Olympics

[Tiberius]

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.

So all you have is your anecdotal evidence, which is completely worthless to us.

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

This isn't about logic; this is about the kind of evidence you present to back up your point. You are making the claims here; you need to present evidence to support your claims. So far, you have posted no links to any sources that do this; you have made anecdotal statements only.

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

Still, the fact that you cannot find any evidence to support your claims speaks wonders.

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.

Your claim was "the French decided to pull out", not "the French President made stupid remarks which led to Paris not getting the bid". The two are very different things. The President had nothing to do with the Olympic bid, just as the Prime Minister of the UK had nothing to do with the Olympic bid.

Right, now lets talk about evidence shall we because it is clear that you don't understand what evidence is!

I understand fully what evidence is; you have not provided any that can be used to validate your claims.

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.

Right, but you have not presented any circumstantial evidence; you have presented hearsay, anecdotes. You cannot even cite any external sources for your claims; you make the claims and back them up with your own claims. That is not evidence!

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.

No, I want a link, a news source, another person who can validate what you are saying. That is all I've ever wanted here.