Originally posted by royalchickenThis is a stupid comment on the face of it. It's comparing apples and oranges. What you *mean* to say is: American soccer is far stupider than rest-of-the-world football.
They have stupider taste in sport than the rest of the world, with the US a close second.
To clarify, American football is far stupider than rest-of-world football, but the degree to which many Brits take their football obsessions can only be compared to the degree to which OCD sufferers take their dusting hobby.
But that would be a far harder comment to prove/disprove.
Originally posted by royalchickenReally? So what's your small-minded opinion on the likes of Italian and Spanish football supporters?
They have stupider taste in sport than the rest of the world, with the US a close second.
To clarify, American football is far stupider than rest-of-world football, but the degree to which many Brits take their football obsessions can only be compared to the degree to which OCD sufferers take their dusting hobby.
Try telling some of the core Barcelona supporters that the British are more fanatical about their football than them.
The Scots shouldn't complain about that too much. Get a state, then you can have a curling team, if that's any incentive for you.
At present being discussed in debates:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=38615&page=1
Not one English or Welshman on the teams that I've seen, men or women. The other day one of the two Scottish comentators mistakenly called the team 'Scotland'. Bless.
Originally posted by Daemon SinI wasn't comparing Spanish and British football supporters. The Spanish may well be more obsessive; I'm only noting a trend I have noticed, namely that British football supporters tend to be more fanatical than supporters of American football (the ire I've received for that post is anecdotal evidence of this).
Really? So what's your small-minded opinion on the likes of Italian and Spanish football supporters?
Try telling some of the core Barcelona supporters that the British are more fanatical about their football than them.
I also stated a mere opinion, as a non-follower of any sport, that fanatical following of a sport or support of a team is a little bit silly.
Originally posted by NordlysI have no interest in what Ragnorak is. Such matters are not worthy of my consideration. Since he so vigorously defended the less than great British, I thought he might be one. But I assume the quality of snow in Ireland is much the same as in England. So is the quality of whining, apparently.
rwingett: "Quit your pathetic sniveling and whining. ... Stop using your poor quality of snow as an excuse for your complete inadequacy." That was addressed at Ragnorak, who is Irish.
Originally posted by sjegIf I knew what you were talking about I'd give you a scathing rebuttal. But since I can make neither heads nor tails of it, I have not much to say.
*Points and laughs*
You should stick to what you're good at- groups made up of one beardo weirdo and one coiffeured weirdo writing great popsongs with girls (blonde and brunette) with nice bums singing them, in English too. Scandy folk? Now that'sjust depressing. But also rather amusing. Hee hee.
Originally posted by sjegI left out the former Iron Curtain countries from my consideration. I felt there would be enough difference to make for a misleading comparison.
By the by, I just came back from Estonia, and with just over a million people, and three golds, they'd be up the top of the table. No mountains in Estonia, either, hardly a hill, even, but lots of snow. That's why they win the cross country skiing.
However, have you ever sat down to watch cross country skiing? People waggling their bums going up hill at 2 km ...[text shortened]... ugby, for example, then we can talk.
(And like Rag, I'm not British, so don't start).
You people are all truly pathetic. How many thousands of people are on this site and not one of you could come up with a worthy rebuttal to by anti British polemic. Many of you alluded to Britain not having proper conditions condusive to winter sports, but no one did the obvious thing by checking how the British did at the last summer Olympics. This would have given you some hard facts to bash me over the head with. But nooooooo...I have to do all your work for you.
It so happens that Britain won 30 medals at the 2004 Athens Olympics. That's less than 2 million people per medal. Not too shabby. So I will withdraw my claim that Great Britain sucks because it has poor athletes. No, it seems that Great Britain sucks because their people are all stoooopid.
Ha! Take that.
Originally posted by rwingettI think the rest of us took it for granted that Britain has an excellent record in real sports.
You people are all truly pathetic. How many thousands of people are on this site and not one of you could come up with a worthy rebuttal to by anti British polemic. Many of you alluded to Britain not having proper conditions condusive to winter sports, but no one did the obvious thing by checking how the British did at the last summer Olympics. This would h ...[text shortened]... o, it seems that Great Britain sucks because their people are all stoooopid.
Ha! Take that.
Your question was why do we suck at winter sports, and I gave you the answer - because winter sports are a joke, and we don't waste our time.
I realise as an American you take your joke sports very seriously ("American football", rounders, etc.) but we just put that down to your abject lack of a sense of humour. We're far too polite to point it out.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think you're close, but on the wrong side. GB sucks because they still have a monarchy. Also they can't speak or write English; they build twee, old-fashioned little houses; they make the world's worst TV shows and movies; they dress like tramps; they have a massive collective drinking problem; and their public transport systems, ahlthough the most expensive in the world, are among the worst.
Because they eliminated the power of the monarchs. In the days of Good King George III, England was the greatest nation in the world.
Oh sorry, I meant 'we', not 'they'.
Originally posted by sjegim pretty sure norway topped the medal table last time, and they have 15ish this year (but only 1 gold) which isn't that bad looking at some other countries.
But by the by, Estonia: population 1 million. Gold medals: 3.
That's one more than Norway. One more than Sweden. Three more than Finland. three more than Denmark.
What was the population of those Scandinavian countries again? Hmm.
So I think the question might well be, why are the Scandies so bl00dy mediocre or even disgracefully bad at the disciplines ...[text shortened]... evere, and consider the most important in the world? That's pretty sad, if you think about it.