Stuart's Daily Word Spot: in or at?

So, do you write: 'She's in Australia.' or 'He's atMelbourne.'?
Fowler, in his 'Modern English Usage', which, by the way,was first published in 1926 and (for my edition) last revised, withcorrections, in 1974, has a little to say on this issue. He quotes the OxfordEnglish Dictionary, that unquestionable authority on matters of Englishlanguage, as suggesting that 'at' should be used of all towns except the capitaland that in which the speaker dwells, if of any size. But he suggests that thisis too narrow a usage and goes on to say that we now speak as readily of being 'in'any town as we do of being 'at' it. He goes on to say that any difference, ifit actually exists, lies in the fact that 'in' suggests something beingphysically within, whilst 'at' does not. His given examples are as follows:'New College is in Oxford.''The new term at Oxford begins this week.'And I have no argument with that analysis. However, it doesn'treally answer the question adequately and I wonder if it really comes down to amatter of taste.
I would never use 'at' to describe someone being in anytown. Always preferring 'in' for this sort of sentence; thus:
'I live in Driffield.' 'The Tower of London is in London.'  'Billy does his studying in Belfast.'
And I would generally use 'at' when referring to some placewithin the town; thus:
'I shop at Driffield market.'  'Parliament sits at Westminster, London.'  'Billy studies at Belfast University.'
I hope this helps, but I suspect that both locally andglobally there are colloquial takes on this usage. I suggest you adopt the formthat most pleases your ear and hope that it doesn't offend those of yourreaders.
Pic: A small valley in East Yorkshire, called Deep Dale.