23 Aug 04
Greece has done an excellent job in presenting the Olympics this year! The opening ceremonies were wonderful, and the games have all been very well done. The most moving thing has been seeing games played in Olympia, the actual stadium where the original games were played.
It appears that the security has been well done as well. I have heard nothing about any problems. So yay! to the athelets, and yay to Greece on a job well done. 🙂
23 Aug 04
Originally posted by elvendreamgirl
Greece has done an excellent job in presenting the Olympics this year! The opening ceremonies were wonderful, and the games have all been very well done. The most moving thing has been seeing games played in Olympia, the actual stadium where the original games were played.
It appears that the security has been well done as well. I have h ...[text shortened]... rd nothing about any problems. So yay! to the athelets, and yay to Greece on a job well done. 🙂
Gosh, I surely didn't like the opening ceremonies this year. I'm an Olympic fan, but I don't think any country will be Sydney for the opening ceremonies. The Sydney ceremonies were just so moving and had such depth. Cathy Freeman, lighting the flame? That was so very dramatic.
This years flame, no offense, but it looked like a giant hand rolled cigarette (or as most have called it - a joint).
I've enjoyed a lot of the performances, but I can always do with less commentary.
For instance, the US Commentators, through the entire Men's Gymnastics Program - whispering "he knows he has to stick this landing"....
Um, excuse me.... but are there any landings he doesn't have to stick?!? Are there any dismounts that actually require they trip and go flying into the stands?
23 Aug 04
Originally posted by turtlexAnd why is it that the landings are so decisive? The folks are jumping, flipping, twirling, etc., and yet if they take a wee step on the landing they're out of the runnings. Bizarre.
Gosh, I surely didn't like the opening ceremonies this year. I'm an Olympic fan, but I don't think any country will be Sydney for the opening ceremonies. The Sydney ceremonies were just so moving and had such depth. Cathy Freeman, lighting the flame? That was so very dramatic.
This years flame, no offense, but it looked like a giant hand rolled cigar ...[text shortened]... ck?!? Are there any dismounts that actually require they trip and go flying into the stands?
23 Aug 04
Originally posted by bbarrThe folks are inferring, deciding and following rules and yet if they make one wee mistake their conclusion is uncertain. Bizarre.
And why is it that the landings are so decisive? The folks are jumping, flipping, twirling, etc., and yet if they take a wee step on the landing they're out of the runnings. Bizarre.
23 Aug 04
Originally posted by royalchickenI didn't say they shouldn't suffer deductions (to torture your analogy [metaphor {?}] further [unecessary, really; it's suffered enough] their routines are thereby imperfect, which is the suitable analogue of deductive certainty), but a couple tenths of a point for a tiny step on the landing? I think it's the recency effect in action; a function of a particular irrationality of human psychology.
The folks are inferring, deciding and following rules and yet if they make one wee mistake their conclusion is uncertain. Bizarre.
23 Aug 04
Originally posted by bbarrWhat I mean is that an argument with one error is as good as no argument at all.
I didn't say they shouldn't suffer deductions (to torture your analogy [metaphor {?}] further [unecessary, really; it's suffered enough] their routines are thereby [b]imperfect, which is the suitable analogue of deductive certainty), but a couple tenths of a point for a tiny step on the landing? I think it's the recency effect in action; a function of a particular irrationality of human psychology. [/b]
You are probably correct that the error, happening last, sticks in the judges' minds. However, I think they score as they go, looking for specific things, don't they?
23 Aug 04
I wouldn't be surprised if the points system gets changed in the near future. It seems to me that with the complexity of the moves/dismounts that gymnasts are currently using, a revision is in order. But one must remember that next to figure skating, gymnastics is traditionally one of the most "traditional" sports and very resistant to change.
23 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by elvendreamgirlBah! Numbering the lines isn't sufficient to turn a poem into an argument. You english majors are all the same. 😉
1. I see the moon.
2. The moon sees me.
3. God bless the moon.
4. God bless me.
🙂
Here's one to keep you happy:
We are so both and oneful
Night cannot be so sky
Sky cannot be so sunful
I am through you so I
-e.e.cummings
23 Aug 04
Originally posted by bbarrHow is that analogous to a screwed-up landing?
1. All men are mortal.
2. The moon is made of cheese.
3. Socrates is a man.
________________________
4. Socrates is mortal.
You're wrong.
QED
😛
1. All men are mortal
2. All Olympians are men
3. Zeus is an Olympian
4. Zeus is immortal
-------------------------------
5. The moon is made of cheese
is a valid argument (and a play on words) but removing any step is like forgetting to put your foot in the right place during your dismount.
OH-you mean 'extra step'!
23 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenIt wasn't intended as an analogue. It was intended as a counter-example to your claim that an argument with one error is as good as no argument at all. Some arguments work perfectly well, even though they contain an error. How could it be otherwise, given that even the best gymnastic performances of these Olympics received less than 10? Since they received less than 10, they weren't perfect (ie, they contained an error), yet they were perfectly good routines.
How is that analogous to a screwed-up landing?
1. All men are mortal
2. All Olympians are men
3. Zeus is an Olympian
4. Zeus is immortal
-------------------------------
5. The moon is made of cheese
is a valid argument (and ...[text shortened]... ght place during your dismount.
OH-you mean 'extra step'!
RC: OH-you mean 'extra step'!
Indeed.
23 Aug 04
Originally posted by bbarrThere is no error in your argument.
It wasn't intended as an analogue. It was intended as a counter-example to your claim that an argument with one error is as good as no argument at all. Some arguments work perfectly well, even though they contain an error. How could it be otherwise, given that even the best gymnastic performances of these Olympics received less than 10? Since they receive ...[text shortened]... , they weren't perfect (ie, they contained an error), yet they were perfectly good routines.