If so, call me about a Corvair, some swampland and bridge I have for sale.

Moderator: Andrew
X factor wrote:...that these little Chinese Gymnasts are ACTUALLY 16 years old?????
If so, call me about a Corvair, some swampland and bridge I have for sale.
X factor wrote:...that these little Chinese Gymnasts are ACTUALLY 16 years old?????
If so, call me about a Corvair, some swampland and bridge I have for sale.
7 Wishes wrote:How many 4'5" 16-year-olds do you know?
They're cheating.
RedWingFan wrote:7 Wishes wrote:How many 4'5" 16-year-olds do you know?
They're cheating.
Yeah, how many 4'5" and a whopping 68 pound 16 year olds? China's embarrassing themselves.
7 Wishes wrote:How many 4'5" 16-year-olds do you know?
They're cheating.
7 Wishes wrote:While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
conversationpc wrote:7 Wishes wrote:While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Seems like he was wrong on some of those predictions, huh? Especially if the violence there continues to decrease as it has since the troop surge began.
The Sushi Hunter wrote:X factor wrote:...that these little Chinese Gymnasts are ACTUALLY 16 years old?????
If so, call me about a Corvair, some swampland and bridge I have for sale.
Well I haven't seen a blink of any of the olympics so I couldn't tell you how old I thought they were by looking at them. But what I can say is, the majority of Asian women have always looked much younger then they actually are. Some scientists believe it's the high level of fish oil that's in their diets. A number of years ago when I was still in my 20's, I was dating a 45 year old Chinese chick, her oldest son was less then ten years younger then me. This chick could pass for 25 no fucking lie! She didn't smoke, drink or take drugs so I have an idea that this also contributed to why she looked so young. Her skin was so friggin soft, she was petite, and smelled so good.....hell I still wake up sometimes in the middle of the night remembering how good she was.
Ehwmatt wrote:But on the other hand, what a STUPID rule. Can someone explain to me the basis for the rule? Is it because they are smaller, they are at an advantage? Ok, well why don't we ban anybody who hits their growth spurt from basketball. Where do you draw the line? Is it because they fear obsessive/abusive parents/coaches ruining a kid's life? Well, guess what, most parents are still in pretty good control of their young teenagers too. I was a national level junior tennis player not too long ago and I've seen dads beating up on their kids 12 and 17 alike (thankfully, only once did I see things get physical, but plenty of verbal abuse to go 'round..)
If you are physically capable of competing at that level, NOTHING should stop you. I'm 5'8 and play at the #1 singles and doubles slots on my collegiate tennis team. Tennis isn't even a sport renown for big guys, but I'm usually smaller than the guy I'm playing at #1. Never once have I been taller. Sure, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, but I have no problems doing well. What if some dickhead governing body decided to make the minimum height 5'10? This rule is blatantly discriminatory in one way or another, whether it be based on reverse ageism or physical discrimination. Discrimination has no place in sports. Let the best athlete(s) on the day win, everything else be damned.
Ehwmatt wrote:I guess on one hand I feel like saying "The rules are the rules and those damn communists." I mean really, they are straight lying to our faces and they aren't telling good lies at that. It's insulting to our intelligence and it only gets worse when they sit there and deny it.
But on the other hand, what a STUPID rule. Can someone explain to me the basis for the rule? Is it because they are smaller, they are at an advantage? Ok, well why don't we ban anybody who hits their growth spurt from basketball. Where do you draw the line? Is it because they fear obsessive/abusive parents/coaches ruining a kid's life? Well, guess what, most parents are still in pretty good control of their young teenagers too. I was a national level junior tennis player not too long ago and I've seen dads beating up on their kids 12 and 17 alike (thankfully, only once did I see things get physical, but plenty of verbal abuse to go 'round..)
If you are physically capable of competing at that level, NOTHING should stop you. I'm 5'8 and play at the #1 singles and doubles slots on my collegiate tennis team. Tennis isn't even a sport renown for big guys, but I'm usually smaller than the guy I'm playing at #1. Never once have I been taller. Sure, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, but I have no problems doing well. What if some dickhead governing body decided to make the minimum height 5'10? This rule is blatantly discriminatory in one way or another, whether it be based on reverse ageism or physical discrimination. Discrimination has no place in sports. Let the best athlete(s) on the day win, everything else be damned.
SI.com: Why is there an age limit in gymnastics?
Swift: It was instituted primarily for the mental health of the athletes. Being 14 and having those Olympic or world championship expectations put on you is unreasonable and very difficult. There's also the question of the physical health of the athletes because their bones are still growing and they are trying -- and often completing -- these very difficult and complicated tricks. The question is whether they would do them anyway if they were not Olympic-eligible and maybe the answer is yes. But these are very dangerous tricks, and the older you can make the athletes and the more their bodies have developed, the safer they are.
SI.com: What effect has age restriction had on international competition?
Swift: It has had an impact. Nadia Comaneci was 14 when she won in Montreal in 1976. Four years later, she did well. She won a couple of medals but did not win the all-around medal and she was not the dominant gymnast she was as a 14 year old. So there is a physical advantage to being smaller, more flexible and quicker. We see this in figure skating, which has the same rule. The hips, when they have not developed, spin quicker. That enables the competitors to do more complicated routines. In gymnastics, it's flips. If you are smaller, you can flip more. Some people also think the younger athlete does not feel as much pressure, so it has an advantage in that respect, too.
conversationpc wrote:
I believe the law was enacted to keep unscrupulous trainers from turning kids into full-time athletes and exploiting them. I agree with the rule. 12 year-olds should not be forced or even encouraged to practice for hours upon hours a day like that. They should be allowed to be kids. Some of them may tell you that it's what they want to do but I guarantee you most of them end up regretting spending so much time on stuff like this as a child and missing out on just being a child.
RedWingFan wrote:This does a pretty good job of explaining it.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/o ... ml?eref=T1SI.com: Why is there an age limit in gymnastics?
Swift: It was instituted primarily for the mental health of the athletes. Being 14 and having those Olympic or world championship expectations put on you is unreasonable and very difficult. There's also the question of the physical health of the athletes because their bones are still growing and they are trying -- and often completing -- these very difficult and complicated tricks. The question is whether they would do them anyway if they were not Olympic-eligible and maybe the answer is yes. But these are very dangerous tricks, and the older you can make the athletes and the more their bodies have developed, the safer they are.
SI.com: What effect has age restriction had on international competition?
Swift: It has had an impact. Nadia Comaneci was 14 when she won in Montreal in 1976. Four years later, she did well. She won a couple of medals but did not win the all-around medal and she was not the dominant gymnast she was as a 14 year old. So there is a physical advantage to being smaller, more flexible and quicker. We see this in figure skating, which has the same rule. The hips, when they have not developed, spin quicker. That enables the competitors to do more complicated routines. In gymnastics, it's flips. If you are smaller, you can flip more. Some people also think the younger athlete does not feel as much pressure, so it has an advantage in that respect, too.
Ehwmatt wrote:conversationpc wrote:
I believe the law was enacted to keep unscrupulous trainers from turning kids into full-time athletes and exploiting them. I agree with the rule. 12 year-olds should not be forced or even encouraged to practice for hours upon hours a day like that. They should be allowed to be kids. Some of them may tell you that it's what they want to do but I guarantee you most of them end up regretting spending so much time on stuff like this as a child and missing out on just being a child.
That's fair enough, but this pretty much happens in almost every sport nowadays, especially ones focused on the individual. This kind of "burn out" happens all the time in my sport and others, but really, I don't think it's up to the powers that be to try to curb these things. Guess what's going to happen? That 12 year old will just be training that hard for 4 more years until the next Olympics rolls in. If a parent(s) and/or coaches believe enough in the pupil and they are crazy in their methods and hours, that kid's going to be practicing by hook or crook.
It's a little easier to govern in a sport like tennis, they have (or at least had) tournament limitations for competitors under a certain age. But that doesn't stop kids of all ages from spending every waking moment out there training in one capacity or another.
This is a perfect example of a pointless rule in my eyes. It's not going to help the people it's supposed to.
X factor wrote:Nope, I call bs on saying this is "whining"- The fact of the matter is it's OBVIOUS that the Chinese have cheated, and there's nothing wrong with Martha Karolyi calling it what it is!
There was a state published story about one of the gymnasts being 13 that come out a few months ago, and was mytsteriously buried....nope- it's cheating pure and simple, and it's class-less!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests