Even football is shite in America

Originally posted by Andrew WK:
And if I didnt know all that why would I be living in America, eh?
Have you ever given a straight answer about why you're living in America?

Is it just the money?
Originally posted by Andrew WK:


the article is in the Telegraph, Irvine Welsh is a regular columnist. He is teaching in Chicago and supplies insights (thanks for the sp) of America back to Britain. As such comments on soccer are going to be as interesting or dull as anything else.

People laugh or respect American soccer because of the world cup.

I posted the article because of the observation I pointed out earlier and because I wondered if anyone else read Irvines articles. I for one enjoy them.
You misquoted me and obviously dont know what trite means, see above. And if I didnt know all that why would I be living in America, eh?

Vansmack, did you let someone with a logic difficulty in charge of your computer, or are you "just tired today"?
Oops, I confused the Telegraph and the Guardian. That's about the only brainfart I've had today in lighting your ass up like a Christmas tree in a fireplace.

If you really wanted to know if others were reading Welsh, why didn't you ask weeks ago when Welsh said he enjoyed his day out at the ball park wathing "hitty-runny" as you call it? Or his story about his mate getting robbed at gunpoint in the Tenderloin and his views on gun control? Or on the Scot on death row, how America has taken over Prague and the rest of Central Europe?…his best articles elicting true insight from an outsiders view into American Culture. Like I said before, this was his worst yet, so your was your subject line, and I was disappointed when I read it - I thought he could do more with American soccer than point out the obvious.

Despite the criticisms you face on the board, I thought you were deeper as well. Clearly, you are not. You bore me.
Originally posted by vansmack:

Oops, I confused the Telegraph and the Guardian. That's about the only brainfart I've had today in lighting your ass up like a Christmas tree in a fireplace.
actually, you dont know the meaning of trite and you misquoted me. Plus you obviously have not been reading what I have been typing.


If you really wanted to know if others were reading Welsh, why didn't you ask weeks ago when Welsh said he enjoyed his day out at the ball park wathing "hitty-runny" as you call it? Or his story about his mate getting robbed at gunpoint in the Tenderloin and his views on gun control? Or on the Scot on death row, how America has taken over Prague and the rest of Central Europe?…his best articles elicting true insight from an outsiders view into American Culture. Like I said before, this was his worst yet, so your was your subject line, and I was disappointed when I read it - I thought he could do more with American soccer than point out the obvious.

Despite the criticisms you face on the board, I thought you were deeper as well. Clearly, you are not. You bore me.
Actually I posted about Welsh before. As I remember I posted his very first article on the board. You probably only read any of those articles because of me and the 930 board? I thought the other articles were better too. But have you no empathy, the soccer stuff is only obvious if you go to American soccer matches. the readership of the telegraph does not. but I have pointed that out 4 imes already.

What criticisms on the board? Its been a while.

I am not deep because I dont like american soccer? How easily offended you are. If I bore you so much please dont respond to my topics or posts then I wont reply and then I wont bore you.

I didnt post the article to offend or to bore people, I have already given my motives for posting it.
Yawn.

Lets get a beer later in the week (say Wednesday)? You're much less boring when you're drunk. Bring wifey to translate.
One of the worst things to happen to the great game of football, or soccer to the uncivilized, is when they started letting girls play. And America is to blame for that.
Why is that? My cousin Meredith happens to be quite good, and will be heading off to the pros if she works her cards right.
We also invented the W chip.

It's the greatest thing - you plug it into your cable box or direct tv console and it:

- Blocks all womens tv programming including sports (except womens tennis because of the short skirt factor - it does block the annoying women announcers though, making room for only the players grunting and crowd heckling).


- despite the short skirt factor, no ice skating of any kind without a stick, a puck, and goal is allowed

- blocks womens scores from appearing on the ticker at the bottom of popular sports tv channels

- when a woman is playing with a man, it makes all of the players whose scores are worse that the womans appear in pink on your screen

These are just a few of the wonderful things the W chip does to compensate for Title IX and it's effect on sports worldwide.
The reason yanks think football is a wussy sport is because they're used to seeing girls play it, Your girls national team is better than your boys national team…but they are catching up though. Your boys play it like a bunch of girls compared to the way the game is played in Europe.
I wonder why most yanks think swimming is a wussy sport? Other than when the Olympics are on, no one watches it.
Originally posted by mankie:
The reason yanks think football is a wussy sport is because they're used to seeing girls play it, Your girls national team is better than your boys national team…but they are catching up though. Your boys play it like a bunch of girls compared to the way the game is played in Europe.
The US is ranked 10th in FIFA' National team ranking, pretty good for a bunch of girls. Which raises the question to Mankie or Mar-WK:

What would you consider a successful showing for the US in the upcoming Confederations Cup, besides winning it all?
Originally posted by Andrew WK:
Anyone else been reading Irvine Welsh's reports from America?
anyone read his book Porno? that's on my list
Originally posted by G.Love:


The US is ranked 10th in FIFA' National team ranking, pretty good for a bunch of girls. Which raises the question to Mankie or Mar-WK:

What would you consider a successful showing for the US in the upcoming Confederations Cup, besides winning it all?

I didn't say your team was bad…it's just not a very exciting game the way it's played over here.

If your boys team won something then maybe Americans would start watching them, like they do with your girls. We all know Americans can only watch their country compete if they win…as American coverage of the Olympics demonstrates everytime.
Originally posted by mankie:
I didn't say your team was bad…it's just not a very exciting game the way it's played over here.

If your boys team won something then maybe Americans would start watching them, like they do with your girls. We all know Americans can only watch their country compete if they win…as American coverage of the Olympics demonstrates everytime.
Coverage of the Olympics is based on ratings and when the US has a competitor in almost every sport, then of course the networks are going to filter it down to only the ones that we win.

As far as your comment on European football, to my knowledge Europe has two distinct styles based on Western and Eastern Europe. Germany, Poland, Greece, etc play tough, physical defense with counterattacks, whereas, Spain, France, etc play more of an offense minded fineese game.
Where does the UK fit in? and how is the US different?
Originally posted by mankie:
No country can beat the yanks at friendly fire though…you lot have a lock on that one.
I think British Intelligence could give us a run for our money - just ask STAKEKNIFE

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,954620,00.html
Originally posted by G.Love:
Originally posted by mankie:
No country can beat the yanks at friendly fire though…you lot have a lock on that one.
I think British Intelligence could give us a run for our money - just ask STAKEKNIFE

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,954620,00.html
huh?

I don't see the relevance between the story and friendly fire.
Originally posted by mankie:

I don't see the relevance between the story and friendly fire.
If the British undercover agent Stakeknife was truly Scappaticci, of the many persons he killed, a good number murdered were British informers. That included kills on other agents in the British security network that were ordered necessary to protect his identity.

Seems more ruthless of a gov't to kill its own premeditatedly, versus blaming scared 20 year olds with their fingers on the trigger.
But of course Stakeknife is all speculation at this point.
And the inferrence I take from stakeknife is that if it was real Scappattichi was in place to make sure the IRA didnt organise an event that resulted in a massive loss of life or the assasination of the queen or a head of state.

But the way intelligence was realeased on stakeknife brings the whole thing into doubt. If it was true I expect that there would have been sackings, resignation and murders by now.
Friendly fire is when you shoot your own by "accident", none of the kills this stakeknife character did were by accident. If the story is in fact, true.
I just read that the courts ruled in his favor to force the government to comment on the claim that he was Stakeknife. So I would say that it is not true because of the fact that he wants to pursue it in court.

By mistake or on purpose, it is still killing your own.
It's hockey or NOTHING, you fuckwits.