Jump to content

Sour grapes or what?!


Recommended Posts

By "we", I for sure intended to say the French people, who have all been shocked by Sdude's comparison , which is normal . I am glad to hear say it was a "distasteful" one, even if this adjective still seems too weak for such a serious statement.

     I've been here for less time than you ok and so what? This has no relation with the matter and this doesnt cancel nor hinder my right to report people who have abusive and racist comments about our country.

     Now we've just been saying the truth about your attitude at Singapore, and I think that's why Sdude uttered racist comments. We didnt insult you by saying what actually HAPPENED (again, read The Guardian) and we didnt go as far as suggesting that you had villainous relations such as friendship with S.Hussein, or Bin Laden. THey 're tyrans and criminals, and I can't accept that France is associated with them. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

He didn't associate them with France. That was the whole point of my last post. And, of course you have a right to report posts but issuing ultimatums in the way that you do is a bit ott, especially if you want to get on with people here.

Your version of the truth is one you share with Paris' mayor and very few others. Rogge doesn't share it, neither do many French newspapers (read The Daily Liberation) and the French members of this board don't share it either (if they did we'd know all about it).

If you want to get on with people here and prove you are over Paris' defeat as you claim to be, can you please stop mentioning how unfair it was in every post you write. Believe what you like, I don't really care, but be aware you're becoming tiring and repetitive. Can we see the real Cordelia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "we", I for sure intended to say the French people, who have all been shocked by Sdude's comparison , which is normal . I am glad to hear say it was a "distasteful" one, even if this adjective still seems too weak for such a serious statement.

     I've been here for less time than you ok and so what? This has no relation with the matter and this doesnt cancel nor hinder my right to report people who have abusive and racist comments about our country.

     Now we've just been saying the truth about your attitude at Singapore, and I think that's why Sdude uttered racist comments. We didnt insult you by saying what actually HAPPENED (again, read The Guardian) and we didnt go as far as suggesting that you had villainous relations such as friendship with S.Hussein, or Bin Laden. THey 're tyrans and criminals, and I can't accept that France is associated with them. Thank you.

Britain's attitude at Singapore was not immoral or against the rules.

It just went for it. And by that I mean it managed to put across that yearning and that commitment that the IOC wanted their host city to have.

Yes, it was agressive marketing, but that was the whole point. They went there to sell a concept and an idea to the IOC. And that is surely the idea, is it not?

Rogge has said that no tactics were underhand. As he heads the IOC, surely we can leave it at that? Sure, Blair lobbied members of the IOC - but isn't that the point? Wasn't his aim simply to tell them why London could host a superb games? Chirac had the opportunity to go for 1-on-1 meetings and he didn't take it.

It could have gone either way, and that's why the whole thing is such a contentious subject. Let's face it, four votes is a very small margin in Olympic Bid history, and either candidate could have won. London just tipped it, possibly through their show of commitment and media blitz before the vote. It was a tactic to get people to vote for them - nothing more - but it was a successful tactic allowed under the IOC rules.

Oh - and I'll tell you something about the Guardian. They haven't been the biggest supporters of London 2012, to put it nicely. Whilst they are coming round to the idea, they'll always try and put some sort of negative spin on it. Remember, Britain has some of the most partisan media in the democratic world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Rob,

Cordelia18 you need to actually understand what I wrote. Firstly it was a light-hearted comment about Celine Dion, which, had you been around on this forum longer than 5 nanoseconds, you would have realised has been a long running joke amongst many individuals on here. Do your homework and find out that for starters.

Secondly, as Rob has just said, you haven't even understood the basic point of my comment.

Although Chirac and Delanoe would have been good challengers for the title of "we least want to support our Olympic bid". I'm sure Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden are front runners too

It was about who wouldn't we want to endorse our Olympic bids. The farcical nature of listing those people was actually a hyperbole in order to exagerate the point. If you can't understand English litery terms then you should be more careful how you reply.

I'm starting to wonder if it was just Delanoe who had the problem. I reiterate (AGAIN) that my comments have been aimed at a minority of the French population who have sour grapes about London winning the Games. I have close friends who are French nationals, so don't get on your Gallic high horse and declare me a racist because I dare to criticise an idiot like Delanoe. I mean every word I say about him and more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "we", I for sure intended to say the French people, who have all been shocked by Sdude's comparison , which is normal . I am glad to hear say it was a "distasteful" one, even if this adjective still seems too weak for such a serious statement.

     I've been here for less time than you ok and so what? This has no relation with the matter and this doesnt cancel nor hinder my right to report people who have abusive and racist comments about our country.

     Now we've just been saying the truth about your attitude at Singapore, and I think that's why Sdude uttered racist comments. We didnt insult you by saying what actually HAPPENED (again, read The Guardian) and we didnt go as far as suggesting that you had villainous relations such as friendship with S.Hussein, or Bin Laden. THey 're tyrans and criminals, and I can't accept that France is associated with them. Thank you.

Tu parles drolement bien anglais en tout cas, apparemment les bourrins d'içi te comprennent mieux que moi  :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tu parles drolement bien anglais en tout cas, apparemment les bourrins d'içi te comprennent mieux que moi  :cry:

Oh merci c'est gentil  :;):  mais l'anglais est une deuxième nature chez moi, mon père est canadien..

   Sdude= I accept your excuses  and your explanation and thus cancel my ultimatum; but please know that this kind of comments may not be tolerated anymore. By the way, I didn't call your Queen a witch, even if I might think so, so please don't call MY mayor an idiot, his level of studies is certainly higher than yours. I also don't need you to tell me to do my homework...But, tell us, with the advanced age that you have, it must be a long time since you haven't done school homework...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your version of the truth is one you share with Paris' mayor and very few others. Rogge doesn't share it, neither do many French newspapers (read The Daily Liberation) and the French members of this board don't share it either (if they did we'd know all about it).

    The Guardian might be a weak supporter of London 2012, but you obviously have NO knowledge of what actually is Liberation to trust it.

     Everybody knows in France that it is just some kind of hateful rag full of communist propaganda. This indeed is a communist paper (even marxist), that should really be forbidden. So, doesn't it seem logical to you that a Bolchevik paper tries to bring down a politician who belongs to the moderate left wing (and we know they had many problems with them because of the UE constitution), as well as it keep printing loads of absurdities about our current government just because it's right wing? Two papers may be considered as worse than this paper: "L'Humanité" and "Le Canard Enchaîné". These are extremely aggressive and dangerous left-wing rags that no one should ever trust, and I'm waiting for the day when they'll be burned in public, which is what they deserve.

    So,  you seem to be an intelligent man: I'm therefore asking not to let the Bolchevik plague fool you  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, small question to all the Delanoe apologists out there...

Why is it that the same IOC President who hauled up the London bid team over the incentives offered at the EOC session has his ethics applauded then, but when he says everything is tres bon with the Blair lobbying becomes an accomplice at worst, or an ineffectual observer of British cheating now? Surely if the IOC was able to recognise suspect bid practices in the EOC context, why are they not raising any doubts about Blair's lobbying that according to Delanoe's views are substantiated cheating methods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sdude= I accept your excuses  and your explanation and thus cancel my ultimatum; but please know that this kind of comments may not be tolerated anymore. By the way, I didn't call your Queen a witch, even if I might think so, so please don't call MY mayor an idiot, his level of studies is certainly higher than yours. I also don't need you to tell me to do my homework...But, tell us, with the advanced age that you have, it must be a long time since you haven't done school homework...

If you want to argue about my level of education and qualifications then I am more than happy to. Equally, as a qualified medical doctor, I am continuously assessed and therefore homework constantly plays an important part of my life. I say these things only to highlight the danger of making assumptions about people who you know nothing about. I am neither old nor uneducated and even I was it is not a reason for you to attempt to insult me.

However, I do know the character of the Mayor of Paris, his opportunistic comments, his bad sportsmanship and his inability to be dignified and gracious when he has lost the election. He has been widely reported worldwide. I make no comment about other French nationals, but I maintain Dalanoe is a disgrace and a sore loser. I know of no one else on here who is prepared to defend him. The French IOC leader didn't and nor did the Paris City opposition leader. It's time you stopped defending the indefensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a nice interview of the guys from the Spanish NOC.

Here

If you want you can translate easily:

"lo más importante es el lobby. Cuando un proyecto como el de Londres, prácticamente virtual, con poco apoyo de la población, con muchísimo dinero para gastar, gana es porque ha hecho un buen lobby internacional"

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, small question to all the Delanoe apologists out there...

Why is it that the same IOC President who hauled up the London bid team over the incentives offered at the EOC session has his ethics applauded then, but when he says everything is tres bon with the Blair lobbying becomes an accomplice at worst, or an ineffectual observer of British cheating now? Surely if the IOC was able to recognise suspect bid practices in the EOC context, why are they not raising any doubts about Blair's lobbying that according to Delanoe's views are substantiated cheating methods?

Good question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, small question to all the Delanoe apologists out there...

Why is it that the same IOC President who hauled up the London bid team over the incentives offered at the EOC session has his ethics applauded then, but when he says everything is tres bon with the Blair lobbying becomes an accomplice at worst, or an ineffectual observer of British cheating now? Surely if the IOC was able to recognise suspect bid practices in the EOC context, why are they not raising any doubts about Blair's lobbying that according to Delanoe's views are substantiated cheating methods?

I agree. Since the Salt Lake City fiasco, the IOC (as much as it begrudges me to say it  :laughlong: ) have tried very hard to become more fair and impartial. There may be a couple of isolated incidents here and there, but to call the IOC "corrupt" now if things don't go your city's way is just plain lazy.

I really want to see Paris host a future games. But people such as Delanoe have got to realise that this almighty sulk is doing them no favours whatsoever. The IOC and Rogge found nothing wrong in the lobbying. They did find things wrong (for whatever reason) when the incentives were offered. So to cry "Anglo Saxon bias" from the battlements when the bid lost was just childish, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had promised to myself not to enter in this kind of discussion, but...

what is maddening in this bid process is that we have the guy Rogge who tells everybody that the Games must be more modest, cheaper and accessible for Africa and South America.

And what do we get under his tenure: Beijing and London. Not exactly cheap bids,

So please understand that this is difficult for the Paris guys to swallow that the IOC votes 180 degrees from the direction it says he is going to take.

Except if you are used to the process like us here on this forum and that you know that whatever you do, whatever you bid, how compliant you are, the IOC is a totally unpredictable - or very predictable, in a way, I was sure London would win - piece of machinery.

This year was obviously the Miss Congeniality contest, not the politically correctness one...

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had promised to myself not to enter in this kind of discussion, but...

what is maddening in this bid process is that we have the guy Rogge who tells everybody that the Games must be more modest, cheaper and accessible for Africa and South America.

And what do we get under his tenure: Beijing and London. Not exactly cheap bids,

So please understand that this is difficult for the Paris guys to swallow that the IOC votes 180 degrees from the direction it says he is going to take.

Except if you are used to the process like us here on this forum and that you know that whatever you do, whatever you bid, how compliant you are, the IOC is a totally unpredictable - or very predictable, in a way, I was sure London would win - piece of machinery.

This year was obviously the Miss Congeniality contest, not the politically correctness one...

:P

I understand what you're saying, Hektor.

I think the thing that made the IOC swerve away from this idea was the principle of regeneration in East London - that would have happened anyway irrespective of the bid's success. I think this, along with a stable economy (rightly or wrongly) made them think the UK could afford the games. Had these conditions not been in place, maybe they would have gone with the safe option?

And the IOC will never accept a 'modest' games, whether they say it or not. Let's be honest with ourselves here - they want pizazz, gloss, fireworks and ostentation (along with stunning sport, of course :;):  ) for 2-4 weeks  in every 4 years. But I think, in defence of the IOC, should Africa or South America bid, their economic conditions would be taken into account, and they may welcome a more 'modest' bid from these countries.

Who knows? It is interesting speculation, anyway  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is maddening in this bid process is that we have the guy Rogge who tells everybody that the Games must be more modest, cheaper and accessible for Africa and South America.

And what do we get under his tenure: Beijing and London. Not exactly cheap bids,

So please understand that this is difficult for the Paris guys to swallow that the IOC votes 180 degrees from the direction it says he is going to take.

I think the cost of a London Olympics has been largely overexaggerated. The extra cost, which makes London's bid seem more like a Beijing than a Paris, is for infrastructure improvement most of which would have happened regardless of London winning

It says in the EC report:

London OCOG budget 2.46bn

"of the USD 15.8bn non-OCOG budget presented in the candidature file, only USD 2.1bn are directly related to the Olympic Games"

Paris OCOG budget 2.65bn

"of the USD 6.2bn non-OCOG budget, only USD 2.2bn would be directly related to the Olympic Games"

London = 18.26bn

Paris = 8.85bn

but, if you only take into account Games related costs (i.e. projects that would only take place if the bid won)...

London = 4.46bn

Paris = 4.65bn

So, Paris' direct Olympic costs would have been more, not less expensive than London's. And that despite having the stadium in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please.  No matter how you try to spin it -- those costs are Olympics-related.  That is like all those self-delusory people who say that the deaths and injuries of last week are not Olympics-related.  Absolute John Bull!!  If the crowds with their guard down weren't gathered there to hear the Olympic announcement, they would not have made sitting targets for those madmen.  One can always hide additional costs as...they would've been there whether the circus came to town or not.  

Please, I've seen them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please.  No matter how you try to spin it -- those costs are Olympics-related.  That is like all those self-delusory people who say that the deaths and injuries of last week are not Olympics-related.  Absolute John Bull!!  If the crowds with their guard down weren't gathered there to hear the Olympic announcement, they would not have made sitting targets for those madmen.  One can always hide additional costs as...they would've been there whether the circus came to town or not.  

Please, I've seen them all.

It's not a matter of hiding them. If particular expenses will be there regardless of the games, it's not the games that is causing them. The true cost of the games to the taxpayer is surely the extra costs on top of what would have been spent had the city not hosted. Surely that's the only logical way of working it out.      

Also, I'm confused - are you talking about the terrorist attacks on London that happened the day after the announcement? i.e. when trafalgar square wasn't packed with people celebrating. Or have I missed something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please.  No matter how you try to spin it -- those costs are Olympics-related.  That is like all those self-delusory people who say that the deaths and injuries of last week are not Olympics-related.  Absolute John Bull!!  If the crowds with their guard down weren't gathered there to hear the Olympic announcement, they would not have made sitting targets for those madmen.  One can always hide additional costs as...they would've been there whether the circus came to town or not.  

Please, I've seen them all.

I'm confused. Are you talking about the terrorist attacks on London?

I'm confused too.  Are you saying that the terrorist attacks, which destroyed the lives of the innocent and their families, in attrocious circumstances.  That these attacks were connected to the Olympic Bid Annoucement more than the fact there was a G8 meeting and 8 of the worlds most powerfull leaders, not too far from London that week??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, please, Baron! The bombs in London weren't Olympic related at all. If they were related to anything, it would have been the G8.

Also, I hardly think that those people would have had time to plan and execute their ideas for the DAY AFTER London got the games. And there was always the feeling in Britain that Paris had it in the bag - being awarded the games was not a certainty.

It was a cruel coincidence, nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, please, Baron! The bombs in London weren't Olympic related at all. If they were related to anything, it would have been the G8.

Also, I hardly think that those people would have had time to plan and execute their ideas for the DAY AFTER London got the games. And there was always the feeling in Britain that Paris had it in the bag - being awarded the games was not a certainty.

It was a cruel coincidence, nothing less.

I already posted the article (i think it was for baron or adriane), I think you deserve to read it either e1ena, i enjoyed it very much, so you should too i hope  :D

PUT YOUR MOUSE HERE

What can i say ?... you deserve what you created...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can i say ?... you deserve what you created...

We 'deserved' it did we? Thanks for letting us know where you stand on this Mekky.

What can I say ?....nothing really. Your sentiments speak for themsleves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...