Mimglow Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Yeah, my family & I got a kick out of that as well. Craig does fumble his words at times when he's excited (I thought what next - "Occean headed the ball in with powerful power? ) but I can forgive him for that since it comes out of excitement. We were in stitches for about a minute following that comment, but keep in mind we were giddy too because of the goal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolberto S. Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Well your wrong Jayway..just cuz I don't see Canada in your way and have your same opinion..doesn't mean I don't support it. But what is there to support lately, I did follow some matches and wished the lads well...but when your and others say "nothing wrong" with the program..or nothing wrong with Frank Yallop at the beginning, etc, and then say we actually had a chance at the Hex..that's debatable. Like I told you before, when I see Canada playing better or see potential candidates on that Canadian side that could actually strike fear in Mexico and USA, then I'll see you know guys..I think things are looking up now. But don't tell me I don't support Canadian Soccer..I was probably more of a supporter than you initially bud, but I've gotten tired of the WCQ losses over the years, and I've now restricted myself to club soccer and rather follow the Caps or Lynx. Anyways, that's all I got to say...If I see you in person in Toronto..then we'll have an honest discussion..but don't chicken out on me like last time, when you said "something online about me" and I told you to elaborate further offline and you didn' even have the guts to say "anything"..I'll be for sure waiting to talk to you..buddy..I'm harmless you know that, don't think my online and offline persona are the same. We'll I'm out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Nolberto S. Well I didn't see most of the the game only bits and pieces and rarely follow Canada nowadays..yeah.. I wonder why to those posters who will say that 1st..but the same pattern is emerging in this thread regarding negative criticism being taken to the personal level by most poster *cough*The Beaver, Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy*cough* and others, and people who wish to make a valid negative criticism, compared to the regular pessimists, myself included. I just hope this discussion keeps things focused in regards to Canada's need for improvement, getting games together and actually having a National league in my lifetime. At the same time, I hope that more people not be afraid to post negative comments, just cuz the Voyageurs seems to be the exact polar opposite of pessimistic news..Well I said my 2 cents, I hope to read more discussions in a lively manner. Sincerely, Nolberto S. To be honest, I have no idea what you are getting at. The "personal level"? Perhaps you could clarify what you mean? I know you likely have a "personal" problem with me, but that should not get in the way of our clearing up this matter. If I take issue with what I see as unfair and unwarranted and unrealistic criticism, then why can't I voice it? I am not personally slagging anyone. I'm not attacking their intelligence, their families, the size of their wigwam etc. What I AM doing is criticizing expectations that are often way off, expectations that quickly lead a small number of our "supporters" to shi.t all over our team, its coach and anybody who dares disagree with them. Was this game a piece of crap? Absolutely, if judged by pure soccer standards. But what do pure soccer standards have to do with reality? This team, we all hope, is building towards a better soccer standard, a considerably better soccer standard. Why crap on them while they are doing so? What fickle fans? And to be clear, I am not talking about Grizzly--for the most part--nor Jeffrey S or a few others who offer fair criticism but keep the context in mind while doing so. "Fire Yallops Ass" is NOT useful or fair criticism at this point, though look at the source. To be honest, Nolberto, I've not once got the impression that you give a flying fcuk about our national team, which is fine, but I find it very cheap of you to pretend to be a fan when all you really seem to want to do is disparage Canadian soccer. Yes, we know, we've got a long ways to go to respectability. How dumb do you think we are? (Don't answer that[^]) Can you not see that we are, at minimum, trying to build hope again? Surely you must understand how difficult it is to cheer for a team that must face so many limitations? We know the value of a good fan base to a national soccer program. I, for one, want our lads to play much better football--no doubt about it--but I cannot see the point in slagging them win they win, under all these conditions (the weather excluded), and will not give up on them so cheaply. I don't expect you to do the same, but I expect you to understand the difference between what I am doing and what "personal" attacks look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayWay Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Nolberto S. Well your wrong Jayway..just cuz I don't see Canada in your way and have your same opinion..doesn't mean I don't support it. But what is there to support lately, I did follow some matches and wished the lads well...but when your and others say "nothing wrong" with the program..or nothing wrong with Frank Yallop at the beginning, etc, and then say we actually had a chance at the Hex..that's debatable. This is all irrelevant. It'd be one thing to critisize the team out of frustration and let-down, it's another to make comments out of what comes off as ridicule and delight. In truth, I'm not bothered either way. I have nothing against those bashing the team in this thread (in fact, I agree with them), and I wasn't scarred for life when you messaged me following the Guatemala game. I just thought that the paradox between your sentiment then, and your sentiment here, was worth pointing out. quote: Anyways, that's all I got to say...If I see you in person in Toronto..then we'll have an honest discussion..but don't chicken out on me like last time, when you said "something online about me" and I told you to elaborate further offline and you didn' even have the guts to say "anything"..I'll be for sure waiting to talk to you..buddy..I'm harmless you know that, don't think my online and offline persona are the same. We'll I'm out On this, I'm drawing a blank. If you want to message me and elaborate privately, feel free. You have my contact info. Although I would like to know who you're quoting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimglow Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 quote:Originally posted by The Beaver I'm not attacking their intelligence, their families, the size of their wigwam etc. I have a HUGE wigwam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Mimglow I have a HUGE wigwam. Damn, now that I think about it I sort of wish I hadn't used "wigwam." I was looking for a silly word to suggest the man-dong, but instead chose an aboriginal term. Though with that in mind, had I said "the size of their King Don" nobody would have found the comment particularly discriminatory, so perhaps I am ceating a tempest in a teepee. Maybe Canso IS right: my liberal sensibilities are getting the better of me. As for the size of Mimglow's wigwam: I can see it from here, and I'm half-way across the freaking country. John Holmes don't got nothing on you, sonny. Holy Totem Pole, Batman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hottoddy7 Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 The size of their wigwam, that is some funny sh#t! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soju Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 This must be the only football supporters forum in the world that's politically correct. I'm also noticing a lot of big words and fancy talkin'. Has soccer attracted learned people in Canada? where have all the meat heads gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 In the end Beav, you're sticking up for what you believe in and I respect you for it. But us meatheads like to give vent to our racist and misogynistic tendencies in forums like this...because our women aren't watching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 As for the game, it was one of those freakish anomalies that happen in international soccer, where a team gets totally outplayed, could have conceded three or four, and still win. Any true fan of Canadian soccer has really no cause to complain that they played poorly. Let's face it, it's never been like watching Brazil! You support your team because they're yours, and watching them gives you a special thrill of emotion. You can watch everyone else as a neutral and enjoy the pretty passing patterns. If you're gonna support Canadian soccer, you gotta take the joy when you can get it. Just don't expect much in the way of aesthetics or acrobatics. And with Yallop in charge, second guessing the manager becomes a very entertaining game within the game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyldscallions Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Hello, I'm from Belfast and was at the match with a few Canadian friends. I have to say my friends were a little embarassed to have taken the spoils in a match where they had very little posession. I can't really comment on your players and how they performed other than to say you coped very well with the sending off, seemed quite well organised defensively, and occasionally rode your luck in terms of our chances. It's nice to see our good fans are getting a mention here. None of our chants are meant to intimidate the opposition, more to be self-depricating or sarcastic ("We're not Brazil, we're Norn Iron" / "USA", etc.) As for the few racist individuals, there's a fair amount of disgust at this, but Northern Ireland's support is a lot better than before. I used to support the Republic of Ireland because of the amount of sectarianism at Northern Ireland matches (I'm a Catholic by the way) but that has largely been eradicated due to hard work done by some at our F.A., and I'm a die-hard Norn Ironer now. So unlike some (the Spanish) we take these matters very seriously and I'm sure action will be taken. As for the match, personally I thought we should have had a penalty, for me there was contact with the player and none with the ball, I also thought Gervais deserved a sending off, two yellow card offences, it doesn't make a difference if they were within five minutes of each other. Perhaps Gillespie deserved a booking but he's pretty much a master at the early "reducer", and is fully aware refs don't like booking players before the tenth minute or roundabouts. Anyway, you took your chance well with a great cross, something we never got despite having 80% posession-odds. We'll need a better final ball if we have any hope in the England match. Best of Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 quote:Originally posted by wyldscallions Hello, I'm from Belfast and was at the match with a few Canadian friends. I have to say my friends were a little embarassed to have taken the spoils in a match where they had very little posession. I can't really comment on your players and how they performed other than to say you coped very well with the sending off, seemed quite well organised defensively, and occasionally rode your luck in terms of our chances. It's nice to see our good fans are getting a mention here. None of our chants are meant to intimidate the opposition, more to be self-depricating or sarcastic ("We're not Brazil, we're Norn Iron" / "USA", etc.) As for the few racist individuals, there's a fair amount of disgust at this, but Northern Ireland's support is a lot better than before. I used to support the Republic of Ireland because of the amount of sectarianism at Northern Ireland matches (I'm a Catholic by the way) but that has largely been eradicated due to hard work done by some at our F.A., and I'm a die-hard Norn Ironer now. So unlike some (the Spanish) we take these matters very seriously and I'm sure action will be taken. As for the match, personally I thought we should have had a penalty, for me there was contact with the player and none with the ball, I also thought Gervais deserved a sending off, two yellow card offences, it doesn't make a difference if they were within five minutes of each other. Perhaps Gillespie deserved a booking but he's pretty much a master at the early "reducer", and is fully aware refs don't like booking players before the tenth minute or roundabouts. Anyway, you took your chance well with a great cross, something we never got despite having 80% posession-odds. We'll need a better final ball if we have any hope in the England match. Best of Luck. Thanks for the post, and yes, best of luck as your lads move forward. Hope to get a chance to play you again so that we can show our real quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 quote:Originally posted by canso In the end Beav, you're sticking up for what you believe in and I respect you for it. But us meatheads like to give vent to our racist and misogynistic tendencies in forums like this...because our women aren't watching! Nah, I know now that you are not a meathead. When you first started posting here I had no sense of who you are, or how bright you are. Perhaps I've missed the mark, but I'm pretty sure I'm reading you right: you may not be a capital "I" ironist, but your "racist" or "sexist" comments are clearly tongue-in-cheek irony. Here's a test to see if I've got the gist of you: If misogyny means "hater of women" then what is the parallel term for a "hater of men"?[8D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 Bitch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted February 15, 2005 Share Posted February 15, 2005 quote:Originally posted by canso Bitch? Okay, I was hoping for something a hell of a lot more creative. You get points for brevity, but lose a few for style and freshness. And I did not expect you to come up with the exact parallel, so no points lost there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I believe the term is "misandrist" http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-phi1.htm , although I prefer the vernacular "ballbreaker". I for one was happy when Kerfoot changed the name of the women Breakers to the Whitecaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadiankick97 Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Wow, that's almost as confusing as the FIFA rankings, Beaver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 quote:Originally posted by The Beaver Here's a test to see if I've got the gist of you: If misogyny means "hater of women" then what is the parallel term for a "hater of men"?[8D] Bait. That's not even bait. That's fishing in a pond with TNT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Well, FWIW we are now up to #85 in the FIFA rankings, up 14 spots from where we were in September, and 5 spots from last month. N.I. slip two spots to #111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Okay, aside from G-L, who like the good lawyer he is, avoided my question entirely, I have to say you all performed much better than Canso did on this one. top points go to Beaches, because he knew all too well that you simply couldn't provide the correct term without some creative humour. So, I think that puts Beaches in House Gryffindor. Cheeta and CanadianKicks don't get points for the correcty terminology, but for their savvy footwork in avoiding the topic, and for the expected dose of fresh humour, I think they should get 50 points each, which can be redeemed for a pint of beer at our next match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Here's one for you Beav: What's the Dictionary term for a condescending twat who evaluates his peers based on the length of their lexicons? Did you attend one of those all boys private schools by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Beaver Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by canso Here's one for you Beav: What's the Dictionary term for a condescending twat who evaluates his peers based on the length of their lexicons? Did you attend one of those all boys private schools by any chance? Wit ain't your forte laddie. And the length of my lexicon is none of your business. And I'm not evaluating "my peers"--I'm just taking the piss with you, and you only. (Unless you missed the bloody obvious irony in my awarding Beaches full points and assigning him to House Gryffindor. How could I make it more ironic? How many bloody ";)s" should I've used?) Dude, you've taken your happy little shots at me: why can't I do the same with you? Like I said, you have no problem giving it, but you sure get sore when you are on the receiving end. Surely you and I can get past the whole "politically correct" nonsense. We got off on ****t.y footing--let's start again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juaninho Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 quote:Originally posted by canso Here's one for you Beav: What's the Dictionary term for a condescending twat who evaluates his peers based on the length of their lexicons? I believe 'breadth' of their lexicons would have been more adroit canso old boy. Breadth. If you wish to keep it as a sloppy double entendre, 'length' can stay. And calling the Beav a condescending twat is a bit much. Really. You, I, and Shecky Green know better. But not Sam Kinison, may his filthy soul rest in peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canso Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 You're absolutely right, it came out a lot harsher than I meant it, maybe because I didn't put in the smiley face. I'm sorry for calling you a twat, Beaver. (another sloppy double entendre) Tell you what, reverse the charges on those beers. Next round's on me! But don't you think you're a little condescending? At times? Just a tweensy, weensy bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Hmmm, I wouldn't interpret canso's posts as rude or disrespectful. Rather, I think that his sense of humour is just a little bit more "ascerbic", which is fine. Ascerbic in as opposed to Beav's "jolly" sense of humour. There's room for lots of types of senses of humour here right. Better than being humourless, blinkered and agenda-ridden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.