Greg McCarroll wrote: > > * Newton, Philip ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Greg McCarroll wrote: > > > Munich managed to fight off _very_ strong competition from Paris > > > > Oh yeah? I heard a rumour that Paris failed to get their act together in > > anything resembling a reasonable time frame... > > i've seen both proposals and that certainly isn't true. i did a pro's > and con's analysis for fun and munich won by only 1 minor point. > Gee - thanks Greg.
> > > I'd say the smart money was on Paris for 2003. > > > > ...but if that rumour was true, they might finally be organised by 2003, > > true. > > no, i think there was a little confusion over the selection process, > its the first time for Y::E that there has been two groups who are > mad^H^H^H competent enough to host a conference and hence the > selection process was a little rusty/non-existent. > Sounds more like it - less mud slinging - more action. > if there was any group that "might finally be organised by 2003" i'd > suggest, with all kindness, that it was YAS, at least when it came to > selection processes. > I say nothing :-) > and I know you had a smiley in your message, i'm just making sure the > facts are known > > > (What happened to the 'Oslo' thingy? Didn't they compete for the 2001 slot? > > Are they still in the running?) > > i have not seen any proposal for them on the planning list for 2002, > so i don't know what the status is. they maybe are planning to put in > a proposal for 2003. who know's, but i'd imagine they'll have to fight > a very strong proposal from Paris to do so. > My impression was that Paris had been offered 2003 and they have but to accept it. BTW - Greg, are you up for the traditional auction in Munich? -- Ciao Richard Foley Ciao - shorter than AufWiederSehen!
