czar Peter the Great named it after himself) Then Lenin renamed it Leningrad. Then Stalin named it Stalingrad. Then it was renamed Leningrad. A few years ago it was again renamed St. Petersburg.
As for Jackson, there is already a Jackson in Mississippi. Its an even bigger dump than what people think of Jacksonville.
Wrong on about three items BackinJax. I'm almost certain the Tsar did not name the new city after himself, but he named it after St. Peter. The Soviets named it Leningrad right after the Revolution, a name which it held until it became again St. Peterburg after the fall of the Soviets. Stalingrad was a few hundred miles away.
The fact of there being Jackson, Mississippi is not relevant to the principles about which I'm getting at on the thread. And I completely appose your reference to Jacksonville as a dump. Perhaps if you feel it is a dump, as perhaps your life might be in a slump, in which case you might change your posting name to LeavingJax12, and move on. We need positive, progressive people here in Jacksonville. Seems as though you are wrong on a lot of things BackinJax. Are you educated.... just asking?
OK. So I was wrong. No need for a personal attack. Seems as though you are overly sensitive on a lot of things, ron. Are you a moron? .... Just asking :)
Oh my goodness BackinJax. I thought you might have left town with your negative attitude. And now we have an angry BackinJax, stillinJax, prodding me, suggesting I don't know anything, asking me if I'm a moron. Don't know. Maybe I am. Morons normally don't know that they are morons. They just have fun. But if I am of the condition you ask about, basically it's okay by me, as I only do the best I can. What else can one do?
My response was to question and counter your comment about Jackson being a dump, which I thought rather interesting for someone to say. My questioning whether you were educated wasn't so much of an attempt to make a personal attack as much as it was an attack on your description of Jackson. At this point I suspect you regret using the word dump. If you have no regret, perhaps you might elaborate for us who might wonder about your meaning of the term.
But in any case, care to compare who knows what, and who can have a civil discussion about things that matter? :D If you do, wait until a thread interests you and chime in. Pick a subject and a time. I'll be waiting. Love to engage you. Your words so far allow me to believe that you might be a little... well.... lacking a little somewhere in the cranium. Care to change my assumption? Or do you just want to sling crap to further divulge that it's true?
;D#33: I have often wondered, as a Jacksonvillian, what people from other areas of the state called themselves...for example, in Tampa, would one be considered a Tampon...discuss. (btw I LOVE Tampa so don't get upset)
Almost a century ago, our daily afternoon newspaper (Jacksonville Journal) had a publisher who wanted to change the name of Jacksonville to Jackson to reflect what some posters are saying in this thread. I believe that it was John H. Perry, who owned the Journal, local radio station WJHP (launched a short lived UHF station with the same call letters) and other newspapers outside of Jacksonville. Mr. Perry died in 1952 Journal joined forces with the Times-Union in 1959.
Quote from: sandyshoes on July 17, 2012, 07:31:09 AM
;D#33: I have often wondered, as a Jacksonvillian, what people from other areas of the state called themselves...for example, in Tampa, would one be considered a Tampon...discuss. (btw I LOVE Tampa so don't get upset)
People from Tampa can be called "Tampanians" or "Tampans", though the latter is out of favor for a lot of people. Folks from St. Petersburg may be called "St. Petersburgians", though this is more rare.
As thelakelander can tell you, folks from Lakeland can be called "Lakelanders". Folks from Tallahassee are Tallahasseeans; those from St. Augustine are "St. Augustinians", and those from Pensacola are "Pensacolans".
People from Orlando are usually called "Orlandoans". More broadly they often take the name "Central Floridian", but this can apply equally well to people from the Tampa Bay Area or Daytona.
People from Miami are "Miamians". I am not aware of a demonym for people from Ft. Lauderdale. Often people from this area just go by "South Floridian".
MEXICAN PRESIDENT WANTS TO CHANGE OUR SOUTHERN NEIGHBOR FROM "UNITED MEXICAN STATES" TO "MEXICO".
This has "some" similarities to the idea of changing "Jacksonville" to "Jackson". Look at all the time we could save, not having to pronounce "ville". And "Jackson" sounds so profound. ....."JACKSON !!!!!"..... tadaaaa.
Huff Post full article address follows below partial:
MEXICO CITY â€" Mexico's president is making one last attempt to get the "United States" out of Mexico â€" at least as far as the country's name is concerned.
The name "United Mexican States," or "Estados Unidos Mexicanos," was adopted in 1824 after independence from Spain in imitation of Mexico's democratic northern neighbor, but it is rarely used except on official documents, money and other government material.
Still, President Felipe Calderon called a news conference Thursday to announce that he wants to make the name simply "Mexico." His country doesn't need to copy anyone, he said.
Calderon first proposed the name change as a congressman in 2003 but the bill did not make it to a vote. The new constitutional reform he proposed would have to be approved by both houses of Congress and a majority of Mexico's 31 state legislatures.
However, Calderon leaves office on Dec. 1, raising the question of whether his proposal is a largely symbolic gesture. His proposal was widely mocked on Twitter as a ridiculous parting shot from a lame-duck president.
full aritcle:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/22/mexico-name-change-felipe-calderon_n_2175707.html
Personally if but for no other reason then history, I think it's a dumb idea, one that feels like the camp of people who are forever apologizing for our great city. Yes it's a long name, but it's our name and it's rich with history. 'Jackson' is in Mississippi, or Tennessee, or...
JACKSONVILLE, IS IN FLORIDA. Little Jacksonville's are in, North Carolina, x2 in Georgia, Oregon, Illinois and Texas to name a few, apparently with very little apology for the name.
QuoteSS Jacksonville.
She was a Turbine Tanker, built in 1944 to carry a cargo of 14,300 tons of Petroleum.
As part of Convoy CU-36, she was torpedoed by U-482, in position 55 degrees 30 minutes North, 07 degrees 30 minutes West, on the 30th. of August in 1944.
The U-Boat fired a spread of two torpedoes and obtained two hits, the first 3 minutes 32 seconds after firing, the second 4 minutes 5 seconds after firing. The first torpedo exploded the cargo of petrol, giving the crew little chance of abandoning the blazing ship. The second torpedo caused a huge explosion, breaking the tanker in two.
USS Poole, rescued a fireman, and an Armed Guard, the only survivors.
QuoteUSS Jacksonville is the 12th Los Angeles-class nuclear powered attack submarine and the first ship in the U.S. Navy to bear the name of the city in northern Florida. The contract to build the Jacksonville was awarded on January 24, 1972, her keel was laid over four years later on February 21, 1976 and she was launched on November 18, 1978, sponsored by Mrs. Charles E. Bennett, and commissioned on May 16, 1981, with Capt. Robert B. Wilkinson in command.
Jacksonville’s operations have included a variety of fleet exercises and deployments including two around-the-world cruises in 1982 and 1985, deployments to the western Atlantic Ocean in 1983, 1986, 1993 and 1994, and deployments to the Mediterranean Sea in 1987 and 1993. In 1988, USS Jacksonville participated in a shock trials test program for the Los Angeles-class submarines, which was followed by a three year major modernization overhaul in Norfolk Naval Shipyard.
BTW, the USS JACKSONVILLE is due to be decommissioned from the fleet in 2014, she would make a wonderful addition to our maritime museum.
Thanks for resurrecting this horrible thread Ron....
Actually, thanks Ron. I thought the article about Mexico was very interesting and hadn't seen it elsewhere. :)
^^^I agree that the Mexico info was interesting, I just don't see why a new "Mexico thread" wasn't made; Instead of trying to link a correlation with the tiresome "J-Ville should change it's name to Jackson" talk.
Okay Adam Whiskey and I-10east, I agree that a name change is not going to happen. I'll avoid bringing it up again. And while I'm at it, I'll confess the real reason I brought up the subject several months ago in the first place.
Back in March of this year, I accidentally ordered, and received, 4,000 envelopes and 2,000 letterheads with Jackson, Florida printed on them.
In order save my loss, I thought I would attempt to encourage changing the city's name to the same as the envelopes. Of course, this would cause all other citizens to pay the cost of new envelopes and letterhead. Sorta selfish I know, but I'd rather others take a loss than me. So......... I'll give in, and will simply endure writing "ville" scrunched in between Jackson and Florida. This will look a little messy but will have to do.
But I do understand your frustration and appreciate you kindness in not pounding my too hard about bringing up the subject again. I promise to keep quiet in the future, now that the real reason for a name change is out of the bag.
Yes, the Mexico name change is a little interesting.
Quote from: ronchamblin on November 23, 2012, 01:10:24 AM
Okay Adam Whiskey and I-10east, I agree that a name change is not going to happen. I'll avoid bringing it up again. And while I'm at it, I'll confess the real reason I brought up the subject several months ago in the first place.
Back in March of this year, I accidentally ordered, and received, 4,000 envelopes and 2,000 letterheads with Jackson, Florida printed on them.
In order save my loss, I thought I would attempt to encourage changing the city's name to the same as the envelopes. Of course, this would cause all other citizens to pay the cost of new envelopes and letterhead. Sorta selfish I know, but I'd rather others take a loss than me. So......... I'll give in, and will simply endure writing "ville" scrunched in between Jackson and Florida. This will look a little messy but will have to do.
But I do understand your frustration and appreciate you kindness in not pounding my too hard about bringing up the subject again. I promise to keep quiet in the future, now that the real reason for a name change is out of the bag.
Yes, the Mexico name change is a little interesting.
That's hilarious, Ron.
I have no issue with you reigniting this thread. In fact, I quite enjoy it.