Flight took off at around 10:30am and we arrived in Vegas at just before 1pm, although it took an age to disembark, as we had to cross a very busy runway and it seemed like ages before TC gave us a slot for the all-clear. Those who reckon that Las Vegas is like Blackpool have clearly never been to either place. I have, and Vegas is absolutely nothing like Blackpool. Tacky? Sure, if you call having just about every single major high-end fashion brand tacky. We're staying at a 5 Star hotel (very well known) with premiere views over the City. We're not quite penthouse suits, but very close. The views are stunning! It's just after 1am, here, as I am writing this; I am shattered, but I can't sleep. The missus has been comatose for the last hour. We nipped out briefly onto the Strip to get something to eat at a restaurant called The Rainforest Café. It's very impressive. The prices here are mint, I have to say! Those of you who think this is like Blackpool are in for a bit of a shock, as I doubt you're going to be able to afford to stay here for very long, if Blackpool is your limit. By the way, Stan, I didn't choose to come here; in fact, I tried to get out of coming. We're only here for a family wedding. Tomorrow, I am going to try to book me and my 6 year on a trip to the Grand Canyon. The missus and the eldest don't want to go, as it will probably mean staying overnight, and they don't want to miss out on any of the glitz. Me, I can take it or leave it. Mind you, the cocktails are superb!
That is the ugliest picture I've seen on here and I've seen Ensil's bollocks. And where the **** is his cock
A wedding in Vegas in August? Even 5 star that's ****ing tacky. Are the bride and groom first cousins? There's a reason why Vegas is cheaper to visit at this time of the year than a low grade European holiday destination. Your family must be humiliated when you brag about "treating" them to a luxury holiday like that.
The cost of them getting married here is certainly cheaper than a wedding with all the trimmings would have cost them at home, but that's only because the 21 guests who have made it out have paid around £4,000 each just to get out here and stay here. I'm not going to tell you how much this is cost me for my family of four, but I can very much assure you it isn't cheap. You wouldn't like it out here, Stan. The are no okey-kokey bars.
Are all 21 guests first cousins? What has the cost of the wedding got to do with the guests' travel costs? If the wedding was in the UK would the guests have paid for it or are the bride and groom (or their parents/uncle and aunt) covering the guests' travel costs?
The Bride and Groom - who would make you and your wife look like Shrek and his bird before she became a beautiful princess, trust me - have, of course, saved the cost of having to pay for a traditional church wedding and party, but that doesn't mean that, in real terms, this isn't costing them. I don't know how much members of your family would spend on a traditional wedding, Stan, but mine are not cheap-skates, generally. The only reason why the (young) couple are getting married here is because it's what they wanted to do. It's not my cup of tea, but they wanted me to come, so here I am. As for the cost of getting and staying here, again, I am sure it can be done more cheaply - you'd undoubtedly know more about that than me - but I am telling you as a matter of fact that what I have shelled out to be here and stay here blows any comparison with Blackpool so far out of the water as to render the comparison pathetically ill-advised.
What you said was "the cost of them getting married here is certainly cheaper than a wedding with all the trimmings would have cost them at home, but that's only because the 21 guests who have made it out have paid around £4,000 each just to get out here and stay here." You directly linked the reduced cost of the wedding to the guests' travel costs. That would only be relevant if either the guests would have paid for the wedding if it had been in the UK or the bride and groom are funding/contributing to the guests' travel costs. Which is it? If neither then why link the cost of the wedding to the guests' travel costs?
So you're also assuming that the bride and groom have covered the travel costs which would mean HIAG is on a (tacky) freebie. His family are so lucky!
No. Why are you finding this difficult? The wedding is expensive to get to, so the numbers are therefore low (for a wedding) and therefore the wedding is cheaper. Cause = effect.
So what! Overall, the cost of 23 of us being out here is far, far, far, more expensive that the cost of a traditional wedding in England. However, for the couple the cost to them personally is less. Make of it what will. Me? I'm tired, so will catch you next time I check in.
That's not what he said. He said the wedding was cheap "but that's only because" of the cost of the 21 guests attending. Which implies the wedding budget went on the guests' travel costs. Once again HIAG has tied himself in knots. I admire your loyalty to Walter though. Even if it does make you a clown by association!
So why link the cost of the wedding to the cost of the guests' travel expenses? Maybe the jet lag is confusing you.
Nothing to do with loyalty, just find your logic bizarre on this one. Don't usually to be fair, but HIAGs post looked clear and consistent to me.
No it implied the wedding was cheap and tacky because the travel costs were expensive. He didn't think it through. Again.
