One is not necessary for the other, you know. I’ve had contact, both direct and indirect with Wynn for years. He has never given me any indication of being anything other than the way I described him.
So he had a safety harness. So what? Are you jealous that people said nice things about him and don’t heap praise on you for standing on the edge of a cliff? Are you really that immature and childish?
“Waaaah! My meaningless scribbles get laughed at, while Mondrian and Rothco gets the chicks. It isn’t FAIR!”
No, it wouldn’t. If anyone can be credited with that, it’s Kirk Kerkorian. As the previous link said, he is known as “the father of the megaresort”. The first megaresort in Las Vegas was the International Hotel, built by Kerkorian in 1969 (also mentioned in the link in my previous post).
Apologies for the name mis-type. I know that can be annoying; the mistake was unintentional.
As for whether the International was positioned in the market (when introduced) as “upscale” in a way comparable to the way the Bellagio was–that would be a matter of opinion, and of definition of terms. It’s about as subjective as anything can be.
No offense meant and none taken. I’ve just had a handful of people over the years that “see” Bob instead of Bo when they read my name but I know that it does happen.
It’s a hijack, but I’d be interested to hear what you think the differences were and how significant they are.
So, what I get from the OP is that he’s wondering why his vacation photos don’t get as much attention as a world-famous billionaire’s televised publicity shots? And also he drew a picture in Microsoft Word (!) that apparently proved a small number of Belgians know 0% about art? I must say, this thread has it all.
You must be a big boss since even BBC failed to get an audience with the luminary for their film.
What? He was afraid and therefore was not a daredevil.
What do you want to say? That expecting bigger praise for bigger achievement is childish? That was my point that the rich and famous are such not for any real achievement, but for whimsical, capricious and corrupt reasons.
Childish behavior was demonstrated by your protege
You misrepresent the facts. My meaningless scribbles *are taken for * masterpieces of modern art.
Forgive me if I have my doubts at the sincerity and/or knowledge of art that your friends in Belgium possess. I wish you’d share your masterpiece here so we can judge for ourselves. Maybe you really did out-Picasso Picasso. Let’s see it.
I did check the database. One person indeed got a 100% on the first test, but only 83% on the second and the third. Wouldn’t call it acing.
There is an article with statistical analysis of tens of thousand of test results.
In the beginning I made the statement that Wynn is a daredevil only in comparison with other modern art lovers. You are obviously one of those. So I just want to hear from you an honest answer to the following question: how close would you would you dare to come to that rock?
Shit, you’re correct. My apologies - I did get 83% on the second one. I was trying to copy and paste my results (not possible, I guess) and went back to the same tab twice. So it was just 100% on the first test.
Probably nowhere near it, but then, I’m not the outdoor type. So what? What the hell is your point? I seriously can’t fathom what your issue is here. You appear to be angry that Steve Wynn is getting publicity for something you’re better at than he is, I guess, or you feel your manhood has been questioned? I don’t get it. You seem to be making things that don’t concern you all about yourself and your sense of self-worth.
Right. I think I can summarize your statistical analysis for everybody:
A statistically significant number of people were able to tell the difference between bullshit and art.
People taking the quiz from elite locations, as you describe them, did a little better than people who were not from elite locations.
Even people who were not taking the quiz from elite locations did better than random by a statistically significant percentage. However, you are ignoring that because you assume that some of them recognized the paintings.
In summary, people who know something about art are discredited in the quiz because they know something about art. People who apparently don’t know anything about art are still discredited because they may know something about art.
You should rethink your use of the phrase “statistical analysis”.