1_man_army

It doesn't matter too much if tourists don't speak English if they visit the Uk to me but I do give credit when tourists make some sort of effort (like using a phrase book) when trying to converse. If people try to make an effort I'm happy to give them my time and make an effort to help them if they need it. To be fair though, native English speakers are the absolute worst for not making any effort the average Brit abroad just says the word in English then says it slower (still in English) and then even slower while gesturing.

Making a 9/11 joke so close to the event in a pro-American forum... It's been almost 9 years since 9/11, I wouldn't say that was close.

I'm sure USA has had contigency plans in place for a possible war with Iran for most of the 31 years since Ayatollah Khomeini got into power, that is called forward planning. Not that it'll matter too much, I'm pretty sure Israel would attack Iran before USA decided to do so. The geographic closeness makes Israel extremely wary of Iran, especially considering some statements that come out of Iran in regards to Israel. Not that an attack on Iran would trigger a "World War 3" scenario anyway.

1) You can't learn about writing, or more importantly good writing, from reading your own work. 2) People who work in publishing are interested in reading anyway. They tend to be readers first and foremost and that is what leads them in the world of publishing in almost every case I've come across. People don't get into publishing if they don't read. For the record, I have a degree in Publishing which is why I can comment with a certain amount of authority.

Embarrassing? probably. Stupid racist conviction? sure. but how does a single idiotic judge decision turns out to be "another Israeli attempt to provoke the middle east"...? common, i'm sure you'll have better opportunities for this type of statements. Completely agreed. It's rather unfair to blame all of Israel for one stupid judge, I think anyone who looked at this in any rational way would think that. It's just a stupid judge, stupid case and stupid conviction.

Simple rule to follow when you look at the FIFA ranking - ignore them, they're completely worthless and nonsensical.

That pretty much sums up my view of what happened, some of the Dutch fouls were terrible particularly De Jong & Van Bommel's, the Dutch were lucky to have 11 men starting the 2nd half. The better team won and I'm glad that Iniesta scored the winner, he and Xavi are by far the two best centre midfielders in the world. Their passing and movement are beutiful at times and it is testament to how good they are that Fabregas is relegated to the bench when they're both fit - most other teams would build their team around Fabregas. Also for those doubting Paul the Octopus, he also picked Serbia to beat Germany in an upset so I'd say that proves that it wasn't rigged to show preference to the favourites in the ties. It's just a luck Octopus ;).

I haven't yet but it's been sitting in my Amazon wishlist for over 6 months now. Glad to see that you enjoyed it, I might get round to ordering it now.

It's one of those films that I've been meaning to see for so long and just never gotten around to ordering. I'm looking forward to it.

Ordered:

Me too. I'd love a Germany vs. Holland final, but I don't think it's possible for us to beat Germany in this form (and I don't think I can live with a defeat by Germany). :razz: I didn't expect them to be this good. We still need to beat Uruguay as well. I have a nasty feeling about it. :sad: I don't know, Holland usually smash though the group stages and then flop but this time they have been building up and grinding out results, that sort of thing is essential in tournament football. Italy and Germany are the masters of that. Plus I think both Spain and Holland keep possession a lot better than the teams Germany have played so far. Everyone really needs to be wary of their counter-attacking play though because they break better than anyone left in the tournament.

I would like a Spain vs Holland final. I always like to see teams win tournaments that they have never won before and both teams like to play good football. Not that I would be opposed to seeing Germany in the final either, they play some nice counter-attacking football and they've been great to watch.

Germany beat the Great Holland side of 1974 in the final. Then they played each other during the 1988 European Cup where a few of the Dutch players pretended to wipe their backsides with one of the German shirts after the game. Then came very ill-tempered match they had in the 1990 World Cup, both sets of supporters heckled the other's national anthem, both teams tried to kick each other off the pitch, Voller (Germay) upset the Dutch by diving so Frank Rijkaard (Holland) spat right into his mullet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXmXpDfWUlM Oh, and the German occupation of Holland during WW2 might have contributed to it a little in the beginning. --- Coincidentally, Jurgen Klinsman mentioned before the England v Germany game that the Germans enjoy playing England but that they hate playing the Dutch because of the ferocity of the rivalry

As it's been said before, when a shot needs to be analysed in tennis the ball isn't still in play and more often than not, that isn't possible in football. Look at it this way, we use this technology and the ball is dubiously cleared off the line to an opposing attacker player who counter-attacks and scores. What do you do - stop the game during the counter-attack to check the video, give a goal for each team eventhough the counter-attacks possibly shouldn't have had the opportunity (presuming the ball was in). There are just too many potential pitfalls to me. Again, the idea about having a two-tier system just seems like a horrible idea to me, what would happen if the same incident that happened to England happened in the lower leagues - it would create an uneven playing field. ...and yes that picture wasn't the best example of my point (I used it because it's my local ground) but the point still stands - it is difficult to cover the angles in many stadia. edit - just while I remember when Liverpool put out Chelsea in the champions league a few years back the broadcaster had a camera in the goal and they still couldn't see if the ball was over the line. The goal was given at the time (which put Chelsea out) but after a computer reconstructuon they found that the whole ball didn't cross the line. A camera wouldn't be a perfect solution this is why a lot of people favoured the 'microchip in the ball' technology but that is even more expensive.

You could still use them only when it's a tough call. How do you define a tough call, if you leave that up definition up to the ref you leave them open to calls of bias every time they don't use the technology (and get it wrong). The same way it's used in every other sport... And if there's no "official review," the coaches can call a review if they want. If they're wrong and the ruling on the field stands, they lose a sub. Also, this isn't an endorsement of video reviewing. I don't know where exactly I stand on it. Just saying it could be done imo. The difference is in many other sports where such technology is used there is little room for interpretation - in tennis the ball is either in or out, in rugby the try scorer either had the ball incontrol when scoring or he didn't etc. If you even just look at a contentious tackles there are so many scenarios where it just comes down to a referee's preference and there is no way that a video review would alter a referee's taste. Having managers call for a video review wouldn't work either as they are not in a good position to see what happens in the penalty box (where the majority of game changing incidents occur). Also losing subs for a wrong call would be horrible as it would lead to injured players having to play on when they shouldn't and making injuries worse which could potentially shorten careers in the long run. Video technology can only work well in sports where there is little to no room for interpretation in regards to the rules, football in my opinion isn't one of them. The same goes for boxing where there can be a lot of things that go into judging who won a round - many of which are purely a matter of taste and preference. Yes, there will be room for human error by having people judging alone but video technology will not end contentious decisions in certain sports. By the way this is coming from a Scotland fan - we're continually robbed of results in one way or another but c'est la vie that is what being a football fan is about, some bad decisions go against you and some go your way. [/hide] That's irrelevant, we're not talking about reviewing bad tackles, we are talking about the simple yes or no decisions that require a sharp eye but no brain, and only if it's contested by a player. They're rarely points of contention, the referee usually gets it right and the players agree. If a player is thought to be making too many intentional illegitimate contests, then they should be booked for time wasting. In fact, most games probably wouldn't require the intervention of video replays at all. Simples, and not expensive nowadays either. It was relevant to the post I was responding to. Also, if you think that players usually tend to agree with the referee then I don't know what sport you are watching because it isn't the same one I've watched for years (coincidentally Brazil player went looking for a foul that wasn't given just as I was posting this). A system where players contested decisions during open play (where most infractions/ dubious incidents occur) would be abused by teams trying to stop counter-attacks which would be completely horrible for the game. Kranked described this better than I did, refer to that post if you don't catch my drift. Also it may not sound expensive but I say again, at the lower echelons of the game money is already tight with many clubs struggling to stay in business - this would be an unwelcome expense to them. In addition to that, many teams don't have great stadiums that are built in a way where you could feasably install such a system since the cameras would need to be high enough to get a decent angle - this is not possible in many smaller stadiums in the lower leagues. If you only do this sort of thing in big games / events then you're basically creating a two-tier system which to me would be damaging to the game. As I've said I agree with the principle of goal line technology but I don't see any feasable way that it can be instituted for everyone at all levels of the game and in my opinion, if it can't be universal then it shoudn't be done at all. At the end of the day these things happen, it isn't the end of the world. Interestingly, I didn't hear the groundswell of support for goal line technology from England fans when this happened to Brazil a while back. It's funny how it wasn't a big issue until it happened to them. [hide] edit - To illustrate my point about the angles you would need for the cameras, explain to me where you would install the cameras in this stadium: [/hide]

You could still use them only when it's a tough call. How do you define a tough call, if you leave that up definition up to the ref you leave them open to calls of bias every time they don't use the technology (and get it wrong). The same way it's used in every other sport... And if there's no "official review," the coaches can call a review if they want. If they're wrong and the ruling on the field stands, they lose a sub. Also, this isn't an endorsement of video reviewing. I don't know where exactly I stand on it. Just saying it could be done imo. The difference is in many other sports where such technology is used there is little room for interpretation - in tennis the ball is either in or out, in rugby the try scorer either had the ball incontrol when scoring or he didn't etc. If you even just look at a contentious tackles there are so many scenarios where it just comes down to a referee's preference and there is no way that a video review would alter a referee's taste. Having managers call for a video review wouldn't work either as they are not in a good position to see what happens in the penalty box (where the majority of game changing incidents occur). Also losing subs for a wrong call would be horrible as it would lead to injured players having to play on when they shouldn't and making injuries worse which could potentially shorten careers in the long run. Video technology can only work well in sports where there is little to no room for interpretation in regards to the rules, football in my opinion isn't one of them. The same goes for boxing where there can be a lot of things that go into judging who won a round - many of which are purely a matter of taste and preference. Yes, there will be room for human error by having people judging alone but video technology will not end contentious decisions in certain sports. By the way this is coming from a Scotland fan - we're continually robbed of results in one way or another but c'est la vie that is what being a football fan is about, some bad decisions go against you and some go your way.

You could still use them only when it's a tough call. How do you define a tough call, if you leave that up definition up to the ref you leave them open to calls of bias every time they don't use the technology (and get it wrong).

Video technology would be a pain, look at how long it takes for decisions in rugby and then apply that to every decision that is made during a football. Even with video technology there will be contentious refereeing decisions because there are so many decisions that just come down to a matter of opinion. Also, added time would increase exponentially with all the stoppages and this would cause more controversy. Goal line technology is another thing all together though, it could be expensive though, particularly at the lower levels, and I don't like the idea of having technology at some levels of the game and not at other levels. I suuport it in principle if it could be paid for and applied universally. That being said, England being robbed of a perfectly good goal that was over the line against Germany just 44 years after winning the world cup with a goal that was never in. Isn't karma fun :razz: .

There is an advertising sticky for this. http://forum.tip.it/topic/11294-advertise-your-thing-here-all-posted-elsewhere-removed/

It could happen in England's/USA's group if the results go the right way. It's a terrible way to choose who goes through but something has to be done when the scenario comes up.

That is pretty much what it means.

Personally it's my favourite Rolling Stones album, it's definately worth a buy. I had it on my list of top albums that I did at the start of the year. I haven't heard the remastered re-release of it yet though.

I used to do that as well, it was really popular at one point where I live.

THE GREATEST RAP ALBUM? Which stats do you have for that? Critic reviews? Didn't think so. I googled "greatest hip hop albums of all time" and the first 5 results that I got were (in order): http://rap.about.com/od/toppicks/ss/Top100RapAlbums_10.htm - Illmatic #1 http://www.mtv.com/bands/h/hip_hop_week/2005/greatest_albums_0505/index10.jhtml - #1 http://dkpresents.wordpress.com/2007/04/19/the-20-greatest-hip-hop-albums-of-all-time/ - Illmatic #3 http://straightbangin.blogspot.com/2007/05/25-greatest-hip-hop-albums-of-all-time.html - Illmatic #1 http://www.theboombox.com/2008/08/27/top-20-hip-hop-albums-of-all-time-no-20/ - Illmatic #1 Four out of five isn't bad is it? [hide][/hide]

England have been so poor that I almost feel sorry for them. Keyword - almost.