(18-02-2011, 12:49 AM)larryd Wrote:

(17-02-2011, 09:27 PM)Paul Phillips Wrote: Larry

If you are suggesting that the Department or any organisation working in partnership with the Department is paying a rider and /or team to compete in the Manx Grand Prix Races, I can confirm your 'usually reliable source' is incorrect.

Efforts will continue to be made with some speed to generate additional income to reinvest in the Manx Grand Prix Festival going forward. Without increased visitors numbers and commercial income streams the viability of the MGP will come into question.

Regards

Paul

Paul - at no point in my posting did I make any such suggestion.

To misquote the Bard "methinks the lad doth protest too much"

I'll say this for you boy - you haven't half learned the language.

I still say it used to be fun. It never will be again.

Larry;

You have in fact raised a very good point, and I'd like to thank you for doing so.

Perhaps we the need to consider the question in real terms. That is to say terms that physically exist. As opposed to imaginary, or 'rainbow, mushroom pixy terms'. Or other similar methods such as 'happy gnome logic', which we don’t entirely support at this time in our current topsy turvy nonsense legislation. However I think that on the balance of probabilities, and from a forward-thinking, multifaceted, pro-intergenerational polylateral perspective, if we can regenerate that particular 'vocabulary' structure which you have mentioned. On a strictly voluntary basis and using a foreword thinking person to person, me to you perspective. I think it's quasi-certain that movement on this subject could very well be retroactively multi-archived. Not at this time, but another time, say in the next ten or twenty years, decades, or in the life of the next two or ten events. And in some ways I think it's double-plus-good or even triple-plus-great that in a democracy people are allowed to raise questions such as this and have an answer given. Not necessarily the type of answer they were expecting, or wanted, or not an answer in a conventional or ultra-literal sense. That would be quasi-bad-crimethink, and ultra-Paxman scary. And that’s just not acceptable because no one wants psycho-knife consequences to quasi-bad-crimethink do they ?

Malcolm.