Jump to content

Aquatic

Members
  • Posts

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Aquatic

  1. 8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

    So you think I'm the leader?  I wouldn't think that's true, but thank you!  I appreciate the flattery.  Actually, I think this place is more like a bad TV show high school than anything, but asylum works too.  We'll have to get you your inmate number.

    Yea, I'm sure at some point I've reacted that way to something I've read.  But that's a pretty visceral response to something as innocuous as the selection of an Olympic host city, because most people wouldn't really give 2 shits about something like that.  But whatever.  I'm not trying to play psychiatrist here, just trying to get a little insight (and I'm not the only one on that boat, either).  No, I've never lived in LA.  Visited plenty of times and I know not everyone is a fan or urban sprawl.  If you want to dump on LA and extol the virtues of the Bay Area, go right ahead.  Maybe you're right that the USOC and the IOC would jump at a San Francisco Olympic bid.  But like you've said, that only applies if they have a solid, viable, supported bid.  Guess who has that right now.  And if LA doesn't get 2024 (which they probably won't), there's a pretty darn good chance they get 2028.  I have a feeling that's going to bother you for whatever reason and continue to make you question (your words here) "why the USOC has such desire to host anyway"  The answer to that one should be pretty obvious, particularly when we're talking about LA who - to use another school analogy - is maybe like that annoying kid in class that is always raising his hand that the teacher never calls on so that the other kids have a chance to answer.  That eagerness is probably going to land them another Olympics.  If the USOC wants another Olympics in the short term (even I would argue maybe that wasn't such a good thing so far as Atlanta was involved, but I don't have a personal stake in the USOC), it's more than likely going to be LA unless someone else gets their $hit together.

    And you're right that I'm crazy.  Hang around here long enough and you'll be as crazy as the rest of us!

    Didn't even bother to read more than a couple sentences. I'm done with this whacked site filled with angry crazy people who also have personality defects. You're ridiculous.

  2. 38 minutes ago, ejaycat said:

    Oh I totally was hoping Istanbul would win 2020.  I also was hoping it would have won 2008; in fact, I was in Istanbul in 2001, the year that it was bidding for 2008.  When I arrived at the airport, I saw a lot of posters with the "Istanbul 2008 Olympic Candidate City" logo.  I thought Istanbul was an amazing city, and I was hoping it would win the Olympics, but at the same time, I was wondering how it would pull it off.  I haven't been there since 2001, but I'm wondering about how their transportation infrastructure is now; I'm sure it's improved a lot.  I definitely would like to go back there again. 

    I think a Rome Olympics would have been cool.  Years ago, when I read about the 1960 Summer Games, I thought it was cool that they held some events at some ancient landmarks, and apparently they were gonna do some of that for 2024.  I'll admit, though, that I was happy when Athens beat Rome for the 2004 Olympics; funny, I was in Stockholm in 1997, the year of the 2004 bid city vote.  I actually wanted Stockholm to win 2004, but was happy that Athens beat Rome.  At the time, I somehow felt that Athens deserved it over Rome. 

    Instanbul is going down the path to becoming an Islamist republic at this point. And too much part of the powder keg of crazies known as the Middle East (even though they absurdly call themselves "Europe"). I do think another Rome games would be nice. It'd be nice if it went from Paris to Rome.

  3. 1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

    I'm not the one who threw a newspaper down "in disgust" when Atlanta won (I do love that's how you got that news of that).  You said Atlanta disgusted you.  That sounds less like a preference and more like someone who is personally offended by it.  You're the one who seems bothered by it.  Don't think Atlanta deserved to host an Olympics?  No $hit they didn't.  But they did and I can understand the decision at the time given the alternatives, even if it was pretty predictable how that Olympics would play out with the tackiness and over-commercialization.  Between that and your constant railing of LA calls into question your objectivity.  So yea, you're getting pigeonholed, but it's clear your view of history is not exactly unbiased.  A bid from Lyon would beat a bid from Los Angeles?  I sincerely doubt that.

    You're nuts. And compulsive to boot. You've never read something in a magazine or a newspaper and tossed it down 'cause something you read you didn't like? Or thought it was stupid? Ridiculous? Really? And why do you interpret things to such extremes? And what significance does reading it in a newspaper have? Also, I actually lived in L.A. for over a decade. Did you? You're just as crazy here as others man. You really try to portray yourself as Mr. Know-it-all. Mr. I'm -So-Rational. But you're crazy. It's like you're yelling at eveyone and shaking your finger at them when you type. This place is a anylum of really....interesting people....and you're the leader.

  4. 19 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Ahh, so apparently this is somewhat personal for you for some reason.  All this makes a lot more sense now.

    Last I checked, "pretty" is not one of the evaluation scores the IOC has (as if those go that far to determine the winner, anyway).  If they can get a city with some iconic locations, that's a bonus.  It's been discussed here.. LA is not big on iconic locations in a way many larger cities are.  Atlanta?  That goes without saying.  More important is can they handle an Olympics.  Do they have the infrastructure?  TV cameras can pick and choose their locations, so even if LA is as awful and ugly as you say it is, the world doesn't have to see that.  If they have stadiums and arenas, not to mention people to support the effort, that's what the IOC cares about.

    As for Atlanta versus Toronto, thank you to FYI for pointing out the economic might of a less-than-prominent US city.  The economic might of the United States versus Canada (and yes, some of that is relative to population) probably went a long way for Atlanta.  Economics and politics > attractiveness.  Oh yea, and it's not like they had the market cornered on bribery either..

    World: Americas  IOC 'ignored' 1991 corruption warning

    Toronto 1996 Olympic organizers deny wrongdoing

    Most of what you said about the IOC is true (although FIFA is right up there with them in terms of corrupt organizations).  I understand not agreeing with their decisions and calling them out for it.  I don't understand so much being bothered by it, as you seem to be.

    It's funny but you keep trying to pigeonhole me into the same category and "motives" as apparently is usual of the people around here. You come off as a real "know it all", as in you think you do.

  5. 15 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Ahh, so apparently this is somewhat personal for you for some reason.  All this makes a lot more sense now.

    Last I checked, "pretty" is not one of the evaluation scores the IOC has (as if those go that far to determine the winner, anyway).  If they can get a city with some iconic locations, that's a bonus.  It's been discussed here.. LA is not big on iconic locations in a way many larger cities are.  Atlanta?  That goes without saying.  More important is can they handle an Olympics.  Do they have the infrastructure?  TV cameras can pick and choose their locations, so even if LA is as awful and ugly as you say it is, the world doesn't have to see that.  If they have stadiums and arenas, not to mention people to support the effort, that's what the IOC cares about.

    As for Atlanta versus Toronto, thank you to FYI for pointing out the economic might of a less-than-prominent US city.  The economic might of the United States versus Canada (and yes, some of that is relative to population) probably went a long way for Atlanta.  Economics and politics > attractiveness.  Oh yea, and it's not like they had the market cornered on bribery either..

    World: Americas  IOC 'ignored' 1991 corruption warning

    Toronto 1996 Olympic organizers deny wrongdoing

    Most of what you said about the IOC is true (although FIFA is right up there with them in terms of corrupt organizations).  I understand not agreeing with their decisions and calling them out for it.  I don't understand so much being bothered by it, as you seem to be.

    Being so much bothered by it? You exagerrate like there's no tomorrow. 

  6. 10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Ahh, so apparently this is somewhat personal for you for some reason.  All this makes a lot more sense now.

    Last I checked, "pretty" is not one of the evaluation scores the IOC has (as if those go that far to determine the winner, anyway).  If they can get a city with some iconic locations, that's a bonus.  It's been discussed here.. LA is not big on iconic locations in a way many larger cities are.  Atlanta?  That goes without saying.  More important is can they handle an Olympics.  Do they have the infrastructure?  TV cameras can pick and choose their locations, so even if LA is as awful and ugly as you say it is, the world doesn't have to see that.  If they have stadiums and arenas, not to mention people to support the effort, that's what the IOC cares about.

    As for Atlanta versus Toronto, thank you to FYI for pointing out the economic might of a less-than-prominent US city.  The economic might of the United States versus Canada (and yes, some of that is relative to population) probably went a long way for Atlanta.  Economics and politics > attractiveness.  Oh yea, and it's not like they had the market cornered on bribery either..

    World: Americas  IOC 'ignored' 1991 corruption warning

    Toronto 1996 Olympic organizers deny wrongdoing

    Most of what you said about the IOC is true (although FIFA is right up there with them in terms of corrupt organizations).  I understand not agreeing with their decisions and calling them out for it.  I don't understand so much being bothered by it, as you seem to be.

    Where do get that it's "personal"? You make a lot of assumptions about people. L.A. is dump, and I dislike the Amercan South, and Texas. But what's so special about that? Everyone has their preferences.

     

     

  7. 9 minutes ago, FYI said:

    Actually, Atlanta also had Delta airlines, Home Depot & CNN. So that's quite a hefty, corporate line up, even for Atlanta at the time. Not to mention, they had a very tenacious bid leader & mayor, that were also selling themselves as the birthplace of MLK, & that they were a 'progressive, African-American city', & the bid team were trying to court many of the African IOC members. I guess that's where some of the "bribes" came into play.

    But back then, every bidding city was playing that game, not just Atlanta. Accusations also came later with Nagano 1998 (with "extravagant gift giving" to IOC members, including president JAS), & also Sydney 2000. And then of course, the one that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, Salt Lake 2002, that caused the whole IOC bribery scandal to blow all up in their faces over in Lausanne. So I always laugh when people bring up the "bribes". Bcuz it always takes two to tango anyway. So the IOC is/was just as much at fault as anyone else who played that game with them. Afterall, IOC was had to be the receptive party in order for those bribes to have worked in the first place.

    Oh of course. The IOC is one of the most corrupt, self grandiose, self important, idiotic, asshole organizations in the world.

  8. 16 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    You threw out the "Canada could have done what the US did" and don't seem to have much to back that up. Clearly certain host selections are a sore spot for you. I don't know why that is, but you seem to want to talk about how things could be or should be instead of what they are. You're on an internet discussion forum. What else did you think would happen here. You've been arguing back all day. Uhh.. thanks?

    Atlanta just disgusted me and I'm not a great fan of L.A. What an ugly awful place it was to host the games in. But they had no choice. It was that or no games that year. I also moved to L.A. in 1988. Some of the "look" was even still up around the Coliseum (though trashed). I remember looking around and thinking "I can't believe they hosted here" 

  9. 9 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    How are they different?  Explain that to us.  I wasn't alive in 1976 and wasn't old enough to remember the LA Olympics, but are you saying it's been blown out of proportion that Montreal's Olympics were a financial disaster and LA's were financially successful?  I know there's reasons behind why those both happened that aren't related to each other, but to the point we started discussing this.. in 1990, the IOC had a bid from the United States and a bid from Canada.  Similar situations with completely different cities from both countries, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the American success versus the Canadian lack of success with hosting their respective Olympics didn't play a factor into the vote for 1990.

    Awww, you weren't alive in '76? I was a kid but I remember seeing Nadia score her perfect 10's. And L.A. '84 is clear as day for me.

    Anyway, you seem to already know the answers to your own question. You just like arguing.

     

  10. 22 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    There are a lot of cities that are perfectly capable of hosting.  The subset of that list of cities that actually stand a realistic chance of getting elected by the IOC is a lot smaller.  Do you see any scenario where France puts up Lyon over Paris?  You're right the IOC doesn't make that choice, but France is still going to put forward the city they feel is most likely to win, just like the USOC is for 2024.  And for 2024, their best bet is Los Angeles.  Just like France's best bet is Paris and you just illustrated for us why they wouldn't put up Lyon.  If Lyon would lose to San Francisco (I think they're lose to LA as well), but Paris would beat them, that's the only reason they need to make that decision.

    And as for Barcelona, which I visited a few years ago and is now 1 of my favorite cities in the world.. yes, it was an industrial backwater for much of the 20th century, especially during the Franco era.  But they were in the conversation to host an Olympics long before Samaranch came into power.  Probably would have been in the running a lot sooner if not for the political strife there.

    And in the future, what, France always and forever only bids with Paris?

  11. 28 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    You're the one who mentioned Toronto earlier.  Should I have gotten cute and just mentioned the bribes as to why Atlanta won?

    Completely missing the point about sponsorship.  For better or worse, Atlanta had a major Olympic sponsor headquartered there.  That undoubtedly helped their case in a weak field of bidders where it was supposed to be Athens and everyone else.  But again, the idea that Toronto could have done (which they didn't) what Atlanta did as if Canada at the time was on the same footing as the United States is ridiculous.  And I take that with a grain of salt coming from you knowing how you think of LA and seem to want to downplay what the `84 Olympics meant to the IOC.

    That would be the losing side.  I still laugh at the history a little bit and wonder how a city like Atlanta landed an Olympics.  Right place at the right time.  That's all it was.

    By the way, what's with the snide comment about Canada. What, you think Canada was some backwater in 1990?

  12. 10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    You asked me earlier if I'm angry at any of this.  You're the one who threw the paper down in disgust and it's not like you had anything personally on the line.  I hadn't started really following the Olympics by 1990, let alone the bid process.  But it's interesting that you would have a reaction like that to Atlanta winning a vote to host the Olympics.  I'm mildly curious as to why.

    Because I knew they'd be tacky (and they were). God forbid Texas ever gets a games.

  13. 1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

    You're the one who mentioned Toronto earlier.  Should I have gotten cute and just mentioned the bribes as to why Atlanta won?

    Completely missing the point about sponsorship.  For better or worse, Atlanta had a major Olympic sponsor headquartered there.  That undoubtedly helped their case in a weak field of bidders where it was supposed to be Athens and everyone else.  But again, the idea that Toronto could have done (which they didn't) what Atlanta did as if Canada at the time was on the same footing as the United States is ridiculous.  And I take that with a grain of salt coming from you knowing how you think of LA and seem to want to downplay what the `84 Olympics meant to the IOC.

    That would be the losing side.  I still laugh at the history a little bit and wonder how a city like Atlanta landed an Olympics.  Right place at the right time.  That's all it was.

    And bribes and Coca-Cola....

  14. 7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    The reason why the U.S. is there is because their theory with Olympics bidding is essentially to throw crap up against the wall and see what sticks.  How many times did they lose and still come back for the next cycle?  Contrast that with France which didn't.  And also what we have now with the USOC making a calculated move to go after a Summer Olympics.  Part of that of course is the likelihood of the U.S. winning versus a city in Europe, but still, what some would view as greed is just the USOC doing what they're almost always done.  The USOC probably should have sat out 2012 and 2016, but they didn't.  Just like they were within 2 votes from landing a Winter Olympics immediately after a Summer Olympics.  Who knows how Paris would have fared if they had put in a bid sometime before 1992.  Munich didn't stop Moscow from bidding for 1976.  Barcelona didn't stop Manchester and Belgrade and Athens from bidding for 1996.  And then Paris in 2008 after Athens.

    More than that.. the U.S. also has multiple cities on the summer side they can put forward.  Easier for them to regroup and try with another city, ill-advised as that might be, rather than France which at this point has 1 and only 1 city they should ever consider putting forward.

    I disagree about France. Lyon could be a host city. Just like Milan could be in Italy. Or Barcelona was for Spain. It doesn't have to be the capital.

  15. 10 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Well, you've made it clear you think that Paris 2024 is all but a done deal and only Paris can screw it up and there's nothing LA or the USOC can do about it.  My convictions aren't as strong there.  I doubt don't there is still some of that sentiment there, but not too the point that it's "wrong."  Again, this is one of those things where we don't disagree as much as it would seem, we just differ on the odds.

    You and I have been around here long enough that we know how the game is played here.  Those who haven't been around as long probably don't realize that.  But yea, wouldn't have this place been fun in the lead up to that 1990 vote with a U.S. city and a Canadian city both in the running against each other.

    I definitely would have been on the Toronto side. I remeber when I picked up the paper and saw that Atlanta had won to host 1996, I was like, "are you kidding me?" I threw the paper down on the table in disgust. I couldn't believe it. I thought it was a mistake, and it was.

  16. 14 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    Okay, how about the disproportionate amount of television and sponsorship money the United States provides to the IOC?  Which is greater now than it was back then, but still notable.  Los Angeles hosted a highly successful Olympics in 1984 and the IOC probably holds them in higher regard than you want to believe, irrespective of their desire to return there.  Montreal hosted an Olympics that was a financial disaster which took them 3 decades to pay off.  It's hard to me to see an equivalency based on those circumstances where if the US did something, it could have happened that way for Canada too.

    Man you love to argue.

    In 1976 the games were very different. Corporate sponsorship didn't play the role then that it did in 1984.

  17. 3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    United States - Right place in the right time when it comes to Summer Olympics bidding

    France - not so much

    France didn't even attempt to bid for a Summer Olympics until 1992 and we all know what happened there.  You have to be in it to win it!  The United States was there.  France was not, and the 3 Olympics so far that they've bid for included 1 rigged against them, 1 in a matter of poor timing, and a narrow loss to their main European rival.

    Samaranch. Samaranch is what happened in 1992.

  18. 3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

    So.. Atlanta 12 years after Los Angeles or Salt Lake City years after Atlanta is not right, but Toronto 8 years after Calgary and 20 years after Montreal (which was still licking its wounds from `76) would have been fine?  I disagree population size is irrelevant.  This is the IOC we're talking about.  There's a lot that goes unwritten with them.  They've voted against cities for lesser reasons than that.

    I didn't say it was "wrong", don't put words in my mouth I did not utter. I just said, if it could happen that way for the USA, it could have happened for that way for Canada too. The "population size" thing is something that get's bandied about by people the likes of which post here, but I have never heard or read of an IOC president or member saying that.

×
×
  • Create New...