offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by alve » Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:05:23



Quote:


>> snip stoopid

>> You are hereby awarded the Irony Cross, 1st class!

>> See, if you're so clamorous about low standards then you really shouldn't
>> be posting.

> I am trying hard to compete with the low standards set when hordes of
> certain
> kinds of people support a moron like Darell Hair.

> Don

So you're just driven by jealousy then?
 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Don » Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:44:46

Andrew Dunford as usual chose not to understand the post:

Quote:
> The real action is Sunday's playoff for last place between South Africa and
> ........ India.

Where did i compare them with India? I never described Ind as a
sporting nation.
Compare Eng to Germany or Aus and you get what i am saying. They are
shit as compared to their other West European neighbours and even East
European
countries.

Don

ps: BTW, Leander Paes just won the doubles event at US Open.

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by SultanOfSwin » Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:31:29

Quote:


> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:33:21 GMT, Chris Weston
> > What strikes me as odder is the suggestion that australia is somehow
> > not far behind germany as a sporting nation...

> Australia rules field hockey, Germany is not far behind.

   Australia doesn't "rule" field hockey. Germany has just
   won the 2006 Hockey World Cup in Monchengladbach,
   defeating Australia 4-3 in a thrilling final. Germany have
   won 2 back-to-back Hockey World Cup titles in 2002
   and 2006. Australia are the Olympic champions
   having won the gold at Athens in 2004.

Quote:
> The point to be noted is that England has continuously
> declined from where it was in the last 3-4 decades.

   If you're referring to hockey, then England were never
   a superpower in hockey. Their only major title till date
   is the gold medal in hockey at the 1988 Seoul
   Olympics. But they have shown signs of improvement
   in this edition of the World Cup. They finished 5th above
   Pakistan and Netherlands which might have come as
   a surprise to a lot of neutrals. This means an automatic
   qualification for the next Champions' Trophy which is
   a rather prestigious event unlike the (No) Champions
   Trophy in cricket. England haven't played in the
   Champions' Trophy for donkey's ears and it will do
   English hockey a world of good to play against
   top teams like Australia, Germany and Spain.

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by eusebiu » Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:38:40

snip

When will Don become a good poster? 1 decade? 2? 3?

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Michael » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:44:21


Quote:


> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:33:21 GMT, Chris Weston
> I forgot to add that even in war, England always hides
> behind American asses. Could England ever have fought
> a lone battle like Germany did against US, Russia, England
> and other European allies in WWII? For right or wrong, Germany
> had the courage to fight it all alone.

I guess that you never studied history?  "always hides behind American
assess"?  Britain was fighting WW1 for like 3 years before the US joined in.
By the time that Germany declared war on USA in December 1941, the British
had been at war with Germany and Italy for over 2 years.  IIRC, Britain is
the only country in the world to have fought throughout the entirety of the
2 world wars.  12 years of world war fought by Britain compared to 7 years
by the US forces.  If the British are as shite as you say, why is it that we
are presently using English language right now?
 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by max. » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:52:47


Quote:



>> snip stoopid

>> You are hereby awarded the Irony Cross, 1st class!

>> See, if you're so clamorous about low standards then you really shouldn't
>> be posting.

>I am trying hard to compete with the low standards set when hordes of
>certain
>kinds of people support a moron like Darell Hair.

>Don

Darell Hair ? Never heard of her.

max.it

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Gilly's Dand » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:02:07

Quote:

> ps: BTW, Leander Paes just won the doubles event at US Open.

Martina Navratilova won another one. What's your point?

A

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by FADANOI » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:33:50

Sadly, Don shat out of his mouth/arse the following and stunk the joint
out.

"offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc"

When you stop posting nonce-sence you dribbling halfwit

England no good at Hockey & Tennis. So what. No-one cares about these
pastimes.

Football - Underperformed for last 3 tourneys, but at least qualified
and got through group stage.

Cricket - Beat World No1 last year.

Rugby  - World cup holders.

You are right Don. Apart from the only sports that anyone in England
cares about, they are crap!

I see England blew it at the volleyball again this year. Damn.

Fadanoid

offtopic - When will Indians stop shitting in the street?

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Don » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:34:55

Quote:


> I guess that you never studied history?  "always hides behind American
> assess"?  Britain was fighting WW1 for like 3 years before the US joined in.

I know England under Churchill defended their country against German
invasion.
Compare England in the 2 World Wars to Germany. Germany single-handedly
fought so many countries together. England had to take help from US and
Russia
in WWII. Germany was very powerful after its unification in the late
19th century.
(look i am in no way defending Nazism here but just highlighting
Germany's self reliance).

Quote:
>  If the British are as shite as you say, why is it that we
> are presently using English language right now?

What can i say? My country was invaded and ruled by the British for 300
years. I am forced to use English language. Before British invasion,
the Indian land was thriving.
All its languages, tradition and indigenous literary works were
thriving. See, China was not invaded but yet is a world power. So it
would not have been suprising that even if India had not been invaded
by British, it would have grown and become more of a world power than
it is now. Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
invasion. If Brazil, Argentina, China and lot of European countries can
do well despite not knowing English language, India would have done
much better by now and more than that had respect for local languages
and tradition as it was way ahead of China and lot of other countries
in the 16th century in most respects.

Don

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:27:44


<snip>

Quote:
> ps: BTW, Leander Paes just won the doubles event at US Open.

On his own? That's a good effort, but would perhaps explain why he's only
just won it when the final started more than a week ago.

Andrew

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:29:08


<snip>

Quote:
> What can i say? My country was invaded and ruled by the British for 300
> years. I am forced to use English language.

You are welcome to use a different language on rsc, if that helps.

<snip>

Andrew

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Vig » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:55:54

Quote:

> Andrew Dunford as usual chose not to understand the post:

>> The real action is Sunday's playoff for last place between South Africa and
>> ........ India.

> Where did i compare them with India? I never described Ind as a
> sporting nation.
> Compare Eng to Germany or Aus and you get what i am saying. They are
> shit as compared to their other West European neighbours and even East
> European
> countries.

Don't get all pissy, but

Premier League >> Bundesliga and the English soccer team is about as
good as the German soccer team is and way better than the socceroos (no
matter what the world cup results were...no one is harping about senegal
or south korea anymore...)

In the most watched sport, the British have always had several drivers
in the F1 racing circuit with champions like Damon Hill. They also have
DC, Button etc. Again, Australia is nowhere, although the Germans have
just as many drivers (including one Michael Schumacher)

Let us see... As far as cricket goes, they are the second best test team
in the world and Germany does not even play.

I think it is a joke to compare GB with India citing Leander Paes. Tim
Henman is easily a more successful player than any Indian tennis player
EVER...unfortunate as that might be.

Cheers!
--
Vig

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Vig » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:06:30

Quote:

> What can i say? My country was invaded and ruled by the British for 300
> years. I am forced to use English language. Before British invasion,
> the Indian land was thriving.

Which is why they could not defend themselves against the invasion? Ever
heard of the Renaissance/Industrial revolution?

Quote:
> All its languages, tradition and indigenous literary works were
> thriving. See, China was not invaded but yet is a world power. So it
> would not have been suprising that even if India had not been invaded
> by British, it would have grown and become more of a world power than
> it is now.

India was not a single entity prior to British invasion. It would
probably have been a group of 10-15 different countries. And if you can
imagine what a great country the state of Bihar or TN would have made,
you'll soon realize that the British inadvertantly might have helped to
fast-track us on to the road to being a superpower (because being one
seems  to be a very important thing for a country according to you)

Quote:
> Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
> slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
> which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
> is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
> invasion.

Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
like to admit.

Quote:
> If Brazil, Argentina, China and lot of European countries can
> do well despite not knowing English language, India would have done
> much better by now and more than that had respect for local languages
> and tradition as it was way ahead of China and lot of other countries
> in the 16th century in most respects.

The reason for India's current economic growth is due to the technology
industry booming. Our ability to speak english has provided us a great
advantage in progressing much faster than expected by developing rapidly
in the service sector as opposed to manufacturing (which would have
taken longer).

Again, the British might have inadvertantly helped us become a
superpower. India might have been a nicer place and better were it not
for the invasion, but the superpowerdom that you cherish is closer
rather than distant due to colonialism.

P.S A country cannot be colonized unless it is willing to be.

Cheers!
--
Vig

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Mad Hamis » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:11:17

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:44:21 +0100, "MichaelM"

Quote:




>> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:33:21 GMT, Chris Weston
>> I forgot to add that even in war, England always hides
>> behind American asses. Could England ever have fought
>> a lone battle like Germany did against US, Russia, England
>> and other European allies in WWII? For right or wrong, Germany
>> had the courage to fight it all alone.

>I guess that you never studied history?  "always hides behind American
>assess"?  Britain was fighting WW1 for like 3 years before the US joined in.

Added to which
a) Germany wasn't alone with Japan and Italy plus at various times in
WWII  Hungary (200,000 troups to the Eastern front), Romania (c.
300,000 troups to oppose the USSR), Bulgaria, Thailand, Finland,
Slovakia and French troops fought against the USSR as did 20,000
Spanish volunteers (although they were recalled when the allies
protested)

b) it's not like Germany had a huge amount of choice.
Hitler had seriously miscalculated the reaction of the UK when he
invaded France.
Germany invaded the USSR opening up another front but there is no way
that Stalin wouldn't have come in soon anyway.
The USA population was moving more towards joining in WWII before
Pearl Harbour they'd declared war on Japan on Dec 8 and German and
Italy responded to that.

Quote:
>By the time that Germany declared war on USA in December 1941, the British
>had been at war with Germany and Italy for over 2 years.  IIRC, Britain is
>the only country in the world to have fought throughout the entirety of the
>2 world wars.  

Depends when you count the wars starting and what you consider to be
fighting. Quite a few commonwealth countries declared war at basically
the same time as England in WWII

In WWI Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28
England declared war on Germany on August 4 prompted by an invasion of
France. New Zealand was involved by the end of August (I'm not sure
when) Australia had action by September 11

Quote:
>12 years of world war fought by Britain compared to 7 years
>by the US forces.  If the British are as shite as you say, why is it that we
>are presently using English language right now?

--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Don » Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:29:24

Quote:

> India was not a single entity prior to British invasion.

You need to read Indian history. Mughal India was one single entity
though there
were still a few separate provinces. Under Akbar/Sher Shah, India was
doing really well. The Mughals united most of  India and a few of their
rulers except Aurangzeb were really wise and had respect for Hindu
traditions and literature.  Taj Mahal was
built during Mughal rule. Hindustani/Carnatic music matured and were
thriving from
13th-16th centuries.  And India had brilliant scientists/thinkers  like
Aryabhatta and
Chanakya much before British came. So if you think science progressed
in India due to the British, it shows your lack of understanding of
Indian history and culture. And if you don't know, most of the Greek
scientific theories were there in the Vedic texts of ancient
India predating Greek inventions by a few thousand years.

And even if there were quiet a few separate entities/provinces in 16th
century India, that is true even of countries like Germany which were
unified only in the late 19th
century. There's noithing to say India wouldn't have followed the same
path even if British had not arrived.

Quote:
> you'll soon realize that the British inadvertantly might have helped to
> fast-track us on to the road to being a superpower

Typical colonial slave mentality.

Quote:
> Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
> certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
> like to admit.

Referring to Gandhi???? Hmm..that explains your overall mentality and
how much
regard or the lack of it you have for India.

Quote:
> P.S A country cannot be colonized unless it is willing to be.

That is a big joke. Did Iraq willingly cave in to US in 2003??? (even
though you cannot call it strict colonization but close to it anyway).

Don