Hamilton Saint

My friends and I at university had a remark we used at least once a day: "I resemble that remark!"

Here are three aspects that tell part of the story: 1) the scapegoat factor - bullying behaviour intensifies when people smell blood; 2) the xenophobic factor - you might blame Fawlty Towers for this one!; 3) the tribal factor - some posters seemed to dislike his perceived presumptuousness (his "foreign" intensity and serious passion for the club ran counter to their banter-based, clannish insularity). As I say, that's only part of the story, but - as another "outsider" - that seemed to me to underpin some of the negativity.

"Afterwards" by Thomas Hardy

"Church Going" by Philip Larkin

Yes - time to brush up on my Latin!

I wasn't being "sneering and snidey" - I was just offering observations on what I see and hear. I don't know what parts of what I've said are "pathetic" and "moronic". You've been living in the US for three years? Well, I've been living close by to them - in southern Ontario - for almost 45 years, closely attuned to their culture and news media. Canadians are exposed to US media to a huge extent - but we also follow events in Europe and around the world. Americans do not pay attention to Canada to the slightest degree, even though many of them live very close by. They know virtually nothing about our history, geography and culture.

Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska, and the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party, thought Africa was a country. So she was confused by the term South Africa - thinking it was a region of the country called Africa, rather than a separate country inside the African continent. She also could not name the three countries which had signed the North-American Free-Trade Agreement (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico). She was the Governor of her state, but had only a vague understanding of the division of powers between the federal, state and local levels of government. Dan Quayle, the Vice-President during George H.W. Bush's Presidency, thought that the term Latin America (often used in reference to South America) was employed because all the people who lived down there spoke Latin. The depth of ignorance down in the U.S. about the rest of the world can be quite astonishing - even amongst the so-called educated class. My impression (correct me, if I am wrong about this, anyone who is in a position to know) is that throughout their primary and secondary education, Americans learn only about American history (and not much of that, some times) and American geography. When I was a teenager, I was fascinated about the rest of the world. I read newspapers, watched the news, read books, perused encyclopaedias and atlases. I had a big interest in the world-at-large. I cared about what was then known as "general knowledge". American teenagers (and adults) live in what is essentially an anti-intellectual, philistine culture that has virtually no interest in such things. They are obsessed with popular culture - which seems to be nothing more than news about ignorant and misbehaving celebrities. And "news" about the world has morphed more and more into entertainment. And political comment and discussion has degenerated into ignorant loudmouths being paid millions of dollars to rant and yell. The epitome of this is approach Fox News; and the worst purveyor of their notion of Political commentary is Bill O'Reilly - a truly appalling individual. But I digress ...!

Do you think he's fulfilled his potential since he left Saints? If not, why is that, do you think?

Fair enough.

Fear and paranoia, indeed. 2996 people died because of the 9/11 terror attacks. In just five months since the massacre of those children in Newtown, Connecticut, 4499 people in the US have been killed by guns. The fall-out from the events of 9/11 have had an incalculable effect on the rights and privacy of citizens all over the globe. Obama's all-out effort to get some significant changes to gun laws achieved virtually nothing. People fear the perceived "enemy" without, but they do not see the real enemy within.

Am I the only one to think that WGS's "wit" is rather over-rated? The journalists are just trying to do their job. On some days, they might not be doing it particularly well - just like football players and football managers. It's easy to be a smart-arse. Most post-game interviews deliver little real insight. But given the choice between Nigel Adkins' earnest and repetitive talks, and Strachan's quick-to-the quip lips, I prefer the honest and respectful style of NA, over the glib entertainment of WGS's approach. It seems to me that the manager's first obligation, if they agree to do the interview, is to respond to the questions (as boring, clichéd, or inept as they might be), rather than to put the interviewer down.

Well, yes - "there was clearly a player there". But that just reinforces the point that there was a vast gap between our expectations of what he could do, with what he actually did. Very sad and disappointing.

This is how they scared me when I was growing up as a Catholic kid: "Don't ever do that, God is watching everything you do."

Delgado. Huge expectations; but a complete and utter flop.

In how many threads are you going to write pinocchio instead of Pochetinno?

Simultaneously?

To be fair, though, that is an inaccurate interpretation. The award is based on a combined evaluation of the behaviour of players, team officials and fans. For players: •red and yellow cards •positive play (e.g. showing attacking intent, speeding up the game, no time-wasting) •respect towards opponents •respect towards the referee Team Officials: •respect towards opponents •respect towards the referee Fans: - positive verbal support - recognition of outstanding play by the opposition - respect for match officials - respect for opposing fans What seems to be at the crux of many fans' opinion on this is what I would describe as a conflict between individual behaviour and a kind of mob-mentality tribalism. Many supporters revel in a permanent state of hostility and agression against the opposition (and even towards elements of their own support base). And this hostility can reveal itself in very ugly behaviour. A significant portion of football fans think this kind of behaviour is an essential part of football culture (regardless of the fact that they will, on occasion, admit a grudging respect for certain clubs, or certain club's supporters). And they reinforce that view by ridiculing elements of the fan-base, with epithets like "prawn-sandwich brigade", "middle-class fans", and "happy-clappers". But it is possible to be a loyal and passionate fan without endorsing a never-ending sense of hatred and pent-up violence against the opposition. And this is where the individual conscience is at odds with the mob-mentality. Some things that football crowds do I disagree with; and I would never engage in them - I don't do things just to go along with the crowd. A mob can be a very ugly thing.

Love it! How to turn faux-sincere sarcasm on its head!

Nice piece of derisive sarcasm. Doesn't persuade me, though.

That's how you might "translate" it. Not me.

Yeah, right. What a sh*t thing to say. How do you reckon that being sportsmanlike is equivalent to being boring? Your warped values, I think.

How reliable would you consider the data collected from random responses which have been solicited on the internet?

Polluted atmosphere, you mean. Not a good idea.

Didn't realise he had five goals this season. Though he had only a couple. That modifies my opinion!

Wasn't that the second goal? And I read in a couple of places on this thread that the four goals at Old Trafford were all headers. Didn't he score the fourth with his feet (or one of them, at least!)