Jump to content

Salt Lake City Olympic bid officials delay key meeting in Switzerland


GBModerator
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, FYI said:

Let's not forget, that like Brisbane, SLC has been at this for YEARS now. At least the last five. And three years ago, the USOC officially named SLC (over Denver) as their next candidate for the Winter Olympic Games. And now that everything is done behind-the-scenes, who's to say how much of that list has already been completed. The IOC hasn't remained idle since Tokyo 2020ne. And this is the IOC afterall, & they tweak their own rules as they go along as long as they can see it benefits them in the end in some way. 

That said, though, if anything, I can at least see the IOC naming SLC as their "preferred candidate" right before Beijing 2022 (like they did with Brisbane, five months before they officially crowned them with 2032 at Tokyo 2020ne).

That last part I could agree with.  We know the IOC know what they have with Salt Lake.  There's little mystery.  But to use your line, have they crossed all the T's and dotted all the I's?  It's easy to say the venues are there and the SLC folks and IOC folks all are familiar with each other.  Locking all of that in for 2030, even with all the behind the scenes talk, is going to take time.  And the IOC has been a little pre-occupied lately.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Again, 'good for you'. And I was primarily referring to the GB's newswire section & certainly not the forums. But to make a parallel equation like you did earlier, but can we maybe not play the "you agree with RL's assessment, but I don't" card as if giving the implication that the GB's (newswire section) is some sort of fly-by-night news feed & that would make it comparable to a Doha-ha or Baku-ku sort of website?

I know you work in the field of sport, & have made a couple of noteworthy points, but don't come across as some sort of an AA, either. RL's actually on the ground at many of these things & has covered them for more than two decades now. He's obviously privy to information that none of us here even know about, even if to you, 'it doesn't make any sense'. Disagree if you want, but at the same time, offer up some compelling arguments (not points) to the contrary, other than why so simply disagree.

Well, why do you 'think' it's a bad move? (Some arguments in the article have mentioned why it maybe not be, or at least staff off other not so ideal situations for the IOC). But as you just said, & has been said before, but this is the IOC we're talking about after all. And they do what they want, whenever they want, as long as they can see that their moves, whether irrational or not, can benefit them in the end.

Let me make it clear again.. when I'm poking fun at GamesBids, it's more the forums than the site itself.  There's a lot of good information, particularly from Rob who is as connected and usually as objective as anyone.  That said, the last paragraph of his article that you wanted to highlight feels more like personal intuition than insider info.  He definitely makes some valid points, but I have made some compelling arguments to the contrary if you've been paying attention because I've made these points before.  LA28 is still a factor, you can't dismiss that by simply saying "marketing is everywhere."  American TV rights will come up and they'll be a lot more valuable for 2034 if there's a possibility those games might be in the United States.

Maybe at the end of the day, none of that matters and all the reasons to go to Salt Lake in 2030 win out.  Wouldn't surprise me in the least if that happened.  Don't take my disagreement as if I'm saying there's no way SLC will be named host by February.  Either way - and we both acknowledge it - the IOC is going to do whatever they want, but let's not pretend like they're always going to see things clearly.  If they did, the 2022 Olympics probably wouldn't be in Beijing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AustralianFan said:

True, I should have mentioned the support of the USOPC for the SLC2030 candidature which I understand from these reports was given in 2030.  

U.S. Olympic Committee selects Salt Lake City for potential 2030 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Bid - 14Dec2018 - Team USA

The USOPC support specifically for a 2030 Salt Lake City candidature would need to be demonstrated/reaffirmed to the Future Host Commission.

Decision on 2030 or 2034 Games still to be determined - 6Oct2021 - Sports Travel

This second article talks about the main concern around a 2030 bid is having only two years of clear sponsorship landscape run-in to the Games because of 2028 being in Los Angeles. Bullock 

“The main concern around a 2030 bid is having only two years of clear sponsorship landscape run-in to the Games because of 2028 being in Los Angeles. SLC Committee President and Chief Executive Officer Fraser Bullock said they have had direct talks with LA28 and have explored with the USOPC on how potentially to collaborate.”

But, as Bullock said, “we have to be very respectful with their Games” and mindful of the rarity that would be having the same country host back-to-back Olympics. No country has done so since World War II; the last country to do it was Germany in 1936 and before then, the 1932 Winter Games were in Lake Placid, New York, before the Summer Games were in Los Angeles.”

Yes, thank you for bringing up that point from someone involved.  The sponsorship/marketing issue is something they need to figure out.  It's not an insurmountable problem if all the parties work together and we know Salt Lake would prefer to host sooner rather than later.  This might make it a little bit more difficult for them to do business though, so it's something they need to consider, particularly as an American bid that we know will be very heavily reliant on private financing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Let me make it clear again.. when I'm poking fun at GamesBids, it's more the forums than the site itself.  There's a lot of good information, particularly from Rob who is as connected and usually as objective as anyone.  That said, the last paragraph of his article that you wanted to highlight feels more like personal intuition than insider info.  

You have in the past, yes, but you were quite clear in this case when you said - "you agree with Rob's assessment. I don't". That statement is *not* about the forums.

And perhaps that last part is his POV, but how do you know that it's not what he has deciphered from the insider info that he has gathered on the ground, just like what we do here on the forums with other info? I'd still balance his take on the matter moreso than anyone else that's not on the ground without any insider info to digest.

53 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

He definitely makes some valid points, but I have made some compelling arguments to the contrary if you've been paying attention because I've made these points before.  LA28 is still a factor, you can't dismiss that by simply saying "marketing is everywhere."  American TV rights will come up and they'll be a lot more valuable for 2034 if there's a possibility those games might be in the United States.

Don't be patronizing (yet again). But as you just said yourself, those 'compelling arguments' aren't insurmountable. And in this day & age where the IOC doesn't have the luxury anymore to pick & choose the most lavish & flashiest bid, out of a field of drooling bid cities like in the past, they're going to have to make concessions if they're wanting to continue to move forward with their (Winter) Olympic Games.

59 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Don't take my disagreement as if I'm saying there's no way SLC will be named host by February.  

Maybe, but that's certainly not how you come across. Especially when we've had these same types of disagreements before. But whatever, I digress. Otherwise, that just gives krow more reason to claim that we're always 'feuding'. :lol::P

27 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Yes, thank you for bringing up that point from someone involved.  The sponsorship/marketing issue is something they need to figure out.  It's not an insurmountable problem if all the parties work together and we know Salt Lake would prefer to host sooner rather than later.  This might make it a little bit more difficult for them to do business though, so it's something they need to consider, particularly as an American bid that we know will be very heavily reliant on private financing.

Yes, Fraser is involved. But is he really 'in the know', considering his limited exposure to the bigger Olympic circles, particularly within the IOC, like perhaps some journalists do. And of course whatever he says, he has to be careful on how he says it & what he says, since of course because of LA28 & the USOC. As I just mentioned in the previous quote, if this was business as usual, like the good 'ole Olympic bidding days, this could be an issue. But nowadays, where the IOC doens't have that luxury anymore, they're going to now have to make compromises along the way, especially when your pickin' are quite slim.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FYI said:

You have in the past, yes, but you were quite clear in this case when you said - "you agree with Rob's assessment. I don't". That statement is *not* about the forums.

And perhaps that last part is his POV, but how do you know that it's not what he has deciphered from the insider info that he has gathered on the ground, just like what we do here on the forums with other info? I'd still balance his take on the matter moreso than anyone else that's not on the ground without any insider info to digest.

How do you know that it is?  Because if it was, maybe he's indicate as such.  Instead, it's a lot of "could".  I'm not looking for validation of my opinion, but that question mean I can't question info, even if it comes from a pretty impeccable source.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Don't be patronizing (yet again). But as you just said yourself, those 'compelling arguments' aren't insurmountable. And in this day & age where the IOC doesn't have the luxury anymore to pick & choose the most lavish & flashiest bid, out of a field of drooling bid cities like in the past, they're going to have to make concessions if they're wanting to continue to move forward with their (Winter) Olympic Games.

Likewise, don't be patronizing to me and use "insurmountable" against me as if the issues with LA2028 are easily dismissed and that Sapporo is a luxury the IOC can't afford.  They probably do have to make concessions, but who's to say that Sapporo isn't the city they're doing that with.  We know there's potentially a public perception issue, but the fact they're still chirping probably isn't because they think they're about to be dropped from consideration.  Sure, Sapporo has public support issues that Salt Lake doesn't.  And the argument goes both ways.  Could say that the IOC needs more time to see how "credible" (to use one of our favorite buzzwords here) their bid is.  Or could say the opposite, that the IOC should cut them off now before public sentiment turns against them.

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Maybe, but that's certainly not how you come across. Especially when we've had these same types of disagreements before. But whatever, I digress. Otherwise, that just gives krow more reason to claim that we're always 'feuding'. :lol::P

Forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt how I come across to you.  And yes, this is why we feud, because once again, I disagree with the idea that something might happen and the default is that I'm just being contrarian so then it becomes "OMG, QUAKER IS SAYING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, I NEED TO TELL HIM WHY HE'S WRONG"

1 hour ago, FYI said:

Yes, Fraser is involved. But is he really 'in the know', considering his limited exposure to the bigger Olympic circles, particularly within the IOC, like perhaps some journalists do. And of course whatever he says, he has to be careful on how he says it & what he says, since of course because of LA28 & the USOC. As I just mentioned in the previous quote, if this was business as usual, like the good 'ole Olympic bidding days, this could be an issue. But nowadays, where the IOC doens't have that luxury anymore, they're going to now have to make compromises along the way, especially when your pickin' are quite slim.   

He may not be in the know, but he does have some useful knowledge that likely applies here.  Once again, not doubting that the IOC could change to dismiss all these concerns and give us a little repeat of history where it's "tell us what you want to get a deal done."  But you still come across (and I know you're going to tell me I'm off base) that it's all about Salt Lake and Sapporo is a non-entity in the minds of the IOC.  Like I said, that could wind up being their direction because it's the IOC and they'll do whatever they damn well please.  It just seems like the prudent move is to wait and see what they have there.  It's not like SLC is going anywhere or where they have to spend millions of dollars trying to put together a winning bid to beat the competition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

How do you know that it is?  Because if it was, maybe he's indicate as such.  Instead, it's a lot of "could".  I'm not looking for validation of my opinion, but that question mean I can't question info, even if it comes from a pretty impeccable source.

And how do you know that it isn't? Maybe he can't divulge much more since good journalists never reveal their sources, otherwise, no one would ever tell them anything. That doesn't mean it should be dismissed or discredited simply because you want to still question it. Especially as you said, it's still coming from a pretty impeccable source.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Likewise, don't be patronizing to me and use "insurmountable" against me as if the issues with LA2028 are easily dismissed and that Sapporo is a luxury the IOC can't afford.  They probably do have to make concessions, but who's to say that Sapporo isn't the city they're doing that with.  We know there's potentially a public perception issue, but the fact they're still chirping probably isn't because they think they're about to be dropped from consideration.  Sure, Sapporo has public support issues that Salt Lake doesn't.  And the argument goes both ways.  Could say that the IOC needs more time to see how "credible" (to use one of our favorite buzzwords here) their bid is.  Or could say the opposite, that the IOC should cut them off now before public sentiment turns against them.

 As the old saying goes, 'but it takes respect in order to ask for respect in return. Treat those the same way that you'd like to be treated'. Lines like "if you've been paying attention around here because I pointed this or that out before" isn't going to make me do anything but. 

And yes, the IOC can absolutely make concessions with Sapporo. And I've also never said the issues with LA28 should be easily dismissed. However, the IOC would have their work more cut out with Sapporo, since no matter the amount of concessions that the IOC can give them, in the end, could totally mean zilch if, as you pointed out as well, the Japanese public just doesn't want it, no matter how much Sapporo officials are still chirping about it. 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt how I come across to you.  And yes, this is why we feud, because once again, I disagree with the idea that something might happen and the default is that I'm just being contrarian so then it becomes "OMG, QUAKER IS SAYING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, I NEED TO TELL HIM WHY HE'S WRONG"

Well, just to be frank, but I don't really give a damn how you take it. But I'm still going to point it out (especially since I'm not the first one to mention that to you in the past). 

And "OMG", but can you be anymore *hypocritical*, since that is exactly what you're doing here (& anywhere else on these boards where we've disagreed)?! And yes, you absolutely do it for the sake of being contrarian. Since in the end, you always say that we wind up with pretty much the same end result, but we're just looking at things with a different set of glasses.  

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

It just seems like the prudent move is to wait and see what they have there.  It's not like SLC is going anywhere or where they have to spend millions of dollars trying to put together a winning bid to beat the competition

Well, the irony there, is that the flipside of that, to gauge what they have there, is that it just allows more time for another ('wait' for it) possible 'double' in this case LOL. Since notice, the only two cities were mainly arguing about here is Sapporo & SLC. Two very credible cities that in the end, can be a strong case for it. Especially when the USOC is more keen on 2034 than on 2030. It's the only reason I can see at this point to just 'wait-&-see'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, SLC is not angling for 2034, the USOC is. SLC officials have already mentioned that they actually would rather have the winter Games sooner, 2030 in this case, rather than later as to take better advantage of their aging venues from the 2002 Winter Olympics. And while the USOC would prefer 2034, it's easier said than done to simply try to encourage the IOC to do something about 2030, when their viable options for that are extremely limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FYI said:

And how do you know that it isn't? Maybe he can't divulge much more since good journalists never reveal their sources, otherwise, no one would ever tell them anything. That doesn't mean it should be dismissed or discredited simply because you want to still question it. Especially as you said, it's still coming from a pretty impeccable source.

And how do you know that it is? (seriously, do we really need to go in circles)  The truth is, as usual, we don't *know* anything.  We're going off a report and that reporter's opinion.  Nothing is being dismissed or discredited here.  I'm simply disagreeing with what I perceive to be an opinion.  Why do you seem to take issue with that other than that you agree with what he said?

3 hours ago, FYI said:

As the old saying goes, 'but it takes respect in order to ask for respect in return. Treat those the same way that you'd like to be treated'. Lines like "if you've been paying attention around here because I pointed this or that out before" isn't going to make me do anything but. 

You asked why do I think picking SLC now is a bad move.  I already gave my thinking on that one in this thread yesterday.  Was it necessary to repeat myself?  It's not like I made the point a year ago and expected you to remember.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

And yes, the IOC can absolutely make concessions with Sapporo. And I've also never said the issues with LA28 should be easily dismissed. However, the IOC would have their work more cut out with Sapporo, since no matter the amount of concessions that the IOC can give them, in the end, could totally mean zilch if, as you pointed out as well, the Japanese public just doesn't want it, no matter how much Sapporo officials are still chirping about it. 

Most of what you just said is pretty spot on.  But it somewhat reinforces the argument that the prudent decision for the IOC would be to wait to see what they have with Sapporo and then decide what they want to do with 2030.  It's not like Salt Lake is going anywhere.  How many times was the case made that Sapporo had a very technically sound bid?  Obviously that was before COVID turned the world upside down and created a trust issue with the Olympics in Japan.  

And are you sure you never said the issues with LA28 should be easily dismissed?  Because I'm pretty sure another poster said "I don't think the marketing/sponsorship dollars is as big of an issue as some people are making it out to be" and your response was "Exactly. In this day & age, marketing is just everywhere. I think the only people that are complaining the most about the sponsorship are the people over at LA28."  Kinda sounds like you're trying to dismiss LA28's issues.

4 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, just to be frank, but I don't really give a damn how you take it. But I'm still going to point it out (especially since I'm not the first one to mention that to you in the past). 

And "OMG", but can you be anymore *hypocritical*, since that is exactly what you're doing here (& anywhere else on these boards where we've disagreed)?! And yes, you absolutely do it for the sake of being contrarian. Since in the end, you always say that we wind up with pretty much the same end result, but we're just looking at things with a different set of glasses.  

I'm not looking for your validation or anyone else's, believe it or not.  That's not why I offered up my opinion (and yes, I'm well aware it's just my opinion, just like your thoughts are your opinion).  I'm not sure why that's such a problem for you other than this theory in your head that I'm only doing it to be contrarian.  You know me better than that.  If I agreed with you, you know I would say it.  So why when I disagree with you do you assume there's an ulterior motive?  Yes, we're looking at the situation differently.  So?

4 hours ago, FYI said:

Well, the irony there, is that the flipside of that, to gauge what they have there, is that it just allows more time for another ('wait' for it) possible 'double' in this case LOL. Since notice, the only two cities were mainly arguing about here is Sapporo & SLC. Two very credible cities that in the end, can be a strong case for it. Especially when the USOC is more keen on 2034 than on 2030. It's the only reason I can see at this point to just 'wait-&-see'. 

That could happen (see, here's me not dismissing something).  But that's also a pretty compelling reason with the USOPC.  Even in a post-COVID world, it hasn't changed what we've said here plenty of times before, that 2034 is the USOPC's preference and that they'll only swoop in if the IOC were to make it worth their while.  Maybe that's what's about to happen.  Either way, it's a little dose of confirmation bias to assume that to be the case just because it was brought up and framed in that light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

And how do you know that it is? (seriously, do we really need to go in circles)  The truth is, as usual, we don't *know* anything.  We're going off a report and that reporter's opinion.  Nothing is being dismissed or discredited here.  I'm simply disagreeing with what I perceive to be an opinion.  

Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Doing (or in this case, asking) the same thing over & over again & expecting a different result. No, WE don't "know" anything. But that doesn't mean RL doesn't, & that we can't speculate on the information that we do have around here (it's not like he's on the ground at these meetings/conferences, etc. just for the heck of it). It's what these forums are all about ITFP, & always have been about. Otherwise, what's the point in them. 

14 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

You asked why do I think picking SLC now is a bad move.  I already gave my thinking on that one in this thread yesterday.  Was it necessary to repeat myself?  It's not like I made the point a year ago and expected you to remember.

It still wasn't necessary, though. What's the point in it other than being snarky? "Other than your ass" is another uncalled for, crude comment. Those type of jabs remind me of a certain, former ex-member from L.A. (I don't need to name them, since you know exactly who I'm referring to). Didn't we have enough of that type of nonsense when they were around?

14 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

And are you sure you never said the issues with LA28 should be easily dismissed?  Because I'm pretty sure another poster said "I don't think the marketing/sponsorship dollars is as big of an issue as some people are making it out to be" and your response was "Exactly. In this day & age, marketing is just everywhere. I think the only people that are complaining the most about the sponsorship are the people over at LA28."  Kinda sounds like you're trying to dismiss LA28's issues.

Yes, I'm sure. I simply agreed with that poster. I didn't dismiss anything. I know it's going to come up at the negotiation table. But even you, yourself have admitted that the sponsorship issue is not insurmountable. So what's the problem.

14 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I'm not looking for your validation or anyone else's, believe it or not.  That's not why I offered up my opinion (and yes, I'm well aware it's just my opinion, just like your thoughts are your opinion).  I'm not sure why that's such a problem for you other than this theory in your head that I'm only doing it to be contrarian.  You know me better than that.  If I agreed with you, you know I would say it.  So why when I disagree with you do you assume there's an ulterior motive?  Yes, we're looking at the situation differently.  So?

It's now about offering up your opinion, though. It's about HOW you offer up that opinion. Again, going up a couple of quotes, but it's akin of a certain you-know-who (not to mention a couple of other current ones around here). You claim that I should "know you better than that". Well, I would've thought that you were also above such behavior (but I guess not). It's the kind that makes these boards toxic & not even worth the bother at times.

And contrarian is actually your word. I've used the term Devil's Advocate before. Because that's what it seems that you do with a lot of these topics that we have disagreements with (to put it mildly). You seem not to want to commit to one side or the other, but instead, just straddle the fence, so when a certain outcome evolves, you can ride the wave 'either way', like politicians try to do. Which I guess a lot of these topics can be 'framed in that light'. But there are other times where the balance is more on one side than the other.

14 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

 Either way, it's a little dose of confirmation bias to assume that to be the case just because it was brought up and framed in that light

 Or again, a big dose of Devils's advocate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Doing (or in this case, asking) the same thing over & over again & expecting a different result. No, WE don't "know" anything. But that doesn't mean RL doesn't, & that we can't speculate on the information that we do have around here (it's not like he's on the ground at these meetings/conferences, etc. just for the heck of it). It's what these forums are all about ITFP, & always have been about. Otherwise, what's the point in them.

I thought speculating is exactly what I was doing.  Yes, I'm disagreeing with someone who knows a lot more than we do (and again, disagreeing with the last paragraph that includes words like "if" and "could").  You agree with him.  "Good for you" as you like to say

2 hours ago, FYI said:

It still wasn't necessary, though. What's the point in it other than being snarky? "Other than your ass" is another uncalled for, crude comment. Those type of jabs remind me of a certain, former ex-member from L.A. (I don't need to name them, since you know exactly who I'm referring to). Didn't we have enough of that type of nonsense when they were around?

That "other poster" didn't get banned from here because he was snarky or crude.  He was a lot worse and you know that.  Wouldn't that connection be a jab at me?  I don't care, but this isn't nearly as bad as the nonsense that used to exist around here.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Yes, I'm sure. I simply agreed with that poster. I didn't dismiss anything. I know it's going to come up at the negotiation table. But even you, yourself have admitted that the sponsorship issue is not insurmountable. So what's the problem.

There's a lot of distance between "it's going to come up" and "not insurmountable."  That's the problem.  Yes, you agreed with another poster.  Another post who was trying say it's not as big an issue as it's made out to be.  The follow up that global sponsors are onboard is missing the point that this is a United States issue, not a worldwide one.  The TOP partners will always be there.  This is more the issue..

Nike to become first major sponsor for Los Angeles 2028 Olympics

Nike is spending a lot of money for that Olympic exposure.  So I doubt they'd want to make another major investor for another Olympics less than 2 years later.  So that's where it could become a problem if Salt Lake is trying to pursue a company that might be interested in LA 2028 and then have that company need to make a choice between the 2.

Once again.. absolutely not insurmountable.  But it's an issue that the LA folks might not want to deal with, especially if Salt Lake is being given even more lead time than they normally would if a vote happened under the old formula in the summer of 2023.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

It's now about offering up your opinion, though. It's about HOW you offer up that opinion. Again, going up a couple of quotes, but it's akin of a certain you-know-who (not to mention a couple of other current ones around here). You claim that I should "know you better than that". Well, I would've thought that you were also above such behavior (but I guess not). It's the kind that makes these boards toxic & not even worth the bother at times.

These boards got less interesting when Olympic bidding got less interesting and there was less to talk about.  So it not just certain people here that scared people over.

I've never claimed to be an insider.  I happen to have some insight especially regarding things like TV rights that I'm applying here to form an opinion.  It goes against yours and that of hints from Rob's story.  I really don't think you care about the "HOW," but for some reason, my opinion disagreeing with your problem seems to be a problem.  Mostly because apparently you think I'm just doing it to be a dick.  I promise you that I'm not, even if there's a little snark thrown in on occasion.  As if you haven't done that yourself on occasion.

3 hours ago, FYI said:

And contrarian is actually your word. I've used the term Devil's Advocate before. Because that's what it seems that you do with a lot of these topics that we have disagreements with (to put it mildly). You seem not to want to commit to one side or the other, but instead, just straddle the fence, so when a certain outcome evolves, you can ride the wave 'either way', like politicians try to do. Which I guess a lot of these topics can be 'framed in that light'. But there are other times where the balance is more on one side than the other.

Contrarian, Devil's Advocate.. pretty much the same thing.  What exactly would you like me to commit to here?  You've done this before, I believe your term is "wishy-washy" that somehow I'm obligated to pick a side.  Is there really a side to pick here?  I'm not trying to ride a wave.  I'm offering up an opinion just like I always do and I can assure you that if I agreed with you, I would say so.  I didn't just post for the sake of opposing you, no matter how much it "seems" that I'm doing that.  If you really want me to be more committal, then fine.. I don't think the IOC will announce a 2030 host before Beijing.  Is that better than straddling the fence?  I'll say it again.. I'm not looking for validation as if 4 months from now either of us will remember this conversation and I can jump up and shout "hey, see I was right."  To use one of my phrases... we'll just have to wait and see :D

Wouldn't it be easier just to take this out at face value rather than assuming this is something more than 2 posters in a forum giving their opinions?  Can't we just leave it at that?  Let's agree to disagree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

You agree with him.  "Good for you" as you like to say

Actually, that phrase is yours, too. Which is something you've told plenty of people before when they didn't share your POV. Hence, why I always had quotations around it. 

12 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

These boards got less interesting when Olympic bidding got less interesting and there was less to talk about.  So it not just certain people here that scared people over.

Sure, but that still doesn't change the fact that certain people here have scared other people off. Or others taking long breaks from the site because some still become too much. I mean, one doesn't have to be a total you-know-who to chase people away (since as you said, they were really BAD. So even a hint of what you-know-who was like around here, is enough to still make these boards seem unpleasant to participate in). 

12 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Contrarian, Devil's Advocate.. pretty much the same thing.  What exactly would you like me to commit to here?  You've done this before, I believe your term is "wishy-washy" that somehow I'm obligated to pick a side. 

Wishy-washy, yes, that one is mine. Haven't use it in a while, though. But I guess that I'll be using it again soon enough, though! :lol:

As far as the rest of your post goes, too exhausted from this thread to go over it yet again point-by-point, since we'll just continue to go around in circles otherwise (like you indicated earlier). Time to move on to another topic. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Mostly because apparently you think I'm just doing it to be a dick.  I promise you that I'm not, even if there's a little snark thrown in on occasion.  As if you haven't done that yourself on occasion.

Oh, forgot about this one. Sure, of course. However, I've only done that when snark & other nonsense is hurled my way when all I've done was "offer up my opinion", as you say, on a certain topic. You know, for example, how when super sensitive some of these bid-city (or potential bid city) cheerleaders get when not everyone here, shares their "enthusiasm" when we start getting into the real nitty-gritty & the realities of the Olympic bid races (well, when there were bid races, that is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FYI said:

Oh, forgot about this one. Sure, of course. However, I've only done that when snark & other nonsense is hurled my way when all I've done was "offer up my opinion", as you say, on a certain topic. You know, for example, how when super sensitive some of these bid-city (or potential bid city) cheerleaders get when not everyone here, shares their "enthusiasm" when we start getting into the real nitty-gritty & the realities of the Olympic bid races (well, when there were bid races, that is).

4 hours ago, FYI said:

As far as the rest of your post goes, too exhausted from this thread to go over it yet again point-by-point, since we'll just continue to go around in circles otherwise (like you indicated earlier). Time to move on to another topic. ;)

And you very literally just did that.  Good to know that it's acceptable to reply to snark with more snark.  I'll have to remember that one.  Last thing I'll say here and then move on.. was I a little snarky here?  Absolutely, I won't pretend that I wasn't.  But it's unfair to make comparisons to some of the worst elements of this forum and I think you know that

Anyways, I think we're both done here.  As you said, onto another topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

And you very literally just did that. Good to know that it's acceptable to reply to snark with more snark.  I'll have to remember that one.  

Oh, come on, now. You know that's par-for-the-course for some on these boards (which I gave just ONE example of in the last post), whenever they received push back/challenges to their arguments. So please stop trying to make it sound like I'm embarking on something new here. Plus, what in the world did I say in that last post that was snarky, other than giving you an example of these boards & then agreeing with you in the very next sentence.

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Last thing I'll say here and then move on.. was I a little snarky here?  Absolutely, I won't pretend that I wasn't.  But it's unfair to make comparisons to some of the worst elements of this forum and I think you know that

I didn't make an exact, direct comparison & I think you also know that. You think it was unfair, of course you do. Maybe it's just as unfair as you saying what you said in the last quote, too.

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Anyways, I think we're both done here.  As you said, onto another topic

Yes, please. 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...