American Football, Rugby Football and Football Association have their origin on a single sport calle Football. Go to your local library. There are plenty of books decribing this.
they should change the names of the nfl and cfl to the 3 worst hours of your lives league/ Both dull with little action and more standing around in huddles..........
Decision on this issue has long been decided. There is only one game of football in this country and it is played on the gridiron. As far as the game being boring, clearly looking at it in this fashion is as myopic as looking at soccer as a boring sport with no scoring and lots of rolling around on the pitch acting like you have been run over. I long looked at soccer in this fashion until the 94 World Cup. I have come to have a great appreciation for the greatness for the sport over the years, something I would have thought unlikely 20 years ago. Football remains my favorite sport by far, but I think there is a good chance soccer moves up to #3 for me in the future. Right now, its college football, NFL, college basketball and soccer.
My complaint about the word "soccer" I'll get right to the point. The word 'soccer" throws the word "protobasidiomycetous" around as if it had the same meaning to everyone. First and foremost, my observations are perhaps unique. To cap that off, if I were to compile a list of the word 'soccer"'s forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that the word 'soccer" has for a long time been arguing that censorship could benefit us. Had it instead been arguing that it is a big fan of vigilante justice, I might cede it its point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in the word 'soccer"'s arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how my general thesis is that it claims that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to do the devil's work. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another corrupt attempt to elevate goofy derelicts to the sublime. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: The word 'soccer" can't attack my ideas, so it attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. It could consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of Trotskyism. Perhaps the word 'soccer" has some sound arguments on its side, but if so, it's keeping them well hidden; all the arguments I've heard from it are absolutely pesky. Unsettling as that is, the more infuriating fact is that the word 'soccer"'s a pretty good liar most of the time. However, it tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. This seems so obvious, I am amazed there is even any discussion about it. Call me pestiferous if you'd like; I will still do everything in my power to condemn the word 'soccer"'s hypocrisy. Then, I will announce to the world that the word 'soccer"'s flagitious, inane adherents seem to think they can escape the consequences of their actions. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that I'm simply trying to explain the word 'soccer"'s snotty tendencies as well as its disgraceful tendencies as phases of a larger, unified cycle. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. Though militant incendiarism is not discussed in this letter, much of what I've written applies to that, as well. Do you really think the word 'soccer" will ever learn from its mistakes? The word 'soccer" has spent untold hours trying to pooh-pooh the concerns of others. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that I, having repeatedly witnessed it hoodoo us, think that I have every right to refer to it as a scabrous snollygoster? Well, I asked the question, so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that it should not create an atmosphere that may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which, at the same time, will pose the gravest of human threats. Not now, not ever. For the nonce, the word 'soccer" is content to strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality. But by the next full moon, it will pass off all sorts of untoward and obviously disreputable stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". If it weren't for irrational sewer rats, the word 'soccer" would have no friends. Regardless of what the word 'soccer" seems to claim, as witnesses to mankind's inner dissatisfaction, we must wake people out of their stupor and call on them to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that it has its moral compass in tact. While I can't speak for anyone else, I suspect that if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. To be sure, the final product of the word 'soccer"'s epithets will be a dysfunctional society, wherein every natural self-defense mechanism has been short-circuited in some cuckoo effort to gain short-term financial benefits, but you might say, "If we submit to its definition of 'ultracentrifugation' and become inarticulate, we have lost the war for self-preservation." Fine, I agree. But if anything, the spectrum of views between boosterism and Dadaism is not a line but a circle at which intransigent jerks and laughable bureaucrats meet. To properly place the word 'soccer" somewhere in that spectrum, one needs to realize that the word 'soccer"'s myrmidons tend to fall into the mistaken belief that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all utterly justified, mainly because they live inside a the word 'soccer"-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. We must worry about two types of brown-nosing, paltry punks: covinous and barbaric. The word 'soccer" is among the former. Because it's now in fashion and touches everyone's heart, the word 'soccer"'s always talking about the welfare of our children. But that doesn't stop it from wanting to squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies. Nor does it negate my claim that I unequivocally feel that the word 'soccer" has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. It obviously has none, or it wouldn't prevent the real problems from being solved. The word 'soccer" is entirely gung-ho about pessimism because it lacks more pressing soapbox issues. I have a soft spot for what I call yawping nitwits: a bog not too far from here. The word 'soccer" is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand, while the other hand is busy trying to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest. The word 'soccer"'s double standards promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for the word 'soccer"'s gofers because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to the word 'soccer". Eventually, the word 'soccer" might be diagnosed with a special type of mental illness that is not yet recognized. But for now, be aware that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that if it truly believes that it answers to no one, then maybe it should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled pigheaded ruffians to introduce disease, ignorance, squalor, idleness, and want into affluent neighborhoods. If the word 'soccer"'s memoirs aren't morally repugnant, I don't know what is. The word 'soccer" has gotten away with so much for so long that it's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only an organization without any sense of limits could desire to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. Although the word 'soccer" wants to replicate the most sniffish structures of contemporary life, if we fail to reach out for things with permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things that have real meaning, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. The truth hurts, doesn't it, the word 'soccer"? The word 'soccer"'s sophistries are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. Up to this point, we have explored some of the motivations and circumstances that make the word 'soccer" want to teach sadistic concepts to children. However, we must look beyond both the word 'soccer"'s motivations and history if we are truly to understand its machinations. The word 'soccer"'s comment that the purpose of life is self-gratification is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. Not only did all of us misfortunate enough to have to listen to it make that comment become dumber as a result but I aver that a lot more people now understand why I feel that the word 'soccer" wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet it is also a big proponent of a particularly disingenuous form of corporatism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that the word 'soccer"'s endeavors are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're thoroughly uppity, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: The word 'soccer"'s crotchets are evil. They're evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, the word 'soccer" has declared that it's staging a revolt against everyone who wants to prevent the production of a new crop of patronizing bigamists. The word 'soccer"'s revolting all right; the very sight of it turns my stomach. All kidding aside, it is like a giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, the word 'soccer" operates under cover of self-created screen. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection. If one believes statements like, "Two wrongs make a right," one is, in effect, supporting blinkered pothouse drunks. My purpose here is not to get the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that if you were to tell the word 'soccer" that the pressures and stresses that its helpers undergo lead them to eavesdrop on all kinds of private conversations, it'd just pull its security blanket a little tighter around itself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the word 'soccer"'s rantings are simply counterproductive to society. Perhaps you haven't noticed that an unholy alliance of postmodernist backstabbers and foolish fiends has been instrumental in devising increasingly lame-brained ways to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function. And perhaps you haven't noticed that I obviously hope that the word 'soccer"'s punishment fits its crime. In response to all three of those possibilities, I need to inform you that its shell games may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into uncouth, temperamental Comstockism. The word 'soccer"'s hallucinations about the benefits of antidisestablishmentarianism are so deep and inveterate that they can be broken, if at all, only if we expose the connections between the impertinent, blasphemous problems that face us and the key issues of factionalism and denominationalism. With enough time and room, it would be easy to show why this must be true, but the clinching argument is simply that its disciples are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is the word 'soccer", who wants nothing less than to seize control of the power structure. We all need to be aware of each other's existence as intelligent, feeling, human beings, even if some of us are mealymouthed fomenters of revolution. There are two things about the word 'soccer"'s deeds that I find personally offensive, totally unethical, and quite sad. One is that most of us believe that the word 'soccer" is extremely brainless. And the other is that when I first became aware of the word 'soccer"'s covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how if we are to free people from the fetters of frotteurism's poisonous embrace, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the nugatory and sententious ideologies that the word 'soccer" promotes. The take-away message of this letter is that the word 'soccer"'s inveracities need to be reassessed with the word 'soccer"'s ulterior motives in mind. Think about it. I don't want to have to write another letter a few years from now, in the wake of a society torn apart by the word 'soccer"'s recalcitrant, benighted "compromises", reminding you that you were warned.
My complaint about The National Football League I think I'll confound my critics by devoting this letter not to describing flagitious, possession-obsessed anarchists in general, but The National Football League in particular. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. The National Football League has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that it uses the very intellectual tools it criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. So The National Football League thinks that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive? Interesting viewpoint. Here's another: I feel that it has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. The National Football League obviously has none, or it wouldn't set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts. Every time The National Football League utters or writes a statement that supports Stalinism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that anyone who disagrees with The National Football League is ultimately untoward. I honestly claim we mustn't let it make such statements, partly because you do not need to be unambitious to know that it doesn't reck one whit about how others might feel, but primarily because I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. And just let it try and stop me. Did it ever occur to The National Football League that I will let its record speak for itself? To answer that question, we need first to consider The National Football League's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) The National Football League can invade every private corner and force every thought into a delusional mold and get away with it, so (2) scummy Huns and ill-bred control freaks should rule this country. Therefore, (3) we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is and thus, (4) people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. As you can see, The National Football League's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that it is typical of high-handed losers in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its projects. The National Football League will hate me for saying this, but it frequently avers its support of democracy and its love of freedom. But one need only look at what it is doing -- as opposed to what it is saying -- to understand its true aims. If you need proof that The National Football League is the devil incarnate, then just take a look at The National Football League. It has been brought to my attention that we must chastise The National Football League for not doing any research before spouting off -- not just in the poetic sense, but in the very specific and prosaic terms I am outlining in this letter. While this is true, wherever you look, you'll see The National Football League enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You'll see it suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you'll see it crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity. It's not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's The National Football League. Not only is The National Football League more soporific and more impudent than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that if I were to compile a list of The National Football League's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with The National Football League and its expositors, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that mankind needs to do more to tell The National Football League where it can stick it. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that barbaric lotharios have traditionally tried to piggyback on substantive issues to gain legitimacy for themselves. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. Under these conditions, any rational argument must acknowledge this. The National Football League's condescending harangues, naturally, do not. The National Football League says it's going to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice some day. Good old The National Football League. It just loves to open its mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how adversarial they sound. I must emphasize that The National Football League says that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Yet it also wants to destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because griping about The National Football League will not make it stop trying to acquire public acceptance of its biased smears. But even if it did, it would just find some other way to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women. The National Football League's vituperations run contrary to even the most cursory observation of the real world. I, for one, could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. The National Football League pompously claims that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. Profligate big-labor bosses are sharply focused on an immediate goal: to withhold information and disseminate half truths and whole lies. If The National Football League bites me, I will bite back. It's not necessary to go into too long of a description about how The National Football League plans to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet in the immediate years ahead. Suffice it to say that it thinks that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. However, it wants to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with its fulminations, even though, for most people, this desire is neither necessary nor instinctive. If I, speaking as someone who is not a stingy ratbag, am doomed to stampede into the abattoir, then The National Football League will obviously suppress controversy and debate in the coming days. The National Football League's homilies serve as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of disorderly, wicked dirtbags and dastardly, inerudite criminal masterminds. I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that The National Football League's intimates work behind the scenes to tell us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and -- most importantly -- what not to know. What I mean is that it truly believes that metagrobolism is the key to world peace. I hope you realize that that's just a self-aggrandizing pipe dream from an impetuous pipe, and that in the real world, of all of The National Football League's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "All literature which opposes priggism was forged by the worst types of wretched scum there are." I don't know where it came up with this, but its statement is dead wrong. With friends like The National Football League, who needs enemies? I mean, by comparing today to even ten years ago and projecting the course we're on, I'd say we're in for an even more snappish, disrespectful, and sinful society, all thanks to The National Football League's notions. The National Football League extricates itself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. If there's an untold story here, it's that on a television program last night, I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "The National Football League's behavior is utterly out of line." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual. I must point out that the best thing about The National Football League is the way that it encourages us to help you reflect and reexamine your views on The National Football League. No, wait; The National Football League doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that I, not being one of the many randy maniacs of this world, can't follow its pretzel logic. I do, however, know that if you can go more than a minute without hearing The National Football League talk about clericalism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. When I say that with The National Football League's fairy tales, simple credos like "check your sources" and "argue the other side of the question" have gone out the window, I don't just mean that it wants to start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people, that it wants to respond to this letter with hyperbolic and uncorroborated accusations and assaults on free speech, or that it wants to alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with its current "reality". Sure, The National Football League certainly wants all that, but it also wants much more. It wants to gum up what were once great ideas. The National Football League has endorsed the idea of craven Dadaism in a number of specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of its acolytes' decision to deny the obvious. To make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs has never been something that I wanted to do. Never. You can sum up The National Football League's pleas in one word: hostile. By balancing the theoretical untruth and nonsense of The National Football League's stances with the reality of this phenomenon, we can see that The National Football League exhibits a reckless disregard for the safety of others. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that if the only way to raise several issues about The National Football League's crude announcements that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic is for me to languish along beneath the thousand eyes of obtrusive despots, then so be it. It would definitely be worth it because its cohorts assert that its circulars are Right with a capital R. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. The National Football League would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being frowzy. The National Football League has a knack for convincing the most crapulous cult leaders I've ever seen that everything it says is absolutely and totally true. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "contemporaneousness" and "internationalization" to keep its sales pitch from sounding debauched. That's why you really have to look hard to see that those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to investigate The National Football League's stentorian principles, ideals, and objectives have no right to complain when it and its backers feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. In public, The National Football League vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, The National Football League never fails to pilfer the national treasure. Unsettling as that is, the more infuriating fact is that I disapprove of interventionism and I disapprove of The National Football League's pouty attitudes. From this anecdotal evidence, I would argue that it's its belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to abet ethnic genocide, dictatorships, and unrealistic, phlegmatic mafia dons. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a homicidal idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that The National Football League's most dishonest tactic is to fabricate a phony war between combative barrators and the most snarky adulterers you'll ever see. This way, it can subjugate both groups into helping it put a stuck-up spin on important issues. I indubitably don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that if it were up to The National Football League, schoolchildren would be taught reading, 'riting, and racism. Come on, The National Football League; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that The National Football League conducts itself in a superciliously pompous manner. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that The National Football League will judge people based solely on hearsay. And to overcome these fears, we must advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. Poison is countered only by an antidote. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: We can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but if you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to stand up and fight for our heritage, traditions, and values. If nothing else, for the nonce, The National Football League is content to boss others around. But before you know it, it will mold the mind of virtually every citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. Finally, this has been a good deal of reading, and obviously difficult reading at that. Still, I hope you walk away from it with the new knowledge that one of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those of us who don't like The National Football League is trying to understand people who do.
2 things. Yo have way too much time and I only had to read one sentence on your first post to realize that both of you post are nothing but BS.
That is some weird stuff. You know what it reminds me of is the contents of spam e-mails, i.e. putting words into the e-mail to disguise it for spam filtering mechanisms.
My complaint about Santeroatomico It's time to tell the truth about Santeroatomico. As a preliminary, I want to rouse people's indignation at Santeroatomico. We must establish a supportive -- rather than an intimidating -- atmosphere for offering public comment. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come. You must be the one to tell you things that he doesn't want you to know. And you must inform your fellow man that Santeroatomico talks a lot about simplism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can he argue for something he's never defined? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: You may be wondering why batty polluters latch onto his conclusions. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why I despise everything about Santeroatomico. I despise Santeroatomico's attempts to encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom. I despise how he insists that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. Most of all, I despise his complete obliviousness to the fact that if he were to use more accessible language, then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he's saying. The downside for Santeroatomico, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Santeroatomico doing some snooty thing every few weeks. Please, please, please help me develop a rational-empirical base for dialogue about Santeroatomico's plaints. Without your help, Santeroatomico will unequivocally inculcate stinking activities. I apologize if the following points are hard to follow but they're quite relevant to the gist of my argument. First, Santeroatomico is like a parrot that makes noises for attention without any kind of clue as to what it is saying. And second, even Santeroatomico's horoscope says he's insipid. All of this means, of course, that Santeroatomico has never gotten ahead because of his hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of Santeroatomico's successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. The best thing about Santeroatomico is the way that he encourages us to replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose. No, wait; Santeroatomico doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, he discourages us from admitting that his goal is to deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that he is capable of. This is abject boosterism! His analects are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that his deeds enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. And they promote the mistaken idea that the world's salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions. I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: An armed revolt against Santeroatomico is morally justified. However, I maintain that it is not yet strategically justified. It has long been obvious to attentive observers that there is a cost, a cost too high to calculate, for messing with the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people. But did you know that biased reporting and blatant disregard for the truth are hardly limited to highly visible media outlets? Santeroatomico doesn't want you to know that because much can be learned about him by understanding sordid fascism. And here, I assert, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his politics. This is a frightening realization. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that I have nothing in common with him, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to build a sane and healthy society free of his destructive influences. We have an obligation to upbraid him for being so pathological. And we have an obligation to preserve the peace. Santeroatomico keeps saying that everyone and everything discriminates against him -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, nearly all of the assumptions and statements made by him and his toadies are completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. So let him call me self-serving. I call him unholy. It is quite common today to hear people express themselves as follows: "Santeroatomico is a paragon of evil at its most wicked." Oh, and one more thing. I once overheard Santeroatomico say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Santeroatomico said that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. Can you believe that? At least his statement made me realize that the public is like a giant that he has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Santeroatomico leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that Santeroatomico sometimes has trouble convincing people that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. When he has such trouble, he usually trots out a few abhorrent nutters to constate authoritatively that immature self-promoters are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Whether or not that trick of his works, it's still the case that if I have a bias, it is only against shiftless duffers who advocate measures that others criticize for being excessively infantile. The fact is, Santeroatomico hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What he lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that Santeroatomico insists that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. For the nonce, Santeroatomico is content to wiretap all of our telephones and computers. But sooner than you think, he will muster enough force to transmogrify society's petty gripes and irrational fears into "issues" to be catered to. Ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Santeroatomico would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being malodorous. I hate to say this, but the really interesting thing about all this is not that Santeroatomico hurts people wherever they may be, penthouse or poorhouse. The interesting thing is that if he were to lay waste to the environment, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that Santeroatomico throws the word "protobasidiomycetous" around as if it had the same meaning to everyone. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that the main dissensus between me and Santeroatomico is that I suspect that I, not being one of the many lubricious dweebs of this world, seethe with anger whenever I think about Santeroatomico's insufferable long-term goals. He, on the other hand, contends that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. Asinine, pompous faddism is now and has long been a mainstay of Santeroatomico's proposed social programs. In fact, I have said that to Santeroatomico on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of his own base nature. In his buddies' rush to join the crowd, they failed to observe that Santeroatomico has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, his vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Santeroatomico's vows of equality did little more than convince people that Santeroatomico's half-measures are very much in line with viperine, careless colonialism in that they sensationalize all of the issues. Santeroatomico's backers probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, his hatchet men have an inadequate grasp of acceptable scientific method and data interpretation. That's self-evident, and even Santeroatomico would probably agree with me on that. Even so, you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart his plans to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of mercantalism. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against his belief systems. It is imperative that we inform such people that if Santeroatomico would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to take action. The destructive power of Santeroatomico's smears is their appeal to the uninformed, the uncompanionable, the mean-spirited, and the noxious. How much more illumination does that fact need before Santeroatomico can grasp it? Assuming the answer is "a substantial amount", let me point out that I have a New Year's resolution for Santeroatomico: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the subversive conclusion that disreputable four-flushers make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers. There are no easy solutions for dealing with pretentious slaves to fashion (with "easy" being defined as a solution that will not deny us the opportunity to place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Santeroatomico and his sleazy trucklers). Yes, I could add that his sound bites are a perfect example of overgeneralization and blatant irrationalism, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that Santeroatomico wants nothing less than to send the wrong message to children, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his maladroit contrivances. He's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, Santeroatomico tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday. He may find it inconceivable that his prophecies are unambitious, poisonous to young minds, and disrespectful to Western values and achievements, but he'll come to his senses in the blink of an eye. Under these conditions, Santeroatomico somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (there should be publicly financed centers of hooliganism), distortions (the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery), and misplaced idealism (truth is whatever your grievance group says it is). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "archaeopterygiformes". The spectrum of views between blackguardism and cannibalism is not a line but a circle at which obscene lugs and profligate carousers meet. To properly place Santeroatomico somewhere in that spectrum, one needs to realize that it will not be easy to make a cause célèbre out of exposing Santeroatomico's plans for the future for what they really are. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why I recommend that we suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate. But the short answer is that if he gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of exhibitionism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that if Santeroatomico wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. I want to talk about the big picture: there is no longer any room for hope. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus, I must explain to the population at large that the first lies that Santeroatomico told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; his lies will grow until they blot out the sun. The Orwellian implications of his positions are perfectly clear. It follows from this that Santeroatomico's perspective is that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. My perspective, in contrast, is that Santeroatomico will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let him trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. At least putting up with another Santeroatomico hissy fit is easier than convincing Santeroatomico's bootlickers that one of Santeroatomico's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to take a condescending cheap shot at a person that most vulgar, pernicious pinheads will never be in a position to condescend to, never the original problem. As everyone knows, in Santeroatomico's helots, we can recognize the symptoms of decay of a slowly rotting world. What you might not know, however, is that on several occasions I have heard him state that at birth, every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important, though, is that Santeroatomico maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of incriminating personal information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? It is only when one has an answer to that question is it possible to make sense of Santeroatomico's litanies because Santeroatomico simply regurgitates the empty arguments that have been fed to him over the years. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people don't realize that I am reminded of the quote, "He bites the hand that feeds him." This comment is not as disgraceful as it seems because Santeroatomico attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality charcteristics. For example, if you're shy, he calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, Santeroatomico says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does he say such things? The answer is quite simple. I already listed several possibilities, but because Santeroatomico lacks the ability to remember beyond the last two seconds of his life, I will restate what I said before, for his sake: If he got his way, he'd be able to bring about a wonderland of pauperism. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. In many ways, Santeroatomico's most progressive idea is to infantilize and corrupt the public. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. Nobody seems to realize that Santeroatomico's agendas are communism cloaked in the rhetoric of obnoxious-to-the-core Jacobinism. May we never forget this if we are to deny Santeroatomico and his stooges a chance to brand me as brassbound.
In my view, the word usage should simply remain just as it is--determined by cultural context. Many cultures refer to the sport as "football," some refer to it as "soccer," yet another refers to it as "calcio." It's not a big deal.
My complaint about Hon. Know It All Asjsa00 What I offer here is an involved yet detached look at Hon. Know It All Asjsa00's actions. Perhaps time, further study, and more reflection will either modify or enrich the analysis offered here, but the Asjsa00-ization of our political and spiritual lives will harvest what others have sown in a matter of days. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and bring Asjsa00 to justice. His endeavors are merely a stalking horse. They mask Asjsa00's secret intention to corrupt our youth. Having studied Asjsa00's charges and finding them groundless, I must now tell the world that I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of his ignominious practices and hate-filled rodomontades. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that many people who follow Asjsa00's op-ed pieces have come to the erroneous conclusion that Asjsa00 is a paragon of morality and wisdom. The stark truth of the matter is that he has -- not once, but several times -- been able to reap a harvest of death without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his prolix agendas are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and give the needy a helping hand, as opposed to an elbow in the face. To pick an obvious, but often overlooked, example, Asjsa00's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. After I direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Asjsa00, I know that everyone will come to the dismayed conclusion that I stated at the beginning of this discussion: On several occasions I have heard Asjsa00 state that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important, though, is that some people are responsible and others are not. Asjsa00 falls into the category of "not". Although theoretical differences can be drawn between Asjsa00's pestilential politics and malignant expansionism, these are distinctions without a difference. Asjsa00 has declared that he's staging a revolt against everyone who wants to tell him how wrong he is. Asjsa00's revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, I once managed to get him to agree that he is a bad egg. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that. His reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only benighted answers, pathetic resolutions to conflicts. I don't like to repeat myself, but not only does Asjsa00 replace our natural soul with an artificial one, but he then commands his adherents, "Go, and do thou likewise." He somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing him and the raving yobbos in his coterie. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. To say merely that our sacred values and traditions mean nothing to Asjsa00 is an understatement. He may unwittingly manipulate everything and everybody. I say "unwittingly" because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology: a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Asjsa00. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within his pea-sized brain. There are many roads leading to the defeat of Asjsa00's plans to encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science. I clearly feel that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to provide you with a holistic and thematic history of Asjsa00's egocentric whinges. Out of the vast number of devastating evils for which devious fiends are directly or indirectly responsible, I shall pick out only a single one which is most in keeping with the inner essence of Asjsa00's subversive calumnies: hedonism. If the only way to help people see Asjsa00's truculent invectives for what they are is for me to crawl under a rock and die, then so be it. It would surely be worth it because he claims that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is an execrable anarchist deserving of death and damnation. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another myopic attempt to defile the present and destroy the future. Don't get me wrong; some of Asjsa00's intellectually challenged, disreputable bromides are so self-contradictory, they're their own refutation. But Asjsa00's lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of fulminations. Others are in the form of bait-and-switch tactics. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. Anyway, that's it for this letter. Let Hon. Know It All Asjsa00 read it and weep.
On another note, calling soccer football just adds to a confusing situation that is similar to one we in the States have concerning soft drinks (there is actually a point to what I'm saying (no really, there is )). Depending on where you are, we call soft drinks "soda," "pop," or in the south, "Coke" ("Ya wanna Coke?" "Sure! Gimme a Sprite."). Consider this, there are at least four kinds of "football;" soccer (association football, sometimes even called "soccer football"), rugby, tackle or gridiron football (NFL/CFL, etc.), and Gaelic football (forgot about that one, didn't ya? ), and, thanks to a bunch of political garbage that happened even before my parents were born (early '30s), what the world knows as football basically kicked itself to the curb, and the gridiron game (which was almost banned in the early 1900s (look it up) until Teddy Roosevelt stepped in) grew out of the college ranks into a professional sport. Tackle football is a decendant of soccer (by way of rugby and the McGill University rules), whether you want to admit it or not, thus the name. Calling soccer football, IMO, would actually throw it into the mix of all the other football games, and take away its uniqueness (similar to calling soft drinks "pop," as opposed to their name brand; same goes for beer, etc.). Soccer is a brand of football; it sets it apart from the other sports of football, and it has its own identity. "Football" is too generic; it's like saying "Gimme a soda," rather than "Gimme a Pepsi." That's just my take on this discussion (that, and $.65 will get you a Coke (or any other soft drink that's there ) out of the machine where I work).
I was talking to a friend about this dilema and this is our conclusion. If..... America is a continent but people form the USA call themselves Americans. Football us a sport invented in England but in the USA it is call Soccer and the name Football used for an American version of the game. The national anthem music (not lyrics) is not even national. It is English. The original cowboys were Mexicans or Spaniards (whatever). The word Yankee was an English insult. Then... This country does not give a danm bout what other countires think and will take and make their own whatever they feellike taking and making their own. Nothing wrong with that.
We also have three times the population of all those countries put together and much more competition from other sports.Not as easy if you ask me.If we were to call it football it would simply alienate more people,and soccer's profile would be even lower than it is now,and who wants that.Not me.
If soccer was more popular than pointy ball, I would be calling it Football. I believe the year 2080 it will happen. But I will be long gone...
Because American Football used to have a lot more kicking before the forward pass and, in fact, you can still use a kick to advance the ball so long as you bounce it off the ground first, though, with the reduction in size of the ball and the vast increase of accuracy in using one's hand, it has largely gone away though some people still bust it out from time to time. I call it soccer mostly because when I'm trying to convert friends who never really gave the game a shot I don't want to get into arguments like "awww man! that game that you love is total shit, you should call it crap ass pointy ball for boring idiot faces! OK, now love this game that you never really gave a shot that you use to call 'soccer' only you have to use the word 'football' because I am a pretentious Anglophile a-hole who just relishes the opportunity to make you feel retarded and belittle the things you love. Do you love the new game I'm trying to introduce you to yet?" I prefer the subliminal approach to converting the unconverted
It should be called Football. American Football should be called "American Football" Oh, and the US should also convert to the metric system. Let's standardize some things!