Olympics On time and On budget?

213 posts / 0 new
Last post

The wiki link I provided can answer many of the questions you pose. The middle way is
exactly that. Neither complicity in the system or revolution. Revolutionary ideas applied
within the system perhaps?

As to neo-tribalism as a 'devolvement'... that's just like your opinion man. :-) This Dude is
just tryin' to abide.

I see it as a necessary evolution in our development, merging our new-found technological
skills with the tried and true social structures we abandoned not so long ago.

If you think it's unrealistic then that's cool. Don't embrace the idea. But, do you realize how
many things we now take for granted that seemed unrealistic not long ago? A black man and
a woman as top contenders to rule the most powerful nation on earth would have been
viewed as unthinkable little more than a couple decades back. Roughly a century ago, neither
could even vote.

The tricorder was stuff of fantasy, and now an Iphone can do most of its functions and some
Gene Roddenberry never thought of. Stephen Hawking would have died young and uneducated
for most of our history... in the space of a few decades people such as him have gone from
burden (so to speak) to highly-valued members of our society. I watched a man break a
world record in September. In a short time I'm sure we'll look back at it and wonder how we
ever thought it was the best he could do. From Stonewall to same-sex marriage in a lifetime?
Nuclear power from theory to reality in only a couple of decades? Our capacity for change is
limited only by the limit of our belief and imagination. Yes we can! to steal shamelessly. Are
you in or out?

"What could possibly bring about that change short of some complete planet wide meltdown
of our social structure coupled with an eradication of many modern technologies?"

Are you saying such a situation is impossible or unlikely? Some of us think it's neither. See
my previous post re: the next two hundred years. Better to manage and guide it than have it
thrust upon us by lack of planning and foresight.

This is fun and addictive as crack, but I really have to concentrate on other things right now.
Don't presume my lack of response for a while is lack of interest in continuing our discussion.
I'd actually love to hear from other people, esp. if they can bring solutions to generally
agreed-upon problems, rather than nay-saying, to the debate.

"The wiki link I provided can answer many of the questions you pose."

From the wiki link: 'For example, under this scenario, people might reside in a large house or other building with a communal group of 12-20 individuals all abiding by a defined set of rules, cultural rituals and intimate relationships, but otherwise leading modern lives, going to a job, driving a car, etc.'

That's laughable. It's basically suggesting we live in dorms, yet continue the same things (driving a car) that have led us to this point.

"Revolutionary ideas applied within the system perhaps? "

Hey, welcome to my point. This is exactly what I've been saying and what I try to do at work and elsewhere--perhaps I don't advocate what you're advocating, I prefer the small step approach because I realize that suggesting big changes immediately doesn't work.

I'm 'in' for changes, I just see changes differently. Change doesn't just happen, it takes a lot work. Example: Would I like to see 100x more transit/cycling/pedestrian options and a complete shift in infrastructure priorities tomorrow? Sure. But it ain't happening. So I'm doing what I can to educate and inform people that that shift needs to happen. I find that a much more productive means of addressing the change that needs to occur. Unfortunately, you can't go from a-z without hopping along most of the other letters.

"I'd actually love to hear from other people, esp. if they can bring solutions to generally agreed-upon problems, rather than nay-saying, to the debate. "

Agreed, I would love to hear from people if they can bring solutions/opinions/alternatives to generally agreed-upon problems, rather than total belief in their personal opinion as fact. :)

"That's laughable. It's basically suggesting we live in dorms, yet continue the same things
(driving a car) that have led us to this point."

Way to reduce it to a simplistic and erroneous mirror of your inability to imagine change!
Good
show! Yeah, WTF would Claude Levi-Strauss know about people anyway? Why would we ever
think to look at what worked for millenia and see how we can fit it into the current reality?
Excellent!

I'm sure this Rousseau fellow has had no influence on modern thought, let's dismiss his ideas
out of hand!

And who is this Dunbar guy? Must be a nobody if Gladwell is using his theories as a stepping
off point for some of his own work. Bunch of amateurs. When did anthropologists ever give us
anything?

Poor pissing and moaning Leon, maybe if you didn't state opinion as fact then it wouldn't be such a sticking issue with every post you make? Rather than try and deflect the blame of your own posts to the reader you should stand up and take some responsibility for your self.

I guess such things as personal responsibility are lost on people like you though.

OK, some line items in the olympics will come in over budget. Color me unsurprised. Over all the olympics appear to be doing quite well according to their published numbers, and despite the fact that some complainers and whiners think that the RAV line isn't money well spent, I'm going to stand by it.

BC has been doing tremendously well through the economic turmoil, a huge part of that is the investments we've been making into Olympic and other infrastructure projects. In my opinion we'll be hit (and likely hard) but likely we'll have a lot less impact than almost anywhere because of our luck in timing (not due to any genius planning by any stretch, just getting lucky). This means less people unemployed straining resources and less children going hungry.

Like it or not, your precious hand-outs are funded by private industry and the taxes generated by them. Everyone understands you want more, but guess what! By your admission you choose to be unemployed, you obviously could be working right now, so don't cry that you want more of what other people produce when you're unwilling to add to the collective pot.

Find in my posts where I need to eat crow and I will, but honestly, you haven't pointed out anything I've said that's in contradiction.

I'm not unemployed you stupid git. I know plenty about personal responsibility as well. I don't
want any hand-outs, unlike the corporate weasels you probably have a shrine to over your bed.
I'll bet the pages of BC Business stick together in your house don't they?

Over-budget. End of story. did you want fries or salad with your crow-cake?

"despite the fact that some complainers and whiners think that the RAV line isn't money well
spent, I'm going to stand by it."

Is that your opinion? Because a rail line that's number three on the priority list until the 2010
Overrunlympics came along (behind Evergreen and UBC) and boasts highly questionable ridership
projections sure seems like money wasted to me.

"I guess such things as personal responsibility are lost on people like you though."

You guess wrong Dumbly. So very wrong. You're behaving like a small-minded name-calling
jack-off and I hope you're a better person in reality than your poisonous online persona suggests.

Ovvvverrrrruuuunnnnn, C'mon baby sing along.

"lost on people like you"

What kind of people are those D? Pray tell how you can decipher so much from so little. Lay
some lotto picks on us too while you're at it. As i say, I could use the money. Shine on
Nostradamus, we await your wisdom.

"Way to reduce it to a simplistic and erroneous mirror of your inability to imagine change! Good show! Yeah, WTF would Claude Levi-Strauss know about people anyway? Why would we ever think to look at what worked for millenia and see how we can fit it into the current reality? Excellent! "

I can not figure out why you assume I can not imagine change because I see change differently than you.

And way to extrapolate a complete disregard for anthropology on my part from one sentence.

"That's laughable. It's basically suggesting we live in dorms, yet continue the same things
(driving a car) that have led us to this point."

Sounds like a guy who has dismissed the idea without much thought or else didn't take the
time
to read it all. I'd call that disregard.

Maybe you should let it roll around in your brain for a while and then see if it's still laughable
(the work of noted anthropologists among others)

"I can not figure out why you assume I can not imagine change because I see change
differently than you."

Because your statements dismiss the ideas out of hand without any reason or rationale
besides the humour you find in the topic. Certainly makes you appear to have little capacity
to imagine change if you can't even give reasons for your dismissal of the idea.

Don't lecture about opinion masquerading as fact and then pull the exact same stunt. I mean
c'mon, are you gong to tell me what you've done there is any different from what you've
accused me of? Really? Really? Cuz I sure see it that way. And my p.o.v. is never, ever
wrong. I should sign up for observer training and we could eliminate the whole foul/contest
thing.

"Over-budget. End of story."

"Ovvvverrrrruuuunnnnn, C'mon baby sing along."

What's your point? You were 'right' (along with 99% of the people out there) in that the initial cost estimates were too low. Wow, big surprise.

What you seemingly ignore is the future benefits these games will provide. You keep going on about white men sliding down hills, etc... I surely hope you're not willingly ignoring the health benefits for this and future generations that are derived from the games and assorted increases in available sporting locations and amenities. I surely hope you're not willingly ignoring the PR that Vancouver/Whistler/BC will get and the additional income that it will bring in. I could go on.

Does this mean I think they will make us money? No, it's impossible to tell because the income will be coming in for years/decades.

"Because your statements dismiss the ideas out of hand without any reason or rationale besides the humour you find in the topic. Certainly makes you appear to have little capacity to imagine change if you can't even give reasons for your dismissal of the idea."

I've told you 3-4 times now that I am at work everyday pushing through the change I want to see. How plainly do I have to say it? Again, I don't see change the same way you do--that doesn't mean I can't imagine it much less work for it.

"Sounds like a guy who has dismissed the idea without much thought or else didn't take the time to read it all. I'd call that disregard. "

Well, you got me. I haven't (in the hour or so between your post and mine) read the entire encyclopedia on anthropology and related works. If that's required reading to speak on a subject, then you might as well close this forum now.

" I still think you're full of shit when you quote the cost of the RAV and sea to sky, and I
don't care if you want them or not, and most importantly, they're not facts,"

My numbers are taken from published articles Dudly, by Miro Cernetig and Daphne Bramham at the Sun. Shall we file that statement of yours away if and when the Lieberals and Vanouch
come clean on the accounting? C'mon, stop laughing, it could happen...,

"At the time of my initial post the Olympics were on time and on budget"

Probably not, but why bother to dissuade you from your five ring religion? Doesn't matter.
Unless they are going to come up with magic-money-saving dust in a year, these Games are
going over projected costs like a barrel over Niagara Falls.

"I don't care if you want them or not"

Am I the pot and you're the kettle, or vice versa? You are exhibiting exactly the behaviour
you keep trying to take me to task for.

"apparently VANOC thinks they're still operating under a balanced budget. (not that I agree
with them on this, but their numbers are clearly better than yours)"

You're using numbers you don't believe to buttress your argument? You really are a Kool-aid
fan aren't you? The facts mean nothing to you. All you care about is winning the argument at
this point and you'll use whatever it takes to try to do so. You're making yourself look silly
and childish and I'll bet that's not your intent.

"So we can count on you to eat crow over EI, Welfare, Insite, Vancouver Art Gallery and
every other social project being over budget as well, right? Or does the knife you carry only
cut one way?"

Sure. If and when you can point to an instance where I claimed a particular project from that
list was on budget and somehow make it relevant to this discussion. Oh right, I made no such
claim and it has nothing whatsoever to do with our discussion in any way, shape or form. In
fact, the whole ridiculous accusation is a figment of your vivid imagination and desperation to
not have anyone notice that you started this thread and chirped about eating crow regarding
the Olympic budget. Now when the plate is in front of you, it turns out you have a corvus
allergy, just had pizza on the way over, and are on a low-feather diet. Too funny.

Are you the Fonz? He couldn't say he was wrong either. You jumped the shark Dugs (You do
know what dugs are right?) Lemme give you a hint. I'm insulting you.

"That's great. You do whatever you want. Why the desperate need for my recognition of your valiant efforts? Go for it. I validate your determination to do things in your own way. I think that's what everyone should do. Can you please get over yourself and your commitment to the betterment of society. Guess what? You're one among many. Big-fucking-whoop. I am weary of your constant assertions that you're doing your best and moreover, I need to validate said effort . Good for you. Awesome. Way to go champ. Are you mollified yet? Please say yes and let it go. "

Huh? You go on repeatedly how I can not imagine change. I explain how I do. You say i'm desperate for your recognition? wtf? I'm desperate for you to understand there are different definitions of change.

"I've yet to hear you give a good reason why we CAN'T utilize time-tested social structures in a technologically modern society."

Time-tested....define that and I'll get back to you.

I've deleted three posts (one from each of you) for profanity. Please adhere to the forum rules.

If you think the rules should be changed, you can email me and/or the Executive Director with a request and we will review it. Thanks.

re: time-tested

Since before the invention of fire, up until the present day. There are still societies at present
that have had stable, peaceful (relatively) communities long enough to be able to recount
oral histories reaching back to the time of the Great Flood.

Link goes to local example

"Huh? You go on repeatedly how I can not imagine change. I explain how I do. You say i'm
desperate for your recognition? wtf? I'm desperate for you to understand there are different
definitions of change."

No, I haven't. You've gone on repeatedly about how I've said you can't imagine change. I said
it once (that I can think of) in response to your stated belief that neo-tribalism is impossible
without a catastrophic event (I'm paraphrasing). I will go back through the thread and see if
your accusation has any validity beyond that recent instance. Sorry, I can't keep track of
every single statement I've made in a 100+ post thread, but will happily recant if I see
evidence of other instances that actually exist (rather than exist through an erroneous
inference on your part). I think that's fair. If you won't accept that, then I can't do much
about it.

Kermit:

Here's the only example I can find regarding you and change:

"The game you're describing is called oligarchy (because the person with the most money
gets elected and most of the money is in the hands of a very small minority) and/or
plutocracy
(government by the wealthy). You can't effect change if you play by their rules."

I'm comfortable saying that statement represents my views accurately with regard to our
current democratic institutions and that I have not 'repeatedly' said you can't imagine change,
nor singled you out. You may substitute "one can't effect change if one plays by their rules" if
that makes it more clear. However, again, the charge that I have repeatedly done so is
inaccurate. If you need to clarify your use of 'repeatedly' so that I better understand your
meaning, please do so.

The assertion that there's different definitions of change needs to be clarified. Do you mean
kinds or degrees (of change) or what exactly do you mean? If we are going to argue
semantics then you need to be very clear about your definition of change.

corvus allergy perhaps should be corvid allergy. I don't know my binomial nomenclature well
enough to know the proper latin construction of the word as a stand alone to describe a species.

So what is your point then? Your entire point is that you'd rather the money was spent elsewhere?

whoop dee doo, call the whaambulance.

and if it's name calling you want, Liar Hand-out-ski, you can have it, and I don't care if you're insulting me. Religious fanatics by and large don't sway my opinions too much. Particularly when it's the kind of self love and narcissism that you display, when you get to be a bit less arrogant let me know and I'll review your insults.

It's impossible to even have a discussion with you because you don't even have a point.

ps. the point of putting out those other numbers is because everyone can post numbers. I'd rather take them all with a grain of salt than assume the OP ED pieces you post contain the "true facts"

Oh, did you realize that opinion pieces aren't "news"? I guess you probably didn't, but here's your lesson of the day:

Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

I'm not going to spend my time going back through this thread either--my point is you assert/infer I a) can't handle 'your' truths, b) refuse to even acknowledge them c) i'm still figuring out c just as i'm figuring out your argument.

Back to the olympics and the question I asked in this post :

"Over-budget. End of story."

"Ovvvverrrrruuuunnnnn, C'mon baby sing along."

What's your point? You were 'right' (along with 99% of the people out there) in that the initial cost estimates were too low. Wow, big surprise.

What you seemingly ignore is the future benefits these games will provide. You keep going on about white men sliding down hills, etc... I surely hope you're not willingly ignoring the health benefits for this and future generations that are derived from the games and assorted increases in available sporting locations and amenities. I surely hope you're not willingly ignoring the PR that Vancouver/Whistler/BC will get and the additional income that it will bring in. I could go on.

Does this mean I think they will make us money? No, it's impossible to tell because the income will be coming in for years/decades.

"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

Yeah, I'm sure Canwest would invite a lawsuit by letting its writers concoct lies. I'm sure
they'd allow false information about one of their sponsored events to be written and printed
by two of thir columnists. You can't even post a single time without a snarky dig, because the
weight of the evidence is overwhelminingly in favour of Overrunlympics as predicted from day
one and you started this thread and it's blowing up in your face and you know it. Based upon
the evidence of past Games, plenty of people saw this coming and predicted big overruns
were the norm despite Gordo's brash promises to the contrary. But, but, but, Calgary! There,
I saved you some time.

This just gets funnier and funnier watching you squirm and dissemble and find excuses and
rationalizations that don't add up.

"I'm not going to spend my time going back through this thread either--my point is you
assert/infer I a) can't handle 'your' truths"

I actually did go back and check. Since you are so keen to accuse, you should have done the
same. Not to do so shows the level of disrespect you're bringing to the issue.

As to my assertions... you mean 'imply'. Put up or shut up. Show me where and when and
cite the example or concede the fact that you're reading things into statements that can't be
backed up with evidence. You should be apologizing to me for mis-representing what I say so
erroneously. Or you can provide examples. One of the other or else it's weak sauce.

"I surely hope you're not willingly ignoring the health benefits for this and future generations
that are derived from the games and assorted increases in available sporting locations and
amenities."

Which locations and what amenities?

I surely hope you're not going to tell me the sports of the Winter Olympics are the kinds of
activities open to anyone regardless of income. Winter sports are mostly pursuits for an elite
who make the money to afford to have access to the specialized equipment and facilities
where they take place. I don't think you can make much of an argument that the 2010
Games will make those opportunities more available to the average British Columbian child
except for a few p.r. programmes that will die on the vine when the event is over. If you
know of specifics to disprove my assumption then you should provide that information.
Perhaps you could point to the increase in Olympic level athletes from Alberta since '88, or
the increased level of fitness in Canadian kids or something. Because that would be the kind
of thing I would let people know about if I was trying to make the specious argument you're
trying to foist off on me like I'm an idiot. As if.

I surely hope you're not willingly ignoring the PR that Vancouver/Whistler/BC will get and the
additional income that it will bring in. I could go on.

Whistler is already the number ski resort in the world. Is there some number higher than that
I haven't learned about? Tourism is currently on the decline due to the high cost of travel and
its unlikely to pick up during a recession. P.R. is so amorphous that I don't think it's the kind
of thing taxpayers should be paying for in light of the many other issues we face. But hey,
you throw around other peoples' money (figuratively) on what-ifs and maybes all you like.

Anyway, BC is already the 'best place on earth' How can we possibly hope to improve upon
that?

"Does this mean I think they will make us money? No, it's impossible to tell because the
income will be coming in for years/decades."

I don't think even Vanoc would say the Games 'will make us money'.

Again, the point of the discussion is:

On budget? On time? And the clear answers are: No and we won't know until day one, but
let's hope so, because otherwise we'll get our asses sued off and end up even deeper in the
red on this gamble.

"What's your point? You were 'right' (along with 99% of the people out there) in that the
initial cost estimates were too low. Wow, big surprise"

Can you speak up? I couldn't hear the part where you said I was right. End of discussion
really, but since you need to hear it... our government has repeatedly stated the budget was
fine. They ran on a "we know how to manage money platform." They were lying on the first
count and have demonstrated their incompetence on the second. Doesn't that worry you? Oh,
right, that's just the way democracy works. Say one thing to get in office and then do
whatever you feel like afterwards. Do me a favour OK? Please don't run for office.

yeah, I read the Tyee article this morning before I had to school you repeatedly all day. It's
fair and objective and ends with the following quote.

"And while spending in the lead-up to the Games and an influx of visitors in 2010 will
certainly help some sectors of the B.C. economy, Wamsley said it's doubtful those benefits
will be felt beyond Metro Vancouver.

"I'm not sure this is the kind of stimulus that's going to affect the whole province," he said."

Which doesn't really support this statement by a certain little green frog:
"I surely hope you're not willingly ignoring the PR that Vancouver/Whistler/BC will get and the
additional income that it will bring in. I could go on"

Not exactly a magic bullet. You know who else needs a shot in the arm? Heroin addicts. It's a
fitting metaphor when you think about it.

Hey Liar Kowalski,

What's your point? Can you state your thesis in a couple of short sentences? Or are you just rambling on with no point?

The part about liars can figure means that you can make numbers that support your claim and back it up with pretty spurious assumptions. Idiotic assertions like including the RAV line make me laugh. You're not even in the same league, let alone on the same page.

You're being brain washed and you can't even see it. You might as well just put a button on with "SHEEPLE" in big letters.

Do you have to drink kool-aid to join that club? Or do they just lace your tinfoil hats with juice?

Hey, "discussing" like how you do is fun!

Unfortunately, without you doing any thinking for yourself I can get more clear partisan hack information from other sources, so please, bring on at least a point of your posts, it'll make tomorrow so much more interesting.

p.s. Something along the lines of "ha ha the security for the games is going to be over budget" isn't a point.

Sporting locations-

Hockey rinks, curling rinks, ski hills, other snow venues. I know you don't care about them. I know you don't think they are valuable. But they are amenities. Hockey is as Canadian as sports get--lowly, poor average folk do manage to play it across the country contrary to your elite only pov.

Amenities (and I should have added marketing)--

General health and fitness, new exercise programs in schools and municipalities (http://vancouver.ca/parks/activecommunity/aboutus.htm OR http://www.surrey.ca/Living+in+Surrey/Parks+and+Recreation/Go+For+20/def... OR http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008EDUC0121-001571.htm for example).

As for me accusing you, stop being so dramatic.

-Certainly makes you appear to have little capacity to imagine change if you can't even give reasons for your dismissal of the idea.
-Way to reduce it to a simplistic and erroneous mirror of your inability to imagine change!
-Our capacity for change is limited only by the limit of our belief and imagination. Yes we can! to steal shamelessly. Are you in or out?

Just a few I could quickly find.

Dugly:

Perhaps you should email the Auditor General and tell him he's a liar, the RAV doesn't count,
and the Sea to Sky numbers are pulled from thin air. In addition to the full text below, I've
provided the link for corroboration that I didn't just make shit up. If you google, you'll find
more than one media outlet has been reporting the same story. You should do that before you
go all apoplectic just because the NDP is mentioned in the same article as the Auditor
General. Sorry to take that angle away from you, but I know it's coming as your next weak
rationalization as to why it's all lies and spin. Please also note that this is the third Auditor
General in a row to take the government to task for keeping Oly-related costs off the books
through lies and subterfuge.

From the Journal of Commerce

January 26, 2009
Provide full disclosure of 2010 Olympics costs, advises BC auditor general
RICHARD GILBERT
staff writer
The BC Auditor General and the opposition New Democratic Party are accusing the provincial
Liberal government of not adequately disclosing the financial risk and the construction costs
associated with hosting the 2010 Olympics.
“I have one recommendation — that government expand its definition of games-related costs
to include all items that are reasonably attributable to hosting the 2010 Olympic and
Paralympic Winter Games, and report publicly on these costs and the risks associated with
them,” said auditor general John Doyle.
The comments were made recently in a letter written by Doyle to legislature speaker Bill
Barisoff.
“I share my predecessors’ view that the full cost of staging the Games should include a
number of items that are not included in the official budget,” said Doyle.
“Should these risks come to pass, the costs of staging the games could escalate
considerably.”
Doyle shared the concerns of his two predecessors that the risk associated with some costs
and revenues have not been adequately disclosed.
Gordon Campbell and his Liberal government have said they will spend about $600 million on
the games.
However, a report written by former auditor-general Arn van Iersel in 2006 estimated that the
true cost of hosting the 2010 would be about $2.5 billion.
The cost figure being used by the provincial government assumes that the costs incurred by
Vancouver to build the athletes village will be recovered through the sale of social and market
housing.
However, the City of Vancouver is facing a major financial crisis because funding has been cut
off for the billion-dollar Olympic Athletes’ Village construction project.
New Mayor Gregor Robertson is trying to renegotiate the $750-million loan with Wall Street
financial firm Fortress Investment Group. If negotiations fail, Robertson already asked
Campbell to convene an emergency sitting of the B.C. legislature to amend the Vancouver
Charter.

It is a provincially enacted piece of legislation that requires approval from taxpayers in an
election-day plebiscite, before the city borrows large sums of money.
The BC government introduced the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009 on Jan 17 and
reconvened for a special sitting on Jan 18 to approve the new legislation.
“We’re trying to get anyone on the government side to be accountable and come clean about
the true costs. But this arrogant government refuses to answer a single question,” said New
Democrat MLA Doug Routley.
Despite this type of criticism, the NDP voted with the government to allow Vancouver to
borrow an unspecified amount of money that is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of
dollars.
Bill 47 allows the City of Vancouver to borrow at least $458 million to finish construction on
the Olympic Athletes’ Village.
Fortress Investment Group stopped advancing cash to Millennium Development Corp. in
September, so the city covered construction costs with a $100-million loan approved during an
in-camera council meeting on Oct. 14.
The $1 billion Athletes’ Village already has $125 million in construction cost overruns and it
must be completed by Nov. 1.
Added to this problem, the $600 million figure does not include Sea to Sky Highway
improvements and Canada Line construction costs, which the government feels are unrelated
to staging the games.
The original estimate for the Sea to Sky Highway was $600 million, but van Iersel estimated
the total value of the project is $1.98 billion.
The provincial government estimates the Canada Line’s construction cost at about $1.9 billion.
Doyle said the Vancouver Olympic organizing committee’s revised budget, due early this year,
presents an ideal opportunity to update cost estimates and provide full disclosure.

Kermit, you originally stated "assorted increases in available sporting locations and
amenities."

I don't know where that post went. Did you delete it or did the LC have to police us again.
I'm sure the members would find that a good use of their league fees.

Anyway, please indicate where the increase is. AFAIK, there's a new curling rink, a super-pipe
at Cypress, and the Callaghan Valley luge/bobsled/ski jumping/biathlon/xc-skiing facilities. I'll
give you snowboarding, curling and xc-skiing, (not that there's currently a shortage of those
facilities) but I'm unaware of a long Canadian recreational tradition in the other disciplines.
The rest of the money is for renovations to existing faciliities right? Since the total cost of the
games according to the Lieberals is $600 million, about equal to the current security cost
overruns, it becomes clear that we could have had those improvements, plenty of school
programs without the Games and still had millions of dollars to buy all the marketing money
can buy, just by using the money we'll now be spending to guard foreign dignitaries using
THEIR taxpayers' money to finance their free vacations and VIP circle jerks. The money was
there all along, the Olympics didn't make it magically appear, but it sure is making it
disappear.

Link below goes to an article regarding hockey costs. But here's an excerpt:

Cost could be the most pressing problem facing hockey at the grassroots level countrywide.
Ask officials involved with minor hockey across the country to explain why registration is
down in many provinces, and cost comes up as a factor. Some say it's the key factor keeping
kids out of the game.

"The one-income family kid is not playing hockey, generally speaking," says the president of
St. John's Minor Hockey Association, Jack Casey. "They can't afford it. That's the bottom line.

"Most of the parents of kids who play hockey, and particularly the kid who plays all-star
hockey, the parents are all professional people, they're doing very well. They have to be
doing well."

I hope you read the whole article and especially the comments, The parents recounting just
how hard it was for them to keep their kids in 'Our Game' should make you hang your head
in shame for being so dismissive of their sacrifices.

As for the rest, I'm just going to ignore your obsession with my writing style from here on
out. It's not relevant to the subject. Further, you have to pay me to get to demand copy
changes. Did you want a rate sheet? My clients as a rule are uniformly happy with my work,
so you'll forgive me if your constant whining about it falls on deaf ears.

Anyway, a full day pointing out the obvious to you two has been rather a waste. I'll let you
and Dugly have the floor and watch you writhe and wriggle to discredit the facts I've
presented to you, but I have other things to do, as I stated this morning.

"Hockey rinks, curling rinks, ski hills, other snow venues. I know you don't care about them. I
know you don't think they are valuable"

Oh yeah. You don't know diddly-squat about what I care about or consider valuable, so curb your
assumptive idiocy. Confine your remarks to what you DO know... whatever that is.

"Oh yeah. You don't know diddly-squat about what I care about or consider valuable, so curb your assumptive idiocy. Confine your remarks to what you DO know... whatever that is."

Stop being such a pompous ass. I've kept things civil, haven't called you a liar or whatever and you're frankly being a dick. What the hell was I thinking replying to you.

And you were going to address the issue when exactly?????

see ya

How about we address the issue when you state what you claim is?

If your only claim is that the olympics will come over their initial forecast then you're not going to get much argument. However you lack the ability to even state what your claim actually is.

Note, I asked specifically for that in my last post but you still haven't managed to do this simple thing. Perhaps you don't even know what you're trying to say, you just want to rage for the heck of it?

As to your "facts" perhaps you could keep you own numbers straight just for 24 hours:

Previously you reported the cost of the games at 6 billion (posts 70 and 99)

Your most recent cost, 2.5 billion (post 128)

Also, do you admit that the 3/4s of a billion dollars that corporations have put towards the games (Coca Cola, Bell, GM and Cold FX among many many others) would never have been put into another public venture in Vancouver? To me, that's additional funds put into our economy.

I think there's a clear benefit. I am convinced the Olympics are worth it. I'm happy to have them here and so far nothing you've said has even begun to make me question that.

Oh, and have you shown your discussion on the VUL Forum to your clients? I don't think you'd be so proud of the quality of your work. I know "discussing" with you brings out the worst in me. I see it's not unique to me, the common problem being you and your approach to other people. Your complete lack of respect for other points of view, and your holier than thou attitude and narcissism.

You accused me of accusing you. I went back, found evidence. Done.

You have noted numerous times your 'white men sliding down hills' philosophy towards the olympics. I assumed you had no interest in those sports given that attitude, perhaps I was wrong. Maybe you love hockey and were to be the next Gretzky before a tragic snowmobile incident and now pretend to view it with disdain while harbouring a deep love. I have no idea.

Point is, I'm surprised you take such a simplistic view to such a complex issue.

"I hope you read the whole article and especially the comments, The parents recounting just how hard it was for them to keep their kids in 'Our Game' should make you hang your head in shame for being so dismissive of their sacrifices."

When have I been dismissive of anyone sacrifices?
.

"When have I been dismissive of anyone sacrifices? ."
"lowly, poor average folk do manage to play it across the country contrary to your elite only
pov."

From the article and repeated for emphasis:

"The one-income family kid is not playing hockey, generally speaking," says the president of
St. John's Minor Hockey Association, Jack Casey. "They can't afford it. That's the bottom line.

"Most of the parents of kids who play hockey, and particularly the kid who plays all-star
hockey, the parents are all professional people, they're doing very well. They have to be
doing well."

"I have no idea."

At last we agree.

""When have I been dismissive of anyone sacrifices? ." "lowly, poor average folk do manage to play it across the country contrary to your elite only pov.""

My point was average people can play hockey. I was not dismissing their sacrifices, if anything I was arguing they do sacrifice to play.

"I have no idea."
At last we agree.

Way to avoid the topic for a cheap insult. Are you going to grow up?

I repeat, I'm surprised you take such a simplistic view to such a complex issue.

"How about we address the issue when you state what you claim is?
If your only claim is that the olympics will come over their initial forecast then you're not
going to get much argument. However you lack the ability to even state what your claim
actually is."

My claim is that you are dead wrong when you claim the Overrunlympics are on budget and
on time.

"Also, do you admit that the 3/4s of a billion dollars that corporations have put towards the
games (Coca Cola, Bell, GM and Cold FX among many many others) would never have been
put into another public venture in Vancouver

And that money comes from CEO salaries, or perhaps the average person who pays for the
products? You're paying someone else's bloated advertising budget for flavoured water with 29
grams of sugar in it. Sounds silly to me.

"Oh, and have you shown your discussion on the VUL Forum to your clients?"

Have you let your boss/clients know that you're OK with estimates that turn out to be a
quarter of the actual cost. That kind of major error and bad information makes it hard to
forecast and budget out in the real world where you have to spend your own money. If I did
that for my clients there wouldn't be a second contract. Call me old-fashioned but I charge a
fair rate and stick to it, I don't come back and whine for me when I screw up.

"I see it's not unique to me, the common problem being you and your approach to other
people. Your complete lack of respect for other points of view, and your holier than thou
attitude and narcissism."

Should I take your example as my guide? You have expressly stated it doesn't matter what I
say, or what evidence I provide, you're not going to change your mind. I showed you three
auditor general's opinions that related-costs aren't being accounted for, and yet you keep on
claiming I'm the illogical, narcissist? OK then. I can see there's little point reasoning with you
because you won't even consider the agreed upon facts by three people who have the training
and information to make the call re: the 2010 budget

Anyway, it's irrelevant and off-topic. Are the games on budget? Will the necessary
construction be done on
time? I refer you to the subject heading.

"Way to avoid the topic for a cheap insult. Are you going to grow up?"

Never. My youthful joie de vivre is what keeps me sane.

"I repeat, I'm surprised you take such a simplistic view to such a complex issue."

Yes, yes do. Yes, yes, you are. No, no I don't.

Did you have any cogent points to make or are you going to snivel some more?

I'll put the same question to you that I did to Dugly. Are you OK with cost estimates that turn
out to be four times too low? Would you do business with someone with that kind of track
record? Would you be a little more critical if it was your money instead of our money?

"You have noted numerous times your 'white men sliding down hills' philosophy towards the
olympics. I assumed you had no interest in those sports given that attitude, perhaps I was
wrong."

Well, I am a white man who slides downhill on occasion. Or is that backslides? Like when I let
myself bite the bait of your Oly-kool-aid non-rational, economically-suspect reasons for a two
week snow party.

http://www.straight.com/article-128459/kick-start-your-heart-with-winter...

http://www.winteractive.org/en/resources/sport-participation/socio-econo...

Just a couple of sites to consider. We're getting off topic, but there you go.

"I repeat, I'm surprised you take such a simplistic view to such a complex issue."

Yes, yes do. Yes, yes, you are. No, no I don't.
"

I don't even know what this means.

My point is your argument is 'nanana you said it would the olympics would be on budget now they aren't nanana eat crow'. I say, you are willfully ignoring the long term benefits both economic and social that *could* make these games worth it in the long run.

"I'll put the same question to you that I did to Dugly. Are you OK with cost estimates that turn out to be four times too low? Would you do business with someone with that kind of track record? Would you be a little more critical if it was your money instead of our money?"

No, of course I'm not 'ok' with it. But who believed them in the first place (expect Dugly I suppose). I think vanoc has done a piss poor job of marketing these olympics as a long term investment. But, it's easy for the media/public to just look at the 000's up front and think it's all a waste.

"Did you have any cogent points to make or are you going to snivel some more?"

Please stop with the childish insults, it really isn't working for you.

"Well, I am a white man who slides downhill on occasion. Or is that backslides? Like when I let myself bite the bait of your Oly-kool-aid non-rational, economically-suspect reasons for a two week snow party."

How long are you going to plod out the 'two week party' line without looking long term?

Long term like Montreal Olympics long term? When was that? 1976. I remember it well.

When did they finally finish paying it off? Oh, yeah, twenty years later. Another set of games
that taxpayers weren't going to have to foot the bill for.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

The got the Big Owe, the 2010 Owe-lympics will be as bad or worse.

Again with the quick, simplistic response.

I haven't argued I think this was a good idea. I haven't argued I agree with it. I'm not dugly--but I am arguing you are being way too simplistic in looking at today's dollars/figures and concluding that these games will have, according to you, zero benefit.

" I say, you are willfully ignoring the long term benefits both economic and social that
*could* make these games worth it in the long run."

I'm not ignoring them. I'm saying they don't exist except in the fevered imagination of John
Furlong. Further, if long-term economic and social benefits are our goal, then mega-projects
such as this are the worst possible way to go about it. This view is borne out by numerous
examples of mega-project folly, from Tumbler Ridge to the Gateway project. You have
leaders who are beholden to individuals and companies which have exactly zero interest in
your financial freedom, because high unemployment and perceived economic danger lets
them keep wages as low as possible and maximize profits. What's sad is listening to you guys
actually help them in this endeavour.

It's just a variation on the discredited trickle-down, a rising tide floats all boats economic
theories which continue to be shown as little more than a wealth transfer from average
taxpayers to the creme de la creme.

We are not better off than before. We work longer hours and have less buying power. Our
environment is more and more toxic every day. The populace has become so used to
corruption and mismanagement that they can't even imagine an alternative.

When I was a high school gas jockey, minimum wage was $5 per hour. Gas was about $0.30
a litre. Now minimum wage is $8.00 and gas costs over a dollar litre last time I checked (it's
not a commodity I'm forced to buy thankfully). How do you reconcile these facts with the
assumption you are seem to be making that the system as it stands is leading to long-term
economic and social benefits under the guidance of those who claim mega-projects will let us
spend our way into prosperity. Think about it. That's like saying buying a new boat will be
good for business because you might... might have an opportunity to take a big client out for
a fishing trip. How about you spend the money on employee training so you have more to
offer a client than a chance to catch a big fish. Oh, btw, the fish are almost all gone, so good
luck with that. Wake up!

If you really want long-term social and economic benefits there are a number of better ways
to go about it. I'm not going to outline them, because I think I will go make some money
now.

Pages