Ever wonder why the US calls it soccer?

I did. So I did some research. Apparently, it was called soccer a full 18 years before it was known as football. There was a time when there were many different "football" games all over the world, dating back to the first millenium B.C. These games, having essentially similar rules and winning methods became conglomerated into "Associated Football," (to differentiate from Rugby Football) with a standard set of rules to be used during all matches. At the time, young people playing those games liked to add -er to them, so Rugby was called "Rugger." The game commonly known as football today was known as Assoccer, and shortened to "Soccer". The person responsible for coining the nickname soccer was apparently an Oxford Student named Charles Wredford Brown. In 1863, shortly after the invention of Associated Football, he was asked if he would like to play a game of Rugger. He replied that he preferred Soccer. 18 years later, the name became Football, but people in the US who played it insisted on the original name. We must be afraid of change.

 

Indeed. Most interesting is the conflating of Marxism/Communism with Socialism, although that probably has something to do with the Cold War and their fear of anything perceived as left-wing.

 

It is said that America is right of center, so we are at the very least wary of change.

But what does right, left and center mean? What does liberal, conservative, communisn, socialism, libertarian, etc. mean? All I know is that both Republicans and Democrates use techniques that make idiots of those that are one or the other who don't get their education about political manners from outside sources. Too much many demagogues and not enough statecraft.

The only magazine that I trust to give it to me straight is Rollingstone. Seriously. They had an article that reported China's rise well before Newsweek or the others did.

 

Bahahaha.

If you really want to understand, Xyle, re-read Dark Elf's paragraph again. Concise and precise analysis, DE.

 

Downloaded, I'll read it later. I just wanted to say thanks.

 

What a guy.

 

But what does "thank you" really mean?

 

It is an expression of gratitude. The real question is how heart-felt that gratitude really is. But then, even a token thanks is of more value than none.

Oh, I doubt that I will ever fully understand politics. I understand the heart too much to understand the deceptions that language uses -- So that means I don't understand the deception within the words I just wrote, which in turn means I can't explain what I meant, I only know that these words convey the message that I mean to say.

Of course, knowing where the deception is is different that knowing what the deception hides.

 

(1)If you don't understand there may be something which can be read between the lines, you probably didn't mean anything other than what was said.
(2)I'd call it echolalia, a phenomenon in which the speaker merely repeats precisely certain heard phrases without regard to meaning, but...
Then you say (3); This actually confirms everything I've read of your posts. You literally mean everything you say, and therefore only say whatever you mean. From past posts, I can gather that Abe Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but you are everyone's master. No more saying you were misunderstood, no more saying language is subjective. I'd ask you to get off your high horse, but you're pretty comfortable being up there, considering you're the only one allowed to sit down in your realm. You know, aside from your divine scribe, who must begrudgingly write down everything that you say.
"Metatron, my girlfriend just mind-spoke a risque picture of herself to me. I want you to write down, in detail, the turgidity of my staff of righteousness for when all of my slaves get up here. Ok, well..."

 

BAHAHAHA!

Booyah! Nice one Gross.

 

You know Gross, it certainity sounds as if you are talking about yourself here, because you obviously don't know how to properly apply this argument.

This is the nature of your argument's stupidity in a nutshell: People don't just use one technique to communicate. They use ALL OF THEM.

For example: "Oh, I doubt that I will ever fully understand politics." is a Simple Statement. I truly doubt that I will ever fully understand politics. (But that doesn't mean that I can't understand bits and pieces, or even a large block of it.) While "I understand the heart too much to understand the deceptions that language uses" is a complex statement because how can one understand the heart? "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

What? Are you drunk? Because your brain ain't working. "[T]he deception within the words" is the "something which can be read between the lines".

 

O lord, forgive me my transgressions. I slept a full night's sleep after a marathon wanking session. Now I intend to eat to the limits of my gut, and afterwards I'll shit a mountain from my butt.


You don't know enough about any form of communication to effectively argue any one point against me.
I literally said if you don't intend for deception to be hidden within your words, there's nothing to read between the lines. Now you're arguing "Well there could've been some deception..." despite having said yourself you didn't know what deception your words could hide, couldn't explain what you meant, and despite that only would say what you knew could convey your message.
You yourself brought up the political side of your post; I ignored it, because that was the one thing that made fucking sense.
Edit; Notice how I numbered the things that I commented on.

 

I always suspected it had something to do with socks. Never until this very moment did I give it enough thought to realise if that were the case, it would be called "socker" rather than "soccer".

Whoops. I accidentally offtopiced by ontopicing.

 

Big, black and white balls.