American Football vs Rugby Put up or shut up
#302
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:05 AM
Thank you Frook, very much, are you a teacher by any chance? You have a way of really reaching through to someone to get your point across and they come away really understanding.
Adjudicates what?!
Adjudicates what?!
This post has been edited by Slow Ben: 20 February 2009 - 01:05 AM
I've always been crazy but its kept me from going insane.
#303
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:07 AM
Diplomacy games in the GAMES Forum. It's kind of like Risk, but based around Europe in the Napoleonic age, I think. Maybe a little earlier. The adjudicator has players "moves" sent to him, and then he "solves" what the moves make and shows the current state of affairs. I think.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
#304
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:08 AM
I'm back, however without my egg as it currently residing on top of a burger,smothered in cheese. Right where were we, oh yeh, American sports.
Hoosier, I apologise unreservedly for getting you upset. The point I was trying to make was that I feel American Sports are overly corporate in their approach. It's all about the dollar, whether that be commercials, obscene wages, merchandising etc.
Now, before you quote the English Premier League and that £120,000 a week willy sniffer Christiano Ronaldo at me, I agree the commercialisation of sport is a global phenomenon and it sucks balls. However my problem lies primarily with sport playing second fiddle to the dollar in such an overt and obscene way. I refer to previous points about a game of er..... Gridiron taking 3hrs and the half time show/ Album endorsement being such a massive event.
Watching the BBC in all it's parochial glory means no commercials, no " We'll be right back after these messages" nonsense. You just get the sport, in all it's real time, uninterupted splendor.
For your info, I do watch a bit of colonial sports on channel 5, fascinating. What is an RBI ?
Hoosier, I apologise unreservedly for getting you upset. The point I was trying to make was that I feel American Sports are overly corporate in their approach. It's all about the dollar, whether that be commercials, obscene wages, merchandising etc.
Now, before you quote the English Premier League and that £120,000 a week willy sniffer Christiano Ronaldo at me, I agree the commercialisation of sport is a global phenomenon and it sucks balls. However my problem lies primarily with sport playing second fiddle to the dollar in such an overt and obscene way. I refer to previous points about a game of er..... Gridiron taking 3hrs and the half time show/ Album endorsement being such a massive event.
Watching the BBC in all it's parochial glory means no commercials, no " We'll be right back after these messages" nonsense. You just get the sport, in all it's real time, uninterupted splendor.
For your info, I do watch a bit of colonial sports on channel 5, fascinating. What is an RBI ?
Now all the friends that you knew in school they used to be so cool, now they just bore you.
Just look at em' now, already pullin' the plow. So quick to take to grain, like some old mule.
Just look at em' now, already pullin' the plow. So quick to take to grain, like some old mule.
#305
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:14 AM
Run Batted In, a statistic that counts towards a hitter's total whenever a ball he hits results in a run being scored. There are technicalities, but that is basically it.
If you are talking about the Super Bowl, yeah, it's extremely commercialized. Regular football games don't do that, they have about a 10 to 15 minute half-time.
That's why college sports are so huge in the U.S., it isn't about the dollars (to the players or fans).
But, we live in a world that glorifies wealth. What should we expect? Are sports don't run continuously like football or rugby, so you don't have built in commercial breaks during side-switches and stuff.
If you are talking about the Super Bowl, yeah, it's extremely commercialized. Regular football games don't do that, they have about a 10 to 15 minute half-time.
That's why college sports are so huge in the U.S., it isn't about the dollars (to the players or fans).
But, we live in a world that glorifies wealth. What should we expect? Are sports don't run continuously like football or rugby, so you don't have built in commercial breaks during side-switches and stuff.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
#306
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:18 AM
The BBC has NO adverts. None. De nada. zilch. It all comes out of the TV (tax) License fee that ALL households HAVE to pay. They just have good old commentary and plenty of replays at every opportunity.
souls are for wimps
#307
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:20 AM
I know, when i was in Dublin I stayed up till midnight to watch a football game and it was like they didnt know what to do with all the free time the game gave them, they had analysts talking when we'd usually be watching commercials.
I've always been crazy but its kept me from going insane.
#308
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:23 AM
Adjudicator, on Feb 20 2009, 12:51 AM, said:
masan's saddle, on Feb 19 2009, 11:39 PM, said:
Getting back to rugby, just like to represent the Taffia. England....you came sauntering down to Cardiff last weekend and got sent home (again), crying in your beer and moaning about the ref. The wheels have definatley come off the chariot chaps and a brow beetling gorilla for a coach ain't gonna help. Get over it, you've been crap since 2003 and Johnny's kick(where is he by the way?).
I really shouldn't be posting here, since I may not be a real member anymore, but I can't stand there and take this. If any welshman thought people who knew even the tiniest scrap about rugby thought there was any other likely result, I lose complete respect for them. That is just a sign of the prevalent attitude of assuming the english are cocky bastards, while showing no actual knowledge of the situation of the game. I don't think I saw a single player (nor certainly biased newspaper reports) moaning about the ref. In fact, the only moaning in that game was the welsh crowd when Worsley was announced as a fully deserved man of the match.
Wales really should win the grandslam (and first back to back gs for over 100 years) and fully deserve it. Only real stumbling block is likely to be away to France, who on their day can beat anyone. If the frogs aren't at their best though, the red tide sweeps on.
But of course if you want to go at it... how much did Wales beat Fiji by to march on in the world cup? I don't quite remember, since I was watching England get to their second successive final
Fuck me, no offense obergruppenfuhrer. Just basking in a bit of red tinted glory. It's not like I haven't had England this and England that shoved up my arse by every English mate for the last 20 years. You lot played well, but still lost. That's that.Don't live in the past( It's a welsh disease), for your info I thought Worsley was man of the match, completley nullified Roberts and The Ginger Infringer. England will get better but if you want to talk about bias, how about the post match bollocks of Inverdale, Guscott and Healey, "England this....England that" All I could hear was Jonathon Davies pissing himself in the background.
Now all the friends that you knew in school they used to be so cool, now they just bore you.
Just look at em' now, already pullin' the plow. So quick to take to grain, like some old mule.
Just look at em' now, already pullin' the plow. So quick to take to grain, like some old mule.
#309
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:26 AM
Hey masan! you're bleeding man!
souls are for wimps
#310
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:27 AM
Frookenhauer, on Feb 19 2009, 08:18 PM, said:
The BBC has NO adverts. None. De nada. zilch. It all comes out of the TV (tax) License fee that ALL households HAVE to pay. They just have good old commentary and plenty of replays at every opportunity.
Plus side? No TV tax. Down-side? Commercials.
Also, "The Ginger Infringer." Best moniker whose meaning I have no clue of. Red heads never play by the rule, and are in my experience, right kinky.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
#311
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:33 AM
There is slightly more to it that just that, but it is a TV tax. covers all sorts of radio shows and even concerts and tv programme budgets...Hell the fund is HUGE
souls are for wimps
#312
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:45 AM
Have the stasi gone? Is it safe ? That was all a bit big brother for me.
Anyhoo, Yeh, Auntie Beeb, national institution that gets bombarded by the forces of evil at every turn for occasionally being a bit left of centre and allowing swearing.
Australia has a similar set up with ABC, no commercials. Not sure if it's funded by taxes though.
The Ginger Infringer refers to a welsh rugby player called Martyn Williams, He is widely regarded by people in the northen hemispere as the best open side flanker in the world. He is also called "Nugget"
Anyhoo, Yeh, Auntie Beeb, national institution that gets bombarded by the forces of evil at every turn for occasionally being a bit left of centre and allowing swearing.
Australia has a similar set up with ABC, no commercials. Not sure if it's funded by taxes though.
The Ginger Infringer refers to a welsh rugby player called Martyn Williams, He is widely regarded by people in the northen hemispere as the best open side flanker in the world. He is also called "Nugget"
Now all the friends that you knew in school they used to be so cool, now they just bore you.
Just look at em' now, already pullin' the plow. So quick to take to grain, like some old mule.
Just look at em' now, already pullin' the plow. So quick to take to grain, like some old mule.
#313
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:55 AM
The commercials do suck, but that's the cost of free tv.
Error: Signature not valid
#315
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:58 AM
I don't have free t.v. Costs about $50 a month.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
#316
Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:59 AM
I'm a nerd and have to have all the channels including HBO so mines about $75
I've always been crazy but its kept me from going insane.
#317
Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:02 AM
Technically, until the D-TV upgrade happens, some people get very local stations through an antenna. But, that won't be free once they pay the one time for a D-TV converter box, and then they'll get those stations again for free. This sometimes can get you some decent channels, but in the middle of nowhere you don't get squat.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
#318
Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:03 AM
We have TV tax which is £120 or so per household per year...Its not one of the bills I pay, so I ignore the price. But then to get cable or satellite we can spend anything up to £50 per month...or free depending on how far along the path to darkness you are.
That £10 per month guarantees commercial free sports...but they don't always get the best games, Setanta is the best for it all and it is expensive, but it does have all the UFC (awesome)...I'm not sure which way is best.
That £10 per month guarantees commercial free sports...but they don't always get the best games, Setanta is the best for it all and it is expensive, but it does have all the UFC (awesome)...I'm not sure which way is best.
souls are for wimps
#319
Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:06 AM
Well, I pay for cable, but that's my choice. I could easily watch all 4 networks plus a few other random channels for free.
Error: Signature not valid
#320
Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:06 AM
Everything I've read is that we have far more channels available than your basic t.v. Plus, we get FSC (Fox Soccer Channel) and get to watch all your Chelsea, Man. U, Liverpool, & Arsenal games, as well as the Champions League games on ESPN.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....

Help














