Who The Hell Does L.E.Fant of Las Vegas Think He Is Kidding When It Comes To The Stardust?
Over at http://lefantoflasvegas.blogspot.com/2008/03/las-vegas-stardust-again.html the resident curmudgeon has made a post in which there is a photo of The Stardust, under which it says “The Las Vegas Stardust shortly before implosion.”
However, in that photo, all of the neon is lit, the roof sign is in place and lit, the windows are all in place, there is no gutting of the building.
Now the photo which accompanies my post right here was actually taken an hour or two before the implosion of The Stardust. Please note that the building is gutted. The glass is gone. The neon is gone. The roof sign is gone. Walls are gutted.
The photo which L.E.Fant is pawning off as shortly before implosion is probably at least 4 months shortly before implosion.
Sleep well tonight my friends, knowing that LasVegasIdiot.com is patrolling the pages of the internet, and the streets of Las Vegas.
Hi, Roy
How are you?
Heh, he forgot to take his camera & shoot the building before it was blown to bits. “shortly” is an overstatement. Lol
Abas
images.aimvotal.com
L.E.Fant is kidding no one. He has no need to as you may conclude:
The image was captured on 10/31/2006 at precisely 7:08:06 PM. The Las Vegas Stardust implosion occurred on 3/13/07, some five months later.
L.E. believes and argues that “shortly” is a subjective term. He further argues that the subject five months relative to the fifty years or so of the Las Vegas Stardust’s existence is a “in a short time, in the near future, soon” as defined by many dictionaries of the English language. Therefore, L.E. Fant of Las Vegas’s use of the word “shortly” in the subject instance is correct and is wholly supported by the above persuasive argument.
Clearly you Ray, and apparently some of your readers do not own dictionaries, or fail to properly use them.
Yours very truly,
L.E. Fant of Las Vegas
The almost 50 year existence of The Stardust as an entity ought not be confused with the actual buildings that were imploded.
The main tower (32 story west tower) shown in your photo Celebrity Fant, was built in 1991, and was only approximately 16 years old when imploded. [point-5 months against 16 years, instead of 5 months against 50 years.]
While “shortly” is indeed a subjective term, it is not entirely without meaning. Since you say that your photo was taken on 31 October, (the final night of business), it would seem more on the mark to present the photo as shortly before closing and not shortly before implosion.
Shortly? Dictionary? Forsooth!
Yours very truly too
Steve
LasVegasIdiot.com
Hi, Roy
How are you?
I thought the term “shortly” was supposed to mean a few minutes before the implosion or a few hours, at most a few days when the dismantling of the building was taking place. In the context of the title “The Las Vegas Stardust shortly before implosion” my opinion is that the image taken four months ago is inappropriate.
I must agree with Roy that posting the particular image with the aforementioned title is improper. I reckon its not illegal but its providing a false impression. So, I guess its the prettiest image that L.E. had on the building. Sort of paying his last respect to the building to give it a pretty image of “shortly”.
Abas
voyage.aimvotal.com
All of the things to worry about in the world and you are obsessing over this?
The name of the site is Las Vegas Idiot, not Worry About The World.
This site deals with idiotic minutiae which relates in one way or another to Las Vegas.
I would like to suggest WhatReallyHappened.com for those who are looking for a site which concerns itself with the more core issues of the world.
Again though, this site is LasVegasIdiot.com - doesn’t take a genius to see where we are taking it.