[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null Conquer Club • Olympic Opening Ceremony Celebrates NHS- Americans baffled? - Page 4
Night Strike wrote:I DID watch the whole thing. And the coverage we had stated that the producer's goal in that segment was to showcase the two most lasting British contributions to the world: children's literature and socialized medicine. That was after they showed the British leading the world out of an agrarian society into the industrial revolution.
You saw the rest of it, about Britain's contribution to music, and the centrepiece of Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world-wide web? The tribute to British film? Did you see the Rowan Atkinson bit paying tribute to classical music and British comedy, as well as British athletics.
Yes, I watched the entire opening ceremony. The "music party" was pretty boring to me, and they completely left out Elton John. What did he do to piss off the producer? The Rowan Atkinson section was hilarious while the WWW section was simply a token moment instead of an actual centerpiece of value. My favorite effect was the forging of the ring, while the Bond/queen segment was very entertaining.
Woodruff wrote:This highlights how you seem to form most of your opinions - broadcasters tell you what they are.
Considering I didn't have the show-notes sitting next to me during the show like the broadcasters did, then yes, they are necessary to state why sections were included in the program.
I'm guessing that the idea that the NHS and Childrens' Lit were the greatest achievements of the UK was more a product of the US broadcaster's confusion than your own opinion. Would that be fair? It's pretty much why I started this thread- that that particular part seems to have been most baffling to the US media.
Woodruff wrote:This highlights how you seem to form most of your opinions - broadcasters tell you what they are.
Considering I didn't have the show-notes sitting next to me during the show like the broadcasters did, then yes, they are necessary to state why sections were included in the program.
Having show-notes is not at all relevant to the point I'm making.
Symmetry wrote:that that particular part seems to have been most baffling to the US media.
"pulling a Symm" - repeating your thesis ad nauseum despite everyone showing you that you're incorrect - does not make this any truer now than any other time you do it
it was baffling to the world - as I noted German television thought it was scenes from a 19th century orphanage
Symmetry wrote:that that particular part seems to have been most baffling to the US media.
"pulling a Symm" - repeating your thesis ad nauseum despite everyone showing you that you're incorrect - does not make this any truer now than any other time you do it
it was baffling to the world - as I noted German television thought it was scenes from a 19th century orphanage
Mary Poppins was set in the early 20th Century, so such a mistake is kind of excusable, no?
Symmetry wrote:that that particular part seems to have been most baffling to the US media.
"pulling a Symm" - repeating your thesis ad nauseum despite everyone showing you that you're incorrect - does not make this any truer now than any other time you do it
it was baffling to the world - as I noted German television thought it was scenes from a 19th century orphanage
Mary Poppins was set in the early 20th Century, so such a mistake is kind of excusable, no?
Symmetry: that particular part seems to have been most baffling to the US media Saxitoxin: it was baffling to the world Symmetry: kind of excusable, no?
Symmetry wrote:that that particular part seems to have been most baffling to the US media.
"pulling a Symm" - repeating your thesis ad nauseum despite everyone showing you that you're incorrect - does not make this any truer now than any other time you do it
it was baffling to the world - as I noted German television thought it was scenes from a 19th century orphanage
Mary Poppins was set in the early 20th Century, so such a mistake is kind of excusable, no?
Symmetry: that particular part seems to have been most baffling to the US media Saxitoxin: it was baffling to the world Symmetry: kind of excusable, no?
Symmetry wrote:that that particular part seems to have been most baffling to the US media.
"pulling a Symm" - repeating your thesis ad nauseum despite everyone showing you that you're incorrect - does not make this any truer now than any other time you do it
it was baffling to the world - as I noted German television thought it was scenes from a 19th century orphanage
Mary Poppins was set in the early 20th Century, so such a mistake is kind of excusable, no?
Symmetry: that particular part seems to have been most baffling to the US media Saxitoxin: it was baffling to the world Symmetry: kind of excusable, no?
Indeed Saxi, it was, so if you weren't denigrating the ability of double amputees to play tennis at an olympic level, does that mean that you were complimenting me?
Symmetry wrote:Indeed Saxi, it was, so if you weren't denigrating the ability of double amputees to play tennis at an olympic level, does that mean that you were complimenting me?
You should make the choice to stop slurring paraolympians and return to the topic - the bafflement of the world's media at an off-kilter opening ceremonies. You've become a bit mad in this thread, no?
Symmetry wrote:Indeed Saxi, it was, so if you weren't denigrating the ability of double amputees to play tennis at an olympic level, does that mean that you were complimenting me?
You should make the choice to stop slurring paraolympians and return to the topic - the bafflement of the world's media at an off-kilter opening ceremonies. You've become a bit mad in this thread, no?
An interesting top spin, but sadly lacking in service. Shall we call it love all?
If I can ask you an honest question, and hope for an honest answer, what bothered you so much about this topic (It was headline news in most major UK papers) that made you so feel so hostile?
I've been much more critical, and sometimes even hostile to US culture in the past, but this seems to have set you off, and it's basically a thread that asks for opinions on a section of the ceremony.
Bradley, NS, and your good self, almost seem to think that it was the worst thing they've ever seen. That reaction to a Mary Poppins and the NHS seems a little weird, no?
Ranga Mberi - New York Times-bestselling author from Zimbabwe tweeted: OK Britain, we see you flaunting your history. Where's the bit in which you invade, loot, kill and plunder? #London2012 #olympicceremony http://twitter.com/rangamberi/status/228950036770353154
French commentator and tennis star Amelie Mauresmo said: " Decidedly, they [the British] have invented things," while during the NHS section another commentator said that in the health service the medicines and treatment were free, but added: "Of course you have to wait several weeks to be treated." http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ju ... rom-abroad
Symmetry wrote:I've been much more critical, and sometimes even hostile to US culture in the past, but this seems to have set you off, and it's basically a thread that asks for opinions on a section of the ceremony.
I was desperately upset at having been omitted from the discussion of befuddlement and was simply remarking your thread title is factually misleading. You said "US media is baffled" when, correctly, it should read "world's media is baffled." I know Britons are frantic to know what Americans think of them, but, honestly, I also have an opinion about Britons I would like to express. There are many people beyond the US/UK who would like to discuss the banality and confusion the opening ceremonies created and your misleading thread title limits those of us who can participate.
Further, I never even watched the US version of the opening ceremonies broadcast since it wasn't aired live and - when it eventually was broadcast - was severely edited down. Plus, as I mentioned, once they did air the condensed version, it was up against the season opener of Cupcake Wars so not many people outside of Olympics junkies were likely even to have seen it.
The OP did contain a summary of major news sources from around the world, noting that the US sources were confused about the NHS part. You'll find it on page one, at the top.
Symmetry wrote:The OP did contain a summary of major news sources from around the world, noting that the US sources were confused about the NHS part. You'll find it on page one, at the top.
My posts have contained various summaries of major news sources from around the world, noting that many sources were confused about the NHS part. You explained all the confusion was the result of Mary Poppins.
Were the world's nations except the US confused at the NHS part due to Mary Poppins but the US was confused at the NHS part due to something else? You've presented a very schizophrenic argument that I'm having difficulty following. If I were cynical I'd say it's an attempt to downplay the negative reception an exceptionally bizarre ceremony received in many quarters by dismissing it as "politicking." (Of course, I'm not cynical.)
Symmetry wrote:The OP did contain a summary of major news sources from around the world, noting that the US sources were confused about the NHS part. You'll find it on page one, at the top.
My posts have contained various summaries of major news sources from around the world, noting that many sources were confused about the NHS part. You explained all the confusion was the result of Mary Poppins.
Were the world's nations except the US confused at the NHS part due to Mary Poppins but the US was confused at the NHS part due to something else? You've presented a very schizophrenic argument that I'm having difficulty following. If I were cynical I'd say it's an attempt to downplay the negative reception a very bizarre and unusually militant ceremony received in many quarters by dismissing it as "politicking." (Of course, I'm not cynical.)
They didn't seem confused to me. I'm not sure why you consider Mary Poppins to be militant, though, to be fair.
Symmetry wrote:The OP did contain a summary of major news sources from around the world, noting that the US sources were confused about the NHS part. You'll find it on page one, at the top.
My posts have contained various summaries of major news sources from around the world, noting that many sources were confused about the NHS part. You explained all the confusion was the result of Mary Poppins.
Were the world's nations except the US confused at the NHS part due to Mary Poppins but the US was confused at the NHS part due to something else? You've presented a very schizophrenic argument that I'm having difficulty following. If I were cynical I'd say it's an attempt to downplay the negative reception a very bizarre and unusually militant ceremony received in many quarters by dismissing it as "politicking." (Of course, I'm not cynical.)
They didn't seem confused to me. I'm not sure why you consider Mary Poppins to be militant, though, to be fair.
It's unfortunate you want to troll rather than have a frank discussion about the consensus negative reception the ceremonies received. I have (a) posted links to reports of German commentators having no idea of what was happening during the nurse stripper scenes. I have (b) posted comments from Zimbabwean journalists upset at Britain not showing her history of rape and looting. I have (c) posted links to French TV commentators making remarks about why the NHS scene didn't talk about Britain's famous 3-year queues for BP checks. I have (d) explained the militancy of the James Bond demonstration. I have (e) discussed the weirdness of the rictus grins in this utterly bizarre moment where people were robotically waving at a billionaire cigarette company owner flying around -
I know when one's country is criticized one's natural reaction is to plug one's ears, wrap oneself in the flag and scream as loud as you can. That's fine, carry on doing that. You do it best. Just please don't troll. Thanks.
Symmetry wrote:The OP did contain a summary of major news sources from around the world, noting that the US sources were confused about the NHS part. You'll find it on page one, at the top.
My posts have contained various summaries of major news sources from around the world, noting that many sources were confused about the NHS part. You explained all the confusion was the result of Mary Poppins.
Were the world's nations except the US confused at the NHS part due to Mary Poppins but the US was confused at the NHS part due to something else? You've presented a very schizophrenic argument that I'm having difficulty following. If I were cynical I'd say it's an attempt to downplay the negative reception a very bizarre and unusually militant ceremony received in many quarters by dismissing it as "politicking." (Of course, I'm not cynical.)
They didn't seem confused to me. I'm not sure why you consider Mary Poppins to be militant, though, to be fair.
It's unfortunate you want to troll rather than have a frank discussion about the consensus negative reception the ceremonies received. I have (a) posted links to reports of German commentators having no idea of what was happening during the nurse stripper scenes. I have (b) posted comments from Zimbabwean journalists upset at Britain not showing her history of rape and looting. I have (c) posted links to French TV commentators making remarks about why the NHS scene didn't talk about Britain's famous 3-year queues for BP checks. I have (d) explained the militancy of the James Bond demonstration. I have (e) discussed the weirdness of the rictus grins in this utterly bizarre moment where people were robotically waving at a billionaire cigarette company owner flying around -
I know when one's country is criticized one's natural reaction is to plug one's ears, wrap oneself in the flag and scream as loud as you can. That's fine, carry on doing that. You do it best. Just please don't troll. Thanks.
It seems like you're angry and confused about the NHS bit, but uncertain about how to express that anger. Would it be fair to say that this topic has left you confused?
I don't want to put words into your keys, but you seem to not want to talk about the subject at hand, and even want to fabricate oddities.
What's up Saxi? Did a song and dance routine about the NHS and Mary Poppins really cause this level of vitriol?
Symmetry wrote:The OP did contain a summary of major news sources from around the world, noting that the US sources were confused about the NHS part. You'll find it on page one, at the top.
My posts have contained various summaries of major news sources from around the world, noting that many sources were confused about the NHS part. You explained all the confusion was the result of Mary Poppins.
Were the world's nations except the US confused at the NHS part due to Mary Poppins but the US was confused at the NHS part due to something else? You've presented a very schizophrenic argument that I'm having difficulty following. If I were cynical I'd say it's an attempt to downplay the negative reception a very bizarre and unusually militant ceremony received in many quarters by dismissing it as "politicking." (Of course, I'm not cynical.)
They didn't seem confused to me. I'm not sure why you consider Mary Poppins to be militant, though, to be fair.
It's unfortunate you want to troll rather than have a frank discussion about the consensus negative reception the ceremonies received. I have (a) posted links to reports of German commentators having no idea of what was happening during the nurse stripper scenes. I have (b) posted comments from Zimbabwean journalists upset at Britain not showing her history of rape and looting. I have (c) posted links to French TV commentators making remarks about why the NHS scene didn't talk about Britain's famous 3-year queues for BP checks. I have (d) explained the militancy of the James Bond demonstration. I have (e) discussed the weirdness of the rictus grins in this utterly bizarre moment where people were robotically waving at a billionaire cigarette company owner flying around -
I know when one's country is criticized one's natural reaction is to plug one's ears, wrap oneself in the flag and scream as loud as you can. That's fine, carry on doing that. You do it best. Just please don't troll. Thanks.
It seems like you're angry and confused about the NHS bit, but uncertain about how to express that anger. Would it be fair to say that this topic has left you confused?
I don't want to put words into your keys, but you seem to not want to talk about the subject at hand, and even want to fabricate oddities.
What's up Saxi? Did a song and dance routine about the NHS and Mary Poppins really cause this level of vitriol?
I'm not sure what you're talking about, I already said, above, that I was angry; to wit -
I was desperately upset at having been omitted from the discussion of befuddlement and was simply remarking your thread title is factually misleading.
Now that we've established - a second time - that I'm upset, could you please address the issues I've raised in a frank and honest way? Namely: have you been permitted to stop smiling yet or did the Queen command you to keep your face frozen in a rictus grin until she flies home? Speaking of flies, have any got stuck in between your teeth? I would appreciate you addressing these queries in a mature and transparent manner. Thank You.
Symmetry wrote:The OP did contain a summary of major news sources from around the world, noting that the US sources were confused about the NHS part. You'll find it on page one, at the top.
My posts have contained various summaries of major news sources from around the world, noting that many sources were confused about the NHS part. You explained all the confusion was the result of Mary Poppins.
Were the world's nations except the US confused at the NHS part due to Mary Poppins but the US was confused at the NHS part due to something else? You've presented a very schizophrenic argument that I'm having difficulty following. If I were cynical I'd say it's an attempt to downplay the negative reception a very bizarre and unusually militant ceremony received in many quarters by dismissing it as "politicking." (Of course, I'm not cynical.)
They didn't seem confused to me. I'm not sure why you consider Mary Poppins to be militant, though, to be fair.
It's unfortunate you want to troll rather than have a frank discussion about the consensus negative reception the ceremonies received. I have (a) posted links to reports of German commentators having no idea of what was happening during the nurse stripper scenes. I have (b) posted comments from Zimbabwean journalists upset at Britain not showing her history of rape and looting. I have (c) posted links to French TV commentators making remarks about why the NHS scene didn't talk about Britain's famous 3-year queues for BP checks. I have (d) explained the militancy of the James Bond demonstration. I have (e) discussed the weirdness of the rictus grins in this utterly bizarre moment where people were robotically waving at a billionaire cigarette company owner flying around -
I know when one's country is criticized one's natural reaction is to plug one's ears, wrap oneself in the flag and scream as loud as you can. That's fine, carry on doing that. You do it best. Just please don't troll. Thanks.
It seems like you're angry and confused about the NHS bit, but uncertain about how to express that anger. Would it be fair to say that this topic has left you confused?
I don't want to put words into your keys, but you seem to not want to talk about the subject at hand, and even want to fabricate oddities.
What's up Saxi? Did a song and dance routine about the NHS and Mary Poppins really cause this level of vitriol?
I'm not sure what you're talking about, I already said, above, that I was angry; to wit -
I was desperately upset at having been omitted from the discussion of befuddlement and was simply remarking your thread title is factually misleading.
Now that we've established - a second time - that I'm upset, could you please address the issues I've raised in a frank and honest way? Namely: have you been permitted to stop smiling yet or did the Queen command you to keep your face frozen in a rictus grin until she flies home? Speaking of flies, have any got stuck in between your teeth? I would appreciate you addressing these queries in a mature and transparent manner. Thank You.
saxitoxin wrote:Now that we've established - a second time - that I'm upset, could you please address the issues I've raised in a frank and honest way? Namely: have you been permitted to stop smiling yet or did the Queen command you to keep your face frozen in a rictus grin until she flies home? Speaking of flies, have any got stuck in between your teeth? I would appreciate you addressing these queries in a mature and transparent manner. Thank You.
Yes, no, no, no.
Thank You. That wasn't so hard, was it?
Now if only Woodruff could be trained to be as cooperative. I've thus far only managed to get him to stop making on the living room carpet.
Tis all good, now perhaps you could explain why you're actually pissed off. Would a degree of honesty be too much to ask if it wasn't at the expense of another poster?
saxitoxin wrote:Now if only Woodruff could be trained to be as cooperative. I've thus far only managed to get him to stop making on the living room carpet.
continues to post furious rants about the UK and its inhabitants.
someone got themself realy mad. maybe he had a english girlfriend who ran away from him for another man? (inb4 saxitoxin makes childish insults about english women)
continues to post furious rants about the UK and its inhabitants.
someone got themself realy mad. maybe he had a english girlfriend who ran away from him for another man? (inb4 saxitoxin makes childish insults about english women)
I'm beginning to think he was one of the half dozen or so refugees that were denied access to the country
