April 26, 2003

To tell the truth, wc20002, there is no elation over staying up. It's just something we happened to do, with a bit to spare. There is no comparison with the play off final. There never will be any comparison. I hope none of my spofi cyberpals, even the fucker, have to live through a play off, ever. I would sooner open a vein and feel that cool yet comfortingly warm water take me to a happier place.

posted by Fat Buddha at 08:02 PM on April 26, 2003

*Please* enter the Inter-toto. *Please* *Please* *Please* I need something to salvage from this season - we didn't even do very well in the FA Youth Cup.

posted by BigCalm at 03:00 AM on April 28, 2003

West Ham is staying, so is Leeds...

posted by StarFucker at 08:15 AM on April 28, 2003

Middlesborough (even if it's pronounced "Middlesbruh"), you drunken twats!

posted by worldcup2002 at 01:07 PM on April 28, 2003

Oh my oh my, wc2002, It would have been bad to have been corrected by a yank..but you ballsed up old chap, ho chuffing ho. How did you know I was drunk? I actually like the notion of a European place for fair play, or would do if it had any effect on behaviour. Consistent thuggery or just plain gamesmanship is just irritating. Ugly snarling gits berating officials even worse. Anything that helps to reduce it is ok in my book. If places were handed out on the basis of ability alone, half the teams who enter from micky mouse leagues across the Meditteranean and Eastern Europe, wouldn't get a look in. And don't get me started on Israel, since when was that place in Europe. I think Blues should be given a place in Europe just because we had the good sense to sign Dugarry.

posted by Fat Buddha at 01:35 PM on April 28, 2003

StarFooker: You trolling slut, while I am all for encouraging good behavior and getting a nice pat on the back, and also against loutish lugs, this does not mean I am a raving lunatic about then giving someone more than they are due. If you're not good enough playing to win something, why should I reward you for coming in seventh in the good behavior list? Yes, Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea and more are all higher on the Fair Play rankings than Boro and Manchester City, and the irony is, it's not even the best-behaved team that's getting in, it's the best-behaved team left over after all the others (who are just better at playing, period!) have qualified through normal methods. Sure, get a nice Fair Play award, maybe a little cash, at the end of the season, hell, every month, but don't make it qualification to then go into a competition where you play for an award. Your attempt to pigeonhole me with your faulty logic is plain fookery. Try again?

posted by worldcup2002 at 03:16 PM on April 28, 2003

Man U, Liverpool and Chelsea all at the top of the Fair Play League, well what a surprise. ;-)

posted by squealy at 03:26 PM on April 28, 2003

I WOULD be able to pigeonhole you if your opinions were consistent. However, your apparent selective judgements make it impossible.

posted by StarFucker at 03:51 PM on April 28, 2003

Just because I dislike teams with hooligans does not mean I think that well-behaved teams should get automatic qualification to Europe, just based on good behavior. I don't know why that isn't clear to you, SF. How is that selective? I never said nor believed Leeds should get relegated by law for coddling brutish twats. (I just want them to lose, that's all. It just happened that I picked a team and players you like. And they do, indeed, suck.) By the same token, I don't want teams to get automatic qualification by law just because they behaved less badly than anyone else. I don't see any inconsistency in that.

posted by worldcup2002 at 07:02 PM on April 28, 2003

Aha! But I can twist it in my favor! It is in my brilliant use of the qualifier "by law." I never denied that I want Leeds to go down. (I just said it up there: I just want them to lose.) I want teams to beat them. Absolutely, but I never said they should be automatically relegated by some strange law because they are badly behaved. However, Man City or whoever is high enough in the Fair Play table (which is based only on how many cards you get, not if you win or lose) gets to automatically qualify for Euro championship, even if they're the somewhere in the second half of the EPL, because the better teams (who win through normal means) also have better disciplinary records. All I'm saying is you've somehow equated my wanting a team to lose because they've coddled brutes, with wanting them to be automatically relegated by a law based on behavior alone. And then you've somehow connected that to mean that I should also support a team to automatically be rewarded with Euro qualification not on their game performance (win, lose or draw) but on how many yellow or red cards they can avoid getting. The problem is not my twisting the argument. The problem is you making connections where there are none. Damn, did I tell you I am a highly-paid criminal defense lawyer? And brilliant and breathtakingly good-looking? And also in possession of minty-fresh breath?

posted by worldcup2002 at 10:46 AM on April 29, 2003

But why do you infer that? I said I want Leeds to go down, yes, I want them to be so badly beaten they should be relegated, yes. I just never said that someone should be rewarded for good behavior. There's a Latin name for this, reductio ad absurdum. You took it there, not me. You took one instance and inferred it to the point of absurdity. I never made that claim. Yes, you can infer it. But just because it may work in the mechanics of the logic doesn't mean it is true. You claimed Leeds did so well with those louts, when O'Leary was there. I pointed out they didn't. Because, well, what do they have to show for having them? A gigantic debt and NO silverware. Nothing. Who is being selective here? I also pointed out that O'Leary claimed at least twice that Bowyer and Woodgate's bad behavior damaged their entire season. You said no, no, it was just that he was lamenting their trials. Well, how did they get involved in a trial? Was it some mercurial twist of fate? No, it was a result of their bad behavior! Who's being selective? And that you fail to see the irony of making statements to the effect of "I don't care if a player is a trouble-maker as long as he's talented" while at the same time taking my one assertion to an absolute unimplied absurd end, is the reason you will refuse to acknowledge any argument I make. And what's the point of having a talented player when they get enough yellow cards and red cards to have to sit out a match every four games? At that rate, they would be on the bench at least 25% of an EPL team's games. (And what if they also get into trouble off the pitch? Not that that's ever happened?) The team loses three times: They lose talent and they lose the continuity in a team, as well as the strategic options with that player. My point is that Leeds coasted along on illusions, on thinking they should risk all (dollars, team unity) just for "talented players." That they were "successful" (without winning anything) for just a season does not validate that gamble. You can have tough, rough players, but louts will always cost you. Finally, I decide to have a little fun at the expense of Leeds (everybody has teams they pick on) but you decide to challenge it for any reason you can pick up on. Just because I actually articulate a reason. You don't pick on any one else when they have no reason whatsoever for disliking a team ("Yorkshire twats?") but you proceed to lambaste every argument I have, even where there's proof behind it, taking every effort to require logical solidity, taking every effort to stretch one argument to absolutely absurd conclusions. Who has the personal problem here? I would much rather you just have come out early and said you identify with the players in question. I much warmed to your stories of your coaching experience and could see how you saw yourself in those players. I respect that and have no need to disabuse you of your notions. However, you seem to want to attack everyone of mine. And that is where I took offense.

posted by worldcup2002 at 12:17 PM on April 29, 2003

i am not lambasting anyone...i am still having fun here with this argument... And i did not mean for you to take offense...don't be so sensitive... Also, i am not picking on you...i was just pointing out that you wanted a WHOLE team relegated for a few players...but you did not want to award a WHOLE team for good behaviour. That is the main sticking point here... Can't we just have a discussion without people getting angry?! If you want, i'll start an argument with Buddha, squealy and some others...

posted by StarFucker at 01:52 PM on April 29, 2003

OK, SF, you're right it is nuts. I'm nuts. But it's just as crazy to want a team to be relegated for being "Yorkshire twats". However, there's no arguing that "Yorkshire twats" is a lot more fun that saying "hooligan." So, now I want Leeds to be relegated because they're "Yorkshire twats". Let's have a pint, squealy!

posted by worldcup2002 at 03:14 PM on April 29, 2003

Who you callin' a twat, punk?!

posted by StarFucker at 04:16 PM on April 29, 2003

Of course, they're Yorkshire Twats until they don the shirt. *Predicts FB will disagree*. :-)

posted by squealy at 06:01 PM on April 29, 2003