World Cup: England V USA
- Thread starter Barry_Blue
- Start date
optimus prime
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 11
Cassin said:
You mean BP? The company that 40% is owned by American shareholders and employs 20 thousand US citizens and only 10 thousand UK citizens.
So tell me Cassin, what makes this multinational company that the British government sold 25 years ago British?
Oh, and wasn't the company partnering BP with the oil rig American?
Don't believe the Obama bullshit mate. The UK has zero involvement in this.
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
No. Transocean is a Swiss company.optimus prime said:
And the Transocean operators on the rig had repeatedly disagreed with what they thought were risky and corner cutting orders from BP.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37363106/ns ... _the_gulf/
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0603/killed ... g-corners/
What bullshit? I hear about British politicians and media accuse Obama of making "anti-British" comments, but frankly I haven't heard anything from him that could be construed that way. Please cite the "anti-British" comments that Obama made? Please cite the "bullshit" that you are accusing him of saying.
Look, nobody has blamed Britain per se for this. I don't know why your media and politicans are making such an issue of this, because there isn't one.
Obama has blamed the BP company, period. And frankly, that's a correct stand to take.
AS FOR the match... Solid effort. The US kept their poise. At least the opening game jitters are now shaken off and hopefully our game can open up a little bit in the following matches.
optimus prime
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 11
Cassin just did. And I have read and heard a number of Americans blaming Britain personally. All of which have been countered by UK and US experts who make clear there is no way possible the UK has influence on a privately owned multinational company.
No, Obama has blamed 'British Petroleum'. They haven't been called that for years, and that is not their name. So you think he calls them that because he is incompetent?
And here is a comment from Congressman Weiner
"Whenever you hear someone with a British accent talking about this on
behalf of British Petroleum they are not telling you the truth."
Another incompetent who does not know that British Petroleum changed name years ago.
Cassin
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 78
 "A total of 2.1 million tickets of 2.9 available have been sold for the tournament with seats at only 24 of 64 fixtures remaining. South Africans have bought 898,170 tickets, followed by 121,190 in the United States and 98,056 in the United Kingdom."
http://www.worldcup2010southafrica.org. ... d-by-fifa/
http://www.worldcup2010southafrica.org. ... d-by-fifa/
Barry_Blue
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Robert Green is the best goalie the USA have ever had. Fact.
oni
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 0
The CIA sprayed Robert Green's gloves with...................................
:whistle:
And this is our other fine goalkeeper, David James.......................................... :whistle:
[youtube:c4qd7y07]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuZm-53v96k&feature=related[/youtube:c4qd7y07]
:whistle:
And this is our other fine goalkeeper, David James.......................................... :whistle:
[youtube:c4qd7y07]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuZm-53v96k&feature=related[/youtube:c4qd7y07]
Slartibartfast
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 2
No. Transocean is a Swiss company.[/quote:8m931d02]The Gardener said:
Not really. The company maintains a Swiss base purely for tax reasons; it employs fewer than two dozen staff in the country.
- Reaction score
- 42
Barry_Blue said:
God, are we going to be hearing things like that all through the World Cup? :nono:
Here are some more statements like that which sound just as odd to us Americans:
Sweden have some beautiful women.
France make good wines.
Japan manufacture good cars.
See how WEIRD that sounds??
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
And, Bryan, we'll be reading about it in the "Sport" section of the newspapers.
Boondock
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 13
I'm sort of perplexed by Bryan's complaints at how the English speak, well, English.
This isn't a very rational language, ya know? If you try to rationalize and apply logic to it, you'll fail. That goes for both American and English variants. It's not a scientific structure; it's something that grew up organically over time and has numerous oddities and imperfections.
Naturally aspects of English-English sound odd from an American-English standpoint. The same could be said of Australian-English or (even worse) South African-English.
It's no big deal. If everyone else were (sorry, was) so bothered with it, we'd all go and learn esperanto.
P.S. Soccer is a great game, as the young folk over your side of the pond are starting to realize (much to our fear, as your side gets better every world cup).
This isn't a very rational language, ya know? If you try to rationalize and apply logic to it, you'll fail. That goes for both American and English variants. It's not a scientific structure; it's something that grew up organically over time and has numerous oddities and imperfections.
Naturally aspects of English-English sound odd from an American-English standpoint. The same could be said of Australian-English or (even worse) South African-English.
It's no big deal. If everyone else were (sorry, was) so bothered with it, we'd all go and learn esperanto.
P.S. Soccer is a great game, as the young folk over your side of the pond are starting to realize (much to our fear, as your side gets better every world cup).
- Reaction score
- 42
Boondock said:
I think it's _reasonably_ logical and scientific, and should be kept as logical as possible. That's why it sounds so odd to us Americans when Brits insist on saying something like "Sweden have some beautiful women." (I know that was just a made-up example on my part, but assuming that they're consistent, I would imagine they might say that, as weird as it sounds.)
Am _I_ personally logical and consistent? I certainly try to be! Here, for example, is a rule that's rigorously maintained by no less an "authority" than The New York Times: they absolutely insist that all punctuation marks go INSIDE the quotation marks of quoted material. For example, a news report from the Times about a bank robbery would read this way:
I don't consider that to be logical. I would always write it THIS way: The thief told the bank teller, "Put all your cash in the bag", and she quickly complied. My sister has pointed out to me the "mistake" I make when I write that way, and I've told her that I do it that way deliberately, because I think it's logical and correct. I don't care what some "authority" like the Times thinks.
Boondock said:
You'll be amused to know that "if everyone else were sorry.." is the correct use of the subjunctive tense, and is the same thing that _I_ would say!
Think of the first line of that song from Fiddler on the Roof: "If I _were_ a rich man..." I've written in previous threads on language how I bemoan the passing of the subjunctive tense from the language of the common person; I think it's sad that hardly anybody ever uses it anymore.Boondock said:
It's great for kids to play at school, because it's much safer than real (American) football, and requires less equipment; I just wish it were (cough) as exciting as real football.
Boondock
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 13
It does seem like a lot of Americans want to kill off the subjunctive tense, so I appreciate that you don't.
Nevertheless, in general I think that making English 'logical' is project doomed to fail. Being consistent is important, but being logical isn't possible.
Largely this is because people will make up logic after the fact, to justify their language choices. Many aspects of English make no sense to outsiders, just as many aspects of Mandarin Chinese make no sense to you.
Plus, if you cared that much about logic, you'd be using the metric system.
In the same way, while you would lampoon the use of "the USA were excellent", or "the CIA aren't going to be there" as outrageous applications of plural constructions to singular nouns, and Englishman might argue that they offer great expressiveness to the language. And they do. Using "the group are arguing" instead of "the group has gone" is actually a metonymic shift to signify a change in sense from the group as a whole, to the group as a collection of individual components. One implies a block entity acting in abstract and in unison (e.g. "Wal-Mart is evil nowadays"), the other allows you to discuss collective nouns in a more human way, as a collection of individuals (e.g. "Obama's war cabinet were making some pretty rash decisions").
P.S. For the record, American football is getting more popular over here now. It's not played by real men, however. Rugby retains the real excitement, because they do away with the protective gear and have a jolly good fight up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8v-qZFV ... re=related
Nevertheless, in general I think that making English 'logical' is project doomed to fail. Being consistent is important, but being logical isn't possible.
Largely this is because people will make up logic after the fact, to justify their language choices. Many aspects of English make no sense to outsiders, just as many aspects of Mandarin Chinese make no sense to you.
Plus, if you cared that much about logic, you'd be using the metric system.
In the same way, while you would lampoon the use of "the USA were excellent", or "the CIA aren't going to be there" as outrageous applications of plural constructions to singular nouns, and Englishman might argue that they offer great expressiveness to the language. And they do. Using "the group are arguing" instead of "the group has gone" is actually a metonymic shift to signify a change in sense from the group as a whole, to the group as a collection of individual components. One implies a block entity acting in abstract and in unison (e.g. "Wal-Mart is evil nowadays"), the other allows you to discuss collective nouns in a more human way, as a collection of individuals (e.g. "Obama's war cabinet were making some pretty rash decisions").
P.S. For the record, American football is getting more popular over here now. It's not played by real men, however. Rugby retains the real excitement, because they do away with the protective gear and have a jolly good fight up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8v-qZFV ... re=related
Boondock
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 13
This is another great rugby video. With a good top-rated comment:
"I always thought football (NFL) was? the hardest game in the world but this this makes US football look like pre-school for rugby, I love, GO COLTS!!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jEt_jt ... re=related
"I always thought football (NFL) was? the hardest game in the world but this this makes US football look like pre-school for rugby, I love, GO COLTS!!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jEt_jt ... re=related
Boondock
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 13
I don't want to get into a big debate over British vs. USA sport, but I can't fail to mention the racing car divide.
We have lightning-speed Formula 1 racing on complex tracks across the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VLdPDo6 ... re=related
The USA has driving in an oval at moderate speed - Nascar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG2OcW_Hwkg
Which is more exciting, Bryan??
We have lightning-speed Formula 1 racing on complex tracks across the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VLdPDo6 ... re=related
The USA has driving in an oval at moderate speed - Nascar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG2OcW_Hwkg
Which is more exciting, Bryan??
- Reaction score
- 42
Boondock said:
I've always been surprised by the frequent European mention of the protective gear used in American football, as if that makes it somehow less "exciting". I don't think it's "exciting" for rugby players to run around like that without any protective gear at all (not even helmets), just STUPID and DANGEROUS. American football is dangerous enough as it is, even with all that protective gear that Brits laugh about.
The Gardener
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 25
Okay, we've seen all of the squads play at least once and its time for everyone to lay their reps on the line and make their predictions.
Who are each of you predicting will take the cup this year?
I know its a total crap shoot, so I'm just going to base my personal prediction on the squad I thought was the most fun to watch... so I'm going to go with the Dutch. I think it's their year.
Who are each of you predicting will take the cup this year?
I know its a total crap shoot, so I'm just going to base my personal prediction on the squad I thought was the most fun to watch... so I'm going to go with the Dutch. I think it's their year.