BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 02:36 PM

That's funny, DougR!!

But of course, wildly off-base. THe inventory of Geeorge Junior's sins and crimes and blaring gaffes and rampant stupidities is surely one of the longesat in our history of Presidential malfeasance, but even so does not extend to having much influence on Canadians, except by driving US citizens of conscience and sensibility across the border to become residents there.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 02:32 PM

Who is to blame? It should be obvious to most folks here at the Mudcat: George W. Bush, of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 02:25 PM

There was something on the news here that said the instigators weren't even hockey fans. They just figured tempers were hot and took advantage.

To blame Americans for getting Canadians to act badly is pretty arrogant. As if Canadians are easily controlled or just stupid. Bad behavior is just a human possibility, not confined to one nation, one sport's fans or one anything.

I also heard on the news that lots more people volunteered to help clean up the mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 02:03 PM

"I blame the Americans for imperialistically spreading their personal-freedom-is-more-important-than-social-responsibility attitude."

I blame the people at the game. Most of 'em would have been Canadians. We can fuck up all by ourselves with no help from the Americans, thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 11:55 PM

I'm not a sports fan, but I do acknowledge that it's the only thing that keeps some people from eating a can of Drano.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 09:16 PM

Because they are subliminally upset about a lot of other stuff, and it gives them a convenient outlet.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: kendall
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 09:03 PM

I will never understand why a gang of adults gets so upset over a silly ball kicking thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 08:44 PM

Dave the Gnome, go to www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=movies

Count the number of times 'movies' appears; Americans usage is updating the dialects spoken in those little islands off the coast of Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 06:58 PM

Americanism is certainly rife on the Mudcat. I just had my 'Green Lantern' thread turned into a 'Movie: Green Lantern' thread. We don't have Movies in the UK - We have pictures, films and flicks.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 06:46 PM

Interesting Conn, thanks.

Btw, the first bit of football hooliganism was none of this urban stuff.

It was good old (N Wales) village stuff - Machno United vs Pydew Rovers I'd guess around 1970. I was just a kid and I haven't a clue what started it but the Machno supporters threw stones at the Pydew coach we were on as it drove away.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: GUEST,Alan Conn
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:23 PM

"I agree with tribal but wonder why in the UK, the aggressive behaviour seems to be more common amongst football than say rugby supporters. "

Often the fanbases have been different. For instance in Scotland football was the urban game where working class lads would go off to blow off steam. Rugby in the cities was played and watched by the more well off - or at least those from less disadvantaged areas. The only Scottish exception being my area in the Borders where rugby is the main working man's game. There are other big exceptions elsewhere too - for instance industrial south Wales is rugby mad and rugby league is very popular in the northern English cities. So like all stereotypes it doesn't fit the bill but I think it is safe enough to say that a young lad looking for a rumble in a big urban area is more likely to find it at football as he is more likely to go to football - and likewise anyone else likely to be drawn to that would know where to go. It is cultural too. For a while in the 80s a minority of England fans seemed to plan trouble. It was deliberate. On the other hands Scotland fans had been in trouble more for general drunkeness and over exubirant celebrations. The Scotland fans never developed the lets go and deliberately cause a riot habit of the 80s. Probably perversely because they saw England fans doing it and didn't want to be tarred with that brush. In fact they then seemed to make a real effort not to cause trouble. Never stopped them at club level of course:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:58 PM

"A lot of the recent trouple between Scottish fans is about religious sectarianism, not about football."

I don't really buy that to tell you the truth. Yes there is a sectarian base to it but football is where it manifests itself. You simply can't divorce football from the sectarianism. There was a programme on several years ago highlighting supposedly anti-Catholic Rangers bigots and the TV crew were astonished to find that one of the ring leaders was married to a Catholic. The bigotry he showed mainly centered around the football. It's too easy a cop out for the clubs and fans to say it isn't about football it is jsut society. Admittedly I don't live in the west where the real problems are but as youngsters I had a bunch of mates and most of us supported one or toher of the Glasgow teams. Everyone would get on fine until Old Firm derby day then hell would break out - then it was fine the next day again!

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Janie
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:20 PM

Bill, I understand that and am not condoning pdq's behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 02:50 PM

I can understand it even if I don't condone it, but what really troubles me is that it's starting to happen at test cricket matches. Unthinkable.

Cricket is one of very things I might at times consider myself "British" about. It's Unthinkable as you say...

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Max Johnson
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 02:36 PM

Jon - They say that Rugby is a game for hooligans played by gentlemen.
Also, that Football is a game for gentlemen played by hooligans, that Cricket is a game for gentlemen played by gentlemen and that Ice hockey is a game for hooligans played by hooligans.
I suspect that large football stadia are more plentiful and are a more handy battleground. Also that the vast majority of fans just want to go and support their team. With their family if they're lucky enough to have a family that's interested.
A lot of the recent trouple between Scottish fans is about religious sectarianism, not about football. Between Italian fans or Spanish fans, it's political.
I can understand it even if I don't condone it, but what really troubles me is that it's starting to happen at test cricket matches. Unthinkable.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 01:54 PM

I took Mrrzy's opening post as heavily tongue-in-cheek rather than in-your-face aggressive. A version of the normal pub talk (in the British Isles anyway) in which men routinely insult each other as a way of being friendly. Which can be risky when you aren't in the right company.
............................

"I agree with tribal but wonder why in the UK, the aggressive behaviour seems to be more common amongst football than say rugby supporters. "

It's often suggested that this is because in rugby the violence is carried out on the field of play, so spectators don't feel it necessary to indulge in it afterwards. But that can't apply in this case, since the level of violence that seesm routine in ice hockey matches in North America eclipses anything that would be permitted in any rugby match. (Or indeed any ice hockey match elsewhere, I suspect.)

Normally sporting riots tend to be between neighbouring teams playing Derby matches - the odd thing here is that the teams whose clash triggered this riot were so geographically distant. You can't get much further from Vancouver than Boston and still remain in the same continent.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:05 PM

Ummm....Janie.... pdq's first two posts were personal attacks on Mrzzy's basic character.
You suggest that: "pdq's reactionary reply is absolutely no different from the frequently seen knee jerk reactions of some of us liberal and left leaning posters when a conservative or right-winger posts a similarly outrageous assertion."
1) It IS different from most replies I remember seeing insofaras it adds language like " moronic, hateful, Anti-American crap from one of Mudcat's more pathetic bigots.", that is personal attacks that sometimes get entire posts deleted.
2) It is a basic error to suggest that others "would have" reacted similarly in imaginary circumstances. A pre-emptory ad hominem?? *grin*

Mrrzy started on the wrong foot...pdq escalated it by name calling instead of simply debating the point and providing counter examples as several others did. Like some of the actual donnybrooks noted in the links, this group has slipped into a virtual version. Good thing there are no chairs or bottles to be wielded here. ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 11:06 AM

I agree with tribal but wonder why in the UK, the aggressive behaviour seems to be more common amongst football than say rugby supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 10:33 AM

Yup. Tribal consciousness. People in groups tend to act more stupidly and aggressively than people on their own. The same is true of dogs, come to think of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Max Johnson
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 08:45 AM

It's not about Football or Soccer or Ice Hockey or, God forbid, Cricket.
It's about tribes.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 02:47 AM

Excellent point, Janie. I've been wondering the same thing for a long time. I think it's a lot like a village of people who will willingly pardon one of their own, but stone a "heretic" or an outsider...for really doing the same thing as one of their own would, but supposedly not in the "approved" manner. It isn't what you do that counts under such circumstances. It's who you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Janie
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 02:29 AM

Mrrzy, I am using this as an example of the dynamics on Mudcat (in my humble observations,). You are perceptive and direct enough yourself to understand this not a personal statement or attack on you.

Mrrzy's opening premise is outrageous, and I assume it was intended to be outrageous and trollish, knowing that Mrrzy is a very bright and informed woman, and not likely to ignorantly think the riots in Vancouver had anything to do with "Americanism," whatever the heck that means.

From the long history of the positions and posts Mrrzy has made on Mudcat, it is clear that she tends toward libertarian with liberal leanings. Because of that, most of the responses to her initial post have called her on the erroneous thinking, but have done so in moderate, non-reactionary voices, have failed to respond to her trolling in a manner that feeds the trollishness, and have not demanded that she own up to the trollishness. Because we perceive her in most respects as being aligned with shared points of view, we respond rather than react, and ignore the inflammatory factor, thus rendering it inflamable.

pdq did not react any differently to her initial outrageous assertion than would have several liberal or left-leaning members, had Mrrzy previously established her reputation on this site as being conservative or reactionary right wing.

An alternative and equally plausible explanation for the view expressed in Mrrzy's first post and the title of the thread is that she is an emotional thinker to the point that she has strong anti-American bias that significantly distorts her perceptions.

It seems to me the best explanation for the nearly entirely appropriate and thoughtful responses, vs emotionally reactionary and inflamatory reactions that turn a thread into shite in quick order, has to do with how we view the poster as much as how we view the idea.


Given all the above, pdq's reactionary reply is absolutely no different from the frequently seen knee jerk reactions of some of us liberal and left leaning posters when a conservative or right-winger posts a similarly outrageous assertion.

What I mostly see in this thread is the capacity to respond rather than react. Imagine a Mudcat where we liberals had the same tolerance for the errors or intentional trollish/provocateur postings of conservatives and reactionary right-wingers as we extend to people with the same traits who happen to have more in common with our our liberal or leftist leanings.

The responses to Mzzry largely offer gentle correction, does not put her on the spot for her trollishness, and therefore make her defensive. The reactions to pdq's posts, which are entirely in the same vein as Mzzry's initial posts are very different.

Why is it ok to tolerate the irrational thinking and inflamatory posts of a liberal without disparaging that person, while it is not ok to extend the same toleration to a conservative?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:49 AM

To some people it's a religion, Art. ;-) I stopped caring about it by the end of the 1980s.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:46 AM

This is hockey, right? Like rugby on ice skates with clubs? Who cares, anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:36 AM

That's probably because they are too depressed when they lose to have the energy to riot... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:05 AM

To return to the thread's original proposition that the Vancouver riot is somehow a reflection of US sports values, I'm not personally aware of any riot having occurred in a US city which lost a major sporting event. Seems like US fans go uncontrollably apsehit when their teams win the big games, but handle losing rather stoically.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 11:10 PM

""The United States of America" is an odd name for a country, but it derives from the fact that there were 13 colonies who joined together to fight the British, and they all considered themselves to be independent sovereign states, but joined in a federation."

Further to LH's observation, when The United States of America was created it was, in fact, the only group of states in the Americas to be so united. In fact, there was no other independent country in the hemisphere then. Hence the name was appropriate.

Finally, if the South had won the Civil War, we would now be the Untied States of America...

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 10:43 PM

The Football War (La guerra del fútbol, in Spanish), also known as the Soccer War or 100 hour War, was a four-day war fought by El Salvador and Honduras in 1969. It was caused by political conflicts between Hondurans and Salvadorans, namely issues concerning immigration from El Salvador to Honduras. These existing tensions between the two countries coincided with the inflamed rioting during the second North American qualifying round of the 1970 FIFA World Cup. On 14 July 1969, the Salvadoran army launched an attack against Honduras. The Organization of American States negotiated a cease-fire which took effect on 20 July, with the Salvadoran troops withdrawn in early August.

Eleven years later the two nations signed a peace treaty on 30 October 1980.

Now that's hooliganism.

Football hooliganism is relatively new in Switzerland. One incident, dubbed the 2006 Basel Hooligan Incident, 13 May 2006, occurred on the last day of the 2005-06 season, when FC Zürich defeated FC Basel at St. Jakob Park to win the Swiss championship with a last-minute goal. After the final whistle, angry Basel hooligans stormed the field and attacked Zürich players. The Zürich team were forced to celebrate in the upper deck of the stands while the fighting continued. There was similar fighting in the streets that night.

No, it's all England's fault!!!!

The first instance of football violence is unknown, as many football games have been played around the world for years, but football and violence could be arbitrarily traced back to at least the 14th century in England. In 1314, Edward II banned football (which then was a violent free-for-all involving rival villages fly-hacking a pig's bladder across the local heath) because he believed the disorder surrounding matches might lead to social unrest or even treason. The first alleged recorded instances of football hooliganism in the modern game took place in the 1880s in England, a period when gangs of supporters would intimidate neighbourhoods, as well as attack referees and opposing supporters and players. In 1885, after Preston North End beat Aston Villa 5-0 in a friendly match, the two teams were pelted with stones; attacked with sticks, punched, kicked and spat at. One Preston player was beaten so severely that he lost consciousness. Press reports of the time described the fans as "howling roughs". The following year, Preston fans fought Queen's Park fans in a railway station; the first alleged instance of football hooliganism away from a match. In 1905, several Preston fans were tried for hooliganism, including a "drunk and disorderly" 70 year old woman, following their match against Blackburn Rovers.

Check out "Football hooliganism" on Wikipedia for more.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: gnu
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 10:40 PM

sIx... well said. Sad, but well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 09:57 PM

The youth in the middle east riot for freedom and democracy.

The youth in Greece riot because their country is basically a f%#k-up

The youth in Spain riot for jobs

The youth in Vancouver riot over a hockey game.

That just about sums up the situation when you think about it.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: meself
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 09:23 PM

I was at a riot the other night and a hockey game broke out ... (thank you, thank you).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As for Vancouver, they had a Stanley Cup riot in 1994 - not quite as bad as this one, but a riot none the less. And fine city as it may be, it has a very seamy side, as is well known in Canada. Not that it was the seamy-side that was out rioting, from what I could see on TV, but the city isn't quite the Shangri-la that some may think.

And an interesting fact: there were, apparently, 100,000 people gathered in downtown Vancouver on the evening of the riot.

Oh, one other thing: there is no shortage of yahoos, idiots and extremely violent people in Canada, and never has been, as far as I can tell. (But to a man, they will give you the time of day if you ask them nicely and if they're wearing a watch).

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Joe_F
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 07:59 PM

This scandal is the first bad thing I have ever heard about Vancouver. I am sorry I have never been there.

As to what's wrong with sport, I recommend
The Sporting Spirit

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 07:39 PM

Yeah, good article. As he says, it could have happened anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: JennieG
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 07:26 PM

I found this article interesting....it doesn't blame sports, or testosterone-fueled young blokes, but looks at a different aspect altogether.

Hockey 'riot' article

Cheers
JennieG

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 07:22 PM

Endo-anal cranial autoinsertion knows no national boundaries.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: gnu
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 06:23 PM

But the question is, are Canucks racey and, if so, is it because of American influence?

And, if you think that's a serious question, you don't know from Canuck.

Nevermind. It's all just a misunderstanding of words. We are all the same... pissed off at assholes... whether it's the rioters in Vancouver or the stunned bunny that leaves the shopping cart on one side of the aisle and sticks her/his fat ass the other side and then says "sorry" after holding us up for a minute while they are in oblivion.

Of course, it's a tad worse when we are talking cruise missiles and politicians who haven't got two fuckin clues to rub together but it still pisses one off... no?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 06:17 PM

"American" is also not a shorthand term for "crass", "bullying", "obnoxious", or any other abuse that someone wants to sling. Or it should not be. But it too often is.

I've had people back down when challenged on this, and actually admit that they're just using it as a catch-all phrase. So I quote to them occasions when - not that long ago - their own nationality was spoken of in that same manner, and how offensive it is. Works wonders.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:52 PM

No, "American" is certainly not a term that designates race. Americans are of every race.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:45 PM

You read it wrong. No one said it was.

And what are most Americans..however they wish to define themselves, including North, South, Central Americans, Greenlanders, residents of various islands and protectorates and people who would like to become Americans or perhaps agree with our goals, however, poorly executed, doing today. Taking naps. Reading. Working. Golfing. Cleaning the shower. Pretty awful people, don't you think? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:41 PM

My point being that anti-Americanism" may be deplorable, but it can't really be termed "racist".

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:39 PM

I know that "Citizens of the USA customarily refer to themselves as "Americans" - but is there any "race" they all belong to, apart of course from the human race to which the rest of us belong as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:36 PM

Citizens of the USA customarily refer to themselves as "Americans", McGrath....perhaps because it takes too long to say: "United Statesians" ;-)

"The United States of America" is an odd name for a country, but it derives from the fact that there were 13 colonies who joined together to fight the British, and they all considered themselves to be independent sovereign states, but joined in a federation.

Similarly, Holland called itself "The United Provinces" when several Dutch provinces joined together to throw out their colonial rulers from Spain. If they'd called themselves "The United Provinces of Europe", it would have been about as odd as what the American states decided to call themselves. America does not end at the USA's borders, it comprises everything from the North Pole to the tip of Tierre Del Fuego.

The whole name of Mexico, by the way, is "The United States of Mexico" (Los Estados Unidos de Mexico). That works a lot better, because it makes geographical sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:28 PM

"Everything you ever post is Anti-American garbage and racist."

Since when has there been a race called "Americans"?
.................................
Of course it's not just ice hockey or football. Here's a report of a slightly lower key bit of mayhem A drunken brawl, a celebrity call girl and tattooed men (and women)... whatever happened to a genteel day out at Ascot?

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: GUEST,BobL
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:25 PM

Why do so many people find real life so challenging?

Just not used to it, I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:17 PM

LOL!!! You can't get me upset by dissing the hapless Leafs, man! Try it on Shane if you want a big reaction.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: gnu
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:13 PM

LH.... "and I think there was one in Toronto once too"

Not over the Stanley Cup recently! Hahahahahahahehehehehehe.

Q. What do you call 30 millionaires around a TV watching the   Stanley Cup playoffs ?
A. The   Toronto Maple Leafs
==============================

Q. What do the Maple Leafs   and Billy Graham have in common?
A. They both can make 70,000 people stand up and yell "Jesus Christ".
====================================
Q. How do you keep a Toronto Maple Leaf out of your yard?
A. Put up a goal net .
======================================
Q. What do you call a Maple Leaf with a   Stanley Cup   ring?
A. Real Old
====================================
Q. How many Maple Leafs does it take to win a   Stanley Cup ?
A. Nobody remembers.
=============================
   
Q. What do the Maple Leafs and possums have in common?
A. Both play dead at home and get killed on the road!

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:13 PM

Mrzzy, I don't know about actual figures over here but it is recognised that it is only a small minority of supporters who get involved and that there can be "professional troublemakers" involved. Still if you've got say a crowd of 20,000 and 5% turn nasty, you've got 1,000 people to deal with.

As for becoming normal, it's been part of UK football for as long as I can remember. My speculation is that it is less of a problem now over here than it has been in the past and I think the football clubs themselves take more of a stance against bad elements amongst their supporters. Lifetime bans from grounds for violent or hateful (eg. racist) behaviour aren't unheard of.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:12 PM

I think that, because the opposing team was from the USA, that perhaps the Americans are getting the blame for this. However I believe it has happened before, when the same Canadian team, were the defeated favourites

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:11 PM

AH!! Joe beat me to it, but this is what I was just about to post.

How many hundreds if not thousands of games like football, basketball, baseball, and for that matter, hockey occur every year WITHOUT there being any rioting? No, it's not SPORTS per se. Nor does it have anything to do with nationality.

It's down to sheer loutishness and nothing more.

Don Firth

P. S. And being male, I think I can fairly say that there is undoubtedly another ingredient in that mix of beer and adrenalin that burbles into a froth of hooliganism:   testosterone.

I've never heard of a riot breaking out after a Ladies' World Figure Skating Championship.

Subject: RE: BS: Has Americanism Spread THIS far?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:01 PM

I personally think it is loutish to blame a country for misbehavior in another country, when the originally blamed country is not even all that interested in the sport. mg