Iceman wrote:
>> TOliver wrote:
> I wouldn't personally go to Las Vegas, but I can understand why many
> people like it. It makes five-star luxury accessible to the
> middle-class, and the gambling and strip clubs and "shows" are
> attractions to many.
It's one of the more depressing places imaginable (we have a surfeit of
those here in the States...). Of course it's not as depressing as
other gambling holes like Gary, Indiana; Atlantic City, New Jersey;
East St. Louis, Illinois. Those towns are all poor black ghettos with
ghastly casino complexes plunked down in their bombed - out middles.
Oh well, as the saying goes, "It's a living..."
> > If I felt compelled to go somewhere to "gamble", a past time for me best
> > satisfied by an occasional poker game accompanied by good food, plenty of
> > beverages and a handful of knowledgeable sports fans around a table, I'd
> > probably pick Reno, but as unattractive and unappealing as are the denizens
> > of the night who crowd the casinos of Vegas, even worse are those found in
> > Atlantic City and the grotesque gambling hall in downtown New Orleans. The
> > next step down the ladder is gambling on an Indian reservation. I'd rather
> > swab my self with rancid bear fat and eat succotash and spoiled pemmican
> > than undergo that punishment.
>
> Well, what else is there to do in South Dakota?!
At the rate it's going it will be pretty much totally de - populated in
a few decades time...there is actually a plan of sorts to turn those
deserted plains states areas back to nature, e.g. the buffalo will rule
again as they did 150 years ago.
--
Best
Greg
|