Olympics 2012

So why call it a nonsense?

Because to me it is nonsense. Just like synchronised swimming is.

Why is it shameful? People aren't as interested in tennis in wheelchairs as they are in 'tennis'. I wouldn't be as interested in a 'Fat Olympics' where 20 stone people compete against each other...and why should I be?

Or an Olympics for people who just aren't very good at sport, like me!

I understand what you're saying. You don't enjoy watching it. I'm really not sure how anyone can object to that!

The Paralympics is an interesting concept though, and Pistorius is fascinating. You have to fit certain criteria to be allowed to enter - you have to have a disability that ticks the appropriate box. The spirit of the event is great, but I do wonder if having an event for disabled people singles them out and defines them by their disability, rather than as people. But clearly the intention is commendable, and it's a positive movement for the world.

I bet third world African countries don't dominate events in the way they dominate some in the Olympics though (eg distance running).

I'm out. Have a good day folks,.

Tennis is tennis, same rules just played by people in wheelchairs or on legs. What is shameful is you seem to be saying one way of playing it is better than another way and that is discriminating to disabled people. I'll get you a JCB in a minute as the spade you keep using is not big enough.

I prefer the able bodied version. How is that discriminating? Go on, have a shot at saying something intelligent for once.

And here we go, the mighty fd is on the back foot so the insults start flying, still I'll give you your due, it took longer than normal

There are no insults there. I am asking you to explain why you think it is discriminating. Go on, have a go.

So why call it a nonsense?

Because to me it is nonsense. Just like synchronised swimming is.

So why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of implying the Paralympics were a nonsense?
If you had of just done that then we wouldn't be we're we are now.

There are no insults there. I am asking you to explain why you think it is discriminating. Go on, have a go.

I already have, I got better things to do than to repeat myself all over again. The insult is that I have not said anything intelligent because I dared to question your choice of words

The Paralympics is an interesting concept though, and Pistorius is fascinating. You have to fit certain criteria to be allowed to enter - you have to have a disability that ticks the appropriate box. The spirit of the event is great, but I do wonder if having an event for disabled people singles them out and defines them by their disability, rather than as people. But clearly the intention is commendable, and it's a positive movement for the world.

I would imagine that's more to do with maintaining some level of competitiveness between the athletes than trying to place them in distinct groups.

So why call it a nonsense?

Because to me it is nonsense. Just like synchronised swimming is.

So why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of implying the Paralympics were a nonsense?
If you had of just done that then we wouldn't be we're we are now.

I did say that. You read into it what you wanted to read into it (as you always do).

Even if I was implying that the Paralympics were a nonsense, what would be wrong with that? I know of plenty of people who think that the Olympics are a nonsense and a waste of time, money and tv coverage.

There are no insults there. I am asking you to explain why you think it is discriminating. Go on, have a go.

I already have, I got better things to do than to repeat myself all over again. The insult is that I have not said anything intelligent because I dared to question your choice of words

No, you haven't said why you think it is discriminating.

I did say that. You read into it what you wanted to read into it (as you always do).

.

and I wasn't the only one

The Paralympics is an interesting concept though, and Pistorius is fascinating. You have to fit certain criteria to be allowed to enter - you have to have a disability that ticks the appropriate box. The spirit of the event is great, but I do wonder if having an event for disabled people singles them out and defines them by their disability, rather than as people. But clearly the intention is commendable, and it's a positive movement for the world.

I would imagine that's more to do with maintaining some level of competitiveness between the athletes than trying to place them in distinct groups.

Yes, you're absolutely right; that's not what I meant.

What I mean is that while the idea is that people overcome great adversity to achieve great things, it's only accessible to people who have overcome certain disabilities. Lance Armstrong and Steve Redgrave wouldn't be eligible; they have to compete with the very best able-bodied athletes. People who compete in the Paralympics are competing against others in similar situations to themselves. It's definitely a good, positive thing, but I do also feel that it's sometimes slightly patronising.

Come on fd and Pastie, shake virtual hands!

Well done London, well done GB, well done to all the organizers, the volunteers and the Olympians, it was a very memorable games. Brazil, its over to you.

Lulz

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19241028

Lulz

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19241028

For the 3rd time in this thread