A bomb didn't go off like in the last one hosted by the us, which was incidentally the worst organised and hosted Olympics in living memory.RTHKI wrote:
prove it
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
A bomb didn't go off like in the last one hosted by the us, which was incidentally the worst organised and hosted Olympics in living memory.RTHKI wrote:
prove it
meh id rather not have a missile launcher on top of my house just for some boring games.m3thod wrote:
A bomb didn't go off like in the last one hosted by the us, which was incidentally the worst organised and hosted Olympics in living memory.RTHKI wrote:
prove it
Must prefer terrorist attacks then.Frank Reynolds wrote:
meh id rather not have a missile launcher on top of my house just for some boring games.m3thod wrote:
A bomb didn't go off like in the last one hosted by the us, which was incidentally the worst organised and hosted Olympics in living memory.RTHKI wrote:
prove it
from who the iranian luftwaffles?coke wrote:
Must prefer terrorist attacks then.Frank Reynolds wrote:
meh id rather not have a missile launcher on top of my house just for some boring games.m3thod wrote:
A bomb didn't go off like in the last one hosted by the us, which was incidentally the worst organised and hosted Olympics in living memory.
Last edited by War Man (2012-08-14 00:30:14)
yes you do. what a stupid thing to say.Jaekus wrote:
No one wins the Olympics
Its okay, we understand, it natural instinct for a farther to defend his retarded son.Frank Reynolds wrote:
yes you do. what a stupid thing to say.Jaekus wrote:
No one wins the Olympics
First off, there is no winner of the Olympics since the Olympic committee does not award countries based on medal count in any way shape or form. That does not however, mean that they don't keep count. The Olympics do keep track of the medal count and according to that the country with the most gold medals would be in first place unless two countries were tied with the same amount of gold medals in which case silver medals would be the tie breaker. If two or more countries have the same amount of gold and silver medals then they would look to the country with the most bronze medals. The Olympic committee states that it is frowned upon to compare medal counts because of the differences in populations and resources. Also, the committee believes that nobody should be ashamed whether they medal at all because of the fact that no matter where you finish you are still one of the most elite athletes in the whole world. However, I doubt that's really how they view it considering that if you did look at it like that then there would be no reason to keep track. Especially keepin track and constantly informing viewers by running it through the ticker across the bottom of their screen. The committee knows very well that keeping track of the medal count raises ratings by giving countries a storyline to entertain them outside of the actual events. It is my opinion that it is just a matter of time before they actually award the top three countries with a gold, silver and bronze medal respectively for overall medal count. If they do ever do that, then population at least, should be taken into consideration
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue mem3thod wrote:
Its okay, we understand, it natural instinct for a farther to defend his retarded son.Frank Reynolds wrote:
yes you do. what a stupid thing to say.Jaekus wrote:
No one wins the OlympicsFirst off, there is no winner of the Olympics since the Olympic committee does not award countries based on medal count in any way shape or form. That does not however, mean that they don't keep count. The Olympics do keep track of the medal count and according to that the country with the most gold medals would be in first place unless two countries were tied with the same amount of gold medals in which case silver medals would be the tie breaker. If two or more countries have the same amount of gold and silver medals then they would look to the country with the most bronze medals. The Olympic committee states that it is frowned upon to compare medal counts because of the differences in populations and resources. Also, the committee believes that nobody should be ashamed whether they medal at all because of the fact that no matter where you finish you are still one of the most elite athletes in the whole world. However, I doubt that's really how they view it considering that if you did look at it like that then there would be no reason to keep track. Especially keepin track and constantly informing viewers by running it through the ticker across the bottom of their screen. The committee knows very well that keeping track of the medal count raises ratings by giving countries a storyline to entertain them outside of the actual events. It is my opinion that it is just a matter of time before they actually award the top three countries with a gold, silver and bronze medal respectively for overall medal count. If they do ever do that, then population at least, should be taken into consideration
Really? Where's the winning team's trophy presentation then? huh?Frank Reynolds wrote:
yes you do. what a stupid thing to say.Jaekus wrote:
No one wins the Olympics