Suit U Sir !!! Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 So, in other words, for your (Euro) own selfish reasons, you just want to keep it 'at home.' So England hosting 2018 (after 52 years), Spain hosting 2018 (after 36 years) is a selfish idea. But the USA hosting again after 24 years is not a selfish idea? On the contrary- the idea of a USA 2018 world cup is the most selfish idea out of all of these. The USA hosting 2018 on the excuse that "it's North America's trun again," is like Australia hosting the summer olympics every 20 years on the reasoning that "it's Oceania's turn again," Oceania being a continent where only 2 countries have the capability to host the summer games - Australia and NZ. The only way that this "it's North America's turn again" excuse would be taken seriously is if Canada were to host - a country which has never previously hosted before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suit U Sir !!! Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 whereas London 2012 and/or UK 2018 will be a nightmare. :laughlong: If that's your opinion/ prediction, fair enough. But with regards to England hosting the 2018 world cup I don't see how it could be boring or a nightmare. On the contrary it will be a spectacle that other countries are not able to match. The final (and possibly both semi-finals) will be held at Wembley Stadium, one of the most famous and iconic stadiums in the whole world. No stadium in the USA has such status and iconic appeal- not even Yankee stadium, not the LA colliseum. These are not even football stadiums, remember. Only matches in The Macarena in Brazil would come close to a final at wembley stadium. Also the UK has Old Trafford, which in the football world is another iconic stadium, home to the world's richest and most well known football team- Manchester United. In contrast the USA has athletics, baseball, American football stadiums to offer. Nothing that came compete with matches at Wembley and Old Trafford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel Posted August 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 So, in other words, for your (Euro) own selfish reasons, you just want to keep it 'at home.' So England hosting 2018 (after 52 years), Spain hosting 2018 (after 36 years) is a selfish idea. But the USA hosting again after 24 years is not a selfish idea? On the contrary- the idea of a USA 2018 world cup is the most selfish idea out of all of these. The USA hosting 2018 on the excuse that "it's North America's trun again," is like Australia hosting the summer olympics every 20 years on the reasoning that "it's Oceania's turn again," Oceania being a continent where only 2 countries have the capability to host the summer games - Australia and NZ. The only way that this "it's North America's turn again" excuse would be taken seriously is if Canada were to host - a country which has never previously hosted before. I totally agree with you :: Baron doesn't say it's North America turn, he says it's USA turn because Mexico and Canada can't host (it's ridiculous because Mexico has hosted two WC already, sooo) :wwww: USA 2018 is baron's "summer night dream 2005" :wwww: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 This has nothing to do with attendance figures. Is that how we evaluate whether something is a huge success? More people attended the Atlanta Games compared to the previous Games in Barcelona, did that make Atlanta a "success"?And anyway, I think the people attending the World Cup in the United States confused soccer with American football. Only when the teams scored a goal they realised... "Isn't that a touchdown?" "omg, so they like Kick the ball into a net? Oh I get it now" Of course, it does. Atlanta was a success in my book. Stupid, bitter, negative people think otherwise -- but I don't care, and I think they are stupid, bitter, negative poops. About your condesceding remarks re football, please don't be even more stupid! I see World Cup 2018 coming back to the U.S. THe finals will either be in Los ANgeles again or in the New York area. Dream on, dreamer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 Oh, and also... Atlanta 96 were the worst games in living memory, fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikel Posted August 22, 2005 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 In Spain when you are talking about the summer of 1996 people say: "oh, don't remember me this summer, didn't was the summer of 1996 the summer of Atlanta?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 Oh, and also... Atlanta 96 were the worst games in living memory, fact. Oh yeah, like 11 athletes weren't murdered there - nor 58 civilians the day after a victory announcement was made. Munich and London have more blood on their hands -- and no amount of good organization will erase that fact. THey are the BLOODY Games. Why don't you put your Bloody Mary as the Patroness of London 2012 -- which would seem particularly appropriate here since she part-Spanish, and you have the little kibitzer here? You know, too - this can go on until time immemorial. I am not going to back down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 What a f*cking stupid thing to say - you're OK most of the time but sometimes you seem like such a tw@ Baron, especailly when you come out with things like that. The bombings and the Olympics are completely unrelated. The timing was a coincidence. London still would have been bombed if New York City was chosen. Do you believe that everything that happens in the seven year run up to a games in the host city is part of the Olympics? Who, apart from you, is going to say "those London Olympics were horrible and poorly organsised because seven years before, four Islamic nutjobs decided to blow themselves and others up on the Tube. The members of LOCOG should be shot for allowing that to happen in their city!" ? In any case, it's not London that has blood on its hands! In case you haven't noticed, the third London Olympics have yet to take place, so therefore can't be called the bloody games. People have a right to criticise Atlanta becuase it's happened. As it happens, I enjoyed those games becuase they were the first I remember. It seems you didn't enjoy London 2012 though! I would have thought, that, as a supporter of NYC's bid you'd have been more careful when speaking about terrorism in potential host cities. Would NYC 2012 have been called the bloody games becuase of 9/11, or would it have been recognised as a games in which a great world city proved terrorism wouldn't defeat it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 I would have thought, that, as a supporter of NYC's bid you'd have been more careful when speaking about terrorism in potential host cities. Would NYC 2012 have been called the bloody games becuase of 9/11, or would it have been recognised as a games in which a great world city proved terrorism wouldn't defeat it? Oh, that's even more stupid - Rob. 9/11 happened even before NYC was officially a candidate city. You guys are in denial. If there were no '12 victory celebrations for 7/06/05, then the madmen would not have used the occasion to execute their plan. Just as that other psychotic Randolph used the occasion of people partaking at Atlanta's Centennial part to perpetuate his deed. They sought chaos because the opportunity -- prompted by the Olympic partying -- was there. If there wasn't, then I will bet you they would not have pulled off the bombings. They are directly Olympic-related. If you can't or refuse to make the connection, then you folks are in denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 I would have thought, that, as a supporter of NYC's bid you'd have been more careful when speaking about terrorism in potential host cities. Would NYC 2012 have been called the bloody games becuase of 9/11, or would it have been recognised as a games in which a great world city proved terrorism wouldn't defeat it? Oh, that's even more stupid - Rob. 9/11 happened even before NYC was officially a candidate city. You guys are in denial. If there were no '12 victory celebrations for 7/06/05, then the madmen would not have used the occasion to execute their plan. Just as that other psychotic Randolph used the occasion of people partaking at Atlanta's Centennial part to perpetuate his deed. They sought chaos because the opportunity -- prompted by the Olympic partying -- was there. If there wasn't, then I will bet you they would not have pulled off the bombings. They are directly Olympic-related. If you can't or refuse to make the connection, then you folks are in denial. It is more likely that G8 is the explanation. Your point of view, however, is no excuse for saying these stupid things - Munich and London have more blood on their hands -- and no amount of good organization will erase that fact. THey are the BLOODY Games.Why don't you put your Bloody Mary as the Patroness of London 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 9/11 has as much to do with NYC 2012 as the London bombing have to do with London 2012 - precisely nothing. And who are you to tell me I'm in denial? I'm perfectly capable of making my own judgements thanks Mr B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suit U Sir !!! Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 Why don't you put your Bloody Mary as the Patroness of London 2012 Isn't that a cocktail? Good idea...... free bloody Mary's for all spectators at London 2012..... Would that get the crowd going or what.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 Oh, and also... Atlanta 96 were the worst games in living memory, fact. Oh yeah, like 11 athletes weren't murdered there - nor 58 civilians the day after a victory announcement was made. Munich and London have more blood on their hands -- and no amount of good organization will erase that fact. THey are the BLOODY Games. Why don't you put your Bloody Mary as the Patroness of London 2012 -- which would seem particularly appropriate here since she part-Spanish, and you have the little kibitzer here? You know, too - this can go on until time immemorial. I am not going to back down. I treat this post with the contempt it deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 I would have thought, that, as a supporter of NYC's bid you'd have been more careful when speaking about terrorism in potential host cities. Would NYC 2012 have been called the bloody games becuase of 9/11, or would it have been recognised as a games in which a great world city proved terrorism wouldn't defeat it? Oh, that's even more stupid - Rob. 9/11 happened even before NYC was officially a candidate city. You guys are in denial. If there were no '12 victory celebrations for 7/06/05, then the madmen would not have used the occasion to execute their plan. Just as that other psychotic Randolph used the occasion of people partaking at Atlanta's Centennial part to perpetuate his deed. They sought chaos because the opportunity -- prompted by the Olympic partying -- was there. If there wasn't, then I will bet you they would not have pulled off the bombings. They are directly Olympic-related. If you can't or refuse to make the connection, then you folks are in denial. It probably took these terrorists years of work to carry out this attack. It was a sophisticated operation, it could not have been organized in the space of 1 or 2 days, you moron. London were never the favourites for the Olympics, so unless the terrorists knew something we didn't, It was just a coincidense. The eyes of the world were on the UK because of the G8 conference, not because they won the Olympic Games. I really thought you more intelligent that this Baron, clearly I was mistaken. You are just a bitter old American, licking his wounds because your city wasn't chosen on July 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 I would have thought, that, as a supporter of NYC's bid you'd have been more careful when speaking about terrorism in potential host cities. Would NYC 2012 have been called the bloody games becuase of 9/11, or would it have been recognised as a games in which a great world city proved terrorism wouldn't defeat it? Oh, that's even more stupid - Rob. 9/11 happened even before NYC was officially a candidate city. You guys are in denial. If there were no '12 victory celebrations for 7/06/05, then the madmen would not have used the occasion to execute their plan. Just as that other psychotic Randolph used the occasion of people partaking at Atlanta's Centennial part to perpetuate his deed. They sought chaos because the opportunity -- prompted by the Olympic partying -- was there. If there wasn't, then I will bet you they would not have pulled off the bombings. They are directly Olympic-related. If you can't or refuse to make the connection, then you folks are in denial. It probably took these terrorists years of work to carry out this attack. It was a sophisticated operation, it could not have been organized in the space of 1 or 2 days, you moron. London were never the favourites for the Olympics, so unless the terrorists knew something we didn't, It was just a coincidense. The eyes of the world were on the UK because of the G8 conference, not because they won the Olympic Games. I really thought you more intelligent that this Baron, clearly I was mistaken. You are just a bitter old American, licking his wounds because your city wasn't chosen on July 6. Suck my d*ck, Michelle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted August 22, 2005 Report Share Posted August 22, 2005 I think you've just proved Michelle's point entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Michelle who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 I see you've set up a poll now...well aren't you clever! What I can't believe is that someone other than yourself has voted for London 2012 as the bloodiest games ever! It's a shame these polls are anonymous becuase we clearly have another moron in our midst. Whoever it was, can you explain why you voted that way? :rock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadeand Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Baron, Whether you believe the London bombings had anything to do with winning the olympic bid is entirely up to you, however your latest signature is at best insensitive and an insult to the memory of those lost. You should be ashamed of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 I'm quite sure he's not hadeand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Michelle who? I don't think there's any need for the ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Michelle who? I don't think there's any need for the ignorance. Get lost, awebb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Not a chance of that, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadeand Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 I'm quite sure he's not hadeand. The fact trhat it remains shows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadeand Posted August 23, 2005 Report Share Posted August 23, 2005 Michelle who? I don't think there's any need for the ignorance. Get lost, awebb. Ah, another full and eloquent response from Baron showing his complete command of the English language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.