OT: Olympic gold medals won per citizen
Ernest_t...@hotmail.com
gold for every 0.45 million citizens. Australia was top among rugby
playing nations, just edging out arch rivals New Zealand.
The top 10:
1. Jamaica (6) - 0.45
2. Bahrain (1) - 0.76
3. Mongolia (2) - 1.31
4. Estonia (1) - 1.34
6. Georgia (3) - 1.47
7. Australia (14) - 1.50
5. New Zealand (3) - 1.58
8. Norway (3) - 1.59
9. Slovakia (3) - 1.80
10. Slovenia (1) - 2.03
Selected others from 87 nations with medals:
15. Great Britain (19) - 3.05
32. United States (36) - 8.47
Andrew Dunford
<Ernest_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:facee638-a7ca-4033...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
> Gold medals per citizen goes to the Jamaicans who won 6 golds, one
> gold for every 0.45 million citizens.
That's citizens per gold medal, not the other way around.
And I suspect you probably mean residents rather than citizens.
> Australia was top among rugby
> playing nations, just edging out arch rivals New Zealand.
Hmm. Of nations who attended the rugby World Cup in 2007, the top nation in
your list appears to be Georgia. Nice try though.
> The top 10:
>
> 1. Jamaica (6) - 0.45
> 2. Bahrain (1) - 0.76
> 3. Mongolia (2) - 1.31
> 4. Estonia (1) - 1.34
> 6. Georgia (3) - 1.47
> 7. Australia (14) - 1.50
> 5. New Zealand (3) - 1.58
> 8. Norway (3) - 1.59
> 9. Slovakia (3) - 1.80
> 10. Slovenia (1) - 2.03
>
> Selected others from 87 nations with medals:
>
> 15. Great Britain (19) - 3.05
> 32. United States (36) - 8.47
Who won the pedantry olympics?
Andrew
Ernest_t...@hotmail.com
> <Ernest_the_Sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
All fair points Dunford, and well spotted. In my defense I would say
that these are errors of oversight rather than understanding. Not that
I'm trying to make excuses, I deserve to be ridiculed. You are correct
about Georgia, they were not in the previous table I posted. I
borrowed my text for this post from there and obviously missed that
important difference. It is however meant to be citizens per gold
medal and not residents.
Dave Keegan
Not according to this site
http://www.symworld.com/medals/index.php?sort=gold
It's an Australian site, so we know it's good...
Keegan...
dechucka
"Dave Keegan" <ru...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:7b4f530e-0942-455e...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
http://www.symworld.com/medals/index.php?sort=gold
it is good it has exactly the same places listed, don't know about the other
data
Keegan...
Andrew Dunford
"Dave Keegan" <ru...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:7b4f530e-0942-455e...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Population v. citizens, Dave.
NZ slides down the table when citizenship is taken as the criteria because
(a) we have historically granted citizenship to immigrants more quickly than
other countries hence a high proportion of our resident population are NZ
citizens, and (b) a high proportion of our citizens live abroad, such as
yourself.
Morrissey wouldn't use the population criteria because it makes NZ look
better than Australia.
Andrew
rick boyd
What on earth does that mean, gold medals per citizen? How is that
different from gold medals per capita?
Is Mowithey still desperately trying to find some table that his beloved
homeland Australia comes out in front of New Zealand?
Poor sad little fuck.
-- rick boyd
Dave Keegan
Ah.
Maybe I should dust off my darts in anticipation of the callup
then....
Keegan...
Jo Svejk
you must also count medals won by citizens of one country for another
country. For example, Emma Snowsill is an Australia/NZ dual citizen.
Therefore, although New Zealand won three gold medals, NZ citizens have
won at least four - probably more, I would imagine. To make these
figures accurate, the researchers would have to learn the full
citizenship details of all athletes competing. Which they clearly
haven't done.
dechucka
"rick boyd" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
news:d-2dnYcFy-YWYCjV...@westnet.com.au...
pkb with your twisting and turning on the matter
dechucka
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:6hmcepF...@mid.individual.net...
that is because a lot of people use immigration to and citizenship in NZ as
a way to get to Australia. NZ is becoming the Ellis Island of Australia
viper
But he speaks so highly of you, oh unappreciated wordsmith
Viper
Charles
wrote:
He doesn't need to do that Ricky you silly old fart, the official
table of medals won by all participating nations clearly indicates
that Oz beat NZ convincingly!
viper
rick boyd
> pkb with your twisting and turning on the matter
You've got me Chucky. The way I've backflipped from gold medals per
capita to gold medals per capita, and back to gold medals per capita,
before somesaulting off to gold medals per capita must be
extraordinarily confusing for you.
-- rick boyd
viper
Not as confused and stupid as you appear two posts above. Talk about leading
with the chin Paddy boy........
Viper
dechucka
no from medal per capita to gold medal per capita justifying it by saying
only first place counts except in the medal tallys but only in medal tallies
were NZ is ahead of Australia
rick boyd
I've always said gold medal per capita, you sad, strange little man. Go
back to the last olympics and one before that as well.
The rest is just your limited understanding.
What amuses me is how Australians say medals per capita don't count when
compared with New Zealand, that really it's the simple majority that's
important.
In the next breath they'll say how wonderful Australia is compared to
America's performance, considering the relative sizes of the populations.
GOLD FOR AUSTRALIA GOLD FOR AUSTRALIA GOLD FOR AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA GOLD GOLD GOLD
-- rick boyd
dechucka
> dechucka wrote:
>> "rick boyd" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:07CdnU3X1KzEBSvV...@westnet.com.au...
>>> dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>>> pkb with your twisting and turning on the matter
>>> You've got me Chucky. The way I've backflipped from gold medals per
>>> capita to gold medals per capita, and back to gold medals per capita,
>>> before somesaulting off to gold medals per capita must be
>>> extraordinarily confusing for you.
>>
>> no from medal per capita to gold medal per capita justifying it by saying
>> only first place counts except in the medal tallys but only in medal
>> tallies were NZ is ahead of Australia
>
> I've always said gold medal per capita, you sad, strange little man. Go
> back to the last olympics and one before that as well.
you didn't next
>
> The rest is just your limited understanding.
>
> What amuses me is how Australians say medals per capita don't count when
> compared with New Zealand, that really it's the simple majority that's
> important.
now your saying medals again not gold medals. What amazes me is that you say
only first place counts unless it is in a table where NZ is better than
Australia
>
> In the next breath they'll say how wonderful Australia is compared to
> America's performance, considering the relative sizes of the populations.
yep Australia did very well on this basis as did New Zealand
>
> GOLD FOR AUSTRALIA GOLD FOR AUSTRALIA GOLD FOR AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA
> AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA GOLD GOLD GOLD
yep that's about right.
You have of course read the comments about the jingoistic crap that went on
in NZ during the Olympics haven't you. Quite frankly Boyd you are letting
this Olympic thing really get to you
kenh...@hotmail.com
> "rick boyd" <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
PKB
We[ve recently had various Australians putting forward umpteen
different variations on the Olympic medal table (medals per capita,
golds per capita, money spent per gold,even golds per capita of Rugby
WC participants!), desperately designed to push Australia to the top
of this meaningless medal table, and guess what?
Not one of them has turned out to be in the least bit correct.
Australia may have had a decent Olympics, but they aren't at the top
of any sort of semi-meaningful table, so let's not kid ourselves.
Let's not forget that this whole debate was kicked off after numerous
taunts from Australians towards the GB team about them trailing
Australia in the medal count. Once team GB overhauled Australia, the
taunts were then directed at NZ, but of course looked rather hollow
when these same Australians were trying to convince the Brits that
'golds per capita' were the real measure of the efforts of the
respective countries.
Why don't Australians try to applaud the achievements of the other
countries, rather than getting into a collective lather over the fact
that some other countries did equally well, if not better, no matter
what bizarre counting scheme you want to employ?
Higgs
dechucka
<kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d364c8d-c1b1-4e34...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 28, 10:27 pm, "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote:
> "rick boyd" <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:07CdnU3X1KzEBSvV...@westnet.com.au...
>
> > dechucka wrote:
>
> >> pkb with your twisting and turning on the matter
>
> > You've got me Chucky. The way I've backflipped from gold medals per
> > capita
> > to gold medals per capita, and back to gold medals per capita, before
> > somesaulting off to gold medals per capita must be extraordinarily
> > confusing for you.
>
> > -- rick boyd
>
> Not as confused and stupid as you appear two posts above. Talk about
> leading
> with the chin Paddy boy........
>
> Viper
PKB
=-We[ve recently had various Australians putting forward umpteen
different variations on the Olympic medal table (medals per capita,
golds per capita, money spent per gold,even golds per capita of Rugby
WC participants!), desperately designed to push Australia to the top
of this meaningless medal table, and guess what?
Not one of them has turned out to be in the least bit correct.
Australia may have had a decent Olympics, but they aren't at the top
of any sort of semi-meaningful table, so let's not kid ourselves.
+Let's not forget that this whole debate was kicked off after numerous
taunts from Australians towards the GB team about them trailing
Australia in the medal count. Once team GB overhauled Australia, the
taunts were then directed at NZ, but of course looked rather hollow
when these same Australians were trying to convince the Brits that
'golds per capita' were the real measure of the efforts of the
respective countries.
+Why don't Australians try to applaud the achievements of the other
countries, rather than getting into a collective lather over the fact
that some other countries did equally well, if not better, no matter
what bizarre counting scheme you want to employ?
Huggies you kicked off this debate with you LA Times comments you fucked up.
Australia beat NZ on the stupid per capita medal tally
kenh...@hotmail.com
> <kenhig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Did I?
That must've been here:
------------------------------------------------------------------
> dechucka wrote:
> New Zealand doing crap at the Olympics is really upsetting you Boyd- Hide
> quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The LA Times is doing a regular column that should warm your heart,
Chuckwit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks to me that I'm replying to some poster called dechucka, who was
telling us that NZ was doing crap at the Olympics.
Honesty has never been your strong suit, has it?
Higgs
dechucka
<kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:88372d92-621f-4014...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
can't you remember
>
> That must've been here:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> dechucka wrote:
>> New Zealand doing crap at the Olympics is really upsetting you Boyd- Hide
>> quoted text -
and has what to do with per capita medal tallies from the LA Times
>
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The LA Times is doing a regular column that should warm your heart,
> Chuckwit.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Looks to me that I'm replying to some poster called dechucka, who was
> telling us that NZ was doing crap at the Olympics.
>
> Honesty has never been your strong suit, has it?
so you posted the comment to the LA Times site
kenh...@hotmail.com
>
Never claimed other wise.
But you'd claimed
" Huggies you kicked off this debate with you LA Times comments you
fucked
up."
You'd claimed never to have mentioned the Olympics or poked fun at
teams behind Australia.
Perhaps you didn't, but someone using your account and your name
certainly did
Higgs
dechucka
<kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:165f88d3-ca4f-46ca...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
Never claimed other wise.
But you'd claimed
=You'd claimed never to have mentioned the Olympics or poked fun at
teams behind Australia.
no
+Perhaps you didn't, but someone using your account and your name
certainly did
No you are a luying cynt
Higgs
kenh...@hotmail.com
Chukky, I know it's almost impossible to check back on your posts,
what with the blank ones, bizarre spellings and your habit of blending
your own words in with what the previous poster has written, but if
you check your outbox, you'll find that you most certainly did.
> +Perhaps you didn't, but someone using your account and your name
> certainly did
>
> No you are a luying cynt
>
What's that supposed to mean?
That you're pissed again or simply spitting the dummy?
Whatever, you just got owned
Higgs
dechucka
<kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b901c7dc-d482-4a1e...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
=============================================
as you know google is my friend and I didn't. You have been caught lying
again