Why is ESPN Anti-Soccer in the U.S., but Pro-Soccer Everywhere else?

Nope, wrong context. I was talking about my post where I said "if I can reach Nevadas then it should also be reachable by people even closer to Nevadas than me."

You chopped-off my argument after: "If I can reach Nevadas" and responded with "since when is ONLY YOU the issue?" Of course, when you're getting smoked, I cant blame you for getting desperate!

Oh, but its true according to your logic. For if we all turned-on every light and air-conditioner at the same time, nobody would have access to electricity.

Capacity becomes the issue if there are more people wanting to watch CL in a pub than can fit. So go ahead and prove to me that more than 7000 people in the U.S. wanna watch a CL game in a pub at the same time! I bet you'll wimp out.

 

I know you're a little slow (hence, why basketball is your taste) but who goes to a pub at 2:30 on a weekday afternoon (often having to pay cover) that isn't there to watch Champions League? Its accessible to many people who want it (more than the 2-3% of people who want to have deportes and actually have access to it), and that was the argument I made very clear early on in this latest debate. It's not my problem that english is not your strong suit!

 

That has nothing to do with your idiotic statement:

'Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country'

because it is NOT accessible by people closer to Nevadas than you if they exceed 400 people.

Why not? you set the context to be people in the USA, as in "1% of the country". Do you want to wimp out the context to you and the people living between you and N.S.?

Getting smoked by what? that a claim from you that defies physics and arithmetic?

Well, you said "access to electricity", as in

"nobody in the U.S. even has access to electricity"

when did you qualify it as "at the same time"? I mean, are you trying to tell me that 16M people accessing Setanta pubs but NOT during CL game telecasts? But since the context is about CL games' accessibility on Setanta channel and ESPN Deportes, you are locked for a timespan, i.e. AT THE TIME WHEN A CL GAME IS TELEVISED.

That's why your electricity example is a trap for yourself.

Not at all. Capacity is an issue no matter what, because that's what you set the context at. I couldn't care less whether 0 people or 400 people watching it.

As soon as you said "accessible" in that post, you were cooked. You know, I have been here picking on little things like that for years. You become the perfect prey...

I don't have to. As soon as you claim

a channel S (that is accessible by at most 7000 people) is more accessible than a channel D (that is accessible by 2.6M people),

you lied. There is nothing more practical than that.

 

Well, you know you screwed up on your claim that

'Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country"'

now you try desparately to wimp out on what you mean. Where did you qualify your idiotic statement as

"accessible to those WHO WANT IT"?

You think you can redefine English on the fly? I mean, if English is not your first language that you didn't say what you meant, just confess it, and I may give you a break. As of now, I can't read what you want to say 6 days later (a hypothetical qualifier that you wimp out with like "many people who wanted it"). I can only read what you actually posted 6 days ago.

I mean, who cares how many people go to pub at 2:30 PM on weekdays?
I couldn't even care less whether 0 person or 400 person actually watch the games. The key here is your claim of "more accessible".

A channel that is accessible to 2.6M of the general public is always more accessible to a channel that's accessible to 7000 of the general public, given that price is not an issue. If price is an issue, you even lose more.

How can you dare swimming out of your lie is beyond me. Your IQ is at stake here.

 

When? Six days ago, to be precise. I thought I made it quite clear what I meant! From 6 days ago:

------
BocaFan: Similarily, everyone living in NYC (16 million) has the OPTION to go to Nevada's!

Ranger00: Not at all, because the capacity limit restricts that option to 400 (your number). In other words, 15999600 people are out of luck.

-------

Enuf said!

If that's the case, you obviously can't read period. Because that post (where I quality accessible to those who want it) is 6 days old!

So when you say "I can only read what you actually posted 6 days ago" is that a lie or do you not know how to read? Your IQ is at stake here!

 

Nope. I just used that example to show that more than 2.6M people lived closer to N.S. than me. You really have a comprehension problem.

I don't have to. Theoretically it can happen, which is basically your entire argument (that theoretically 16M show-up at a pub at the same time).

Maybe for 2 hours until I clarified what I meant and have been re-clarifying it for 6 days ever since! Too bad you are incoherent!

 

Well, 6 days ago, on 5/6/2004, at 10:18 EDT, you posted:

'Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country'

True or false?

And worse yet, the qualifier you later tried to wimp out on, are false statements, as have been refuted already.

Well, the post you made your braindead statement

'Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country"'

was posted on 5/6/2004, at 10:18 Eastern Daylight Time. The post I said

"I can only read what you posted 6 days ago" was posted on 5/12/2004, at 12:59 Eastern Daylight Time.

Is 5/6/2004 SIX DAYS AGO of 5/12/2004? you tell me.

Yes, you actually posted your idiotic statement

'Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country'

6 days ago, true or false? Your simple arithmetic skill is at stake here...

 

True, but the clarification ("everyone living in NYC (16 million) has the OPTION to go to Nevada's!") also began 6 days ago.

In other words your statement ("As of now, I can't read what you want to say 6 days later" ) is off-base.

Nevermind your ridiculous response to the clarification:

Ranger00: Not at all, because the capacity limit restricts that option to 400 (your number). In other words, 15999600 people are out of luck.

I guess I'm really lucky because I'm always one of the 400 out of 15,999,600 people to get in. Or is it because the other 15,999,600+ did NOT wanna get in? So everyone who wanted to get in, could!

 

I'll admit that right after you admit being cooked for 5 days and 22 hours.

 

OK, so my statement that I only read what you posted in that idiotic statement is not a lie. It's a true statement, no ifs and buts.

How is that a clarification? This is simply a false statement supporting your original context, exactly because NOT everyone living in NYC (16M) has the option to go to Nevada Smith.

why is that off-base? It's not as if you have been using only "those who want to get in" as the context since then. Remember, you keep emphasizing the general public in NYC (16M) has the option to get in N.S.

Let me see, why is reason of that the response is ridiculous? I mean, you set the context of accessibility to the general public,

- in your first post on this issue
- repeatedly using 16M people in New York, which does NOT equal to "those who wanted to get in".

In other words, you ***CONTINUOUSLY*** use the general public as the context. It's not even a 1-time thing.

 

You already admitted it, no contingency here.

I said: As soon as you said "accessible" in that post, you were cooked. You know, I have been here picking on little things like that for years. You become the perfect prey...

You said: Maybe for 2 hours ...

So you've already admitted that maybe for 2 hours

- you are cooked,
- become the perfect prey

Now, whether your clarification and re-clarification have any effects is another matter. I say it has no effect at all because you've continuously used the general public in the New York area (16M) as the context, as in there are more people (16M) accessing Setanta in Nevada Smith than accessing ESPN Deportes (2.6M), true or false?

Clarification? I say it's confusion...

I mean, even if (big IF) the context had been "those who want to watch CL", which is a completely different topic, you would still be cooked. But since you have been arguing for the general public, as in "1% of the households in the USA, "16M in NYC", etc. I don't even have to worry about arguing another context. Just this context (the general public) is enough to smoke you, and get you admitting that...

I also notice that you totally dodge your braindead claim about "nobody in the U.S. gets electricity", as well as dodging the question

a channel that 2.6M people can access is more accessible than a channel that 7K people can access, true or false?

I wonder why...

 

Sure they do. In the practical world! Everyone in NYC is free to contemplate whether or not they wanna see CL if it is shown in Setanta CL pub in NYC. Those who decide they want to, can go see it and will see it. Bottom line.

Go ahead and spew your theoretical BS now. Means little...

Yup. Just like most people with a car and money have the option to go out for a steak dinner tonight.

 

WEll, if nothing else that comment puts your maturity-level at stake.

Are you interested in fruitless attempts at boosting your ego or interested in discussing what is better for CL fans in America: a) CL available on ESPN deportes OR, b) CL available on Setanta PPV.

Ah, but that IS what I said that same day (2 hours later) to clarify (ie "Setanta CL pubs are available to more people who want CL"). Too bad you were too busy trying to boost your ego. Not that I blame you. We all need an excuse to get out of bed in the morning...

 

I don't know which world you are from, but in a practical world, a channel accessible by 2.6M is absolutely more accessible than a channel accessible by 7000.

So do you want to re-define "practical" now?

Yet they don't the option to watch a game in a Setanta pub as soon as the pub is full. How do you like it?

 

If nothing else, it means you have no argument that you were cooked for maybe 2 hours, as well as become the perfect prey for maybe 2 hours. In other words, your confession is well received.

There is no comparison, my interest is primarily to pick on people who screwed up in their claims, trying to dig out of the hole by "clarifying" it with more nonsense. I mean, you show no sign that your interest is for the well being of CL fans in America. Afterall, you would rather have that channel to be accessible by at most 7000 people, instead of 2.6M people.

After, that many months in this argument, you mean you don't know your whole agenda is to nit-pick on ESPN?

First, the context you mentioned was the general public, then a few hours later, you mentioned a context of "those people who want CL"? how is that a "clarification"? They are two totally different context, albeit one is a small subset of the other. Do you think you can use a "clarification" to disguise your screw up?

I mean, if you say

"ESPN Deportes is available to all those who have a TV"

then 2 hours later, you "clarify" this statement, that you actually meant:

"ESPN Deportes is available to all those in selected cable area with a digital Spanish tier".

Do you think you can get away with this "clarification"?

Clarification your foot. It's a screw-up in the initial statement and you want to wimp out with a "clarification"?

 

Closing arguments need to be heard.
Due to the new thread reply limit of 500, this thread will be closed when i get back from my sons little league game.

The powers that be at bigsoccer have set the limit.

Feel free to start another thread and carry on though, but, this one must be closed.

 

I thought circular arguments don't have limits?

My goodness. How will Ranger00 get out of bed tomorrow?!

 

Fortunately for CL fans and unfortunately for your smoked argument, this doesn't happen in practice!

 

Really? Then how come Koto Bass easily picked up on my general point. You prefer to pick on my every word ... go ahead ... I'm not jealous of english majors and the rest of the artsies. Most of them are unemployed afterall...

Not at all. If ESPN had an on-demand set-up where I could pay for a game and watch the game I want, I would be all in favour of it. But they don't. A regular channel can only show one game at a time. That means 2 live games per matchday. Maybe I don't like the 2 games they pick. And maybe I prefer to go downtown to watch the game I want on Setanta rather than flying to L.A. and catching it on deportes!

Anyway, time for ClanBlue to return from his child's little-league game and pull you out of the oven!

 

How do you know? Have you been to every Setanta pub in every CL telecasts? Your own testimony proved that this has happened. You claimed that there were 400 people (packed) in Nevada Smith. That's how I got to know its "capacity".

And I bet a bar like that doesn't have capacity close to 400, so you were actually telling me an instance that they probably violated the fire code already...

 

Of course, because Kotto Bass has long demonstrated that he has a baseless, mindless drivel against ESPN. That's the kind of ally you get here ...

But this argument is not about you. This argument is about the 2.6M people that have access to ESPN Deportes. Whether you are in favor of it is not the issue that you brought up. Your subjective prefence has nothing to do with the true/false of the statement you brought up.

Boca Fan: 1+1=3
Boca Fan: I would be all in favour of it if 1+1=3, thus 1+1=3.

I mean, you mentioned which channel is more accessible to the general public. If the game is accessible to 1M households in the country, then it's more accessible than a channel that only 7000 can watch even if it's more difficult for Bocafan or any New Yorker to access the games on Deportes, true or false? I mean, the general public for the country is NOT only about New York, is it?

I guess you have to dodge this question again.

You should be glad that Clanblue is saving you by putting you to sleep. Had he not, you would be roasted on this accessibility issue to no end.