HAHAAHA Japan beat Germany!

[The Iceberg]

HAAHAHAH Japan WON 2-0 vs Gemany!! this is brilliant World Cup!!! these non-woke World Cups are much better than the communist Olympics etc!! LOL

[Whisper]

On 24/11/2022 2:18 am, The Iceberg wrote:
> HAAHAHAH Japan WON 2-0 vs Gemany!! this is brilliant World Cup!!! these non-woke World Cups are much better than the communist Olympics etc!! LOL

2-1 to Japan wow!

Argentina choked 1 short of Italy's record of not losing 37 games in a
row. Messi choker.

Croatia are better than Morocco but that wasn't a great performance,
need to take those scoring opportunities, hopefully that was their worst
game. Need to beat Canada now and hopefully world no.2 Belgium as well.

I'd like to see a 1st time winner, not likely though. French looking
good again.

[LedZep IgaSwanTech]

Belgium are overrated as #2 and overrated as an underdog (just like Denmark). FIFA ranking is BS anyway. That is a tough group. Belgium will go home early just like Germany, Denmark etc.

[LedZep IgaSwanTech]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 9:18:18 AM UTC-6, iceber...@gmail.com wrote:
> HAAHAHAH Japan WON 2-0 vs Gemany!! this is brilliant World Cup!!! these non-woke World Cups are much better than the communist Olympics etc!! LOL

You hate Germany just because they have better beer and bread than England.

[*skriptis]

LedZep IgaSwanTech <krisr...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 9:38:46 AM UTC-6, Whisper wrote:> On 24/11/2022 2:18 am, The Iceberg wrote: > > HAAHAHAH Japan WON 2-0 vs Gemany!! this is brilliant World Cup!!! these non-woke World Cups are much better than the communist Olympics etc!! LOL> 2-1 to Japan wow! > > Argentina choked 1 short of Italy's record of not losing 37 games in a > row. Messi choker. > > Croatia are better than Morocco but that wasn't a great performance, > need to take those scoring opportunities, hopefully that was their worst > game. Need to beat Canada now and hopefully world no.2 Belgium as well. > > I'd like to see a 1st time winner, not likely though. French looking > good again.Belgium are overrated as #2 and overrated as an underdog (just like Denmark). FIFA ranking is BS anyway. That is a tough group. Belgium will go home early just like Germany, Denmark etc.


Thanks for your support! 👍

🇭🇷⚪ ⚽ 🟤🇮🇳



--




----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

[*skriptis]

LedZep IgaSwanTech <krisr...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 9:18:18 AM UTC-6, iceber...@gmail.com wrote:> HAAHAHAH Japan WON 2-0 vs Gemany!! this is brilliant World Cup!!! these non-woke World Cups are much better than the communist Olympics etc!! LOLYou hate Germany just because they have better beer and bread than England.



Maybe he's anti-monarchist and against German Royal family in the UK?

https://www.dw.com/en/how-german-are-the-british-royals/a-63128994

[Sawfish]

Like many Americans I'm puzzled at soccer's (football's) widespread
attraction. And it's true that among the younger generations here in the
US, it *does* have a more significant following, in part because they've
grown up with it all the way thru school, as opposed to people like me
from the 50s-60s, who grew up with US football and baseball, with
basketball being relegated to a distant third place. It was, at that
time, viewed as a "pussy sport" when compared with football because of
the "limited contact" rules then in effect. Both sports evolved
convergently, where there' much more  permitted contact in BB and much
less (or rather--the *sorts* of allowable contact are much more limited).

I started wonder about *why* there's such a difference in the appeal,
and a lot is not yet clear, but there is a major psychological
difference between US football and these other sports mentioned--except
for rugby and Aus rules football.

In soccer/basketball, the *ball* is the focus of the game. In rugby/Aus
football/American football other sports, the *man* in possession of the
ball is the focus. The possession of the ball makes him prey,
essentially, and he is pursued and brutalized, and this stops when
either the ref stops it, or he loses possession of the ball.

There *is* physical force brought against the player in possession of
the ball in basketball/soccer, but it is incidental. In US football, it
is in fact the purpose of the sport.

Note too that in basketball/soccer, scoring is independent of possession
of the ball (with the exception of the slam in BB); e.g., it is possible
for a goal to be scored inadvertently by one's own defense. This is not
true in US football for most scoring instances (excepting field goals).
The ball must be in *someone's* possession for there to be a score.

Really different mindset, and I would ask Whisp: you live in a nation
where both *types* of sports thrive. How would you describe the
different mind sets there, and are there fans of soccer who don't care
about rugby/Aus football, and other fans who mostly like rugby/Aus
Football, but not soccer so much? Or are they both equally embraced
popularly?

And how do people there view basketball?

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Sawfish]

On 11/23/22 7:50 AM, *skriptis wrote:
> LedZep IgaSwanTech <krisr...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 9:18:18 AM UTC-6, iceber...@gmail.com wrote:> HAAHAHAH Japan WON 2-0 vs Gemany!! this is brilliant World Cup!!! these non-woke World Cups are much better than the communist Olympics etc!! LOLYou hate Germany just because they have better beer and bread than England.
>
>
> Maybe he's anti-monarchist and against German Royal family in the UK?
>
> https://www.dw.com/en/how-german-are-the-british-royals/a-63128994
>
>
>
>

Certainly a homely lot, for the most part, aren't they?

But for public institutions, this is not important...continuity is.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there who put forth the proposition that you can petition the Lord with prayer...

"Petition the lord with prayer...

"Petition the lord with prayer...

"YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER!"

--Sawfish

[guypers]

soccer is truly a democratic sport, not weigh 300 pounds or be 7’ tall, as in Amerikan sports, Messi is 5’9” 160 pounds!!

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Like many Americans I'm puzzled at soccer's (football's) widespread attraction.

You mean widespread attraction within US (newly acquired) or overall, global attraction?

> And it's true that among the younger generations here in the US, it *does* have a more significant following, in part because they've grown up with it all the way thru school, as opposed to people like me from the 50s-60s, who grew up with US football and baseball, with basketball being relegated to a distant third place. It was, at that time, viewed as a "pussy sport" when compared with football because of the "limited contact" rules then in effect.

We have a "pussy" sport here and it's mostly handball that fits the definition? In schools, girls used to play handball, guys played football (soccer) so it was manly game. Basketball was kinda unisex.

In professional sports (for men) handball is for those who are good, but best athletes usually go into football (soccer) or basketball (depending on their physique).

In that sense, if football (soccer) is med school, basketball is pharmacy, then handball is vet school. :)






> Both sports evolved convergently, where there' much more permitted contact in BB and much less (or rather--the *sorts* of allowable contact are much more limited).I started wonder about *why* there's such a difference in the appeal, and a lot is not yet clear, but there is a major psychological difference between US football and these other sports mentioned--except for rugby and Aus rules football.In soccer/basketball, the *ball* is the focus of the game. In rugby/Aus football/American football other sports, the *man* in possession of the ball is the focus. The possession of the ball makes him prey, essentially, and he is pursued and brutalized, and this stops when either the ref stops it, or he loses possession of the ball.There *is* physical force brought against the player in possession of the ball in basketball/soccer, but it is incidental. In US football, it is in fact the purpose of the sport.Note too that in basketball/soccer, scoring is independent of possession of the ball (with the exception of the slam in BB); e.g., it is possible for a goal to be scored inadvertently by one's own defense. This is not true in US football for most scoring instances (excepting field goals). The ball must be in *someone's* possession for there to be a score.Really different mindset, and I would ask Whisp: you live in a nation where both *types* of sports thrive. How would you describe the different mind sets there, and are there fans of soccer who don't care about rugby/Aus football, and other fans who mostly like rugby/Aus Football, but not soccer so much? Or are they both equally embraced popularly?And how do people there view basketball?


I can give you our perspective. If we talk about real real man's sport then in our psyche it's rugby. No doubt.

However rugby is perceived similar as golf here. It's highly appreciated and acknowledged, but not really popular. It's not a recreational sport for people here. But it's the one we know, it was on pair with football in 19th and early 20th century, so it has certain prestige.

Generally people want to watch sports they're playing or at least they've played as younger so rugby suffers in that aspect.

So rugby is somewhat like the Latin language. Appreciation but no practical use.



OTOH people here perceive American (and Australian and Canadian) football as mere variations (derivations) of rugby, unoriginal and frankly stupid with all those helmets and gear and other stuff. Masquerading as Darth Vader to play sports is seen as goofy and laughable, even pussy like here (if you were real men, you'd play rugby is the logic) so there's really no chance for those sports to ever interest anyone here.

Baseball is seen as quintessential American, so it's more respected, but zero popular as it has no tradition here. Likewise with cricket perhaps.

Basketball is quite popular.

Basically it's all about filling a niche. Rugby is the king of its niche and despite not being popular here nowadays, it is king of its niche so US football and other versions have no chance.

Football (soccer), basketball, water polo, tennis, etc are all kings of rheir niche.




My opinion, The appeal of (association) football (soccer) in the US is due to changing demographics. Lots of Latinos.

But even non Europeans and non Latin Americans cause it.

E.g. soccerfanny is Indian and he's a globalist so he is interested in the most global sport, which happens to be football (soccer).

So it's also political in the US I'd say. It's somewhat Jewish to be a soccer fan in the US, whereas in Europe it used to meant you're a Nazi or at least, minimally, a right winger.

So that's why we have this big FIFA push to spread gay around the world.

Jews understood the global appeal of soccer, they understood what power lies in global organisation such as FIFA, and they subverted and overtook FIFA.

Russia was banned from qualifications for example.


So FIFA and football (soccer) js been used to advance Jewish agenda.

Most fans still don't grasp it and are baffled by it.

Because, for decades, FIFA and UEFA used to have strict policy of "no politics in sports".

They did 180° recently.

[Sawfish]

On 11/23/22 12:44 PM, *skriptis wrote:
> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> Like many Americans I'm puzzled at soccer's (football's) widespread attraction.
>
> You mean widespread attraction within US (newly acquired) or overall, global attraction?

World-wide vs traditional US ambivalence.

>
>
>
>
>
>> And it's true that among the younger generations here in the US, it *does* have a more significant following, in part because they've grown up with it all the way thru school, as opposed to people like me from the 50s-60s, who grew up with US football and baseball, with basketball being relegated to a distant third place. It was, at that time, viewed as a "pussy sport" when compared with football because of the "limited contact" rules then in effect.
>
> We have a "pussy" sport here and it's mostly handball that fits the definition? In schools, girls used to play handball, guys played football (soccer) so it was manly game. Basketball was kinda unisex.
>
> In professional sports (for men) handball is for those who are good, but best athletes usually go into football (soccer) or basketball (depending on their physique).
>
> In that sense, if football (soccer) is med school, basketball is pharmacy, then handball is vet school. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Both sports evolved convergently, where there' much more permitted contact in BB and much less (or rather--the *sorts* of allowable contact are much more limited).I started wonder about *why* there's such a difference in the appeal, and a lot is not yet clear, but there is a major psychological difference between US football and these other sports mentioned--except for rugby and Aus rules football.In soccer/basketball, the *ball* is the focus of the game. In rugby/Aus football/American football other sports, the *man* in possession of the ball is the focus. The possession of the ball makes him prey, essentially, and he is pursued and brutalized, and this stops when either the ref stops it, or he loses possession of the ball.There *is* physical force brought against the player in possession of the ball in basketball/soccer, but it is incidental. In US football, it is in fact the purpose of the sport.Note too that in basketball/soccer, scoring is independent of possession of the ball (with the exception of the slam in BB); e.g., it is possible for a goal to be scored inadvertently by one's own defense. This is not true in US football for most scoring instances (excepting field goals). The ball must be in *someone's* possession for there to be a score.Really different mindset, and I would ask Whisp: you live in a nation where both *types* of sports thrive. How would you describe the different mind sets there, and are there fans of soccer who don't care about rugby/Aus football, and other fans who mostly like rugby/Aus Football, but not soccer so much? Or are they both equally embraced popularly?And how do people there view basketball?
>
> I can give you our perspective. If we talk about real real man's sport then in our psyche it's rugby. No doubt.
>
> However rugby is perceived similar as golf here. It's highly appreciated and acknowledged, but not really popular. It's not a recreational sport for people here. But it's the one we know, it was on pair with football in 19th and early 20th century, so it has certain prestige.
>
> Generally people want to watch sports they're playing or at least they've played as younger so rugby suffers in that aspect.
>
> So rugby is somewhat like the Latin language. Appreciation but no practical use.
>
>
>
> OTOH people here perceive American (and Australian and Canadian) football as mere variations (derivations) of rugby, unoriginal and frankly stupid with all those helmets and gear and other stuff. Masquerading as Darth Vader to play sports is seen as goofy and laughable, even pussy like here (if you were real men, you'd play rugby is the logic) so there's really no chance for those sports to ever interest anyone here.

The introduction of pads/helmets in the distant past change the basic
nature of the sport here deeply.

A certain type of contact became routine, and from maybe the 50s thru
the end of the 20th C, The sport had as one of its principal techniques
physical intimidation. This has been gradually eroded here as popular
sensibilities find it disturbing. This has had two negative effects: has
taken the really macho soul out of it, and, more importantly, has a
HUGELY legalistic nature, with very many subjective and arbitrary rules
it takes a lifetime to learn, and it evolves constantly. This makes it
near-impossible to understand *why* a particular play was a penalty.

It's odd to think back and compare what my junior college defensive
coach *directly* said he wanted from defensive backs, and primarily the
safeties. He said, in no uncertain terms, that he wanted us to use the
maximum force we could muster to deliver a blow with our helmet to a
receiver who was not looking (since he had to watch the fight of the
ball to catch it), timing it so that when the ball arrived and he
touched it, we would then make this kind of contact.

He used the term "crucify", or "absolutely crucify" the receiver coming
across.

Of course, we loved it... :^)

The intent is obvious, and it's why I was a safety and not a receiver:
it was to make the receiver so anxious that they would not watch the
ball closely until they caught it, for fear of the impending collision.
They would fail to catch the ball.

This is what I mean by US football focusing on the opponent and not the
ball.

This is evolving away, and pads, too, have gotten smaller over the last
10-15 years.

>
> Baseball is seen as quintessential American, so it's more respected, but zero popular as it has no tradition here. Likewise with cricket perhaps.
>
> Basketball is quite popular.
>
> Basically it's all about filling a niche. Rugby is the king of its niche and despite not being popular here nowadays, it is king of its niche so US football and other versions have no chance.
>
> Football (soccer), basketball, water polo, tennis, etc are all kings of rheir niche.

US football is dominant in revenues and popularity, at least for males.

The professional seasons were arranged to not compete with each other,
although there has evolved significant overlap. So the sport were not
for the most part in competition--they were seasonal.

Tennis is a niche sport here. Handball is unknown. Golf is a significant
niche sport--although h I'd call it a "game", like tossing horseshoes,
or bowling.

>
>
>
>
> My opinion, The appeal of (association) football (soccer) in the US is due to changing demographics. Lots of Latinos.
>
> But even non Europeans and non Latin Americans cause it.
>
> E.g. soccerfanny is Indian and he's a globalist so he is interested in the most global sport, which happens to be football (soccer).
>
> So it's also political in the US I'd say. It's somewhat Jewish to be a soccer fan in the US, whereas in Europe it used to meant you're a Nazi or at least, minimally, a right winger.

I'd not say it's Jewish, but rather that among the younger fans
(Caucasian tending to be college-educated) it is seen as more inclusive
and cosmopolitan and hence it is a more morally righteous.

It's like cars and bikes in the US. Many people who ride bikes (I used
to until 3 years ago) tend to see cars as environmental enemies, and
hence see themselves as more enlightened, socially responsible, and
*righteous*.

I rode a fair amount simply to get some exercise and because it was
cheap; parking was no problem in the city. There was, to me, no
political component to it.

>
> So that's why we have this big FIFA push to spread gay around the world.

This seems completely absurd, doesn't it? WTF does any of this have to
do with the sport, itself? No sport needs to make a political statement
of any kind, but noooooo!--we must tell everyone how enlightened we are.

>
> Jews understood the global appeal of soccer, they understood what power lies in global organisation such as FIFA, and they subverted and overtook FIFA.
>
> Russia was banned from qualifications for example.
>
>
> So FIFA and football (soccer) js been used to advance Jewish agenda.
>
> Most fans still don't grasp it and are baffled by it.
>
> Because, for decades, FIFA and UEFA used to have strict policy of "no politics in sports".
>
> They did 180° recently.
>

Transparent bullshit.

But here's the *real* crime, as I see it: how dumb/lazy and superficial
must the bulk of the industrialized world's population be to *think*
that it's important for a sport to hold the same social/political values
as the populace?

But it's the world we now live in, and it's our reality to adapt to, or
to fight.

--
"It is Pointless, and endless Trouble, to cast a stone at every dog
that barks at you."

--Sawfish

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> I'd not say it's Jewish, but rather that among the younger fans (Caucasian tending to be college-educated) it is seen as more inclusive and cosmopolitan and hence it is a more morally righteous.

I'd say it is, it's the same thing.


http://www.manchesterjewishstudies.org/cosmopolitanism-and-the-jews/

"Cosmopolitanism has recently become a keyword in envisioning productive types of inclusivity and diversity in the West, where societies are increasingly shaped by migration, transnational and diasporic processes. This project contends that from early modernity onwards, Jews represented the paradigm of the cosmopolitan because they were seen as a people beyond borders. Today, they have largely vanished from the picture but remain in the palimpsest of academic discourse about the cosmopolitan."




One just need to do quick Google search on their ethnic organisations and what they do.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIAS

HIAS (founded as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) is a Jewish American nonprofit organization that provides humanitarian aid and assistance to refugees. It was originally established in 1881 to aid Jewish refugees. In 1975, the State Department asked HIAS to aid in resettling 3,600 Vietnam refugees. Since that time, the organization continues to provide support for refugees of all nationalities, religions, and ethnic origins.


So, let's just bring everyone in, build multiculturalism in the name of Jews?

It's how I see it.

[The Iceberg]

football is the easiest and cheapest game to play, all you need is a ball and a bit of ground - no pads, no special shaped ball, no racquets etc. Also for many countries it the national game and has a lot of historic matches vs other teams or countries worldwide, so people have an association with it, even if they don't play.

[MBDunc]

On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:46:44 AM UTC+2, iceberg berged:

> > And how do people there view basketball?
> football is the easiest and cheapest game to play, all you need is a ball and a bit of ground - no pads, no special shaped ball, no racquets etc. Also for many countries it the national game and has a lot of historic matches vs other teams or countries worldwide, so people have an association with it, even if they don't play.

I am non-fan of Soccer....but there is some extra hypnotic layers which makes me follow all key matches at WC/EC. Soccer is like chess combined with individual great showings. Add global superstars (clubs, players), big money, legacy/history and there we go...

.mikko