EvC Forum: 2004 Summer Olympics

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: 2004 Summer Olympics

caffeine

Member (Idle past 1051 days)

Posts: 1800

From: Prague, Czech Republic

Joined: 10-22-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 42 of 109 (669114)
07-27-2012 3:36 AM

Reply to: Message 41 by xongsmith
07-26-2012 3:02 PM

Re: London 2012

/...really?? wow, I hadn't heard about that. Now I have something to watch.

Thanks!

I believe you missed jar's biting sarcasm. I think he's complaining about the fact that baseball and softball have been removed from the Olympics this year.

I don't really care about baseball or softball, but I'm a bit disappointed nothing's been added to replace them. They could have added 20/20 cricket, given that the games are in England.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 41 by xongsmith, posted 07-26-2012 3:02 PM		xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 43 by Taq, posted 07-27-2012 4:07 AM		caffeine has replied

caffeine

Member (Idle past 1051 days)

Posts: 1800

From: Prague, Czech Republic

Joined: 10-22-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 44 of 109 (669141)
07-27-2012 11:29 AM

Reply to: Message 43 by Taq
07-27-2012 4:07 AM

Re: London 2012

Even as an American who balks at the idea that non-American sports actually matter . . . hehe, I will agree with argument. They should have at least had cricket as an exhibition this year, and I would actually have enjoyed learning the game of cricket through the Olympics this year. That game has always intrigued me, especially as a baseball (i.e rounders) fan for my whole life. But if it is any consolation, you do have tennis, rugby, and football as very well recognized British sports in the Olympics.

I actually wish they'd take football out of the Olympics. You shouldn't have sports in there that are more important than the Olympics themselves - it risks overshadowing everything else. I couldn't watch the archery today (which I bet on) because local TV was only streaming repeats of yesterday's football games.

And it clashes with real football. Several European leagues are getting started now, and the qualifiers for European football have begun. Players should be training with their clubs, not prancing about in the Olympics.

Things I've discovered today - Koreans kick ass at archery. Not only did they finish top of the men's and women's team event in the qualifying round; they got first and second in the women's singles and first, second and third in the mens. Oh, and Im Dong Yung set a new world record. Quite a start.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 43 by Taq, posted 07-27-2012 4:07 AM		Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 45 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-07-2012 6:20 PM		caffeine has replied

caffeine

Member (Idle past 1051 days)

Posts: 1800

From: Prague, Czech Republic

Joined: 10-22-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 46 of 109 (670021)
08-08-2012 3:13 AM

Reply to: Message 45 by Artemis Entreri
08-07-2012 6:20 PM

Re: London 2012

each team is an under 23 years old team, which may have some of the Pros, and could have 3, though if training with thier clubs is soooo imporatant It would be my guess that these players are doing so.

Players under 23 still play for their clubs, and there are the extra three overage players in each squad. Craig Bellamy was on the British team for example, while his club was already playing the qualifiers for Europe. There are often arguments when international football clashes with club football - the African Cup of Nations causes these problems even more, since it takes place in the middle of the Premiership season.

I think it only partially clashes with real football, as 0 European teams have made it to the medal round (BTW its Korea, Japan, Brazil, and Mexico).

I dunno maybe I misunderstood your point.

Which country you represent isn't the same as which country you play in normally. All four teams in the semi-finals have at least one player playing in Europe - in Brazil's case it's half the squad.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 45 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-07-2012 6:20 PM		Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

caffeine

Member (Idle past 1051 days)

Posts: 1800

From: Prague, Czech Republic

Joined: 10-22-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 50 of 109 (670699)
08-17-2012 11:37 AM

Reply to: Message 49 by dronestar
08-17-2012 11:16 AM

Re: OK, the 2012 London Olympics are over . . .

Yes, thanks for informing me. But I have been repeatedly corrected (usually in very mild tones ) that the BBC is the most liberal, most forthcomingly honest media outlet, and nearly always acts for the public's best interests. Thus, the British most be the best informed culture in the world.

Was this by Americans? It doesn't sound like a typical British view.

(Although your simple, one-sentenced example doesn't exactly support the BBC's typically deep analysis of subjects such as its recent lengthy support and presentation of the DOW corporation, makers of fine products like napalm and responsible for the Bhopal disaster, and proud green sponsor for the Olympics.)

The BBC doesn't do deep analysis. It tends to have fairly superficial news stories. Channel 4 TV news in the UK advertises itself explicitly as giving the deep analysis lacking on the BBC.

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 49 by dronestar, posted 08-17-2012 11:16 AM		dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 51 by dronestar, posted 08-17-2012 1:06 PM		caffeine has not replied

caffeine

Member (Idle past 1051 days)

Posts: 1800

From: Prague, Czech Republic

Joined: 10-22-2008

Normal Thread Display

Message 69 of 109 (670913)
08-21-2012 3:38 AM

Reply to: Message 54 by dronestar
08-20-2012 11:02 AM

Re: OK, the 2012 London Olympics are over . . .

Hee. Yeah, you're right bluegenes, it was crazy for me to think the Olympic organizers or a major corporate network would actually care about a very, very, very, very, very rich sponsor/client. As if money could somehow be, . . . . gasp, . . . influential or corrupting. What was I thinking?

Dow is not a sponsor or client of the BBC, though. The BBC doesn't have any sponsors - it's paid for out of public funds.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 54 by dronestar, posted 08-20-2012 11:02 AM		dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 70 by dronestar, posted 08-21-2012 9:02 AM		caffeine has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	CosmicChimp, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/1