Randomness thread, part two.

[OngBonga]

Oh yeah also he's a pussy because he phoned her fucking Mom when he couldn't handle her after a drink. Who does that?

Not surprised he went running to the cops. Prick.

[OngBonga]

If someone's career is ruined because of the ramifications associated with that person's choice to attack someone with a knife, then the stabbing is why it's ruined, not because the stabbed person chose to not leave a stabby person roam free in the world.

Yeah you're right and of course I lose no sleep if she actually does blow her future because she stabbed me.

But I'd just feel like a pussy who can't deal with shit myself. I'd only grass her up in order to secure my civil claim when I follow up with my threat to sue her. Which is why they'd quietly pay me off. I'd figure out how much it will cost their daughter if I went to the cops then took her to a civil court, and demand that within a month in return for my silence. They'd find it.

[Savy]

So you'd try blackmail?

It's fairly obvious you report things like that to the police as there is no other real way of dealing with it. You also bin them off straight away so they aren't in your life at all.

[OngBonga]

So you'd try blackmail?

It's fairly obvious you report things like that to the police as there is no other real way of dealing with it. You also bin them off straight away so they aren't in your life at all.

Is it blackmail if you do it through a lawyer? How do you go about threatening to sue someone and demanding a settlement without it being blackmail? This shit happens legally all the time. Am I obliged to make a statement to the police? My hand is stronger if I'm not.

I'd talk to a lawyer before a cop, that's realistically how I'd approach it.

And yes she'd get dumped. Obviously. Any correspondance would be through solicitors, it's not like I'd need to call her Mom. It's not like she's drunk and I don't know what to do.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'd talk to a lawyer before a cop, that's realistically how I'd approach it.

FWIW, I've done this before and the lawyer basically told me that there is no case w/o a police report.

This was in a totally different context, but I assume the same principles apply. By delaying to report the issue, it casts doubt about whether you were actually hurt or whether you got yourself worked up about it after the fact. The notion, as I took it, is that when you've truly been done wrong, there is no need for a gestation period where you realize that you were done wrong.

[Savy]

Is it blackmail if you do it through a lawyer? How do you go about threatening to sue someone and demanding a settlement without it being blackmail? This shit happens legally all the time. Am I obliged to make a statement to the police? My hand is stronger if I'm not.

I'd talk to a lawyer before a cop, that's realistically how I'd approach it.

And yes she'd get dumped. Obviously. Any correspondance would be through solicitors, it's not like I'd need to call her Mom. It's not like she's drunk and I don't know what to do.

Yes you are, nothing happens if the police aren't involved.

Calling her mum is a bit white knighty realistically if she is threatening to harm herself & you just leave & do nothing about it & that comes out then you'll get in shit for it (funnily a lot more than for stabbing someone).

[OngBonga]

Calling her mum is a bit white knighty realistically if she is threatening to harm herself & you're too much of a pussy to stop her.

Agree.

FWIW, I've done this before and the lawyer basically told me that there is no case w/o a police report.

Ok, but can my lawyer send a demand for money in return for not filing a police report? If there is no civil case without first filing a police report, then it strengthens my hand further, because I'd be forced to grass her up to persue civil damages. Therefore they're more likely to settle out of court.

[OngBonga]

By delaying to report the issue, it casts doubt about whether you were actually hurt or whether you got yourself worked up about it after the fact.

Oh and this. One assumes a breadknife wound requires a visit to the hospital. That will be logged. Obviously you take photos too.

So long as there isn't a legal obligation to make a statement, which I don't think there is, then it's a legally viable path. Without a statement, the police are very unlikely to persue charges, because they will lack evidence. If the family refuse to settle out of court, legal avenues remain open.

It's definitely worth talking to a lawyer first.

[OngBonga]

I think we're actually missing the actual point.

If you meet someone this hot on Tinder, then she's psycho.

[OngBonga]

Oh and this. One assumes a breadknife wound requires a visit to the hospital.

About this point. They will ask you how you came to receive this wound. You can't really lie about it, so you say you got stabbed. They will phone the police, and so the idea we can talk to a lawyer before the police is unrealistic. However, you can ask them if you're legally obliged to make a statement, and certainly you can refuse to for the timebeing due to the fact you're currently in hospital receiving treatment for a stab wound. And telling the police "I would like to speak to a lawyer before making a statement" is totally reasonable.

So yeah, lawyer first.

[BananaStand]

I'm not totally sure what the rules are now on domestic violence. But my previous understanding was that if you're in an altercation, you can call the cops and have the incident documented in a report. Then, later, you can decide whether or not you want to 'press charges'.

This is where an out-of-court agreement could be negotiated

I think now in some states its a little different. Like if the cops come and one person is sitting there battered, then police are allowed to put 2 and 2 together and arrest the other person. But even then, a prosecution doesn't really have teeth unless there is a cooperative victim.

[BananaStand]

About this point. They will ask you how you came to receive this wound. You can't really lie about it, so you say you got stabbed. They will phone the police, and so the idea we can talk to a lawyer before the police is unrealistic. However, you can ask them if you're legally obliged to make a statement, and certainly you can refuse to for the timebeing due to the fact you're currently in hospital receiving treatment for a stab wound. And telling the police "I would like to speak to a lawyer before making a statement" is totally reasonable.

So yeah, lawyer first.

First of all, yes you can lie about how you got the wound. "I was climbing a fence and rusty nail got me in the leg" or there is always the classic "it's none of your god damn fucking business how I got it, now stitch me up ho!"

If the hospital were to then divulge your personal, private, medical information to the police, they would be violating like a million different privacy laws. So in that case, you could just drop the beef with your tinder-lady and pursue a much more lucrative lawsuit against the hospital. win win

The only exception that I know of is gunshots. If you have a bullet hole in you, hospitals are required to call the police. That's why in the movies, all the mafia guys get their bullet wounds fixed by a crooked veterinarian.

[Poopadoop]

About this point. They will ask you how you came to receive this wound. You can't really lie about it, so you say you got stabbed. They will phone the police, and so the idea we can talk to a lawyer before the police is unrealistic. However, you can ask them if you're legally obliged to make a statement, and certainly you can refuse to for the timebeing due to the fact you're currently in hospital receiving treatment for a stab wound. And telling the police "I would like to speak to a lawyer before making a statement" is totally reasonable.

So yeah, lawyer first.

In general, you should always talk to a lawyer before the cops. Then your lawyer can tell you not to be a retard and go file a report. They'll meet u at the police station even.

The lawyer will say if you try to hide what happened and not file a report while you consider your blackmailing options you're being a retard, which is also exactly what the judge at your civil case will say - why the fuck if you're hurt you don't tell the police? Maybe because you have a guilty conscience?

Meanwhile psycho tinder chick has a chance to sober up and come up with some creative interpretation of what happened, where you're at fault and slicing you with a breadknife was in self-defense. And it gains credibility because you didn't file a report.

[oskar]

I think we're actually missing the actual point.

If you meet someone this hot on Tinder, then she's psycho.

I know two morbidly obese guys. They talk about nothing but Tinder. Tinder is like catnip for fat people. One of them got a solid 7/10, and I'm like: how... you can't walk up stairs good, how did you get that? And then she squatted his house and things got a bit ugly. But he got laid and I didn't. Who am I to judge.

[Poopadoop]

Mind you, the above advice, while probably sound, comes from someone whose sole legal experience was fighting a ticket for having no muffler and winning. And I only fought it because the cop was a racist cunt.

Still, I've never lost a case.

[OngBonga]

My legal experience is entirely in being a stubborn cunt, which I think serves me better than average.

Then your lawyer can tell you not to be a retard and go file a report.

That's exactly how I expect it to go in reality.

And then she squatted his house and things got a bit ugly

I reckon 99% of Tinder stories involving ugly guys and 7+ ladies have a "And then..." cavaet to finish it off.

[OngBonga]

So cricket... Just when I thought it couldn't get any more confusing...

Today, in a One Day International (ODI), England played West Indies. ODI is a one-innings each game of 50 overs.

The Windies posted an impressive 356-5 from 50 overs.

England got to 258-5 from 35.1 overs before rain ended play.

England win.

[Savy]

In ODIs the -5 for WI is unimportant as their innings is over.

[OngBonga]

Yeah I know but I just wanted to emphasise the point that they were soundly beating us.

They had more runs, we're losing wickets at a faster rate. How did we "win" that again?

[wufwugy]

i cant believe the bowler ballywagged the dog's bollocks under the westminster's right proper wellington.

[OngBonga]

That's the worst attempt at English lingo I've ever seen.

[wufwugy]

correction: it's the most blowsy attempt at English hooty tooty you've ever seen.

[oskar]

Sounds pretty authentic to me.

[Poopadoop]

Totally hooty tooty imo.

[Luco]

The bowler threw a jaffa but the silly mid on shelled a dolly

[BananaStand]

That's no' a knoyfe......

[Poopadoop]

Your moom knows ya wank.

[Savy]

Yeah I know but I just wanted to emphasise the point that they were soundly beating us.

They had more runs, we're losing wickets at a faster rate. How did we "win" that again?

But they weren't England were favourites to win by the tools they use to predict how likely a team is to win at a certain point in the game. DLS can be a bit shitty, especially now the game has evolved a lot (for T20 it's borderline useless at times) but when everything points to England being in a good position it isn't that bad.

Not to mention if you know DLS is the deciding factor in the game & the weather is iffy you need to manage that.

[OngBonga]

Weren't Windies in the lead by DNL method right up until the last over or two? Ok Ali had dragged us back into the game, but once he's gone then our tail is at the mercy of their attack. I feel like the DNL method is not taking into account the relative weakness of the tail. We still need nearly 100 more runs to win. Not an easy task. Sure we've got the overs, and we know Ali can smash that shit in 50-odd balls but how much longer can he dodge their fielders? I feel like Ali needs to put another 30-40 on the board to protect the tail before we can say it's comfortable for us.

It just sucks. We didn't win that. At best we can say we were fractionally ahead, and we were losing right until it mattered. It's not how a cricket match should be settled. I'd feel better if we just said it was a draw, rained off. That shit happens all the time in test cricket and noone cares.

[Savy]

Ye but if you're 51% favourite to win & you need to pick a winner then you're the person getting picked. I agree DLS can suck but at the same time it (or something better ideally) needs to exist as some games need results & with no DLS easily obvious won games also become draws which is frustrating in it's own right too.

[OngBonga]

Yeah maybe some middle ground, like a threshhold to determine a "clear margin of advantage".

If either team is obviously winning, then sure I can see that a draw is inappropriate. But if it's close... and this is clearly close because we literally just got our noses ahead for the first time in the game... then I think a draw is better.

Maybe if you're 60% likely to win. Perhaps I could go as low as 55%, I mean that's a 10 point difference. But this... it's the hollowest of victories.

[BananaStand]

it's the hollowest of victories.

Is it possible to have un-hollow victories in a sport as irrelevant as cricket?

[OngBonga]

Is it possible to have un-hollow victories in a sport as irrelevant as cricket?

I don't think an American is best positioned to judge the relevance of a game that claims the biggest worldwide audience for a single match.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't think an American is best positioned to judge the relevance of a game that claims the biggest worldwide audience for a single match.

Americans are in the best position for everything, 'cause they're in America... position.

[OngBonga]

The proper football World Cup Final, and pretty much any cricket match between India and Pakistan, attracts global viewing figures of a billion+.

The Super Bowl can muster up 150m.

#relevance

[BananaStand]

It's really not fair to compare solely based on numbers of viewers. Just because India has a shitload of people, doesn't mean that their collective opinion on favorite sports is somehow more relevant. These countries that care about soccer are poor as fuck, so of course they are driven towards entertainment with low barriers to entry. For Socc.....I mean...pansy-ball, you don't need any equipment or anything. All you need is the ball. Hell, you don't even need that. I've seen African villagers kick around a bunch of plastic shopping bags held together with twine.

1+billion viewers doesn't mean shit. None of those viewers have any money, so there's no point in advertising anything to them. That's the definition of irrelevance. It means you have this gigantic worldwide presence that creates nothing close to commensurate value. It means it doesn't matter what happens in your sport, it's just a little time-killing entertainment for people who have nothing going on in their lives.

To be relevant, your sport has to have value and influence. The 2014 FIFA world cup was viewed by 3.8 billion people, with 1 billion people watching the final. Over the four-year cycle FIFA generated 4.8 billion in revenue.

On the other hand American football made 13 billion in one year with only about 120 million people watching the super bowl.

So the NFL made 10x as much money with one-eighth of the audience.

That means 1 NFL fan is as relevant as 80 pansy-ball watchers.

# relevance.

[OngBonga]

Basically what you're telling me is that eggball is watched by wealthy consumers, so is somehow more relevant than a sport played across the globe by people of all classes.

It doesn't surprise me that an American thinks relevance is measured in dollars.

[Savy]

It's such madness to think that he still draws the same conclusion. By no metric is any yank sport the best but to him it still wins.

[wufwugy]

Basically what you're telling me is that eggball is watched by wealthy consumers, so is somehow more relevant than a sport played across the globe by people of all classes.

It doesn't surprise me that an American thinks relevance is measured in dollars.

It's an interesting concept and it's hard to say it's wrong.

One thing to keep in mind is that the comparison presented in dollars generated by NFL and FIFA is not appropriate due to exchange rates and stuff. I don't know how to describe what's going on here other than it is a fact that a dollar is much more valuable in some FIFA countries than it is in the US, so it can easily look like spending in US is more than it actually is relative to outside US.

Regarding the idea of relevance measured in dollars, remember that essentially everything can be thought of in terms of costs and benefits and in terms of money and prices. If we could compare NFL and FIFA appropriately and if we then saw more capital flowing through the NFL (or FIFA), it would probably be the case that the NFL (or FIFA) is something along the line of more "relevant" (though that would not necessarily be an appropriate way to put it). It may depend on the net value of what viewers are giving up to watch, which may represent the net value of the production of the events.

[Savy]

It's an interesting concept and it's hard to say it's wrong.

One thing to keep in mind is that the comparison presented in dollars generated by NFL and FIFA is not appropriate due to exchange rates and stuff. I don't know how to describe what's going on here other than it is a fact that a dollar is much more valuable in some FIFA countries than it is in the US, so it can easily look like spending in US is more than it actually is relative to outside US.

Regarding the idea of relevance measured in dollars, remember that essentially everything can be thought of in terms of costs and benefits and in terms of money and prices. If we could compare NFL and FIFA appropriately and if we then saw more capital flowing through the NFL (or FIFA), it would probably be the case that the NFL (or FIFA) is something along the line of more "relevant" (though that would not necessarily be an appropriate way to put it). It may depend on the net value of what viewers are giving up to watch, which may represent the net value of the production of the events.

Yes but let's put it in perspective the US loses out every time on the issue. It isn't even a thing.

[wufwugy]

Yes but let's put it in perspective the US loses out every time on the issue. It isn't even a thing.

Perhaps. I would say probably. Just an example used to aid underlying concept.

[BananaStand]

Basically what you're telling me is that eggball is watched by wealthy consumers, so is somehow more relevant than a sport played across the globe by people of all classes.

You're confusing prominence with relevance.

It doesn't surprise me that an American thinks relevance is measured in dollars global economic influence

[BananaStand]

I wanna revive this thread in 5 years when the Jacksonville Jaguars move to London. Or perhaps in 10 years when it's become so popular that the Brits actually start using the word 'soccer' to describe their old favorite sport.

That's relevance

The NFL has been playing games in London for 10 years, and because of that expansion, a purpose-built American football stadium is being build right smack dab in the middle of soccer country.

Fucking relevance

The NFL team in London won't last. The travel demands alone are enough to make the team perpetually non-competitive. But when even a shit-team is selling out a stadium, there's a chance it will catch on and you'll have a whole new league in the continent of Europe.

RELEVANCE

[OngBonga]

It doesn't surprise me that an American thinks relevance is measured in dollars global economic influence

haha nice use of the word "global". How much of NFL's "economic influence" is in USA?

I wanna revive this thread in 5 years when the Jacksonville Jaguars move to London. Or perhaps in 10 years when it's become so popular that the Brits actually start using the word 'soccer' to describe their old favorite sport.

Not gonna happen. The "Jacksonville" Jags might become popular, there could well be a market for NFL in the UK, but it's estimated to be worth around £100m. Even my shitty football club is worth more than that. That's half of Neymar.

The NFL has been playing games in London for 10 years

Yep. And do you know how often I see people walking around wearing NFL shirts? Never. Do you know how many NFL players are advertising products to us? None. Do you know how much NFL we have on TV? Maybe a game or two. Do you know how many people in the UK watched the Super Bowl in 2016? 800,000 (down from its peak of 1.2m in 2011). NFL is a gimmick.

People go and watch it in London because it's a rare sporting event, and London is an extremely diverse city. There would be absolutely noone watching NFL in places like Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow, Cardiff, Sheffield, Leeds, York etc. Maybe a stadium would get filled up once a year in Birmingham.

NFL is relevant in USA, but nowhere else. It's trying to be relevant in the UK, but it's not doing a very good job considering viewing figures for SB are dropping. Football is relevant in most countries in the world, a billion watch the WCF.

You want relevance? 4% of the world's population play for a team. 15% of the world's population watch or listen to the WCF. Only nine sovereign states do not have a team registered with FIFA, including the UK (which fields 4 nation teams), and Monaco (they have a successful club team in the French league). The rest are less relevant than Monaco.

Who last won the American Football World Cup?

[BananaStand]

haha nice use of the word "global". How much of NFL's "economic influence" is in USA?

Some.

You seem to be forgetting that all of the shoes, jerseys, hats, shirts, merchandise and memorabilia gets manufactured outside the USA. The televisions, satellite dishes, laptops, tablets, and mobile devices that broadcast the games are all manufactured outside the USA.

Not gonna happen. The "Jacksonville" Jags might become popular, there could well be a market for NFL in the UK, but it's estimated to be worth around £100m. Even my shitty football club is worth more than that. That's half of Neymar.

Says who? The average NFL franchise is worth $2.5B. That's 1.8B in queen-money.

Yep. And do you know how often I see people walking around wearing NFL shirts? Never. Do you know how many NFL players are advertising products to us? None. Do you know how much NFL we have on TV? Maybe a game or two. Do you know how many people in the UK watched the Super Bowl in 2016? 800,000 (down from its peak of 1.2m in 2011). NFL is a gimmick

So? Wait until there's a 'home team' there.

People go and watch it in London because it's a rare sporting event, and London is an extremely diverse city

Rare sporting event? Organize a cricket match in a diverse city like LA. See how many people show up!! The NFL sells out its' games in London.

There would be absolutely noone watching NFL in places like Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow, Cardiff, Sheffield, Leeds, York etc. Maybe a stadium would get filled up once a year in Birmingham.

60% of attendees at the current London games are from places that are not London.

You want relevance? 4% of the world's population play for a team. 15% of the world's population watch or listen to the WCF. Only nine sovereign states do not have a team registered with FIFA, including the UK (which fields 4 nation teams), and Monaco (they have a successful club team in the French league). The rest are less relevant than Monaco

I don't know why you keep insisting on citing head-count as your measure of relevance. 35 unemployed Eritreans in a coffee shop huddled around a radio listening to a soccer match does not have the same level of relevance as one American fat-ass, wearing his $80 Doug Flutie jersey, watching a broadcast that is 1/3 advertisements, on his $2,000 TV

[BananaStand]

By the way Ong, you can drop the charade. You already tipped your hand in another thread. This is, in fact, why you hate the NFL so much.

For the record, I would just like to remind everyone I am not a racist, I am in fact a xenophobe.

[OngBonga]

I don't know why you keep insisting on citing head-count as your measure of relevance. 35 unemployed Eritreans in a coffee shop huddled around a radio listening to a soccer match does not have the same level of relevance as one American fat-ass, wearing his $80 Doug Flutie jersey, watching a broadcast that is 1/3 advertisements, on his $2,000 TV

This is where we differ in opinion. We're interpreting the word "relevance" differently. It's all economics to you, whereas to me it's cultural. How many Eritreans are huddled around the radio listening to the Super Bowl? Ask most people in the world which sport is more "relevant", and the answer will be overwhelming. You should reasses your interpretation of the word "relevant".

Also, I hate NFL because it's a crap sport, there's far too much faffing about, and the players are mostly a bunch of dicks.

You'll hate it too once transgender cheerleaders become a thing.

[Savy]

NFL being big in the UK hahahahaha

[Savy]

For the record the cricket world cup final dwarfs the superbowl in terms of viewing figures.

[BananaStand]

This is where we differ in opinion. We're interpreting the word "relevance" differently.

No, you're interpreting the word 'relevance' incorrectly. You should be using a word like "prominence", "prevalence", "frequency", or something that includes the phrase "per-capita".

It's all economics to you, whereas to me it's cultural.

Really? What 'cultural' impact does soccer have? What is America missing out on?

Relevance means 'a state of being closely connected'. The NFL exists, and then other stuff happens. The two are connected. Soccer doesn't have nearly the same amount of influence as proven by the fact that the NFL earns 80x more per capita than FIFA.

How many Eritreans are huddled around the radio listening to the Super Bowl?

If there were a billion of them, it wouldn't make one bit of difference. That's the definition of irrelevance dude.

Ask most people in the world which sport is more "relevant", and the answer will be overwhelming. You should reasses your interpretation of the word "relevant".

You should just look it up in the dictionary and stick with that. Stop re-inventing definitions of words. You're welcome to use any of the terms I've suggested in the first paragraph of this post.

Also, I hate NFL because it's a crap sport, there's far too much faffing about,

What the fuck does "faffing" mean?

and the players are mostly a bunch of dicks.

You would probably like NFL players more if you knew anything about American baseball.

You'll hate it too once transgender cheerleaders become a thing

Never gonna happen. Cheerleaders get paid too little and transitioning costs too much.

[OngBonga]

Really? What 'cultural' impact does soccer have?

haha spoken like a true American.

What the fuck does "faffing" mean?

Faffing about... to needlessly waste time... you know like when there's a fucking parade because someone got a goal or whatever, and there's loud music and cheerleaders and all that whoop de fucking doo. Then adverts or something. I don't know, I've watched maybe an hour of the shit in my entire life.

[OngBonga]

the quality or state of being closely connected or appropriate.

So how is the dollar the measure of relevance?

I would argue that football brings nations together, it brings cultures together. Connection, a lot more so than the amount of money an individual on average pays to engage in the sport.

[OngBonga]

A hundred Eritreans huddled round a radio... are they not connecting? Is it not football that brought about this connection?

It's immensely relevant to the people engaged, regardless of the value of their interest. That's why I measure relevance in population, because the more people engaged, the greater the connection between people.

[OngBonga]

My definition of "faffing about" is not the best.

Better would be to do something unproductive when one should be doing something productive. Wasting time in the sense that time could be better spent if not for the fact one is engaged in pointless shit. Like bitches waving pom poms about when sport should be happening.

[BananaStand]

So how is the dollar the measure of relevance?

It isn't. Relevance is measured by the amount of influence over other entities. That influence though, can be measured in dollars.

I would argue that football

ugh...stop calling it that!

brings nations together, it brings cultures together.

No it doesn't. Mingling cultures costs money. Soccer fans have no money. They huddle around a radio cause being poor is boring as fuck.

Connection, a lot more so than the amount of money an individual on average pays to engage in the sport.

Connection to what? The vast majority of the people you're talking about are poor-as-fuck goat farmers and coconut merchants. People like that have plenty in common. Between the desperate struggle for clean water, and fighting off child-soldier raiding parties....they have plenty to connect over without soccer.

A hundred Eritreans huddled round a radio... are they not connecting?

No, they're sharing

Is it not football that brought about this connection?

No, it's poverty

because the more people engaged, the greater the connection between people

But if nothing meaningful or valuable is produced by that connection, how is it relevant?

[BananaStand]

My definition of "faffing about" is not the best.

Better would be to do something unproductive when one should be doing something productive. Wasting time in the sense that time could be better spent if not for the fact one is engaged in pointless shit. Like bitches waving pom poms about when sport should be happening.

If you're complaint is that the game doesn't move along fast enough, you're not alone. The NFL could do more, but they have taken steps to speed the game up.

Overall though, more generally, there's alot less 'faffing' than in soccer. Watching one guy dribble a ball to the right, then another guy taking it and dribbling it to the left, where another guy takes it and dribbles to the right again, and back and forth and back and forth and every guy who touches the ball does the exact same thing with it and then hours later its 1-0.

In football, every single position does something different. There are several different ways to advance the ball. Sometimes your team is on offense. Sometimes it's on defense. It can be appreciated for its simplistic brutality, and its cerebral complexity simultaneously.

And yes, the stoppages between plays are a pain sometimes. But usually the television analysts can provide some insight into what's happening while your screen shows various cinematic angles of exciting plays.

In soccer, it's just guys running and kicking.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[OngBonga]

ugh...stop calling it that!

I'm definitely not going to stop calling it football. Just know when I say football, without saying American first, I'm always referring to association football.

Watching one guy dribble a ball to the right, then another guy taking it and dribbling it to the left, where another guy takes it and dribbles to the right again, and back and forth and back and forth and every guy who touches the ball does the exact same thing with it and then hours later its 1-0.

You'd have been better off moaning about players rolling around pretending to be dying then springing up with gusto when they get the free kick. All you're doing here is explaining why you don't like the sport. Fair enough, but that's not the faff, that's the sport. There isn't much faff with football, they play for 45 minutes solid with no breaks so all the ads are crammed in during a 15 minute half time. There's often a bit of pre-game huzzah with important games, but generally it's all sport. Just one you don't happen to like.

And your "relevance" argument is still centred around economics. I'm not buying that at all. Consider if American football expanded globally into poor areas... by your argument it is LOSING relevance because the average spending power of the average fan is decreasing. Of course that is an absurd argument, but it's one you're de facto making.

[OngBonga]

Why isn't MSM telling us there were two shooters?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VO92rCrP8hQ

[BananaStand]

All you're doing here is explaining why you don't like the sport.

No, I'm explaining why first-world audiences, like America, don't like the sport. It's boring, simplistic, and lackluster. It's terrible as a spectator product.

And your "relevance" argument is still centred around economics. I'm not buying that at all. Consider if American football expanded globally into poor areas... by your argument it is LOSING relevance because the average spending power of the average fan is decreasing. Of course that is an absurd argument, but it's one you're de facto making.

That's not the argument I'm making. Relevance is about connections. Some connections are more valuable than others. Two pakistani goat farmers bonding with each other by doing shots after every scoreless minute is a pretty worthless connection. An NFL fan spending $2,000 on a TV so he can watch his favorite team is something that has influence over other entities and events. [Real] Football makes the connections that matter. Adding other connections that don't matter, doesn't make the important ones worth any less.

[BananaStand]

Why isn't MSM telling us there were two shooters?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VO92rCrP8hQ

Probably cuz there wasn't

[OngBonga]

Probably cuz there wasn't

Police scanner - listen at 2:15, they seem to think there's two shooters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTgqYkok9fY

Did you take the link above? It certainly sounds like there's two shooters. One round of fire is close, the other is further away. And no it's not an echo, I considered that and kept listening. Sometimes the quieter burst comes first.

Two shooters.

[OngBonga]

That's not the argument I'm making.

I'm bored of this cock waving now. Not really a productive discussion.

You guys are heading into civil war. You should start stockpiling canned food, water, and ammo.

[BananaStand]

I think everyone knows it's common for erroneous information to be disseminated in the panic of a developing situation like that. Whatever is on the police scanner cannot be relied upon as fact post-incident.

A second shooter sounds like an absurd theory. What people should be worried about is this guy's girlfriend who happens to have timed her out-of-country visit impeccably. How do you live with a person who is amassing this kind of arsenal and NOT know that he's up to something.

[OngBonga]

I think everyone knows it's common for erroneous information to be disseminated in the panic of a developing situation like that. Whatever is on the police scanner cannot be relied upon as fact post-incident.

I'll grant you that the police could be misinformed, confused, in a state of shock/panic, etc. That alone isn't enough to convince me.

I'm assuming you still haven't looked at that first link. That's gonna take some explaining.

[OngBonga]

What people should be worried about is this guy's girlfriend who happens to have timed her out-of-country visit impeccably. How do you live with a person who is amassing this kind of arsenal and NOT know that he's up to something.

Yeah I mean if what is being said about this is true, obviously she knew something was up, obviously he told her to fuck off out of the country, something like that.

However, right now, I'm taking anything said in the MSM with a mountain of salt. His bitch is a distraction.

Who was the other shooter?

[OngBonga]

You guys are heading into civil war. You should start stockpiling canned food, water, and ammo.

I'm not being dramatic here, by the way. I really do think you should heed this advice.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not being dramatic here, by the way. I really do think you should heed this advice.

Nah. The media do not give a remotely sensible picture of life in the streets of America.

Show me multiple politically motivated shootings in different cities happening in coordination and I'll start to take this remotely seriously.

I'm seeing individuals who are not acting in representation of any organization or group making murderous decisions. I'm not seeing any group with any public support come forward and claim the murders as part of their political agenda.

This is not a civil war, it's isolated criminals murdering for their own reasons who glorify their vigilantism as justice.

[OngBonga]

I hope you're right, of course. But this has all the hallmarks of a badly executed false flag event designed to put yet more pressure on pro-gun laws and create further division between the left and right.

Apparently they're now saying there was AntiFa literature found in the hotel room. I mean FFS, who takes that shit to a mass killing? They're trying to pin it on the left so the right go all batshit about it. Next up will be a false flag incident in which someone will kill a load of lefties, then leave some right-wing literature at the scene. When that happens, start stockpiling.

[BananaStand]

I'll grant you that the police could be misinformed, confused, in a state of shock/panic, etc. That alone isn't enough to convince me.

I'm assuming you still haven't looked at that first link. That's gonna take some explaining.

I'm at work and this PC doesn't have sound so I don't know what you're talking about. But there is certainly a reasonable explanation.

[OngBonga]

The trigger for civil war will be outlawing guns.

[BananaStand]

I'm not seeing any group with any public support come forward and claim the murders as part of their political agenda.

ISIS claimed responsibility

[MadMojoMonkey]

ISIS claimed responsibility

So definitely nothing to do with an American civil war, then.

[OngBonga]

I'm at work and this PC doesn't have sound so I don't know what you're talking about. But there is certainly a reasonable explanation.

Doctored footage is the only reasonable explanation. This is a taxi driver who was right by the hotel, and the footage goes on for the best part of 20 minutes, but it's the first minute or two before she starts moving where it seems like there are two different locations for the fire.

It should be possible to debunk or support this footage very quickly, since other people will be filming, the gunfire will be echoing round the city so it should be consitent with other footage.

[OngBonga]

So definitely nothing to do with an American civil war, then.

I'm glad you take ISIS claims at face value.

I don't.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm glad you take ISIS claims at face value.

I don't.

I'm a skeptic, remember? I don't even take BananaStand claims about ISIS claims at face value.
You may not even live in your mom's basement, for all I know. It just doesn't move our (FTR's) conversation in any compelling way for me to call BS on it, since I have no proof either way.

I ain't scurred of no ISIS. Their philosophy of violence is one repeatedly demonstrated throughout history to be a loser's philosophy.
While the deaths in Vegas are terrible for those families, the attack has no bearing on broader American life. I'm not changing any of my daily behaviors over it. Judging by the activities around me, I'm not alone in that.

***
As to the "how does one amass an arsenal and their gf isn't suspicious"... I thought you lived in Murica, Mr. Stand.
We have guns, here. Lots of guns... not too many terrorists, though.
Yes, we've got our few, but you can't link owning a personal arsenal with being a terrorist in Murica.