Olympics

[jonb]

1. Lords cricket ground is one of the venues where staff have been affected.
2. A cousin of mine was given exactly that proposition.

This will not qualify as evidence because there is no published data that I know of, on the other hand they are in my personal experience.

You're correct, neither of those qualify as evidence. Personal experience is meaningless; if it were true, someone would have reported it. Are you seriously suggesting that a party like Labour or the Socialist Worker's Party wouldn't have made some fuss about this kind of thing?

As with most things, those that liked the Olympics will think it is not true those that don't like it will be inclined to take my word for it.

I didn't like the Olympics and I'm not taking your word for it. Your word is not more important than evidence, and it most certainly is not more important than truth.

Who is going to investigate? Nobody that likes the british Olympic propaganda.

There are quite a few political newspapers that don't like British Olympic propaganda.

It's like the story of how britain got the thing in the first place. We beat the French, it was not at all that the French decided to pull out was it?

No, it was not that at all. Paris were in the running until the final vote, which was against London, and they lost. All of this is documented. Now I know why you don't seem to like evidence; you clearly prefer to make up stuff and believe that instead.

First . Well I do not read the papers, and as far as I know I have not heard this issue mentioned on the T.V or radio. So yes if there has been no reporting of this issue they might well of not made a fuss, but then again, why would they pursue some minor matter that would not be cohesive to their popularity even among a significant number of their own supporters.

2 I applaud your emotional suppression to favour what you think is logic.

3 I would not know, but it is sometimes worth playing down a thing if you want to proclaim what a success it was afterwards.

4 So it was just a mistake that the president of France, made a speech about how rubbish Finnish cookery was, to a number of Finnish Judges, as they were about to vote which bid would get the thumbs up, maybe.

Right, now lets talk about evidence shall we because it is clear that you don't understand what evidence is! There is hard evidence like an artefact yes that is evidence, but there is also a consistent set of events, this is called 'circumstantial evidence' you seem not to have heard of this phrase. This would cover things like who was in the room at the time, and what was the persons motives. But I suppose for some body as committed to logic as you make yourself out to be, this level of evidence in a criminal court is not high enough for you, you live on a higher plane than the rest of us mere mortals, I bow down to your lofty status, thou with the pseudonym of a god emperor.