On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 4:16:57 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

> Not even a quicky marriage or divorce ?

go back to facebook, queer

On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 4:16:57 PM UTC-6, geoff wrote:

> Not even a quicky marriage or divorce ?

No. All do not have a queer dumb ass life like you.

On 2023-10-03 14:28, ~misfit~ wrote:
> On 4/10/2023 4:27 am, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:14:22 PM UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> On 3/10/2023 9:24 am, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:35:31 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-10-02 12:30, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>> <snipped>
>>>>>>> Please: be expansive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
>>>>>> preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
>>>>>> need to be any more expansive?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
>>>>
>>>> (X,Y)=>(X=>Y)
>>>>
>>>> where X is WDC title decided and Y is fall in ticket prices
>>>>
>>>> I trust that helps. If not, then I suggest:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1
>>> Please don't encourage the trolls.
>>>
>>> This one claims it's expertise is due to driving Formula Ford but as
>>> you see it will engage
>>> extensively on any subject as long as someone is replying (and it
>>> will even prompt replies).
>>>
>>> This is the troll abusing the 'educators /need/ to educate' thing.
>>
>> Does it never occur to you that by moaning about people feeding the
>> trolls, you are simply adding to what you regard as feed?
>
> Of course, I'm not obtuse. I'd hoped that a gentle reminder would nudge
> you toward starving the troll of the attention it craves. However I see
> now that it's not the only one who likes circular arguments (circle
> jerks) in public.

At least I'm civil with those who are civil to me.

Pity you can't say as much of yourself, isn't it?

On 2023-10-03 08:26, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 12:03:57 AM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
>> In article <uffepb$34r5o$2...@dont-email.me>, nuh...@nope.com says...
>>>> F1 is not in Las Vegas so that punters can gamble on the result.
>>>
>>> Why F1 is in Las Vegas has nothing to do with the sort of people who
>>> want to VISIT Las Vegas.
>>>
>> Is that a question or a statement?
>>
>> If it is a statement, it is correct.
>>
>> If it is a question then F1 is there to attract people who otherwise
>> would not normally want to visit Las Vegas.
>>
>> Like U2, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, et al. They are there to draw in the
>> people that gambling alone can't. Once there, they may wish to see what
>> other attractions Las Vegas has to offer. (There is only one, really)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alan LeHun
>
>
> I would say it’s pretty sure bet (pun intended) that the casinos will make a lot more out of those people playing traditional gambling games in the casinos rather than them betting on F1.

But the idea was to get more gamblers there in the first place.

A race with an (almost) forgone conclusion and an (almost certainly)
decided championship is less of a draw.

I'm sorry but that's quite obvious.

On 2023-10-03 08:27, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:14:22 PM UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> On 3/10/2023 9:24 am, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:35:31 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-10-02 12:30, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>>>>> Please: be expansive.
>>>>>
>>>>> You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
>>>>> preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
>>>>> need to be any more expansive?
>>>>
>>>> Please.
>>>
>>>
>>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
>>>
>>> (X,Y)=>(X=>Y)
>>>
>>> where X is WDC title decided and Y is fall in ticket prices
>>>
>>> I trust that helps. If not, then I suggest:
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1
>> Please don't encourage the trolls.
>>
>> This one claims it's expertise is due to driving Formula Ford but as you see it will engage
>> extensively on any subject as long as someone is replying (and it will even prompt replies).
>>
>> This is the troll abusing the 'educators /need/ to educate' thing.
>
> Does it never occur to you that by moaning about people feeding the trolls, you are simply adding to what you regard as feed?
>

Does it never occur to you that I don't care in the least about such
moaning?

Perhaps the fact that I basically never respond to it should be a clue?

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:14:09 AM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

> At least I'm civil with those who are civil to me.
>
> Pity you can't say as much of yourself, isn't it?

fuck off you juvenile trolling cock sucker

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

> I'm sorry but that's quite obvious.

sorry is for pussys
you fucking juvenile trolling cock sucker

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:34:15 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

> Does it never occur to you that I don't care in the least about such
> moaning?
>
> Perhaps the fact that I basically never respond to it should be a clue?

you fucking cunt
fuck off you juvenile trolling cock sucker

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:31:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2023-10-03 08:26, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 12:03:57?AM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
>>> In article <uffepb$34r5o$2...@dont-email.me>, nuh...@nope.com says...
>>>>> F1 is not in Las Vegas so that punters can gamble on the result.
>>>>
>>>> Why F1 is in Las Vegas has nothing to do with the sort of people who
>>>> want to VISIT Las Vegas.
>>>>
>>> Is that a question or a statement?
>>>
>>> If it is a statement, it is correct.
>>>
>>> If it is a question then F1 is there to attract people who otherwise
>>> would not normally want to visit Las Vegas.
>>>
>>> Like U2, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, et al. They are there to draw in the
>>> people that gambling alone can't. Once there, they may wish to see what
>>> other attractions Las Vegas has to offer. (There is only one, really)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alan LeHun
>>
>>
>> I would say it's pretty sure bet (pun intended) that the casinos will make a lot more out of those people playing traditional gambling games in the casinos rather than them betting on F1.
>
>But the idea was to get more gamblers there in the first place.
>
>A race with an (almost) forgone conclusion and an (almost certainly)
>decided championship is less of a draw.

But only in Las Vegas according to you.

>
>I'm sorry but that's quite obvious.

You really need to be this idea that something simply seeming obvious
to you makes it true; people might get the idea that you have an
over-inflated self-opinion!

On Thu, 05 Oct 2023 08:55:45 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>You really need to be this idea ....

You really seem to have this idea ....

On 2023-10-05 00:55, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:31:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-10-03 08:26, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 12:03:57?AM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
>>>> In article <uffepb$34r5o$2...@dont-email.me>, nuh...@nope.com says...
>>>>>> F1 is not in Las Vegas so that punters can gamble on the result.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why F1 is in Las Vegas has nothing to do with the sort of people who
>>>>> want to VISIT Las Vegas.
>>>>>
>>>> Is that a question or a statement?
>>>>
>>>> If it is a statement, it is correct.
>>>>
>>>> If it is a question then F1 is there to attract people who otherwise
>>>> would not normally want to visit Las Vegas.
>>>>
>>>> Like U2, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, et al. They are there to draw in the
>>>> people that gambling alone can't. Once there, they may wish to see what
>>>> other attractions Las Vegas has to offer. (There is only one, really)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alan LeHun
>>>
>>>
>>> I would say it's pretty sure bet (pun intended) that the casinos will make a lot more out of those people playing traditional gambling games in the casinos rather than them betting on F1.
>>
>> But the idea was to get more gamblers there in the first place.
>>
>> A race with an (almost) forgone conclusion and an (almost certainly)
>> decided championship is less of a draw.
>
> But only in Las Vegas according to you.

Not "only" in Las Vegas, but especially for what should be fairly
obvious reasons.

>
>>
>> I'm sorry but that's quite obvious.
>
> You really need to be this idea that something simply seeming obvious
> to you makes it true; people might get the idea that you have an
> over-inflated self-opinion!

You don't think its obvious that in a city built to cater to gamblers,
an event where the winner is already known to almost a certainty isn't
going to affect that number of gamblers who want to attend?

You think that the Kentucky Derby would be as well attended if everyone
knew that a particular horse was almost certain to win?

Sure, there are all kinds of side bets and prop bets, etc. but sports
gambling is centred on picking the WINNERS.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> You think that the Kentucky Derby would be as well attended if everyone
> knew that a particular horse was almost certain to win?
>
> Sure, there are all kinds of side bets and prop bets, etc. but sports
> gambling is centred on picking the WINNERS.
>
That may be so but horse racing is very much centred around betting
whereas, unless things have changed very much since I was regularly
attending grands prix, few F1 fans are interested in gambling - they go to
races for the excitement and spectacle. Many years ago Ladbrokes set up a
tent at the British GP but the experiment was obviously a failure as it was
never repeated.

Conversely, dedicated gamblers are unlikely to be interested in the actual
race (if they bet on it they would probably do so online) they are more
attracted by the immediacy of the roulette wheel, fruit machine or
blackjack table.Remember that Vegas is no longer restricted to hookers and
gambling (although both are certainly massively available); there are many
other attractions for visitors.

Difficult to predict whether the GP will be a success, but if it is not I
don’t think that will be because the WDC has already been decided (although
I concede that a close battle for the championship would have stimulated
interest).

--
Sir Tim

In article <ug3tab$17k32$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> You don't think its obvious that in a city built to cater to gamblers,
> an event where the winner is already known to almost a certainty isn't
> going to affect that number of gamblers who want to attend?

It will certainly affect the number of racing fans who want to attend,
but that is nothing to do with Vegas.

It won't affect the number of Gamblers who want to attend Vegas in the
slightest. The city itself does a fine job at pulling them in. As I said
already, and I think you agreed, F1 in Vegas has nothing to do with
Gamblers.

Quite the opposite. It is all about attracting people who /don't/
gamble. And hopefully tempting them to do so while they are there.

>
> You think that the Kentucky Derby would be as well attended if everyone
> knew that a particular horse was almost certain to win?

Dogs and Horses are different from any other sporting event. They are
intrinsically linked with the gambling industry. You put your bets on,
at the track. You collect your winnings at the track.

Not really comparable. People go the horses in order to bet. People do
not go to F1 in order to bet.

>
> Sure, there are all kinds of side bets and prop bets, etc. but sports
> gambling is centred on picking the WINNERS.
>

It is also centered very much on putting on bets at the last minute and
also on putting on bets during the event.
Sports gamblers in Vegas could not give a shit where the race is. They
will be enjoying themselves in one of the many establishments there that
cater for sports gamblers getting all the comforts that gamblers
elsewhere in Vegas are well accustomed to.

Google for sports betting venues in Vegas. Some of them are quite
awesome.

--
Alan LeHun

On 11/10/2023 5:15 AM, Alan wrote:
? >
> You think that the Kentucky Derby would be as well attended if everyone
> knew that a particular horse was almost certain to win?
>
> Sure, there are all kinds of side bets and prop bets, etc. but sports
> gambling is centred on picking the WINNERS.

So you don't watch F1 because you only get to see VER for about 2% of
the time ?

geoff

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:15:07 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2023-10-05 00:55, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:31:22 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-10-03 08:26, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 12:03:57?AM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
>>>>> In article <uffepb$34r5o$2...@dont-email.me>, nuh...@nope.com says...
>>>>>>> F1 is not in Las Vegas so that punters can gamble on the result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why F1 is in Las Vegas has nothing to do with the sort of people who
>>>>>> want to VISIT Las Vegas.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Is that a question or a statement?
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is a statement, it is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is a question then F1 is there to attract people who otherwise
>>>>> would not normally want to visit Las Vegas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like U2, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, et al. They are there to draw in the
>>>>> people that gambling alone can't. Once there, they may wish to see what
>>>>> other attractions Las Vegas has to offer. (There is only one, really)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alan LeHun
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would say it's pretty sure bet (pun intended) that the casinos will make a lot more out of those people playing traditional gambling games in the casinos rather than them betting on F1.
>>>
>>> But the idea was to get more gamblers there in the first place.
>>>
>>> A race with an (almost) forgone conclusion and an (almost certainly)
>>> decided championship is less of a draw.
>>
>> But only in Las Vegas according to you.
>
>Not "only" in Las Vegas, but especially for what should be fairly
>obvious reasons.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry but that's quite obvious.
>>
>> You really need to be this idea that something simply seeming obvious
>> to you makes it true; people might get the idea that you have an
>> over-inflated self-opinion!
>
>You don't think its obvious that in a city built to cater to gamblers,
>an event where the winner is already known to almost a certainty isn't
>going to affect that number of gamblers who want to attend?
>
>You think that the Kentucky Derby would be as well attended if everyone
>knew that a particular horse was almost certain to win?
>
>Sure, there are all kinds of side bets and prop bets, etc. but sports
>gambling is centred on picking the WINNERS.

I'm not interested in going over the same arguments with you. I will
simply note that I produced evidence to indicate that the WDC being
settled does not affect attendance at following races. You have
produced nothing except what seems "obvious" to you though not to
others.

Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:
> In article <ug3tab$17k32$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>> You don't think its obvious that in a city built to cater to gamblers,
>> an event where the winner is already known to almost a certainty isn't
>> going to affect that number of gamblers who want to attend?
>
> It will certainly affect the number of racing fans who want to attend,
> but that is nothing to do with Vegas.
>
> It won't affect the number of Gamblers who want to attend Vegas in the
> slightest. The city itself does a fine job at pulling them in. As I said
> already, and I think you agreed, F1 in Vegas has nothing to do with
> Gamblers.
>
> Quite the opposite. It is all about attracting people who /don't/
> gamble. And hopefully tempting them to do so while they are there.
>
>
>>
>> You think that the Kentucky Derby would be as well attended if everyone
>> knew that a particular horse was almost certain to win?
>
> Dogs and Horses are different from any other sporting event. They are
> intrinsically linked with the gambling industry. You put your bets on,
> at the track. You collect your winnings at the track.
>
> Not really comparable. People go the horses in order to bet. People do
> not go to F1 in order to bet.
>
>>
>> Sure, there are all kinds of side bets and prop bets, etc. but sports
>> gambling is centred on picking the WINNERS.
>>
>
> It is also centered very much on putting on bets at the last minute and
> also on putting on bets during the event.
>
> Sports gamblers in Vegas could not give a shit where the race is. They
> will be enjoying themselves in one of the many establishments there that
> cater for sports gamblers getting all the comforts that gamblers
> elsewhere in Vegas are well accustomed to.
>
> Google for sports betting venues in Vegas. Some of them are quite
> awesome.
>
>

Agree with everything you say (it’s what I was trying to say in my own
post).

--
Sir Tim

On 2023-10-11 02:31, geoff wrote:
> On 11/10/2023 5:15 AM, Alan wrote:
> ?
>>
>> You think that the Kentucky Derby would be as well attended if everyone
>> knew that a particular horse was almost certain to win?
>>
>> Sure, there are all kinds of side bets and prop bets, etc. but sports
>> gambling is centred on picking the WINNERS.
>
> So you don't watch F1 because you only get to see VER for about 2% of
> the time ?
>
> geoff

Not at all.

I'm a huge fan of motor racing in general and F1 in specific, which
makes me different from many of the people who are likely to have been
considering coming to the Las Vegas race.

How do you even come to that conclusion based on what I said?

On 12/10/2023 5:08 AM, Sir Tim wrote:
> Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:
>> In article <ug3tab$17k32$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>> You don't think its obvious that in a city built to cater to gamblers,
>>> an event where the winner is already known to almost a certainty isn't
>>> going to affect that number of gamblers who want to attend?
>>
>> It will certainly affect the number of racing fans who want to attend,
>> but that is nothing to do with Vegas.
>>
>> It won't affect the number of Gamblers who want to attend Vegas in the
>> slightest. The city itself does a fine job at pulling them in. As I said
>> already, and I think you agreed, F1 in Vegas has nothing to do with
>> Gamblers.
>>
>> Quite the opposite. It is all about attracting people who /don't/
>> gamble. And hopefully tempting them to do so while they are there.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You think that the Kentucky Derby would be as well attended if everyone
>>> knew that a particular horse was almost certain to win?
>>
>> Dogs and Horses are different from any other sporting event. They are
>> intrinsically linked with the gambling industry. You put your bets on,
>> at the track. You collect your winnings at the track.
>>
>> Not really comparable. People go the horses in order to bet. People do
>> not go to F1 in order to bet.
>>
>>>
>>> Sure, there are all kinds of side bets and prop bets, etc. but sports
>>> gambling is centred on picking the WINNERS.
>>>
>>
>> It is also centered very much on putting on bets at the last minute and
>> also on putting on bets during the event.
>>
>> Sports gamblers in Vegas could not give a shit where the race is. They
>> will be enjoying themselves in one of the many establishments there that
>> cater for sports gamblers getting all the comforts that gamblers
>> elsewhere in Vegas are well accustomed to.
>>
>> Google for sports betting venues in Vegas. Some of them are quite
>> awesome.
>>
>>
>
> Agree with everything you say (it’s what I was trying to say in my own
> post).
>

Bizarre about Vegas (to me). On the likes of The Chase the number of
people to would like to travel to Las Vegas with their winnings. I
can't think of many places less appealing to visit. Apart from maybe for
an F1 race.

geoff

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 5:05:01 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

> I'm a huge fan of motor racing

you are also a fucking goof

geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 5:08 AM, Sir Tim wrote:
>> Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:
>>> In article <ug3tab$17k32$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>> You don't think its obvious that in a city built to cater to gamblers,
>>>> an event where the winner is already known to almost a certainty isn't
>>>> going to affect that number of gamblers who want to attend?
>>>
>>> It will certainly affect the number of racing fans who want to attend,
>>> but that is nothing to do with Vegas.
>>>
>>> It won't affect the number of Gamblers who want to attend Vegas in the
>>> slightest. The city itself does a fine job at pulling them in. As I said
>>> already, and I think you agreed, F1 in Vegas has nothing to do with
>>> Gamblers.
>>>
>>> Quite the opposite. It is all about attracting people who /don't/
>>> gamble. And hopefully tempting them to do so while they are there.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You think that the Kentucky Derby would be as well attended if everyone
>>>> knew that a particular horse was almost certain to win?
>>>
>>> Dogs and Horses are different from any other sporting event. They are
>>> intrinsically linked with the gambling industry. You put your bets on,
>>> at the track. You collect your winnings at the track.
>>>
>>> Not really comparable. People go the horses in order to bet. People do
>>> not go to F1 in order to bet.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure, there are all kinds of side bets and prop bets, etc. but sports
>>>> gambling is centred on picking the WINNERS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is also centered very much on putting on bets at the last minute and
>>> also on putting on bets during the event.
>>>
>>> Sports gamblers in Vegas could not give a shit where the race is. They
>>> will be enjoying themselves in one of the many establishments there that
>>> cater for sports gamblers getting all the comforts that gamblers
>>> elsewhere in Vegas are well accustomed to.
>>>
>>> Google for sports betting venues in Vegas. Some of them are quite
>>> awesome.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Agree with everything you say (it’s what I was trying to say in my own
>> post).
>>
>
> Bizarre about Vegas (to me). On the likes of The Chase the number of
> people to would like to travel to Las Vegas with their winnings. I
> can't think of many places less appealing to visit. Apart from maybe for
> an F1 race.
>
I’m assuming you have actually been there.

Before I first went to Vegas it was my the idea of Hell on Earth but it
turned out to be an amazing experience: a superb hotel, the wonderful
Cirque du Soleil, two of the best meals I have ever had anywhere in the
world and a wonderful sense of vibrancy and excitement.

Don’t think I would want to go for more than two or three days though.

--
Sir Tim

On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 5:05:01 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

> I'm a huge fan of motor racing

and a massive dumb cunt