The PR is not to promote turism, but to promote China. They're a very rapidly growing economy right now which is said will outgrow the US soon and far surpass it, so China may become the new economic power of the world. So yeah, naturally they want to turn heads and to turn people's attention to China, promoting its values, its culture ... etc. They're doing this for power & influence over the world, be it political, cultural, economical, military ... everybody's looking at China right now, so their task is to change people's views of China. Most people have archaic notions as to what China's all about. They all think "oh, poor communists" but at the same time, some of its economical centres are building some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world. Their companies are booming on the world market ... and as was seen, they have the dedication and the power to outdo G8 nations in putting on a show for the Olympic Games.A PR event is one way of putting it, but what you have to remember is that China as a whole is quite nationalistic as a country, and calling it a PR event is suggesting that Beijing is only hosting the Olympics to promote tourism. Think of it as a national celebration, apparently over 4000 people were so excited as to call their children "Olympic Games".
otispunkmeyer said:well what a day.... the 400IM for phelps earlier on was a given, no one was gonna touch him on that. but today, his 8 medal dream was in the balance.
the American 4x100m free B-team did a sterling job, breaking the WR and getting the US to the final.
i was literally dancing round the living room shouting at the TV during the final. i did not want the french to win! I could not believe what i was seeing when Lezak reeled the frenchman Alain Bernard back in in the last 5m, pipping him to the touch. absolutely unreal... phelps at the end, roaring like a lion, i bet he was relieved.
poor Aussies, after the last olympics where the US told them they'd get smashed like guitars only to have the Aussies wind up on top, i knew the US wouldnt let that happen again. i have to give it to the them though, i thought Phelps lead off 100 was immense at 47.5 matching the WR, but Eamon Sullivan absolutely smashed that with 47.2 in the lane next them, just stunning!
i feel sorry for Katie Hoff atm, i think the media really wound up the hype on her, claiming 6 gold medals.... she got done big time in the womens 400IM buy the australian girl and despite leading 399m of the 400M free.... my favourite british swimmer, Rebecca Adlington wound it up and got her on the touch, with the very pretty (for a swimmer, lots of them are pig ugly) Jo Jackson not far behind in third.
hoff went off like a shot around the 200-250m mark, and she had to really, to try put the english girls out of contention, but i could see Jo and Becky were spurring each other on, they were looking at each other at one point, and they reeled Hoff back in.
Again i just could not believe what happened...proper exciting stuff, i was out of my chair for that one too!
i have high hopes for her in the 800M and Liam Tancock, providing he doesnt go mental at the start, has a wicked chance in the 100m back (though Aaron Piersol looks exceptional mind)
EDIT just checked the splits for the 4x100m free, mens
United StatesUSA - United States 3:08.24 WR
PHELPS Michael 0.75 23.31 47.51 (2) 47.51
WEBER-GALE Garrett 0.06 21.89 47.02 (1) 1:34.53
JONES Cullen 0.38 22.68 47.65 (2) 2:22.18
LEZAK Jason 0.04 21.50 46.06 (1) 3:08.24
all pretty fast, but check out Lezak's last leg split.... 46.06.... thats fucking biblical! i bet if he didnt have the luxury of the rolling start he'd of smashed the WR into pieces, a rolling start certainly isnt worth over a second!
he went 21.5 to his feet on the 50 as well! amazing (tho Bernard went even faster than that to the 50 in 21.27)
Polly said:Sadly you have to take those kind of performances with a whole fucking bag of salt these days.
vikiradTG2007 said:Let's keep the discussions about the Olympics here.(edit by Elvis313: this thread)
Elvis313 said:Polly:"Sadly you have to take those kind of performances with a whole fucking bag of salt these days."
True, sadly. The commentator here pointed out that those incredibe boosts of performance can hardly be explained; he was very careful in what he said, though.
There are new WRs at the olympics everytime and nobody really dares to ask how that might be possible
Jacobfox said:Well if you're in the top 4, you're immediately tested and vetted. I gotta say, great swim by lezak, fastest ever 100m relay leg by a country mile. If they kept records for relay legs, he would've shattered the old one by more than a half second. I did notice that whoever the frenchman swimming leg three was, he did a great job to distance himself from the Americans. The catch-up that followed will be remembered for a long time, especially if Phelps does what everyone believes he can do.
What did you think of the japanese bloke that WR'd in the 100 breast final? Seems to me like a damn good swim. And you have to love these polyurethane suits for bringing these records down. Sure makes it entertaining.
Elvis313 said:Jacobfox: "Well if you're in the top 4, you're immediately tested and vetted."
First, I don't think everything can be detected. And second, even with random tests during training, you can never be completely sure that the athlete didn't take something in the months or years before. Especially the ones that didn't take part in International challenges before (china anyone?)
Suedschleife said:So far my favorite is still the 1984 games, go Albatross. Sad to say I just don't enjoy watching televised Sports anymore unless they are endurance racing.
Well, this is very off-topic and I apologise for that.i doubt any of them will of used steriods.
im not sure, i guess the correct word would be haveWell, this is very off-topic and I apologise for that.
But what's the deal with the "of" in that context?
I read that quite often in the last days.
Is it correct english, some kind of internet slang or just colloquial speech?