# Disgusted with the olympics ? anyone else?



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

First we find out the fireworks were digitally enhanced, officially sanctioned by the chinese government. Next we find out the little girl did the old lip sinc because the real kid was deemed not cute enough. now we find out the chinese girl gymnists are old enough to participate yet the chinese government issued them passports with false ages and they now each have a gold medal. what else are we going to learn that the chinese are faking?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*NBC*

My main problem has been with NBC. I am pretty sure they spent more camera time on politicians than atheletes at the opening ceremonies.

Every four years I am reminded that NBC doesn't do very good coverage of the Olympics.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm just not very interested any more. I have not figured out why, though.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I've had a couple of reactions. Of course I agree with you that cheating by the Chinese government is galling, even if it's in an activity, such as gymnastics or fireworks displays, that shouldn't be in the Olympics anyway. (One of my rules--if you can't time it, measure it, or count it, out it goes.) I also saw some press coverage last night of a western TV reporter being scooped up in a police van and carted away, apparently for trying to cover a protest. I think that might be a bigger source of the problem: China is a repressive regime and, far from having the presumably desired effect of pressuring them to open up, the IOC is, as one commentator put it, "on its knees giving China a **** ***."

I have to say, though, that I'm endlessly annoyed at NBC's coverage. I remember watching the Olympics many years ago, like back in the 1960's. Then, it seemed like you saw everything, or at least a lot more: multiple heats of the races, almost every shot put and discus throw (in the finals anyway), whole basketball games, every dive--you get the idea. Now, even though the hours devoted to the coverage are many multiples of what was on TV then, you're lucky if you ever see a heat, game, or round of any competition that the United States isn't favored to win.

It may be better next week when the "real" Olympics (i.e. track) start, but I'm not betting a lot on that.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

agnash said:


> My main problem has been with NBC. I am pretty sure they spent more camera time on politicians than atheletes at the opening ceremonies.
> 
> Every four years I am reminded that NBC doesn't do very good coverage of the Olympics.


I noticed the same thing. 
As for the fireworks, didn't they do that for safety? I'm sure I read that somewhere...something about the helicopter pilot's safety.

I was really disappointed to see the Swedish wrestler throw his bronze medal down....very poor sportsmanship.

I have enjoyed watching Michael Phelps dominate in swimming, but have really enjoyed watching the women's beach volleyball games_...Yowza!_


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I've had a couple of reactions. Of course I agree with you that cheating by the Chinese government is galling, even if it's in an activity, such as gymnastics or fireworks displays, that shouldn't be in the Olympics anyway. (One of my rules--if you can't time it, measure it, or count it, out it goes.) I also saw some press coverage last night of a western TV reporter being scooped up in a police van and carted away, apparently for trying to cover a protest. I think that might be a bigger source of the problem: China is a repressive regime and, far from having the presumably desired effect of pressuring them to open up, the IOC is, as one commentator put it, "on its knees giving China a **** ***."
> 
> I have to say, though, that I'm endlessly annoyed at NBC's coverage. I remember watching the Olympics many years ago, like back in the 1960's. Then, it seemed like you saw everything, or at least a lot more: multiple heats of the races, almost every shot put and discus throw (in the finals anyway), whole basketball games, every dive--you get the idea. Now, even though the hours devoted to the coverage are many multiples of what was on TV then, you're lucky if you ever see a heat, game, or round of any competition that the United States isn't favored to win.
> 
> It may be better next week when the "real" Olympics (i.e. track) start, but I'm not betting a lot on that.


I kind of feel the same way about gymnastics. Sure they are in great shape, and do some pretty cool stuff, but I have no idea what is going on in regards to scoring. I'm not a fan of sports that require judges to determine who wins.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I kind of feel the same way about gymnastics. Sure they are in great shape, and do some pretty cool stuff, but I have no idea what is going on in regards to scoring. I'm not a fan of sports that require judges to determine who wins.


I agree. Things that can be definitively decided by the athletes, without question, are great. Things that are voted on, not so much. There's no interpretation to decide who finished a race first, or who jumped the farthest, or who scored more points in a basketball game.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

wnh said:


> I agree. Things that can be definitively decided by the athletes, without question, are great. Things that are voted on, not so much. There's no interpretation to decide who finished a race first, or who jumped the farthest, or who scored more points in a basketball game.


You don't think officials interpret rules and have an effect on who wins in basketball games? _See_ the 1972 U.S. Olympic basketball team. I do agree that the U.S. gymnasts and the U.S. divers have thus far been screwed by the judging. In particular, the diving judge from New Zeland hates the U.S.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> You don't think officials interpret rules and have an effect on who wins in basketball games? _See_ the 1972 U.S. Olympic basketball team. I do agree that the U.S. gymnasts and the U.S. divers have thus far been screwed by the judging. In particular, the diving judge from New Zeland hates the U.S.


They can have an effect, but it's not quite the same thing. In gymnastics, they don't just get point for doing something like a backflip on the bar. In basketball, a player can make the ugliest layup in the world and fall on his face, but if the ball goes in the basket he gets 2 points. Likewise, if a player does an unbelievable dunk or graceful layup, he also gets 2 points. 
So yes, refs can make a bad call and change the outcome of the game, but most of the game is decided by who scores the most points. In gymnastics, the judges decide everything.

I also don't consider golf, bowling, curling, archery, shooting, race car driving etc. to be sports, though I enjoy watching and participating in many of these activities. Skiing, track and swimming are sports because the athletes are competing directly with an opponent (or clock representing an opponent).

Edit: to add to this, you can also play a basketball game without refs and still easily determine the winner. People do it everyday in pickup games all across the country.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Oh come on, what's the big deal? With all the pollution and bad weather in Beijing can you blame them for having back-up fireworks on video? I seem to recall an Olympics not too long ago with an arrow being fired into (and missing) the Olympic flame and the the flame still mysteriously lighting. Like with any big show, you've got to have a bit of trickery to make it work backed up with contingency planning. And, as for the little girl, that's society's fault for putting pressure on them to think that an ugly girl would not have gone down as well. Is any modern society any different? Furthermore, they think that's what the West wants because that's the image we project. Conversely, if she had a hairy chin and a lazy eye I hope our first reaction would have been to applaud their nobility. 

Anyway, from what I can gather in the papers, Lord Coe has paid very careful attention to the Chinese approach. Knowing that London cannot emulate the huge budget in Beijing (within the Stadium for things that actually happened) he has taken their lead and gone a step further by contracting Peter Jackson and the WETA workshop. As an added bonus to the opening ceremony scene, the UK now has plans to enter a cave troll in the discus and a brace of wood elves in the 25m rapid fire pistol.

Roll on 2012!


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

While I'm American, it seems like NBC can find the time to show every medal ceremony when the US wins gold, but few if another country wins gold. I'd like to see a little more balance in the coverage.


----------



## XdryMartini (Jan 5, 2008)

Rossini said:


> Oh come on, what's the big deal? With all the pollution and bad weather in Beijing can you blame them for having back-up fireworks on video?


Remember who was in charge of developing the opening ceremony. China's #1 cinematographer... What did you expect?? Is anything in Hollywood real?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

You have to realise that they are being reshaped in the Walmart image. My guess is that they view all of this as show biz. The reality is secondary to the TV image. 
I can't see what was wrong with the looks of the singer. There must be some cultural difference when defining cute. That and the fact that I am missing Andy of Mayberry are my only complaints.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*actually, this is the first I'm hearing of this stuff*

I would have to care about the Olympics to be disgusted. I don't care.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

What do you expect when the Olympic's are held in a quasi-Stalinist state. I'm watching for the sheer enjoyment of sport. I watched a really exciting men's volleyball match this morning between Brazil and Russia. Watching May/Walsh take on the Belgians right now.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

The Olympics being in China was enough to turn me off, I don't even care to watch the sports I really like.

Brian


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> I also don't consider golf, bowling, curling, archery, shooting, race car driving etc. to be sports, though I enjoy watching and participating in many of these activities. Skiing, track and swimming are sports because the athletes are competing directly with an opponent (or clock representing an opponent).


This may be splitting hairs, but for something to be a "sport" you have to be able to play defense or at lease to defend something. Everything else is an activity. Thus, track, bowling, archery, swimming, etc. are not sports while curling, basketball, baseball, race car driving, etc. are. The Olympics is not about just sports - it is about competing.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> This may be splitting hairs, but for something to be a "sport" you have to be able to play defense or at lease to defend something. Everything else is an activity. Thus, track, bowling, archery, swimming, etc. are not sports while curling, basketball, baseball, race car driving, etc. are. The Olympics is not about just sports - it is about competing.


Racing a car is a sport while running isn't?

Diving is a sport while swimming isn't?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> This may be splitting hairs, but for something to be a "sport" you have to be able to play defense or at lease to defend something. Everything else is an activity. Thus, track, bowling, archery, swimming, etc. are not sports while curling, basketball, baseball, race car driving, etc. are. The Olympics is not about just sports - it is about competing.


I still say swimming and track qualify because you have to outswim/outrun your opponents. I'm not sure about curling. There is physical activity involved and teamwork and you do defend something, so I guess curling could be considered a sport. I love to watch curling btw, and have tried to get a club started here. 
I have heard all of the reasons that auto racing should be considered a sport and I just don't agree...same goes for horse racing and sailing. Crew is though, since they are actually rowing the boat to make it move.

I also realize that the Olympics is not just about sports. I don't really mind all of the different events they have, sports are just my favorite...btw, I even watched the gymnastics finals tonight! I do think gymnastics needs a better way to score things.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I've real enjoyed watching Phelps do his thing. Absolutely phenomenal. 6 Medals so far, and each one in World Record time.

Seeing the women gymnasts make a great comeback from the team competition to take a gold and silver in the overall was really nice to see.

My daughter is a rower, so she and I have stayed to the wee hours of the morning to watch the rowing competitions. Good stuff.

As for the Chicoms trying to impress, no biggie to me. Every country tries to put on a fine show for the world. I don't think they are fooling anybody with a brain.

Overall, (and so far) I've enjoyed it more than I had expected.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

The Australian Mermaids have been fun to watch and I hope Michael Phelps gets his eight gold that would be quite an achievement in oz we call athletes of that caliber, no matter what their code, Immortals. But the best event so far has been the protest abseiling with the Free Tibet protest this am oz time.


----------



## Lynd (Aug 13, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'm just not very interested any more. I have not figured out why, though.


It's the same with me. I have heard from a lot of people that the opening was fantastic but I see things on the news about the fake lip syncing and don't feel too bad about missing it.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Racing a car is a sport while running isn't?
> 
> Diving is a sport while swimming isn't?


No. Neither diving nor swimming are sports. You can't play defense in swimming or diving. You can defend while racing a car - try not to let the person behind you pass. If you can't defend it's not a sport - it's an activity.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> No. Neither diving nor swimming are sports. You can't play defense in swimming or diving. You can defend while racing a car - try not to let the person behind you pass. If you can't defend it's not a sport - it's an activity.


So, by your definition, rowing = not a sport, but pro wrestling = sport?

Just trying to get a clarification.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> This may be splitting hairs, but for something to be a "sport" you have to be able to play defense or at lease to defend something. Everything else is an activity.


This is a rather bizarre claim. I don't think I've ever heard anyone make this particular point, but you obviously have a very idiosyncratic view of what constitutes a "sport", even more idiosyncratic than mine. This also leads to a rather peculiar result in which, for instance, racing a bicycle in a time trial is not a sport, whereas racing a bicycle in a road race is; or racing in a track event in which the runners stay in their lanes is not a sport, but running in a race in which the runners aren't required to stay in lanes (and, consequently, have the ability to defend against the competitors) is.

I think it's self evident that participating in an activity in which your motion is provided by a motor or another animal is not a sport. Thus, racing in cars, on motorcycles, or on horses: definitely not.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

I lost interest in the Olympics when non-sports (e.g., BMX racing) became medal sports. I don't believe we should return to ancient Greece's narrow range of events, but a limit must be drawn (but by whom?).

Next up: competitive eating. I favor the Japanese.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> This is a rather bizarre claim. I don't think I've ever heard anyone make this particular point, but you obviously have a very idiosyncratic view of what constitutes a "sport", even more idiosyncratic than mine. This also leads to a rather peculiar result in which, for instance, racing a bicycle in a time trial is not a sport, whereas racing a bicycle in a road race is; or racing in a track event in which the runners stay in their lanes is not a sport, but running in a race in which the runners aren't required to stay in lanes (and, consequently, have the ability to defend against the competitors) is.
> 
> I think it's self evident that participating in an activity in which your motion is provided by a motor or another animal is not a sport. Thus, racing in cars, on motorcycles, or on horses: definitely not.


I'm not trying to say that sports are better or more competitive or require more physical prowess than activities. But to be a sport there has to be 1) physical activity 2) offense and 3) defense. Everything else is an activity.

I'm no expert in track but I don't think you are allowed to block another runner. Thus, track is not a sport. Track people, swimmers, gymnasts, etc. are amazing athletes but they compete in activities, not sports. I'm also not saying baseball players are better than swimmers or that baseball is better than swimming. I am merely saying they are in different categories.

Thus, golf is not a sport but NASCAR is but drag racing is not. Now here's the real question, is tennis a sport? I can't tell if they defend or not.


----------



## johnm (Jul 12, 2005)

I'm still trying to figure out how something like the olympics winds up in China. It seems like hosting the olympics should be an honor and a reward. Does a country with such a bad human rights problem really deserve to host it?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> I'm not trying to say that sports are better or more competitive or require more physical prowess than activities. But to be a sport there has to be 1) physical activity 2) offense and 3) defense. Everything else is an activity.
> 
> I'm no expert in track but I don't think you are allowed to block another runner. Thus, track is not a sport. Track people, swimmers, gymnasts, etc. are amazing athletes but they compete in activities, not sports. I'm also not saying baseball players are better than swimmers or that baseball is better than swimming. I am merely saying they are in different categories.
> 
> Thus, golf is not a sport but NASCAR is but drag racing is not. Now here's the real question, is tennis a sport? I can't tell if they defend or not.


What I don't get is where you came up with the idea that defense is a necessary element of sport. That's just wrong.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> What I don't get is where you came up with the idea that defense is a necessary element of sport. That's just wrong.


I don't get that either. By that definition, chess would be a sport.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I don't get that either. By that definition, chess would be a sport.


No, I think that chess would lack the physical activity element of Stringfellow's definition. And in any case there is a difference between a necessary element and a sufficient element. The inclusion of "defense" as a necessary element (as Stringfellow proposes -- and I offer no opinion on the merits of his definition) does not render it a sufficient element.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> No, I think that chess would lack the physical activity element of Stringfellow's definition. And in any case there is a difference between a necessary element and a sufficient element. The inclusion of "defense" as a necessary element (as Stringfellow proposes -- and I offer no opinion on the merits of his definition) does not render it a sufficient element.


How about King of the Hill then? Defense and physical activity. :icon_smile_big:

We used to play that each winter on the big snow hills the snow plows would make.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

You guys act like calling something an activity is somehow demeaning. I LOVE the Olympics and I LOVE the activities and the sports equally. I have watched every second of televised gymnastics, swimming, archery, and weightlifting during this Olympics (I work from home). To be an activity is not demeaning.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> (I work from home).


You're sure you don't work at Pathmark?


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> You guys act like calling something an activity is somehow demeaning.


Not demeaning, just that the definitions have apparently been made arbitrarily. If someone can make a distinction and defend it (ha!), I don't think anybody would mind.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Not so fast--when I say that driving a car, riding on a horse, or taking a leisurely stroll while occasionally swinging at a golf ball is not a sport, I am intentionally demeaning it.

Still, since the method of argument here seems to be to simply repeat the point, or to avoid it, I think we can safely disregard it. It appears that Stringfellow has adopted the logic of Humpty Dumpty.

_'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' _


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Not so fast--when I say that driving a car, riding on a horse, or taking a leisurely stroll while occasionally swinging at a golf ball is not a sport, I am intentionally demeaning it.
> 
> Still, since the method of argument here seems to be to simply repeat the point, or to avoid it, I think we can safely disregard it. It appears that Stringfellow has adopted the logic of Humpty Dumpty.
> 
> ...


I suppose you can think what you want, but my definition separates activities where the object is to work as hard as possible and 100% offense (i.e. in track each athlete tries to run as fast as he can) from sports where the activity is to 1) work as hard as possible on offense and 2) prevent your competitor from working as hard as possible while he is on offense (i.e. in basketball you try to score as many points as you can and you try to prevent your competitor from scoring points). Activities are all offense while sports are offense and defense. There is a fundamental difference between the two.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> No, I think that chess would lack the physical activity element of Stringfellow's definition. And in any case there is a difference between a necessary element and a sufficient element. The inclusion of "defense" as a necessary element (as Stringfellow proposes -- and I offer no opinion on the merits of his definition) does not render it a sufficient element.


After much deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that Curling is the baseline sport. It meets the minimum requirements of physical activity, offense, and defense. Anything with as much as or more physical activity, offense, and defense as curling is a sport; anything with less is an activity. Thus, shuffle board and darts are activities while curling is a sport.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> I suppose you can think what you want, but my definition separates activities where the object is to work as hard as possible and 100% offense (i.e. in track each athlete tries to run as fast as he can) from sports where the activity is to 1) work as hard as possible on offense and 2) *prevent your competitor from working as hard as possible while he is on offense* (i.e. in basketball you try to score as many points as you can and you try to prevent your competitor from scoring points). Activities are all offense while sports are offense and defense. There is a fundamental difference between the two.


Since this thread has turned into a debate on small technicalities, I'll throw in another for fun. You can't prevent your competitor from working as hard as possible. How hard he works is entirely up to him. You can only work to prevent him from _accomplishing_ his goal. _That's_ defense.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

wnh said:


> Since this thread has turned into a debate on small technicalities, I'll throw in another for fun. You can't prevent your competitor from working as hard as possible. How hard he works is entirely up to him. You can only work to prevent him from _accomplishing_ his goal. _That's_ defense.


Agreed. See, the Olympics are bringing people together! This thread already feels more harmonious.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> Agreed. See, the Olympics are bringing people together! This thread already feels more harmonious.


I apologize if anything I posted came off as hostile. I had just not heard of sports being defined the way you defined them. It's not like any of this matters anyway. I love sports and "activities" and enjoy "arguing" about them. If I offended, I am sorry.

Speaking of the Olympics, did anyone see where they passed out 100k condoms? Must be one helluva party in the Olympic Village!


----------



## adrian07 (Aug 3, 2007)

Rossini said:


> Oh come on, what's the big deal? With all the pollution and bad weather in Beijing can you blame them for having back-up fireworks on video? I seem to recall an Olympics not too long ago with an arrow being fired into (and missing) the Olympic flame and the the flame still mysteriously lighting. Like with any big show, you've got to have a bit of trickery to make it work backed up with contingency planning. And, as for the little girl, that's society's fault for putting pressure on them to think that an ugly girl would not have gone down as well. Is any modern society any different? Furthermore, they think that's what the West wants because that's the image we project. Conversely, if she had a hairy chin and a lazy eye I hope our first reaction would have been to applaud their nobility. !


Well thought & said.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

I've enjoyed Bella Karoli's rants and raves. I can't understand most of what he says but you can't say the guy is short on enthusiasm!


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Pentheos said:


> I lost interest in the Olympics when non-sports (e.g., BMX racing) became medal sports. I don't believe we should return to ancient Greece's narrow range of events, but a limit must be drawn (but by whom?).
> 
> Next up: competitive eating. I favor the Japanese.


I favor Johnny Chestnut!

Brian


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

BEIJING (AP) A Swedish wrestler was disqualified and stripped of his bronze medal Saturday for dropping the prize in protest after a disputed loss at the Beijing Olympics. 

Ara Abrahamian was punished by the International Olympic Committee for violating the spirit of fair play during the medal ceremony, becoming the fourth athlete kicked out of the games and bringing the number of medals removed to three. 



I agree with this decision, as the guy displayed remarkably bad sportsmanship.

On the other hand, I understand that he thinks he was the victim of biased judging. In that case, should the same fate be accorded to the 1972 U.S. basketball team, who refused to appear at the medal ceremony or accept their bronze medals because they were the victims of obvious cheating by the Soviet officials? I think the answer is no, but it may be worth a thought.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

My personal preference would be to prohibit countries with poor human rights records (Cuba, China, DPRK, etc.) from the Olympics. No one really knows just how brutal countries like this are in treating their athletes. It wasn't too long ago that the treatment of GDR's female Olympic athletes came to light. God only knows how North Korean and Chinese athletes are selected and trained.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I can see the attraction, but it's a very hard standard to establish and maintain consistently. For instance, what do we do about all the Muslim countries that oppress women? Countries that permit slavery? Countries who fail to provide education to their citizens? Countries that fail to provide basic health care to their citizens? Countries built on genocide against the original inhabitants? Countries that engage in wars of aggression against other sovereign nations? Countries that support terrorist forces?

I'm sure many of us would agree on what countries meet these standards, but there are lots of countries who would point out that these may not be universally accepted as neutral standards.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Jack, 
I can tell you are a lawyer as I see how you are trying to equivocate the origins of this country with the nightmare that is North Korea TODAY! Its not hard to do if you apply objective standards rather than moral relativism. 

By the way, in the event that we were trying to commit genocide against native Americans we did a lousy job. If you are so inclined you're welcome to turn over whatever plot of earth you call yours to the local native tribe as part of a casino complex. I'm sure they would oblige you.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Every country is built on "genocide" against its original inhabitants. Can you name ONE nation that is the first and only occupier of its present lands?

You've got to love the leftists' undeniable urge to s*** on this country every chance they get, though.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Every country is built on "genocide" against its original inhabitants. Can you name ONE nation that is the first and only occupier of its present lands?
> 
> You've got to love the leftists' undeniable urge to s*** on this country every chance they get, though.


Ghana, Siam and Togo leap to mind, there are certainly others, particularly some of the Pacific Islands including Pitcairn's.

Once again, what we love about our dear, dear Turkey is his utter eagerness to parade his ignorance before the public. He has absolutely no inhibitions!

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Ghana, Siam and Togo? All obviously wrong, and followed with an insult, no less-remarkable!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I don't know that there are any, but I would guess maybe the Innu and Sami peoples.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> For instance, what do we do about all the Muslim countries that oppress women? Countries that permit slavery? Countries who fail to provide education to their citizens? Countries that fail to provide basic health care to their citizens? Countries built on genocide against the original inhabitants? Countries that engage in wars of aggression against other sovereign nations? Countries that support terrorist forces?


You left out 'government provided' (such a handy and happy term) homes and three meals a day... and why leave out transportation... and a good government job. How can any so-called decent society (ie, government) deny these to its citizens?!

Lets see... where is Utopia?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Ghana, Siam and Togo? All obviously wrong, and followed with an insult, no less-remarkable!


No, I am right.

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> No, I am right.
> 
> Buzz


Stopped Clock.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Stopped Clock.


Finally, a moment of wisdom! Mike wins. :icon_smile_big: :devil:


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> After much deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that Curling is the baseline sport. It meets the minimum requirements of physical activity, offense, and defense. Anything with as much as or more physical activity, offense, and defense as curling is a sport; anything with less is an activity. Thus, shuffle board and darts are activities while curling is a sport.


If you can drink liquor and smoke a cigar while doing it, it's not a sport.

So gymnastics is a sport, but not darts.


----------

