On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:23:17 -0000, "Michael C" 
wrote:

>>> To the people competing in and watching the Olympics they are of great
>>> benefit.

>> So, that's a few hundred thousand.
>> Be cheaper just to give a few thoudand quid each.

>In terms of the audience numbers try a few million and you would be closer. 

It is immaterial to the audience watching the events on TV whether
they are taking place in London or Siberia.  It makes far more sense
to hold the Olympics in a place where the facilities already exist.

-- 
Cynic

>

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:229fp31rm2lh8ig8e5f92hsv07r2l6784l@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:23:17 -0000, "Michael C" 
> wrote:
>
>>>> To the people competing in and watching the Olympics they are of great
>>>> benefit.
>
>>> So, that's a few hundred thousand.
>>> Be cheaper just to give a few thoudand quid each.
>
>>In terms of the audience numbers try a few million and you would be 
>>closer.
>
> It is immaterial to the audience watching the events on TV whether
> they are taking place in London or Siberia.  It makes far more sense
> to hold the Olympics in a place where the facilities already exist.

Yeah you see, you are missing the whole point really.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:43:37 -0000, "Michael C" 
wrote:

>>>>> To the people competing in and watching the Olympics they are of great
>>>>> benefit.
>>
>>>> So, that's a few hundred thousand.
>>>> Be cheaper just to give a few thoudand quid each.
>>
>>>In terms of the audience numbers try a few million and you would be 
>>>closer.
>>
>> It is immaterial to the audience watching the events on TV whether
>> they are taking place in London or Siberia.  It makes far more sense
>> to hold the Olympics in a place where the facilities already exist.
>
>Yeah you see, you are missing the whole point really. 

Then enlighten me.  What *is* the point?

-- 
Cynic

>

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:k7ifp3pjld3a9fpqm5f9a8k2vrtj5n8ck3@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:43:37 -0000, "Michael C" 
> wrote:
>>>
>>> It is immaterial to the audience watching the events on TV whether
>>> they are taking place in London or Siberia.  It makes far more sense
>>> to hold the Olympics in a place where the facilities already exist.
>>
>>Yeah you see, you are missing the whole point really.
>
> Then enlighten me.  What *is* the point?

The point is that we get to host the Olympics.  We get a dog-turd area of 
London having a chance for regeneration.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:26:09 -0000, "Michael C" 
wrote:

>>>> It is immaterial to the audience watching the events on TV whether
>>>> they are taking place in London or Siberia.  It makes far more sense
>>>> to hold the Olympics in a place where the facilities already exist.

>>>Yeah you see, you are missing the whole point really.

>> Then enlighten me.  What *is* the point?

>The point is that we get to host the Olympics.

So?

>  We get a dog-turd area of 
>London having a chance for regeneration.

Plenty of far cheaper ways to do that - and far better things to
regenerate it with also.

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:s9nhp3pfctnbj6m5enkq0t9ac1sr8h2v1l@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:26:09 -0000, "Michael C" 
>>>
>>> Then enlighten me.  What *is* the point?
>
>>The point is that we get to host the Olympics.
>
> So?

You aren't interested in sports then?

>>  We get a dog-turd area of
>>London having a chance for regeneration.
>
> Plenty of far cheaper ways to do that - and far better things to
> regenerate it with also.

Yeah but it wouldn't have happened at all without the Olympics would it?

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:53:01 -0000, "Michael C" 
wrote:

>>>> Then enlighten me.  What *is* the point?

>>>The point is that we get to host the Olympics.

>> So?

>You aren't interested in sports then?

I enjoy actually doing some sports (though none of those in the
Olympics), but I've never been that interested in watching someone
else, unless it's to learn from.  But that is completely beside the
point.  Having the Olympics in London instead of Paris or Tokyo would
not affect my enjoyment even if I were interested.
>
>>>  We get a dog-turd area of
>>>London having a chance for regeneration.
>>
>> Plenty of far cheaper ways to do that - and far better things to
>> regenerate it with also.
>
>Yeah but it wouldn't have happened at all without the Olympics would it? 

You could say similar about the bomb damage done during the war.  It
doesn't make it desirable.

-- 
Cynic

"Michael C"  writes:

> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:k7ifp3pjld3a9fpqm5f9a8k2vrtj5n8ck3@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:43:37 -0000, "Michael C" 
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is immaterial to the audience watching the events on TV
>>>> whether they are taking place in London or Siberia.  It makes far
>>>> more sense to hold the Olympics in a place where the facilities
>>>> already exist.
>>>
>>>Yeah you see, you are missing the whole point really.
>>
>> Then enlighten me.  What *is* the point?
>
> The point is that we get to host the Olympics.  We get a dog-turd
> area of London having a chance for regeneration.

Regeneration througn running, jumping and throwing things?
What planet are you on?

-- 
all I really want to do...

Michael C wrote:

> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
 >
>>Plenty of far cheaper ways to do that - and far better things to
>>regenerate it with also.
> 
> Yeah but it wouldn't have happened at all without the Olympics would it? 
> 

I think that summarises Ken Livingstone's incompetence quite nicely.

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:aoohp35t5qn7aj7mknde660848ukq81h9k@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:53:01 -0000, "Michael C" 
>>
>>You aren't interested in sports then?
>
> I enjoy actually doing some sports (though none of those in the
> Olympics), but I've never been that interested in watching someone
> else, unless it's to learn from.  But that is completely beside the
> point.  Having the Olympics in London instead of Paris or Tokyo would
> not affect my enjoyment even if I were interested.

Seeing as how you aren't actually interested that isn't something that you 
are really qualified to state with any conviction.

>>>>  We get a dog-turd area of
>>>>London having a chance for regeneration.
>>>
>>> Plenty of far cheaper ways to do that - and far better things to
>>> regenerate it with also.
>>
>>Yeah but it wouldn't have happened at all without the Olympics would it?
>
> You could say similar about the bomb damage done during the war.  It
> doesn't make it desirable.

You could say similar but you yourself have admitted that regenerating a 
dog-turd area is a good idea.

"nigel"  wrote in message 
news:13phtvdds8mc01d@corp.supernews.com...
> Michael C wrote:
>
>> "Cynic"  wrote in message
>>>Plenty of far cheaper ways to do that - and far better things to
>>>regenerate it with also.
>>
>> Yeah but it wouldn't have happened at all without the Olympics would it?
>
> I think that summarises Ken Livingstone's incompetence quite nicely.

No it doesn't - but your comment summarises that you have no idea as to what 
power a London Mayor actually has.

"Michael C"  wrote

>> I think that summarises Ken Livingstone's incompetence quite nicely.
>
> No it doesn't - but your comment summarises that you have no idea as to 
> what power a London Mayor actually has.

X-Ray vision and the ability to turn cash into bullshit?

In article , warped@warblyet.tyc 
says...
> The point is that we get to host the Olympics.  We get a dog-turd area of 
> London having a chance for regeneration. 

You'd be better off with a supercasino
-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

foghollow  writes:

> In article , warped@warblyet.tyc 
> says...
>
>> The point is that we get to host the Olympics.  We get a dog-turd
>> area of London having a chance for regeneration.
>
> You'd be better off with a supercasino

Don't get me started on that, other, bag of shite idea.

-- 
I'm beginning to see the light

In article , august@kororaa.com 
says...
> foghollow  writes:
> 
> > In article , warped@warblyet.tyc 
> > says...
> >
> >> The point is that we get to host the Olympics.  We get a dog-turd
> >> area of London having a chance for regeneration.
> >
> > You'd be better off with a supercasino
> 
> Don't get me started on that, other, bag of shite idea.
> 
I didn't mean to imply it would be a good idea, just that it would be better - for regeneration - than 
the Olympics.
-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

On 2008-01-24, Michael C  wrote:
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:k7ifp3pjld3a9fpqm5f9a8k2vrtj5n8ck3@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:43:37 -0000, "Michael C" 
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is immaterial to the audience watching the events on TV whether
>>>> they are taking place in London or Siberia.  It makes far more sense
>>>> to hold the Olympics in a place where the facilities already exist.
>>>
>>>Yeah you see, you are missing the whole point really.
>>
>> Then enlighten me.  What *is* the point?
>
> The point is that we get to host the Olympics. 

Whoop-de-fucking-doo.

-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 2008-01-24, Michael C  wrote:
> "Cynic"  wrote in message 
> news:s9nhp3pfctnbj6m5enkq0t9ac1sr8h2v1l@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:26:09 -0000, "Michael C" 
>>>>
>>>> Then enlighten me.  What *is* the point?
>>
>>>The point is that we get to host the Olympics.
>>
>> So?
>
> You aren't interested in sports then?

Me neither.

I wouldn't mind if they weren't spending my money.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

foghollow  writes:

> In article , august@kororaa.com 
> says...
>> foghollow  writes:
>> 
>> > In article , warped@warblyet.tyc 
>> > says...
>> >
>> >> The point is that we get to host the Olympics.  We get a dog-turd
>> >> area of London having a chance for regeneration.
>> >
>> > You'd be better off with a supercasino
>> 
>> Don't get me started on that, other, bag of shite idea.
>> 
> I didn't mean to imply it would be a good idea, just that it would
> be better - for regeneration - than the Olympics.

"Better" in the way a bag of warm sick is better than a turd?

-- 
is it a blessing or is it a curse?

In article , august@kororaa.com 
says...
> foghollow  writes:
> 
> > In article , august@kororaa.com 
> > says...
> >> foghollow  writes:
> >> 
> >> > In article , warped@warblyet.tyc 
> >> > says...
> >> >
> >> >> The point is that we get to host the Olympics.  We get a dog-turd
> >> >> area of London having a chance for regeneration.
> >> >
> >> > You'd be better off with a supercasino
> >> 
> >> Don't get me started on that, other, bag of shite idea.
> >> 
> > I didn't mean to imply it would be a good idea, just that it would
> > be better - for regeneration - than the Olympics.
> 
> "Better" in the way a bag of warm sick is better than a turd?
> 
Pretty much, yeh
-- 
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:55:04 -0000, "Michael C" 
wrote:

>> You could say similar about the bomb damage done during the war.  It
>> doesn't make it desirable.
>
>You could say similar but you yourself have admitted that regenerating a 
>dog-turd area is a good idea. 

Which doesn't mean that I believe that the chosen method is either
desirable or likely to be effective.  I can similarly agree that
removing an ingrowing toenail is desirable, without agreeing that the
foot should be amputated to achieve it.

-- 
Cynic

foghollow wrote:

> In article , warped@warblyet.tyc 
> says...
> 
>>The point is that we get to host the Olympics.  We get a dog-turd area of 
>>London having a chance for regeneration. 
> 
> 
> You'd be better off with a supercasino

They're getting a super-mosque - what more do they need? No doubt calls 
to prayers will be played through loudspeakers several times a day and 
audible over many square miles - just what they need in the Olympic village.