On Tue, 25 May 2010, Bruce wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

Plus there's all the regenerative effects of the Games on east London.

All of which could have been obtained for just a small fraction of the
?10.6 billion so far committed. And there are no regenerative effects
anywhere else.

Utter rubbish. I have it from a reliable source that they're putting a new
bench on the promenade at Falmouth.

tom

--
uk.local groups TO BE RENAMED uk.lunatic.fringe groups

On Tue, 25 May 2010, MIG wrote:

On 25 May, 17:45, Stephen Furley wrote:
On 25 May, 17:14, MIG wrote:

I've met a person who thinks that having the Olympics in London is a
good idea. *So that's at least 651 odd people ...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What percentage of the population would you say were in favour of the
Games? *I certainly don't have any accurate figures, but the
impression I've got from hearing people talk about them is that it's a
minority, and not a very large one; probably less than 20%. *Most
people seem to think that they're just too expensive.

As I was saying, I've met one. However, this wasn't an exhaustive
survey.

I dunno. If you've met one, it may well have been.

tom

--
uk.local groups TO BE RENAMED uk.lunatic.fringe groups

On Wed, 26 May 2010 20:29:22 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010, Bruce wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

Plus there's all the regenerative effects of the Games on east London.

All of which could have been obtained for just a small fraction of the
?10.6 billion so far committed. And there are no regenerative effects
anywhere else.

Utter rubbish. I have it from a reliable source that they're putting a new
bench on the promenade at Falmouth.


Oh, in that case, I withdraw my comments. Not. ;-)

On May 25, 11:51*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:52:10 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

On May 25, 7:43*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
[snip]
The out-turn cost will be more than four times more. *Those people
were taking the ****, and so are you.


I am, am I... well, who am I to question [...]

I note you had no reply for any oF the points I made, just the usual
ad hominem attack when you cannot think of a response.

Usual? I don't think you can really characterise my behaviour on this
newsgroup as such ("just the usual ad hominem attack" - I don't think
so). When you finish your post with your rhetorical flourish that I'm
"taking the ****", that's hardly an invitation to further level headed
debate. Or maybe you think it is?

On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:08 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

When you finish your post with your rhetorical flourish that I'm
"taking the ****", that's hardly an invitation to further level headed
debate. Or maybe you think it is?


It's an invitation to STFU. I should have thought that was obvious.

Note to Mizter T - I don't know why you bother trying to provide a
rational response to Mr Polson. You'll never get one back.
--
Paul C


Anyone see 'Bruce Almighty' on the box last night?!?!?!

Envo