los angeles 2024

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, alphamale86 said:

I'm going to play devils advocate on this one. Isn't the point of any major organization to make money? And please don't tell me that isn't the number 1 goal of the IOC and NOC's. You need to put yourself in the IOC position. Everyone there is trying to make money by capitalizing on the publics desire for spectacle through sport. They don't have moral obligation to anyone unless it suits their interest. If that was the case Beijing would never have been awarded the games based on human rights issues alone. They simply need to make sure they make enough money compared to the output while not completely harming their brand. So in a case like this where your last 3 bids 2024 2022 and 2020 got upstaged by so many drop outs, you can't now as an organization go forward saying we still are going to tell cities no they can't even put in an initial bid. We aren't in the golden age of bidding anymore. Cities are dropping left right and center and in order for me to make sure I make my money, the number one goal of the IOC, before I think of television rights, ticket sales and sponsorship, I need to make sure I have enough options in the event that that most of my choices fall by the wayside during the candidate process.

Cities are dropping out during the process, deep into evaluations not even getting kicked out by the IOC in that discontinued Shortlist process. They are eliminating themselves so they might as well accept all who are willing and then decide later on.  

Here's the problem with your statement. You're looking at the race as it is right now and I am saying you need to plan for the race down the line. The final outcome as you've stated has not happened. So while it looks ok that even if Rome and Budapest drop out you still have strong bids from Paris and LA, we can't, with 100% certainty say that something will not come up in the foreseeable future that will cause both Paris and LA to drop out. I mean could anyone truly have predicated last year that LA and Paris might be the only two left in the race with 1 full year of campaigning to go? When we started out with Boston Budapest Hamburg Rome Paris possible Doha, possible Baku and possible Toronto no one could have imaged the state of the race as it is now when you look back at the treasure trove that started this cycle. We can't just say well Paris and LA were then best of the lot so it doesn't matter who drops out because it is possible that both LA and Paris could also drop out and that is the outcome you plan for at the beginning of these races. I need good option but in the event of the recent trend of cities dropping out, because we can safely say this is a major trend now, I just need options. 

The IOC needs options, but they need quality, not quantity.  You look at the IOC as being on their high horse to cut off cities from bidding, but I'm with zeke and FYI on this one.. good for them to tell cities that shouldn't be bidding not to bother because they won't get serious consideration.  Same tact the USOC took with the 2024 candidate selection and yea they produced Boston, but still a smart way to go rather than encouraging a city like Tulsa to think they might be on equal footing with an LA.  Save them the time and the effort rather than have them there as a safety net.  If the IOC wound up with a situation where all 4 of the current candidates dropped out, would that be a good thing to have a Doha or a Baku there to save them?  I'm not so sure.

The problem with the IOC is that cities don't want to deal with them.  I think they'd be hurting their cause more than helping to string along a sub-standard city to have them there just in case.  That's the kind of thing that might scare more worthy cities off in the future.  So yes, I think the IOC absolutely needs to tell cities they can't put in an initial bid if the money they're going to spend on it is almost surely going to go to waste.  You need to weigh the odds of a Baku or a Doha landing the Olympics (which is almost entirely predicated on whether or not the other cities in the running stay in or not).  It shouldn't be a case of "well if they want to spend the money on a bid, why tell them no" because again, that's the kind of thing that could scare off better cities from bidding.

1 hour ago, alphamale86 said:

1 more thing, 2022 is the perfect example of why you don't tell someone not to bid if you don't think they stand a chance. At the beginning of that race Beijing and Almaty were 5 and 6 on the totem pole compared to Stockholm Krakow, Oslo and Lviv. They weren't even on the radar. so if 4 cities dropped out for whatever reason in 2022 then the immediate next cycle we could possibly see another 4 drop out (Boston Hamburg Rome Budapest) I would definitely be rethinking that policy. 

There's a difference between a technically under-qualified city bidding and a city like a Beijing which doesn't seem to be in the right place and the right time.  As we always say here, the dynamics of every race are different.  It's not "policy" for the IOC to cut of cities at the pass.  It's something they'll evaluate each cycle and decide whether or not to allow a city to bid.  Case in point Rio.  Didn't make the shortlist for 2012 because the IOC felt there was no way they could compete with that field.  Came back for 2016 and won.  Just because the IOC said no to Doha this time around does not automatically mean they will say no next time.

[zekekelso]

3 hours ago, alphamale86 said:

I'm going to play devils advocate on this one. Isn't the point of any major organization to make money?

You know, and I know that the goal of the IOC is to collect as many freebies and and much bribe money as possible. But, officially, they are a non-profit whose goal is to promote the Olympic ideals. 

While I'm a bit cynical about the IOC, I do believe there are non-profits out there - Médecins Sans Frontières? - whose goal is to make the world a better place. 

[FYI]

2 hours ago, alphamale86 said:

Here's the problem with your statement. You're looking at the race as it is right now and I am saying you need to plan for the race down the line. The final outcome as you've stated has not happened. So while it looks ok that even if Rome and Budapest drop out you still have strong bids from Paris and LA, we can't, with 100% certainty say that something will not come up in the foreseeable future that will cause both Paris and LA to drop out. I mean could anyone truly have predicated last year that LA and Paris might be the only two left in the race with 1 full year of campaigning to go? 

And here's the problem with your logic - you're advocating that the IOC should allow even subpar bids like Baku & Doha simply for the sake of "planning down the line" in the event all of the quality bids like Paris & L.A. were to bail out. And even if that were the case, then there's seriously something wrong with the IOC to begin with & they would need to ask themselves why this "major trend" is happening, instead of saying that they "just need more options". Cuz like Quaker said, it's about "quality, not quantity".

Cuz next thing you know (going by your logic), you'll have the Havana's, the San Juan's & the Hobart's of the world, wanting to knock on the IOC's door again when they have absolutely no business to be there in the first place. As Quaker also noted, the IOC also has to gauge the consequences of handing over the Games to substandard cities/countries. And as you yourself even noted (& which has been noted on these boards before), the IOC is a business, & like any business, they have to look at all the ramifications of their decisions.

It's what many have cited against Rio (including yourself), & don't tell me that a Doha-hah or a Baku-koo would be a much better fit solely for the purpose of "just in case everyone else pulls out", bcuz then all of the unwarranted criticism that many made against Rio 2016 just goes out the window. Just ask FIFA about their 2022 host decision, for example, & I wonder what their answer would be now, besides "oh fu@k, what did we get ourselves into".

[alphamale86]

OK so what you all are saying is that as an organization if all of the options that you said yes too drop out you'd rather have no Olympics than a drastically modified version to suit the location of a less than desirable choice?

Cause quite frankly I'd just use that as an opportunity to scale down. The show must go on people. If Tulsa and Havana want to spend their money and time and their people are OK with that then who are you to tell them they shouldn't. 

And FYI this is a different situation than Rio I never said Rio shouldn't have bid I just said there were better options for the win, that's all. Besides that has to do with perspective, what side of the argument are you looking at. If I am from Rio I'd say hey I don't think we should bid because we have issues here that need to be dealt with, that's again, if i were from Rio but if i am the IOC, I need options and the thing is, the good choices are the ones that in recent years have been falling through. Soon it's going to come down to do I risk not having any choices in the end and possibly no Olympics at all or do I just allow all who are interested to put forward a bid and then select the best from whatever is left at the end.  

 

1 hour ago, FYI said:

 

 

1 hour ago, zekekelso said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

 

 

[Quaker2001]

17 minutes ago, alphamale86 said:

OK so what you all are saying is that as an organization if all of the options that you said yes too drop out you'd rather have no Olympics than a drastically modified version to suit the location of a less than desirable choice?

Cause quite frankly I'd just use that as an opportunity to scale down. The show must go on people. If Tulsa and Havana want to spend their money and time and their people are OK with that then who are you to tell them they shouldn't. 

Because how does that make the IOC look if Havana is spending millions of dollars on an Olympic bid that stands next to zero chance of succeeding unless every other legitimate city drops out.  "Thanks for your interest, guys.. keep spending your money, we'll let you know if we need to call on you as a last resort."  

Again, the problem isn't just the cost of the Olympics.  It's the reputation of the IOC that is scaring a lot of cities off.  That's what they're running away from.  The IOC is not helping their cause by trying to be more inclusionary and allow all these cities to be a part of the process if some of them literally have no chance of beating the other cities in the field.  You keep looking at the scenario where all the bid cities drop out.  Instead, look at the scenarios where that doesn't happen.

Here's a question for you.. all the times the IOC has had a shortlist, would you say that was wrong?  They should have let every city go to the final vote to give them all an opportunity?

[alphamale86]

43 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Because how does that make the IOC look if Havana is spending millions of dollars on an Olympic bid that stands next to zero chance of succeeding unless every other legitimate city drops out.  "Thanks for your interest, guys.. keep spending your money, we'll let you know if we need to call on you as a last resort."  

Again, the problem isn't just the cost of the Olympics.  It's the reputation of the IOC that is scaring a lot of cities off.  That's what they're running away from.  The IOC is not helping their cause by trying to be more inclusionary and allow all these cities to be a part of the process if some of them literally have no chance of beating the other cities in the field.  You keep looking at the scenario where all the bid cities drop out.  Instead, look at the scenarios where that doesn't happen.

Here's a question for you.. all the times the IOC has had a shortlist, would you say that was wrong?  They should have let every city go to the final vote to give them all an opportunity?

Here's the thing about how it looks. No one will care. That is a sad statement but NOC's will still send teams, Athletes will still want to go and compete, NBC will still televise the games. We will still complain, protest and shout down the decision to games time. Then the games will happen and after 2 weeks no one will care except the people of the country, maybe the legacy might be great for a Havana maybe it might go the way of Athens but that's the risk ladies and gentlemen with hosting the Olympics.

And I completely understand your point about it not just being about cost but whatever the reason people don't want to deal with the IOC, there are others that are just jumping at the chance. And if the same countries who are not bidding because they have issues with the IOC are still sending large delegations in the hopes of winning gold and publicizing their national team's chances of winning medals then all you truly need as the IOC is a venue. I'm talking business here. That's why I say no one will care. Until NOC's and broadcasters and sponsors say no we aren't going to Havana then why should I deny Havana from bidding. 

To answer your question with the short list I really thought it was unnecessary, just chose the one you need. For the most part that's what the IOC does anyway. They chose the best choice based on their own needs at the time of the vote which they are allowed to do. If you have 9 cities putting in for the bid then let them go to the wire o, only one city will be chosen anyway. If a city is putting in a bid willingly then they need to accept responsibility that they are getting into bed with the IOC, that they are going to spend x amount of money etc etc. The IOC isn't forcing cities to bid but they NEED cities to bid.

If I am like a Havana and I want to bid and I think I have a small chance to win then the IOC should just say Ok yes you can come just know that you are competing against cities like a Paris or LA and your chances are low. Then again cities usually know their competition before the official bids even start so the IOC doesn't need to manage your exception it's a competition based on a vote. I can't be mad as a bidding city that I spent a lot of money time and effort to bid for the games if I don't win the vote? That is competition. It's not for me as the IOC to tell you no, it's up to you as a possible candidate to evaluate your chances to win and the benefit in the event that you lose. If' after all of that you still bid and lose  then its on you. There will only be one winner and whether or not you are a weak candidate that lost or a strong candidate that lost both will think they wasted time and money. So again if I am only choosing the best choice as defined by me from whatever applicant pool is left by the time of the vote if there are 3 weak bids in contention. 

[alphamale86]

Forgot finish it off - It still won't matter I'm choosing the best choice for me

[FYI]

Right, & lost time Havana bid & was let go, they immediately attributed it to "first world discrimination & the IOC only cares to go where the money is". So that kinda takes away from your "we're talking business here" mantra anyway.

I also don't see how "scaling down" the Games in order for places like Havana & Tulsa to participate, also leads to the countries that don't want to deal with the IOC to still be able to send large delegations of their own so they can still bring back home "all those Gold medals". "Scaled down" Games should mean SMALLER delegations, not larger. 

And even on a scaled down version (which really is another topic altogether, cuz it's mainly all the international federations why the Olympic Games are so big in the first place), how does a country like Cuba, with even more limited resources than a powerhouse like Brazil, relatively speaking, be able to cope with even that. There's still the burden of accommodations, infrastructure, etc (which by today's standards, Cuba is still literally back in time by about 50 years), to handle the very large influx of not only the athletes, but the media, dignitaries & spectators just for the sake of inclusion to bid.

Plus, I'm sure the people of Cuba would be just as opposed, if not moreso, than the people of Brazil were, to an Olympics being held there when they're stuck back in time by literally decades. Scaling down the Games too drastically just so a city like Havana could host (in the miniscule possibility that no one else could host a much bigger party) would start to make the Olympics lose their appeal drastically. If Rio 2016 had a hard time getting the ratings, then a "very smallish, non-glamorous Havana Games" would be very bad for all those businesses & sponsors anyway. And if your argument is still about the "business", then it's an oxymoron of one, TBH.

[Quaker2001]

49 minutes ago, alphamale86 said:

Here's the thing about how it looks. No one will care. That is a sad statement but NOC's will still send teams, Athletes will still want to go and compete, NBC will still televise the games. We will still complain, protest and shout down the decision to games time. Then the games will happen and after 2 weeks no one will care except the people of the country, maybe the legacy might be great for a Havana maybe it might go the way of Athens but that's the risk ladies and gentlemen with hosting the Olympics.

And I completely understand your point about it not just being about cost but whatever the reason people don't want to deal with the IOC, there are others that are just jumping at the chance. And if the same countries who are not bidding because they have issues with the IOC are still sending large delegations in the hopes of winning gold and publicizing their national team's chances of winning medals then all you truly need as the IOC is a venue. I'm talking business here. That's why I say no one will care. Until NOC's and broadcasters and sponsors say no we aren't going to Havana then why should I deny Havana from bidding. 

You ask why should Havana be denied.  I ask why Havana should be allowed.  What's the value in that?  Again, quantity over quality is not going to help the IOC's cause.  You know who might care how it looks?  Prospective bid cities/countries.  NOC's haven't stopped sending athletes and NBC just pledged a crap-ton of money to stay in the Olympics business.  But many cities and NOCs have rejected hosting the Olympics.  You want to throw Havana into the mix?  Do you think there's a chance that might scare off some other cities from bidding if there's potentially bribery and corruption involved?  FIFA wound up with Qatar (and it wasn't for a lack of choice).  How's that working out for them.  Here, I'll remind you..

FIFA 2022 World Cup Sponsors Visa, Adidas, Coca-Cola Concerned Over Qatar's Labor Conditions

1 hour ago, alphamale86 said:

To answer your question with the short list I really thought it was unnecessary, just chose the one you need. For the most part that's what the IOC does anyway. They chose the best choice based on their own needs at the time of the vote which they are allowed to do. If you have 9 cities putting in for the bid then let them go to the wire o, only one city will be chosen anyway. If a city is putting in a bid willingly then they need to accept responsibility that they are getting into bed with the IOC, that they are going to spend x amount of money etc etc. The IOC isn't forcing cities to bid but they NEED cities to bid.

No.. the IOC don't need cities to bid.  They need 1 city.  The rest is window dressing.  They could have 15 cities bidding, but if all of them suck, then that's less preferable to having 1 good city bidding.  As the IOC learned in 1984.

If you're going to have 9 cities go to the end, that's everyone's time and resources involved to make that happen.  You keep saying who cares if the cities are willing to spend it, but that's millions of dollars they're putting into an effort that stands little chance of succeeding.  Not to mention you're now asking the IOC to consider all these cities when we all know there's at least a few of them that have no shot.  You can't put the onus on a city to be responsible when they might have cash to burn.  Again, how'd that work out with Qatar.  The longer a city/country like that stays in the mix, the more of a chance there is for something shady to happen.  There's no need for that and it's those kinds of decisions that better cities/countries will look at, judge the IOC for being a bunch of douchebags, and say that they don't want to bid.

1 hour ago, alphamale86 said:

If I am like a Havana and I want to bid and I think I have a small chance to win then the IOC should just say Ok yes you can come just know that you are competing against cities like a Paris or LA and your chances are low. Then again cities usually know their competition before the official bids even start so the IOC doesn't need to manage your exception it's a competition based on a vote. I can't be mad as a bidding city that I spent a lot of money time and effort to bid for the games if I don't win the vote? That is competition. It's not for me as the IOC to tell you no, it's up to you as a possible candidate to evaluate your chances to win and the benefit in the event that you lose. If' after all of that you still bid and lose  then its on you. There will only be one winner and whether or not you are a weak candidate that lost or a strong candidate that lost both will think they wasted time and money. So again if I am only choosing the best choice as defined by me from whatever applicant pool is left by the time of the vote if there are 3 weak bids in contention. 

You really think the IOC and the cities know what they're getting into?  You think the IOC is going to be real with them if the bid process is "come one, come all!"  Yes, it should 100% be on the IOC to tell them no if they're not interested.  They're not going to do that before evaluating their chances, but if those chances are so low, then they should tell them no.  Save your time and money.  Or maybe come back at another time when the odds may be better.  Don't invite weak bids into the competition simply for the sake of having a lot of bids.  It's stupid and a bad move for the long-term outlook for an organization that badly needs to improve its reputation like the IOC.

[Quaker2001]

13 hours ago, RuFF said:

Typically the bold text has no value with Quaker, except when he is making a point. But yea, NBC did just pledge a crap-ton of money and it just so happens they stand to gain from hosting the gameslocally and broadcasting worldwide from an in-house newly built International Broadcast Center. However, in those cases that crap-ton of money has no value. Just when referencing places like Havana, Cuba. 

So.. does being an asshole come naturally for you or is it something you have to work at?  I mean, if you're working at it, then you're doing an excellent job.  Bravo.

Leave it to you to bold some text, completely miss the context (most likely because it's over your head) and try to pass off an insult as insight.  This is what happens when you try to participate in a discussion not centered around LA, for which of course is outside your comfort zone and your general level of comprehension. If you had bothered to actually read and try to understand the entire discussion (I know that requires more thought than simply being an asshole, which we see you're working hard at), rather than use this as an opportunity to insult me, maybe you'd have something to contribute.  But I'm not counting on it.  No.. stick with what you're good at and just tell us all sorts of wonderful things about LA that virtually no one here is actually interested in hearing from you.

That's cool that you love jokes though.  You must really love yourself then because you're the biggest joke here.

[mr.bernham]

On 9/10/2016 at 0:08 PM, Quaker2001 said:

Hey, Ruff has said before I sound like his wife.  Considering how he talks to me, I'm concerned how he treats his wife.  I hope the answer to that isn't "ruff."

Roast. Slay my life Quaker. 

[FYI]

We're actually having a discussion about fricken Havana!  SO many things make Havana a non-starter TBW that have absolutely NOTHING to do with NBC in the first place. And talk about "projecting" there at the end of all that gibberish. 

[Quaker2001]

7 minutes ago, FYI said:

We're actually having a discussion about fricken Havana!  SO many things make Havana a non-starter TBW that have absolutely NOTHING to do with NBC in the first place. And talk about "projecting" there at the end of all that gibberish. 

Hey, that's your fault there!  You first brought up Havana and then furthered the conversation with them.  You've been around this site long enough to know how these things work.  Just for shits and giggles, maybe I should try and start a conversation about Tulsa!

[zekekelso]

Well, Havana did host the Pan Am games. And some people think that's a precursor to hosting the Olympics :{

[Quaker2001]

45 minutes ago, RuFF said:

The point is that you're arguing that NBC has clout and as a result would prevent the Havanas of the world from being taken serious. At the same time, you've argued that NBC does not have clout because it already paid for the broadcasting rights until 2032. If I am not mistaken NBC paid to the tune of 7 billion, but don't quote me on that. That's said you have to pick a side and stick to it. They either have clout or they don't. And if they have it in preventing the Havanas of the world they have it in a US, and particularly in this cycle, and LA bid with an added incentive of the nearly free IBC proposed for the bid. But, at the same time if NBC has no clout there, then you really can't argue that the Havanas of the world don't have any business bidding because of business, and in particular the business of NBC. But you, or anybody else can argue that NBC doesn't really help LA's bid, but I think they do. You can't have it both ways, and the business aspect of it isn't so fluid that it flows in the direction of the points you're attempting to make at your convenience. 

You obviously have no idea what I'm arguing.  You decided to cherry pick part of 1 of my posts, take it out of context largely to insult me, and now we have this rambling nonsense here.  And note that the "nearly free IBC proposed for the bid" actually has a price tag as listed in the budget of $130 million, as noted here.  Much like Coliseum, among other big pieces of the bid, having infrastructure in place does not mean that there aren't major costs associated with using that infrastructure when it needs to be built out to work for the Olympics.

I have made it clear many times that NBC and their television money have no clout in terms of host city selection.  That contract is locked in and it became locked in with little to no indication of where future Olympics would be held (with the caveat that somewhere in the 2022-2032 cycle, there's a decent chance of a U.S.-hosted Olympics in there).  Clearly NBC's money is not location-dependent and the IOC will receive no more or no less from them based on where future Olympics are held.  You say that you think NBC helps LA's bid.. how?  Wouldn't the IOC almost be better served not having that TV deal signed and then if they did award the 2024 Olympics to LA, they could raise the price tag on those TV rights.  Can't do that now.

Moreso, I made no link between NBC's money and the idea of lesser cities being cut off at the pass.  You decided to put the 2 together.  Whether or not those cities should be allowed to bid is a separate issue completely unrelated to future TV rights and the 2024 bid cycle.

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Hey, that's your fault there!  You first brought up Havana and then furthered the conversation with them.  You've been around this site long enough to know how these things work.  Just for shits and giggles, maybe I should try and start a conversation about Tulsa!

I said "next thing you know, you'll have the Havana's, the San Juan's & the Hobart's of the world knocking on the IOC's door", bcuz 'AM86' seems to think that the IOC should've let Baku-koo bid for 2024, since we now seem to have cities also bailing out on this race (i.e. Hamburg, & now maybe Rome & then Budapest), so that the IOC can then simply have "more options & to plan down the line". Then he (& Truff) ran away with "if I were a Havana, & the Havana's of the world".

So I then only "furthered" the discussion on Havana to illustrate why such a view by the IOC would not be feasible for so many points. But perhaps you should also enlighten us on Tulsa, since some here seem to believe that "quantity" is indeed better than *quality*. 

 

"Moreso, I made no link between NBC's money and the idea of lesser cities being cut off at the pass.  You decided to put the 2 together.  Whether or not those cities should be allowed to bid is a separate issue completely unrelated to future TV rights and the 2024 bid cycle."

^

41 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Exactly - that was done by again, 'AM86', who made the connection with the "business"'of the Olympics no matter where they could be held, & that includes "the Havana's of the world" in case the IOC "just needs more options".

[Quaker2001]

2 minutes ago, FYI said:

Exactly - that was done by again, 'AM86', who made the connection with the "business"'of the Olympics no matter where they could be held, & that includes "the Havana's of the world" in case the IOC "just needs more options".

Well, if we're going to acknowledge where Havana stands in all this, I think we need an alternate name for them like Doha-ha or Baku-koo.  So I think it's time to start referring to Cuba's capital here as Hava-no-chance.

[FYI]

^Lmfao - good one, I like it! But what about Tulsa then?! Cuz ya know, judging by "just to have more options", it's got to be dubbed as well! 

[Quaker2001]

4 minutes ago, FYI said:

^Lmfao - good one, I like it! But what about Tulsa then?! Cuz ya know, judging by "just to have more options", it's got to be dubbed as well! 

Tul-sucks?

[FYI]

^  That works!

[Quaker2001]

31 minutes ago, RuFF said:

You made no link between NBC's money and Havana (AKA lesser cities)? Really? Are you that stupid? Re-read your own post.. the very one I quoted in it's entirety. Get your **** together. Every which way for convenience but you can't stand behind what you say.

30 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Fk, I must be tripping. There's no link there.

This is most accurate thing you've posted here in a long time.

First off, you didn't quote the entire post.  You cut off part of the paragraph in your original post.  And yes, I made no link.  Putting 2 things in the same paragraph does not mean they are linked, let alone for you to try and create a link.  You read that and think I'm trying to say NBC's clout would prevent a city like Havana from bidding?  Reading comprehension is apparently not 1 of your strong points.

Again, same point I've brought up to you before.. interest in the Olympics in terms of athletes and TV networks participating is different than cities wanting to host.  I mentioned NBC in the context that there is still a lot of money to be made from the Olympics, and yet there are still all these cities (mostly from Europe) who are rejecting the idea of bidding for an Olympics.  NBC's TV money has no influence on that and only you are trying to make a connection there and trying to tell me what point I'm making.  Talk about projecting!

[Quaker2001]

3 minutes ago, RuFF said:

And for reference, I never said Havana should be bidding or that all cities should bid. Clearly Tulsa is in no position to bid. My reference was very direct about how NBC was used in Quakers argument. I made no reference to FYI, FYI.

No one thinks you said that.  Your only contribution to this conversation (which clearly you have no control over) was to pick apart something I said, which you've not only taken out of context, but you're trying to form your own context.  Do you have an original thought of your own on this or are you just interested in making it about what I said (or rather what you think I was trying to say)?

[Quaker2001]

12 minutes ago, RuFF said:

I guess that's open to interpretation.  I think it speaks for itself.

Well, we all know what happens when you assume..

[FYI]

29 minutes ago, RuFF said:

And for reference, I never said Havana should be bidding or that all cities should bid. Clearly Tulsa is in no position to bid. My reference was very direct about how NBC was used in Quakers argument. I made no reference to FYI, FYI.

I never said that you did (unless of course, you have more than one handle on here).

^

29 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Reading comprehension is apparently not 1 of your strong points.

You can say that again. 

[LatinXTC]

Aw lawd is this bullshit between y'all still going on? Y'all need a new hobby. I suggest Pokemon Go. Maybe you'll even lose weight walking around playing it.