X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: f4f17,1fea113a30411707 X-Google-Attributes: gidf4f17,public X-Google-Thread: fc9f9,1fea113a30411707 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc9f9,public X-Google-Thread: f996b,1fea113a30411707 X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-Thread: fcfb9,1fea113a30411707 X-Google-Attributes: gidfcfb9,public X-Google-Thread: fe7ce,1fea113a30411707 X-Google-Attributes: gidfe7ce,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-04 09:04:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3C5EBF1A.8070808@earthlink.NS.net> From: Jonathan Ball Organization: opponents of nitwittery User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010726 Netscape6/6.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.seduction.fast,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: drsquare is a useless troll was Re: What does everyone reckon our chances are for the Euro 2004 qualifying? References: <3C5AC13B.9060609@mindspring.NS.com> <0lhl5ugo85pjshh3t861eimu9gq7n7tumk@4ax.com> <3C5ACEF7.1010005@earthlink.NS.net> <3C5D92E7.2070002@mindspring.NS.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 444 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 17:04:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.32.17.92 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1012842273 66.32.17.92 (Mon, 04 Feb 2002 09:04:33 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 09:04:33 PST X-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 09:04:30 PST (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:14401 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:35713 alt.politics.socialism:15308 alt.seduction.fast:74960 comp.os.linux.advocacy:187313 drsquare wrote: > On Sun, 03 Feb 2002 19:43:47 GMT, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, > (Jonathan Ball ) wrote: > > >>drsquare wrote: >> >> >>>So what? All they have to do is smack it down the pitch with those sticks >>>like in golf. The only thing stopping them from scoring from the other end >>>of the pitch is all that padding. >>> >>You don't know what you're talking about. Any idiot >>can run around on a field kicking at something; >> > > Then why don't you take it up? You could make �50,000 a week. I didn't say I could do it well enough to make money at it. But I can *basically* do it, with no training. You couldn't skate down the ice if your life depended on it. > > >>even >>you can probably do it. Let's see you even *stand* on >>ice skates, let alone take a shot at the puck without >>landing on your fat ass. >> > > How could I, seeing as I have never ice-skated or played ice-hockey before? Well, there you go. Any human being capable of basic jogging, for christ's sake, can dribble a soccer ball down a field. Not with a skilled defender trying to take it away from him, of course, but simply basic kicking the ball down the goddamned field. Ice hockey takes a whole extra set of skills, way beyond what Joe Sixpack - you - have. > >>from it. I can, however, run down a field kicking a >>ball, and if no one were bothering me I could put it in >>a soccer goal. >> > > Wow, maybe you're the next Maradona. You're damned right: I *would* use my hands. What kind of a colossally stupid fucking game is it that you're not allowed to use your hands? > > >>Hockey is orders of magnitude more difficult than soccer. >> > > Throwing a needle through a 1cm hole form 10 yards away is even more > difficult, but it's still completely fucking boring. Not quite as boring as soccer, though. > What is so good about > a sport being hard? That just means it's harder to play and there is less > chance of you enjoying it. That's why we have professionals, you drunken idiot yobbo. > > >>>So what? The pitch is 4 times the length and width. And you can actually >>>see the ball. >>> >>If you weren't drunk and/or fucked up on speed all the >>time, you could see the puck, too. >> > > If you're paying full attention, and not watching anything else on the rest > of the pitch. It's a measure of your stupidity and yobbishness that you don't realize how important it is, in almost any game, to watch the action *away* from the ball (or puck). > > >>>>Change the pitch size and the rules of football if >>>>necessary. >>>> >>>It's not necessary, it's fine as it is. >>> >>It's boring and mindless as it is. >> > > It's exciting and interesting. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... > > >>>>I was complaining about it, doofus: the back-and-forth >>>>that results in the team not getting off a shot. >>>> >>>Maybe that's because the other team know how to defend. >>> >>Haw haw haw. It's because it's *too easy* to "defend". >> > > Or maybe in hockey it's *too easy" to attack. No. It certainly isn't too easy to attack *successfully*. That's why a fair number of hockey games are won 2-1 or 3-2. > > >>>In hockey, you can >>>just hit it from wherever you are, no build-up necessary. >>> >>You haven't watched much hockey. >> > > I have. Bullshit. > > >>>>You pussy poofter. NO ONE defends the way they do in >>>>hockey. >>>> >>>If they knew how to defend, then how do they get so many shots in? >>> >>They don't get very many shots *in*. The goalie stops >>most of them. >> > > Getting a shot in does not mean scoring, Yes, it does, you colossal ignoramus. A "shot on goal" is defined as one that the goalie has to stop, or else it will score. The game announcer will say "he shoots!" just because the guy is *attempting* to shoot at the goal, but it isn't recorded as a "shot on goal" unless it scores, or would have scored if the goalie didn't stop it. Goddamn, don't you know *anything*? > it means getting a shot in. Nice > of you to dodge the subject. Nice of you to parade your ignorance around like one of those team banners the drunken yobs run around with. > > >>>If they defended, then the opposition wouldn't be able to get so many shots >>>on goal. >>> >>You don't know what you're talking about. The fact >>that so few shots make it past the goalie is due to a >>great extent to the defense. The defender reduces the >>number of angles for the shooter, but he can't take >>away all of them. >> > > Exactly. And in football, they defend better, Too easily. Get rid of "offside" in soccer, then it would be interesting. What a goddamned stupid rule: you have a guy who skillfully gets behind the defender *and* is co-ordinated enough to receive and control the pass, and it's disallowed. Moronic; utterly moronic. > so less shots get in. > Football has other aspects to it other than mere shooting. It is not a > one-dimensional sport like hockey. It has about 2/3 of a dimension: men pointlessly running around in their underwear. > > >>>Not difficult when the pitch is as big as my back garden and they're on >>>ice, making it incredibly irritating to try to follow. >>> >>Try laying off the Fuller's or Tennant's for a while, >>then you'll be able to focus. >> > > Have you ever tried watching hockey sober? Completely fucking boring. Fastest game on earth that doesn't involve motors. > > >>>>violence tends to stay on the playing surface, not in >>>>the stands. >>>> >>>Same with football, except there isn't violence in either place. You must >>>be thinking of football in the 70s. >>> >>I was thinking of Heysel in the 1980s, actually. >> > > Wow, a one-off incident over a decade ago. You really must be clutching at > straws now. > > >>>>I have just two words: Heysel Stadium. >>>> >>>I have some more words: Living In The Past >>> >>The 1990s. Read it and weep, you drunken yobbo. All >> >>from > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sport/football/newsid_112000/112863.stm >> > > Wow, a couple of incidents every year, fucking amazing. There's nothing at all like it in *any* sport in North America. Nothing. > I've been to thousands of football matches, Oh, I bet you have! > and guess how many serious incidents there > have been? None. Sure there were. You were passed out drunk under the stands, so you missed it all. > > >>It's mainly you Brits. You're all a bunch of poofters >>who need the Yanks to keep you from having to learn >>German every 20 to 40 years, but for some reason you'll >>fight over football. >> > > If you're going to use the Heysel incident to put down football, then I'm > going to use the Columbine school shooting to put down gun legalisation. And prove what a moron you are. If just a couple of teachers had been packing heat, the whole thing probably wouldn't have happened at all; and if it had happened, the toll would have been much lower. You need to read some of John Lott's research in this area. > > >>World Cup, June 1998 >> >>France - Police fire tear gas to control fights >>involving English and Tunisian fans, and local Arab >>youths in Marseille. There are 49 arrests, including 27 >>English fans, with 30 people injured. >> > > That's nothing. You Americans must be really soft if you get all wound up > over a few arrests and a bit of fighting. You are a drunken cocksucker if you're going to defend that kind of misbehavior. That isn't "boys will be boys", you drunken lout. > > >>May 1998 >> >>Argentina - Three fans killed in a shoot out between >>gangs and police outside a stadium in Buenos Aires. >>Local championships suspended while clubs tighten >> > > Between gangs? Yeah, that's all football's fault. > > >>security. Around 80 killed in football related violence >>in last five years. >> > > So fucking what? Replace football with any other sport as the national > sport, and have fans with just the same levels of devotion and passion for > their sides, and you will get such incidents. Doesn't happen in North America, pally. And it doesn't happen with other sports around the world. > > >>Germany - Trams pelted with stones and 268 arrested >>before Cologne's relegation decider with Bayer Leverkusen. >> > > Wow, throwing stones. I'm practically shitting myself. Stones can go through glass, shitbag, and hit someone in the eye. Do you think that's trivial? You're a fucking idiot, you know? Just a right fucking idiot. I hope some drunken yob kicks your teeth in some day. Oh, wait - you're a Brit. Your teeth have already rotted out. > > >>Italy - Riot police and dogs take to the pitch and fire >>tear gas into stands when Atalanta's game with Juventus >>has to be suspended following missile throwing by home >>fans. >> > > How many missiles? An enourmous barrage of bombs, grenades and darts, or > merely flares and coins? You're just unbelievable. Flares could cause serious injury. > > >>Italy - Violence flares on terraces at Italy versus >>England World Cup qualifier in Rome. England fans blame >>heavy handed Italian police. >> > > So football is bad because Italian pigs are a load of wankers? The "England fans" were blaming the wrong group. They should have looked in the mirror and said, "What a lot of drunken shitbags we are", and then committed mass suicide. > > >>Russia - More than 100 arrested in Moscow after two >>clashes between fans wielding iron bars, bottles and >>clubs left scores injured. >> > > So? That's fucking nothing. It *would* be nothing if one of those iron bars had connected with your empty but thick skull. You're a worthless shitbag. > You must be incredibly sensitive to take note > of such incidents. > > >>Holland - Ajax fan beaten to death by fans of fierce >>rivals Feyenoord. >> > > Compare that to how many people get killed in road accidents or by AIDS. No. It's an invalid and moronic comparison. But typical for you. You're the dumbest fat fuck ever to show up here. > > >>Italy - A 24-year-old Genoa fan stabbed to death by a >>teenaged AC Milan supporter. Three months later two >>policemen stabbed trying to disarm a fan during >>Roma-Lazio tie. >> > > A couple of stabbings. Never seen anything like that before. Outside > football grounds, Italian streets are havens of peace and tranquility. > > >>Ireland - Friendly international between Republic of >>Ireland and England in Dublin abandoned after 27 >>minutes when England fans riot. >> > > Were you even at that game? No, you weren't, so you have no room to > comment. I have plenty of room to comment, you dumb fat fuck. It was a criminal riot, brought to us courtesy of - who else? - the drunken British yobboes. > > >>Sweden 1992 - Violence and destruction by English >>hooligans in Malmo and Stockholm at the European >>championship finals raises doubts within Uefa about >>whether England should host the next tournament in >>1996. German fans also riot during the tournament. >> > > So what? Any sport with the same number of passionate and loyal supporters > will have such incidents. The only reason football attracts hooligans is > because it's the sport the majority follow. Like I'm going to take *your* word for that. You are a shameless apologist for criminal violence. > > >>Germany 1991 - fan shot dead in a fight between Leipzig >>and Berlin supporters. >> > > Many more were killed in the Columbine school shooting. I guess schools > must be bad places as well then. > > >