SeVeR

I watched the match and saw one player (might have been Dempsey) holding a defender around the waist and making no attempt to head the ball. The US player had his head down quite low while doing it, looked a bit wierd. Having said that, the goal should have stood. No need to invade Africa though... And refs make mistakes, it's not rigged. As for England, they were absolutely terrible. I have lost all confidence in Fabio Capello. He is making exactly the same mistakes as previous managers. He spent 70 minutes playing long ball up to Emile Heskey! WTF! Gerrard was stuck on the left just like times past. England were slow and unimaginative. As for the players, Rooney was sh!t. Did anyone count how many times he lost the ball? It just wasn't the same player. Against USA he was bad, against Algeria it's like watching a Sumo Wrestler trying to play table tennis. This is Steve McClaren's England team. Anyone else know what I'm talking about? Long balls to Heskey, and passing/movement that is slower than Greece on a bad day. We won't even beat Slovakia. Can we just get someone managing England who will play Gerrard in the middle/second-striker and who won't play Heskey? Same old England. Rubbish.

I'm sure those people would be spinning in their subspace graves at what Hoch wants to do.

Wow, I think it was SCROTUM who was supporting Switzerland. A memorable 1-0 win for them against Spain. They stuck to their game-plan and kept their attacking options open. Great defense, and they took their chances well.

Those in power are usually those who desire it most, and those who desire it most are usually those who abuse it. This applies to computer game moderators/sysops more than in most areas of life. Hoch thinks only his opinion matters. He thinks he alone has the right and responsibility as "owner" (leader). He's drunk on his own importance and eminence.

I thought Ara's post was directly related to the discussion about what the SSC can/will do.

What I gather from TLordTango's conversation is that Hoch thinks his opinion matters more than anyone elses. That's just giving the finger to the community, nothing more. Why doesn't TW go out on a high? It's still got hundreds of people in there, but it's declined a bit in recent years, so by Hoch's logic it's best to kill it now. Nevermind what hundreds of other people think, his opinion is obviously all that matters... Unfortunately, power makes people think their opinions matter more. DSB gets over a hundred in population during league games still.

Here's a topic Hoch can't delete. I'm sure the SS Council will represent the hundreds of players who play DSB in this dispute. What message will it give if they don't? This is one man against everyone who plays the zone, probably against everyone who plays subspace too. This is a power trip decision, it's one person deciding to exert power over everyone, and then having the audacity to say it's for the good of the zone! I'm serious! (Hoch: "I honestly believe that in the end this is the best action for the zone. I think it is better to leave on a high rather than a low."). He doesn't have the right. He started DSB as a mod and was eventually given owner powers with the expectation that he would keep the zone running.

lol after about 20 seconds of not moving my eyes I noticed that the guy to the right is winking... haha

I still have France down as causing an upset and getting to the Semis. Although I am worried about their coach who appears to be an idiot. He didn't make substitutions early enough, he only put on Malouda after 75 minutes, and he seemed to be playing the strikers on the wing and the wingers in the middle towards the end. South Africa's goal was insanely good. He buried it in the hardest possible place. You should find a video of it. Mexico's goal was down to poor defending, but they deserved it. (EDIT: yes, SA played Mexico)

What happened to the other World Cup thread?

Another good one:

World Sports.

I just had to get the train for 6 hours to and from Edinburgh, and had to stand for most of the way there.

I don't follow the issue like I used to but I do know Russia is becoming much closer to America, and I would therefore expect them to cease previous alliances if it makes their new friend happy. If McCain had won the election then Russia would still be opposing sanctions.

Ann Coulter. Anyway, sounds like the walls are really closing in on you Dr. Brain. It's nice to blame one group of people for all the evil in the world. It's nice because polarising society always places you on the side of absolute righteousness. It's a topic of psychological study for me: why do people need to obliviously generate or bolster their own pride? Is it the brain's defense mechanism against inadequacy? "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently." -Nietzsche

Anyone with the name "Rockefeller" should be banned from politics for life.

I totally agree with you on every point there NBV. Welfare is excessive. I was defending the very existence of a welfare system (in whatever form it should take) against the ridiculous notion of using charities. I would propose starting people at full welfare and slowly reducing it (weaning them off it) until it reaches a minimum. This minimum would be the smallest possible amount for survival. I would also propose substituting money for "stamps", like food stamps, so it is spent properly. You'd get phone-stamps, electricity-stamps, nappy-stamps for mothers. When I was in the US I always remember hearing some woman on welfare, living in a trailor saying "I don't even get enough money to pay my cable bill", and I was like, "f'ing hell, use terrestrial TV, it's free you spoilt little..." When people complain about not having enough money when they have a 30 dollar a month phone contract and a 20 dollar a month cable-TV contract it makes me want to punch them.

How doesn't it? You give people money, they use it to buy food and fuel, they survive. A charity would be no different, except it would be less money and at irregular intervals. At times of few donations it would systematically kill off a percentage of the poor. Just the idea of expecting charity to replace welfare is bloody ridiculous. You didn't give any examples of how "History shows that it can" replace welfare. Yea, and it sucked. Thousands were dying every winter. When did I say this? I remember deleting it from my "preview post" because it sounded silly, but how could you see that? I hadn't even posted it.

When has welfare? Clearly your definition of help depends on how much money they pay, and not how much better the person's situation becomes. To paraphrase Regan, success shouldn't be measured by how many people are on welfare, but by how many people no longer need it. Welfare currently helps the poor by preventing them from dying of starvation or the elements when they don't have jobs. Money helps improve a persons situation, are you seriously saying otherwise? I don't disagree with the quote. Why would charity even come close to replacing this? Donations to charity fluctuate during the year, and they can never meet the amount of money provided by welfare. More people would die. The *ahem* adjective shittier implies that they have a job already to compare it to. And if you're comparing it to welfare, then you're basically admitting that they'll never be able to get off of it (which, sadly, is almost always the case). So are you saying we should be creating jobs with "no benefits, barely enough salary to eat, almost slave labour" for people instead of giving them welfare? History says otherwise. There was law and order before the 1950s. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was actually less crime (I'm not saying there is causation, only correlation). Crime is historically higher in recessions. The overall trend of crime to increase over the last century has zero to do with welfare laws. For one there are more types of crime now to be prosecuted with. Secondly, there would have to be an equally proficient police force and equal social influences, for instance the 1950s were a post-war period reflecting a public unity against acts of criminality and a huge rise in pacifism. Crime increases or decreases based on sudden changes to the status quo, it's the spoilt-child situation: if you were forced to live in Africa you would find it abhorrent, while a member of the royal family would find your life horrid, it's the sudden changes like a recession. To cut everyone off from welfare would cause a huge rise in crime. History shows that it can. Really??? Please enlighten me. I agree. It was a figure of speech. People often remark about "going back to the dark ages". That's why I said "When have charities ever PROPERLY helped the poor", so my point is exactly the same as yours, that charities probably won't be able to meet society's needs. I don't see charity as heroic in any way. It's much more heroic to give without the acknowledgment for it. A church-based system would come with a particular conversion-based disadvantage. We already have enough conversion through charity going on, we don't want the whole lower class of society to become Christian any more than it already is.

When has charity ever properly helped the poor? All the poor people cut off from welfare would have to get a job or perish. The jobs they get would be shittier because they are more desperate to get one. No benefits, barely enough salary to eat, almost slave labour. Those forced to perish would rob you in the street, and kill you to get at your wallet. We'd be back in the dark ages so fast it will be like turning off the light switch. You think charity would prevent this?

^Exactly as it should be. Us British are proud of our socialised health system too, and nearly everyone agrees that we should maintain it at all costs. To become like America would horrify us all. Even the right-wing Conservative party have their slogan talking about keeping the NHS, just so people don't get the wrong idea about them.

So, basically the ends justify the means. What happened to integrity? Looks like Dr Brain is shooting for the moral highground on this one.

DIE DIE DIE.

Ok. I hate it when people use the whole "OMG CANADA" argument. Do you even understand Canada's health care system? If so, I would really love to hear you explain to me: 1) Why you would wait an entire day for an appointment 2) Why that has anything to do with Canada's public health care system 3) How it differs from Canada's private health care sector 4) How this applies to every single hospital or doctor's practice across the country There's so much ignorance in your comment it's not worth continuing. I'll leave you with this advice, turn off Fox news for a minute and stop comparing our health care system to your bill. Lol true, I think someone has been watching Fox News a bit too much. Britain has a National Health Service too, and it's great. I don't pay a thing to see a doctor. When I had appendicitis and had to be in hospital for several days due to additional complications I paid zilch, zippo, nadda.

Why not just put that $100 dollars in the bank, then you'll have more money to repair your car than you'll need. Or are you saying you would spend the money rather than putting it in the bank? So basically the insurance company is getting a fee for stopping you from spending your money.