Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You don't even have to mention L.A. in anything you post or refute, cause everything is about L.A. with it comes to you. And if you're just gonna resort to insults when you don't like what others have to say, like the "mature", adult a$shole that you really are, then why don't you just get the fu@k lost. And get a life while you're at it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The thing you LA boosters just can't seem to understand is that the IOC only cares about what the host city will do for "the Olympic movement." The sports federations are not interested in urban devel

Sigh! I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA

I am struck by the statement that "there is no reason to attack LA." There is no reason to attack any city or any people in any city. This is the horror of terrorism. Whichever city wins any Olympi

The New LA is all encompassing. And there is plenty of evidence that competing bids lack in many of LA's bid points. For example, nobody seems to know that LA is pushing the bid as America's bid, with the intent of reaching audiences nationwide via an LA84 Foundation type program. Even worse, one of you said Paris also used social media in their bid as if that would be the same to being home to most of the worlds tech companies that drive culture and offer a direct connection to youth. If you think posting in Facebook compares to having Facebook headquarters in your back yard you're an idiot. Technology is far reaching and the worlds, but the companies that drive a disproportionate and substantial amount of it are based I. California, and, increasingly, in LA. And if you don't know just how much that penetration has moved into LA, we don't even need to be talking.

FYI, this is the LA 2024 thread... FYI.

Sigh!

I've tried not to get too involved in the tit-for-tatting in the whole LA debate. And tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that you're a passionate and blinkered supporter of LA, but... sheesh... where to start?

What is the new LA? Are we in the wider world supposed to be getting excited that LA has rediscovered mass-transit? Are we supposed to be expecting that if awarded 2024, it's gonna be a whole new location experience to a games that has already taken place there in recent memory of many of us, including the wider IOC membership. As Rob pointed out a few pages ago, is this somehow to deflect us from the fact that LA already has a games under its belt that is remembered in colour rather than black and white imagery. Are you implying that no development has taken place in Paris and Rome since 1924 and 1960 respectively. For the world, I don't think New LA is as beguiling and enchanting a vision as you are making it out to be. It reminds us of too many of our own tourism and marketing slogans we wheel out whenever we're going through our own rebranding exercises.

Now, America's Bid? Really? Well, yeah, America should get excited if they win when the hosting comes up. I'm sure NBC, or whoever the US broadcast rights holder at the time is, will be pulling out all patriotic stops to maximise audience anticipation. But what exactly is being promised, beyond one-time inspiration, that will impact El Paso, Trenton, Boise, Tallahassee, Nome or Hilo to become Olympic centres of excellence and excitement in the future? And are you implying that in say, France, that Paris isn't being promoted as France's bid? That it's only of benefit to St Denis? Last I heard, the French NOC is making great pains to reach out to the wider country, to gauge their support for the bid (I seem to remember that at one stage support from the regions was even higher than that in metropolitan Paris), and holding major announcements and basing plans well outside the arrondissements in places like Marseiiles, which is set to be one of the main hubs of the games if they win. London didi the same to engage the wider UK. It's only natural. In some cases, smaller, compact nations like France, Italy or the UK have it easier to engage their whole nation. They can hold football or preliminary events across the whole country and still be within a reasonable distance of the main hub. I doubt holding football events or some preliminaries in Portland, Maine, or Miami, Florida, would fly very well for their respective sports federations. Travel times preclude too widespread a sharing of hosting burdens.

Onto technology. Let me tell you a story I've shared with the members here in the past, but you will not have heard. I attended and covered the games in 1996 in Atlanta as a technology journalist. The expectation ahead of those games was that they would be a technological tour-de-force because of the nation's perceived technology might. In the end they were lambasted as a tech debacle. The IBM results systems failed, broadcasters were left hanging, and the embarrassment was all the worse because of the high expectations. The problem was that IBM built the most sophisticated and advanced games systems possible at the time, but when it came to use, it was incompatible with the older technology used by most of the world's media. The end result was a black eye, IBM deciding to dump future Olympic participation and the IOC decreeing that from then on, all games systems must use only technology used and proven two years out from the games. Now, I don't doubt that the likes of Apple and Snapchat and whatever would come up with some great offerings come games time. But I also don't doubt that they would do that whether the games were held in LA, Paris or Budapest. Wherever the games are held, they will be a great opportunity to showcase their latest exciting tools. I remember one ridiculous claim, I can't remember if it was this bid or back in the 2016 race, that somehow if the games went to America, NBC would be use higher tech if they were in the US. Rubbish! NBC will use their latest technology wherever they're held. Most of the exciting offerings they will showcase on screen will already be put together in their home studios in NYC or LA or wherever then used to showcase events on the Seine, Danube, Tiber or LA River or wherever. 4K HD technology and signals, for example, WILL be shipped out and used for footage from Rio, for example, not just confined to the home studios of those broadcasters who use them. New apps will be put on the app store for the Rio games, not shelved until the games come back to the USA. London didn't distribute apps and information by fax technology because twitter wasn't headquartered in the UK. California tech companies might end up being good sponsorship targets for an LA OCOG, but they're also just as likely to develop apps and such for Paris or Beijing as they are for Boston or LA. The games are a huge marketing opportunity for them, regardless of location.

Now, I've said before that it's obvious you're a passionate advocate and supporter of LA 24, and good on you for that and don't stop being so. And it's obvious you're not just some clueless flag-waver who just wants to boost his home country or city without considering or accepting the wider issues, geopolitics or permutations of a bidding campaign. But it's precisely because you DO have some intelligence and knowledge of the requirements that you get such sustained responses when you make such LA-centric statements and then get exasperated that nobody else buys into the slogans or hype. You do seem to view the race through california-sunset coloured spectacles, and seem oblivious that in many cases its rivals have just exciting stories to tell, or assets in their arsenal, as LA. It's okay to be excited. But forgive us if we're all not feeling the same "buzz" about a repeat LA hosting. Many of us are just trying to take an objective view of this bid campaign. I'm like Quaker - I don't think Paris "has it in the bag". I do think LA has a strong bid - it's done a great job with its branding, planning and marketing. It's possible it could win. But I still think at this stage a Paris win is far more likely.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The New LA is all encompassing. And there is plenty of evidence that competing bids lack in many of LA's bid points. For example, nobody seems to know that LA is pushing the bid as America's bid, with the intent of reaching audiences nationwide via an LA84 Foundation type program. Even worse, one of you said Paris also used social media in their bid as if that would be the same to being home to most of the worlds tech companies that drive culture and offer a direct connection to youth. If you think posting in Facebook compares to having Facebook headquarters in your back yard you're an idiot. Technology is far reaching and the worlds, but the companies that drive a disproportionate and substantial amount of it are based I. California, and, increasingly, in LA. And if you don't know just how much that penetration has moved into LA, we don't even need to be talking.

FYI, this is the LA 2024 thread... FYI.

I mean.. come on.

You sound more and more like a time share salesman trying to offer up your home to a bunch of people that you don't think will listen unless you beat them over the head with the sales pitch. The New LA is all encompassing? What the hell does that even mean. Nobody seems to know that LA is pushing the bid as America's bid? If you want us to respect any supposed knowledge you have of Olympic bids that don't involve LA, don't treat us like idiots and try to take that high road.

But touching in educated guesses. IOC members aren't just partial to geopolitics. They're also partial to their sport and how to best grow its exposure. They're also partial to the quality of the venues where their athletes will compete. The geopolitical story is great, but that the only drum you guys keep repeating even after in this thread MANY different aspects of the LA bid story are touched. Even though it's the most obvious and straight forward of marketing. It's in the videos they put out but noooo. This dude is making it all up. Please.

That's the problem.. you don't want to make a comparison to what other bids have to offer in the context of what may help them. For you, it's LA gets high marks in technology, so therefore that's going to be important to the IOC. Did it occur to you that maybe Paris has quality venues too? That they have decent public transportation and have had it for a while now? I get what this website does that you think we're trying to shut down your hype of LA and therefore your response is to patronize those who argue the other side ("yea, Paris is great, but..") It's always a but. You've got more buts than a line at McDonalds. We're not oblivious to what LA has to offer, but the fact you keep selling it over and over again as it we didn't get the point the first time is at the very least annoying, at worst, it's troll-like.

Here's a question then.. If LA is such an ideal Olympic host city candidate, if they have so much to offer, and if their bid aligns so well with the wants and needs of the IOC, then how in the hell did the USOC pick Boston over them? If everything about LA is so "obvious", how couldn't the USOC see that from the start when so many of us here knew from the start the Boston was a giant dumpster fire in the making

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For you, it's LA gets high marks in technology, so therefore that's going to be important to the IOC. Did it occur to you that maybe Paris has quality venues too? That they have decent public transportation and have had it for a while now?

That's what I was trying to allude to. But instead I get a snide retort of "did I say that L.A. is the only one with quality venues" (& then insulted) when one damn well knows that's certainly the implication that they're trying to make, otherwise, why make a point of it!

I get what this website does that you think we're trying to shut down your hype of LA and therefore your response is to patronize those who argue the other side ("yea, Paris is great, but..") It's always a but. You've got more buts than a line at McDonalds.

Lmfao - maybe we should start calling him "McRuff" then! lolz

Here's a question then.. If LA is such an ideal Olympic host city candidate, if they have so much to offer, and if their bid aligns so well with the wants and needs of the IOC, then how in the hell did the USOC pick Boston over them? If everything about LA is so "obvious", how couldn't the USOC see that from the start when so many of us here knew from the start the Boston was a giant dumpster fire in the making

Oh, we'll probably get the whole "USOC had some big wigs in favor of Boston" rhetoric again, but I'd have to agree, favoritism or no favoritism towards Boston by some in the USOC, if L.A. was such an "obvious" choice, then they shoulda picked L.A. from the start regardless. It's still funny that L.A. should be the IOC's "obvious" choice when it wasn't so obvious to the USOC in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And we'll be laughing in YOUR face when the IOC shuts "LA24" down, ya "loser". Lmfao :-P

While RuFF is annoying to many of you, remember that this IS the LA 2024 thread. Obviously, there will be supporters of the LA bid here, including myself.

Feel free to disagree, scoff, or laugh at his comments, but again this is the LA thread. There will be supporters of the bid here (believe it or not) that are still holding on to hope for an American win, myself included.

So saying things like "can't wait till the IOC shuts LA2024 down", comes off as incredibly arrogant.

A lot can happen between now and then with two of the Euro cities in a bit of a pickle at the moment.

French unions are striking just days before they are to host the 2016 EuroCup which Paris 2024 organizers themselves openly admit may seriously undermine their bid.

Rome may be voting on a referendum, and one of its Mayoral candidates is very much against a 2024 bid.

Not saying it paves the way for LA in any sense, but lets not dismiss any one city until the winner is actually announced.

RuFF is very enthusiastic and sees it from a very optimistic point of view, which some of you here see as stupid maybe naive but whatever guys. It's a forum. None of us here are IOC members (presumably) so why is everyone getting their panties in a twist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While RuFF is annoying to many of you, remember that this IS the LA 2024 thread. Obviously, there will be supporters of the LA bid here, including myself.

Feel free to disagree, scoff, or laugh at his comments, but again this is the LA thread. There will be supporters of the bid here (believe it or not) that are still holding on to hope for an American win, myself included.

So saying things like "can't wait till the IOC shuts LA2024 down", comes off as incredibly arrogant.

A lot can happen between now and then with two of the Euro cities in a bit of a pickle at the moment.

French unions are striking just days before they are to host the 2016 EuroCup which Paris 2024 organizers themselves openly admit may seriously undermine their bid.

Rome may be voting on a referendum, and one of its Mayoral candidates is very much against a 2024 bid.

Not saying it paves the way for LA in any sense, but lets not dismiss any one city until the winner is actually announced.

RuFF is very enthusiastic and sees it from a very optimistic point of view, which some of you here see as stupid maybe naive but whatever guys. It's a forum. None of us here are IOC members (presumably) so why is everyone getting their panties in a twist?

There's a difference between a supporter of a bid and having a good, honest, and constructive discussion about that bid versus 1 person trying to "control the conversation" to tell us over and over again about the "New LA." I think Rols put it very well that he describes RuFF as an enthusiastic LA supporter, but sometimes that support goes a little too far. And yea, this is an LA thread, but the nature of that is that they are in a competition with 3 other cities for the right to host the 2024 Olympics. So naturally the discussion of LA 2024 should happen within that greater construct and not within an insulated bubble as if their bid and their message exists in a vacuum. It is the nature of this site, for better or worse, than when there is a back-and-forth, it usually results in each side progressively getting louder and more contentious to try and make a point. No one here is trying to dismiss a city, but it would be nice - even though this is an LA thread - to tone down the rhetoric when a half dozen posters all agree that we're practically being beaten over the head with a sales pitch that's been made before. If it was simply "LA has a lot to offer, I think they'll get a long look," that would lead to less pushback than "the New LA is all encompassing." It borders on trolling at times. You seem pretty reasonable here, so please don't fall into the same trap where you think that any disagreement with 1 of your arguments is an attack on you and your beliefs and that if some believes that another city is going to win, any argument to the contrary will be met with resistance.

Just for reference.. when Boston was the nominee for the USOC bid, there was a poster there that sounded an awful lot like RuFF. Wouldn't stop telling us about how great Boston is and got irritated when other posters didn't share his grand vision and therefore were trying to shoot him down. So many of us have seen this before. And yea, sometimes it leads to an attitude of "you know what, f*** this guy, I hope his city loses." Maybe that is arrogant, but so is a patronizing tone from a city's supporter who probably knows he's heavily biased towards his city (understandable, but be careful when you're selling that to others). That's what you're going to get in response, especially when you're trying to make the same point repeatedly to the point you almost think you're getting trolled.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you that you're making all this development - especially the public transport, that's great to see. But when compared to London or Barcelona or even Rio, all your improvements without the Olympics beg the question - why do you want the games, if you're doing all this anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea. Sir Rols has engaged in this conversation far more honestly that Quaker or FYI. Both of you are no better than what you are accusing. This last post clearly reveals that Quaker doesn't understand the concept about control the conversation in the context I made it. He clearly lacks understanding. Controlling the conversation is about moving a conversation to achieve goals. LA has a better grip on the Olympic conversation than the IOC in the sense that LA can move forward to gain support and the message throughout the general LA region about the Olympics is generally positive. In the meantime the IOC better pick Paris to restablish a positive relationship with Europe. It's doesn't click in his head what I am saying. Making it even worse, I didn't pick the New LA as a slogan. It wasn't me, but I can understand why LA24 did. Not because of the Olympics or this bid, but because development in LA actually supports a change in the fabric of Los Angeles. Independent of the Olympics LA just had permits for 1/3 of all new development issues for downtown LA. That's never happened before, alone with a rail line to the sea. That has nothing to do with Paris or who has a better rail line, and if anything it has to do with LA's identity of itself. "Hence", the New LA. I didn't make it up, LA24 just took note and marketed what is obviously happening.

If we want to have a civil conversation here (and I'm confident we are both interested in that), you can't accuse posters here of taking the high road and then yourself take the high road. We're all going to read right through that and all it's going to lead to is us sniping at each other. Neither of us wants that.

Yes, I'm well aware you did not come up with the "New LA" slogan with LA2024 has featured in some of their press releases. But you're still the one who came in here and continues to point it out to us. It's like being on a bus and someone sees a billboard outside and starts exclaiming "See that billboard? Everyone look at the billoard! Why isn't everyone looking at the billboard? It's so obvious!!" We see the billboard. We understand the message. You don't need to keep pointing it out as if we don't see it's there. That's where it gets overbearing, especially where you resort to statements like "the New LA is all encompassing" I don't see that in any of the LA2024 marketing materials. That's where their otherwise well marketed sales job turns into you being a little too eager to point it out to us because you don't think the rest of us understand. Again, that's where it becomes a little too patronizing for some people's tastes and all we're asking is tone it down a little. We don't doubt that LA has undergone some fundamental changes, but probably not to the extent you want the rest of us to believe. And I don't think that means visitors will come to LA and be as blown away by those changes simply because the expectation isn't there.

Then there's the whole "conversation" thing. I know you didn't invent that either. You saw it mentioned a couple of times and then ran with it. Still, there's a lot of different ways that concept can be interpreted. That you and I (and others) aren't on the same page on that one is not because I lack understanding. It's because the context you make those concepts only make sense in your head. I know where you're trying to go with that. The disconnect occurs when you think that LA can "control" the conversation. Internally, that is absolutely true. But when you're taking that message to the IOC, that's a story. The same way you think we're brushing off LA because of the geopolitical factors that may favor Paris, you shouldn't brush away those factors that may work against LA.

Rols expressed it pretty well.. Paris has some of the same positives LA can offer and some unique qualities of their own. When both cities have the stage, they're both going to make their case and Paris will have their moment in the sun (pun completely intended). The way you're trying to downplay what they have and at the same time emphasize what LA have is not how things work when in the real world, this discussion isn't going on in an LA thread. For the umpteenth time, I don't doubt the marketing efforts of the LA organizers and what they're doing and what they hope to achieve. I don't question their motives so much as I do the message you're offering here that you keep trying to put in front of it. But I ask the question will it be what gets the job done in the end?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to have a civil conversation here (and I'm confident we are both interested in that), you can't accuse posters here of taking the high road and then yourself take the high road. We're all going to read right through that and all it's going to lead to is us sniping at each other. Neither of us wants that.

Yeah, umm, no. I don't think that's what they want at all. I mean how many months now has this same stuff been going on for & nothing has really changed here? I think you make the perfect comparison with TeamRik from Boston (& others like them throughout the years from different bidding locales).

They came on here with one agenda on their mind, & that's to shove their "blowhard" POV's in our faces. They have no intentions, nor interests, whatsoever to have any 'constructive or civil conversation'. Because the moment some start to challenge or simply not agree with all their repetitive bombastic rhetoric, then that's when all the patronizing & insults (initially made from them) begin. And it's not going to change, unfortunately, until Sept 2017 when the 2024 vote has finally taken place.

Like Baron said, you have too much patience with him, cuz at this point, they are just trolling. And I dare say it's been that way since day one that they joined this website.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A successful LA 1984 brought back cities willing to bid, and in the very next cycle it consisted of a strong European pool.

Whatever. Unlike for 1984, there's a "strong" European pool NOW. So there's goes the 'historical reference'.

Quaker, wouldn't one be able to say you too are consistently banging the same drum? The only difference is I'm banging that drum in the forum appropriately titled to discuss it. You're efforts aren't so much helpful here as they are throwing it off topic. What have you added about LA's bid in the LA 2024 thread other than your own whatever you want to label it to make it more valuable?

FYI, why don't you start a comparison screen name thread and take your caca there?

This post exactly proves what the rest of us are saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Historical Reference:

After 1984, when LA was awarded the games because nobody else wanted to bid, was the bid process for the 1992 Summer Olympiad which was awarded to Barcelona. Among those bidding...

Paris, Belgrade, Birmingham, and Amsterdam.

A successful LA 1984 brought back cities willing to bid, and in the very next cycle it consisted of a strong European pool.

...this kinda reminds one that Paris probably should have won that one, and they have been waiting a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Historical Reference:

After 1984, when LA was awarded the games because nobody else wanted to bid, was the bid process for the 1992 Summer Olympiad which was awarded to Barcelona. Among those bidding...

Paris, Belgrade, Birmingham, and Amsterdam.

A successful LA 1984 brought back cities willing to bid, and in the very next cycle it consisted of a strong European pool.

That's a great point, except..

The bid for the 2028 Olympics occurs before the 2024 Olympics take place. Unless the timeline changes, the IOC would set the deadline for 2032 bids before 2024 as well. So the effects of a successful 2024 Olympics may not be felt until 2 or even 3 cycles later. And that's still a big IF for Los Angeles, 1984 notwithstanding. Turning a big profit is going to be much tougher this time around.

The other difference is that back then, it was the cities that were the problem. Mexico City had to deal with political issues and protests. Munich had to deal with terrorism. Montreal had to deal with financial problems of their own doing. And Moscow of course had the boycott. The issue these days is with the IOC. They have made hosting the Olympics into an endeavor that has scared off a lot of potential bidders. That's their doing moreso than the cities themselves. I know a lot of people look at LA 1984 as having saved the Olympic movement (which is largely true) and look at 2024 as a chance for history to repeat itself. Easier said than done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think this is a great question. For LA I think it allows the city to show itself as an urban city, against the image it has put out on television. A city on foot. It also allows the city to further cement its status as Americas greenest large city. That's not smog anymore, it really is haze. It's infrastructure for new industries such as technology, it's increasingly diverse not just Mexican and Asian population, a modernized airport providing even more global connections, and more. This is a great question and should be answered by other bid cities as well. But I think there are huge benefits to LA with a games being hosted there, and for the movement as well.

Once again, the better question that is going to be asked of LA and that they and the other cities need to answer for.. why should the Olympics want Los Angeles? To me, that's what the IOC wants and needs to here moreso than how good the Olympics will be for LA. It has to be more about how LA is good for the Olympics.

And I'm sorry but I need to call a little bullshit here.. a city on foot? America's greenest large city? You can argue that the stereotypes and traffic and smog aren't as bad as they're made out to be, but - and not to turn this into a discussion of lists and rankings, because we know where that leads - very few people look at LA and think "America's greenest large city" or "a city on foot."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quaker, wouldn't one be able to say you too are consistently banging the same drum? The only difference is I'm banging that drum in the forum appropriately titled to discuss it. You're efforts aren't so much helpful here as they are throwing it off topic. What have you added about LA's bid in the LA 2024 thread other than your own whatever you want to label it to make it more valuable?

Seriously? How many times have I called you out for making posts here that have absolutely nothing to do with LA's bid, but you're trying to offer the context of a comparison. Yet for some reason, it's not okay when I do it? :unsure::wacko:

The topic and the forum is LA 2024. As in Los Angeles' bid for the 2024 Olympics. If you want to discuss and evaluate the bid and the city in an insulated bubble, that's your prerogative. But for the rest of us to measure LA's bid up against the competition and to do it here is not throwing it off topic. And you've done that yourself plenty of times before. I seem to recall when the terror attacks occurred in Paris, you posted some article here about how much better LA is equipped to handle terrorism. So we're doing the same thing. Inevitably, the discussion about LA's bid can be viewed in the context of the overall picture. That you choose only to look at it from LA's perspective does not mean the rest of us need to follow that lead and talk about what you want to talk about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall when the terror attacks occurred in Paris, you posted some article here about how much better LA is equipped to handle terrorism. So we're doing the same thing.

Yep - but that apparently is okay. But when someone posted about the UCLA campus murder/suicide, some of the L.A. boosters were quick to judge about & flame the messenger "not using such a tragic situation to put something down. Especially if that event can happen anywhere at anytime". Yeah, hypocrisy at its best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I would have to retract the statement that its Americas greenest large city, though its contribution because of the environmental issues faced make LA a city that leads in the battle against climate change. And again Quaker, stop hopping out of your panties when posting. Showing LA as a city on foot via television and the Olympics would show another side of LA. It's not about comparing it to other cities that clearly have a more developed mass transit system. The context is that LA can show that you can also live a pedestrian lifestyle there. You lack intellect. And I'm being very personal here because I find you are taking what I say and applying what you think I'm saying, choosing things I say to project your own feelings about whatever topic it is you think I'm talking about. Breathe for a minute. Examine what I'm saying seriously rather than jumping at your keyboard to sound like a brainiac. I'm really not expecting much as you've clearly projected where you stand. This isn't about discussing LA's bid to you at all as is evidenced by every single post you've made. To you, this is about me. It's personal and really that's pathetic, but that's up to you.

10 Cities Win C40 Award for Leading the Fight Against Climate Change

I see 3 U.S. cities listed there. None of them are Los Angeles. Just saying. And no, that's not for the purposes of attacking LA, but more to attempt to clear up a misconception.

See here's the thing. This is not personal for me, even though it may appear so in your narcissistic mind (ironic that you come back at me how I'm somehow projecting my own feelings, yet you are the one who is saying it's about you.. but whatever). I'm not attacking your intelligence or your knowledge. I'm attacking your message because I think (and I'm not alone) it's too over-the-top at times. You're the one who chooses to interpret that as a personal attack. I have attempted to examine what you're saying and I've told you many times that a lot of your posts are grounded in truth and solid arguments. But it's where you then create a false perception that I'm calling you out on. Again, not personal. It's not about you, it's about your message.

Case in point talking about climate change. I don't doubt that idea that LA is being proactive when it comes to environmental issues, especially relative to the images of a city known for it's smog. But "further cement its status as Americas greenest large city"? Don't make that claim when you really mean "LA is among the cities leading the battle against climate change." If LA is going to present an image of itself to an organization like the IOC, than the reality better match the perception, even if it's maybe embellished a little bit. Show an image of a new pedestrian corridor that offers LA is capable of such a thing. But again, be careful of selling that to IOC members who don't realize that's just 1 street and is only an small example of what LA can offer, not so much a vision that would define the city.

Well, let's hear it Quaker. What do you see LA24 doing? What do you see in that bid? Discuss the bid, instead of just retorts to those that discuss it. Because that's all that seems to be coming out of your posts. Anything that is discussed about the bid is pulling some trigger in you that you have yet to discuss what LA24 is actually doing, and you're stuck mad that anybody says anything about what they're doing. Your job here has been to make sure that everybody who points out something LA24 is doing that it's not important in the bigger picture. So how about a contribution. What do you see happening with LA24? Regardless of if they win the bid or not. Why do you think they're saying the new LA? Why do you think they're hooking up with SnapChat? Because if I say why they might be doing it I'm in a vacuum. So what do you see?

Round 2 of the poll is now open.

http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/26050-gamesbids-2024-summer-games-bid-poll-round-2/

What about the poll? A popularity contest here on GB? What is that going to say about anything? Not much. But I digress..

No, I don't get mad when people bring up what LA is doing. I would like this to be a place to have a rational discussion about LA's bid. You seem to want - speaking of triggers - for this to be some sort of safe space where only the thoughts and ideas you're interested in get discussed. And yea, I get the frustration on your end where the response has become "OMG, enough about LA already," but maybe you should look in the mirror on that one. If you perceive others ganging up on you, take that up with them. I'm trying to remain civil here. But enough about us, yes let's discuss the LA 2024.

I'm still curious about the renovations at the Coliseum. How compatible is that going to be with the needs of an athletics stadium? Also curious about the LAFC stadium. Read in a couple of places that they need at least 9-10 months to make the conversion for swimming and need to have a test event at least 4 months out from the Olympics. Considering the opening of the stadium is creeping closer to the potential start of the Olympics, that all seems a little dicey if that project gets delayed. I think the organizers need to be careful because they're going to be talking about temporary projects here that will cost a decent amount of money. Obviously cheaper than building new facilities that may or may not be compatible with the city's needs, but still expensive.

As for the marketing? To me, a lot of it is still window dressing. A lot of times - particularly from the standpoint of LA - it's more an exercise in civic pride than it is a sales pitch that the IOC will be taken in by. I don't take issue with most of what LA2024 is promoting, although at times even they can over-do it a bit. I know I wasn't the only one who groaned when LA touted itself as "the Northern capital of Latin America." The underlying message is a valid one, but the hyperbole can be a bit much.

Snapchat? First off, let's be clear on something. 2 other people (neither of which is me) said "what's the big deal about Snapchat" and your response directed at me was "I know snapchat is being written off." Why don't you ask them rather than belligerently asking me to answer for them. My take, and I'm not young or cool enough to know much about Snapchat.. I've read it's a good marketing tool in that you can add your own logo to people's content. Some companies pay for that, but apparently LA 2024 is not. I think the marketing end of getting LA's logo out there and being in the consciousness of LA area residents will have its value down the line. Less so in terms of courting the IOC. To the extent that I disagree that Snapchat being based in California means much for LA's hopes of winning the bid, I don't see it as something the IOC voters will necessarily look at as evidence of LA's ability to interact with a younger crowd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LA24 snapchat is sorta lame, every other day somebody posts an athlete signing their wall......wha wha.

I do think the Expo Line is a BIG deal and deserves to impress. People trying to contrast the LA metro system with totally different kinds of non-auto friendly cities are not really recognizing the fact that LA has both and is starting to have it all. I'm headed to the beach tomorrow, not Santa Monica on Metro I'm driving to Malibu.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...