Lighting the flame

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

It has been a closely guarded secret as to who will light the Olympic
flame.

As I understand it, the entire audience is being given a torch of some
description.

Is it in anyway possible that the entire audience will be asked to
shine their torches at a particular light sensitive point, and that
will trigger the Olympic flame to be ignited?

If that were to be the case, some 80,000 people or so would be
responsible for lighting the flame.

The Guardian gives the following ratings to torch lighting wannabes:
Becks - 3
Roger Bannister - 4
Daley Thompson - 3
Wills and Kate - 0
Amber Charles - 2
Sir Steve - 4.5

The Tour de France winner, Bradley Wiggins, doesn't even get a mention
(but this mention of him brings my post on-topic).

[NM]

On Jul 27, 10:36*am, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> It has been a closely guarded secret as to who will light the Olympic
> flame.
>
> As I understand it, the entire audience is being given a torch of some
> description.
>
> Is it in anyway possible that the entire audience will be asked to
> shine their torches at a particular light sensitive point, and that
> will trigger the Olympic flame to be ignited?
>
> If that were to be the case, some 80,000 people or so would be
> responsible for lighting the flame.
>
> The Guardian gives the following ratings to torch lighting wannabes:
> Becks - 3
> Roger Bannister - 4
> Daley Thompson - 3
> Wills and Kate - 0
> Amber Charles - 2
> Sir Steve - 4.5
>
> The Tour de France winner, Bradley Wiggins, doesn't even get a mention
> (but this mention of him brings my post on-topic).

Who gives a ****, I can't wait for it all to be over.

[jnugent]

On 27/07/2012 10:37, NM wrote:
> On Jul 27, 10:36 am, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>> It has been a closely guarded secret as to who will light the Olympic
>> flame.
>>
>> As I understand it, the entire audience is being given a torch of some
>> description.
>>
>> Is it in anyway possible that the entire audience will be asked to
>> shine their torches at a particular light sensitive point, and that
>> will trigger the Olympic flame to be ignited?
>>
>> If that were to be the case, some 80,000 people or so would be
>> responsible for lighting the flame.
>>
>> The Guardian gives the following ratings to torch lighting wannabes:
>> Becks - 3
>> Roger Bannister - 4
>> Daley Thompson - 3
>> Wills and Kate - 0
>> Amber Charles - 2
>> Sir Steve - 4.5
>>
>> The Tour de France winner, Bradley Wiggins, doesn't even get a mention
>> (but this mention of him brings my post on-topic).
>
> Who gives a ****, I can't wait for it all to be over...

....is much closer to my feelings on the matter.

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:13:06 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>On 27/07/2012 10:37, NM wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 10:36 am, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>>> It has been a closely guarded secret as to who will light the Olympic
>>> flame.
>>>
>>> As I understand it, the entire audience is being given a torch of some
>>> description.
>>>
>>> Is it in anyway possible that the entire audience will be asked to
>>> shine their torches at a particular light sensitive point, and that
>>> will trigger the Olympic flame to be ignited?
>>>
>>> If that were to be the case, some 80,000 people or so would be
>>> responsible for lighting the flame.
>>>
>>> The Guardian gives the following ratings to torch lighting wannabes:
>>> Becks - 3
>>> Roger Bannister - 4
>>> Daley Thompson - 3
>>> Wills and Kate - 0
>>> Amber Charles - 2
>>> Sir Steve - 4.5
>>>
>>> The Tour de France winner, Bradley Wiggins, doesn't even get a mention
>>> (but this mention of him brings my post on-topic).
>>
>> Who gives a ****, I can't wait for it all to be over...
>
>...is much closer to my feelings on the matter.

curmudgeons

[jnugent]

On 27/07/2012 11:23, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:13:06 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 27/07/2012 10:37, NM wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 10:36 am, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>>>> It has been a closely guarded secret as to who will light the Olympic
>>>> flame.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the entire audience is being given a torch of some
>>>> description.
>>>>
>>>> Is it in anyway possible that the entire audience will be asked to
>>>> shine their torches at a particular light sensitive point, and that
>>>> will trigger the Olympic flame to be ignited?
>>>>
>>>> If that were to be the case, some 80,000 people or so would be
>>>> responsible for lighting the flame.
>>>>
>>>> The Guardian gives the following ratings to torch lighting wannabes:
>>>> Becks - 3
>>>> Roger Bannister - 4
>>>> Daley Thompson - 3
>>>> Wills and Kate - 0
>>>> Amber Charles - 2
>>>> Sir Steve - 4.5
>>>>
>>>> The Tour de France winner, Bradley Wiggins, doesn't even get a mention
>>>> (but this mention of him brings my post on-topic).
>>>
>>> Who gives a ****, I can't wait for it all to be over...
>>
>> ...is much closer to my feelings on the matter.
>
> curmudgeons

Why do I *have* to be interested in hopping, skipping, running and jumping?

None of it is of the slightest importance.

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:09:21 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>On 27/07/2012 11:23, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:13:06 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/07/2012 10:37, NM wrote:
>>>> On Jul 27, 10:36 am, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>>>>> It has been a closely guarded secret as to who will light the Olympic
>>>>> flame.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it, the entire audience is being given a torch of some
>>>>> description.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it in anyway possible that the entire audience will be asked to
>>>>> shine their torches at a particular light sensitive point, and that
>>>>> will trigger the Olympic flame to be ignited?
>>>>>
>>>>> If that were to be the case, some 80,000 people or so would be
>>>>> responsible for lighting the flame.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Guardian gives the following ratings to torch lighting wannabes:
>>>>> Becks - 3
>>>>> Roger Bannister - 4
>>>>> Daley Thompson - 3
>>>>> Wills and Kate - 0
>>>>> Amber Charles - 2
>>>>> Sir Steve - 4.5
>>>>>
>>>>> The Tour de France winner, Bradley Wiggins, doesn't even get a mention
>>>>> (but this mention of him brings my post on-topic).
>>>>
>>>> Who gives a ****, I can't wait for it all to be over...
>>>
>>> ...is much closer to my feelings on the matter.
>>
>> curmudgeons
>
>Why do I *have* to be interested in hopping, skipping, running and jumping?
>
>None of it is of the slightest importance.

You don't have to be interested in any of them.

But you could show some support for one or more national teams.

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:40:48 +0100
Bertie Wooster > wrote:

> You don't have to be interested in any of them.
>
> But you could show some support for one or more national teams.

Nationalism doesn't have a good history.

[Mrcheerful[_3_]]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:40:48 +0100
> Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>
>> You don't have to be interested in any of them.
>>
>> But you could show some support for one or more national teams.
>
> Nationalism doesn't have a good history.

remembered by the torch they parade around before the games: Goebbel's idea.

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:45:19 +0100, Rob Morley >
wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:40:48 +0100
>Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>
>> You don't have to be interested in any of them.
>>
>> But you could show some support for one or more national teams.
>
>Nationalism doesn't have a good history.

It's not being nationalistic to have pride the accomplishments of
Bradley Wiggins, Mark Cavendish, &co.

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:59:40 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> wrote:

>Rob Morley wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:40:48 +0100
>> Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>>
>>> You don't have to be interested in any of them.
>>>
>>> But you could show some support for one or more national teams.
>>
>> Nationalism doesn't have a good history.
>
>remembered by the torch they parade around before the games: Goebbel's idea.

Godwin's - you lose.

[Cassandra[_6_]]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:36:10 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> wrote:

>It has been a closely guarded secret as to who will light the Olympic
>flame.
>
>As I understand it, the entire audience is being given a torch of some
>description.
>
>Is it in anyway possible that the entire audience will be asked to
>shine their torches at a particular light sensitive point, and that
>will trigger the Olympic flame to be ignited?
>
>If that were to be the case, some 80,000 people or so would be
>responsible for lighting the flame.
>
>The Guardian gives the following ratings to torch lighting wannabes:
>Becks - 3
>Roger Bannister - 4
>Daley Thompson - 3
>Wills and Kate - 0
>Amber Charles - 2
>Sir Steve - 4.5
>
Al-Queda - Evens

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:40:48 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> wrote:

>
>You don't have to be interested in any of them.
>
>But you could show some support for one or more national teams.
Why ,what is it about Sports people that they expect others to admire
them for doing something the others have no interest in. Some sort of
vanity I suppose, Look at Me Oh please look at me I can run, I can
Jump. No different than Kids in Corsas who have a loud stereo not for
it's musical qualities but to really make people look at them as they
go past.

Are you a teacher by any chance? you sound like the Head in the school
I attended. It was a boarding school which I happened to attend
daily because it was close. "You should stay behind or come back on
Saturdays and support your House/School fellows". Why would I want to
do that I queried, most of them can't stand me and I can't stand them
and I have more important things to do at home. "what could be more
important than supporting the school?" . At home on the farm I'm
expected to feed the sheep ,chop up some wood,clean the shippons and
lots of other jobs so that dad hasn't got to pay somebody to help him.
"Things like that are not important ,you should make some sacrifices
and support the school" . Arrogant prick .Lived in a enclosed world
detached from reality where sport and it's worship filled idle hours
rather than do anything more productive. After that I made it my aim
to bunk off as many Wednesdays sports afternoons as possible at which
some mates and I were very successful. We had access to a full size
Billiard table in an abandoned club whose owner was waiting for PP to
turn it into a house. That became our sport for the afternoon. Other
times I gathered wood from a private forest we had rights to collect
bits from. In a bit of justice the bloke who should not have been
trespassing and being a hypocrite by not watching his Pupils one
Wednesday PM **** himself when I burst out of brushwood with an
ancient tractor and log laden trailer and missed him by inches.
He knew he shouldn't have been there and didn't ever mention it.

G.Harman

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 29/07/2012 14:03, wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:40:48 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> > wrote:
>

>
> Are you a teacher by any chance?

He claims to be, albeit only at a primary school, but most of us have
our serious doubts.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."