Daft questions (football edition)

[Kaizero]

Just stick to why the players do it. WHY?!

 

So fucking what if there are deeper reasons behind it?

 

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard.

 

 

You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it.

 

 

It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with.

 

Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.

[Happinesstan]

Hot-shot Hamish scored a hat-trick and burst the ball. And he took the burst ball.

[Dinho lad]

Just stick to why the players do it. WHY?!

 

So fucking what if there are deeper reasons behind it?

 

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard.

 

 

You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it.

 

 

It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with.

 

Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.

 

 

 

If it's now a symbolic act, then fair enough.

 

In what world would you ever think it's not? FFS

 

 

 

 

 

[Hanshithispantz]

I have no clue where this argument is going like.

 

In a multi-ball system then it's purely symbolism - it's just carrying on the act from when it 'made sense' - "you scored a hatrick so we're giving you a ball, mate". In a one ball system then it's still symbolic in a sense (it's still a ball, not the legitimate incarnation of the hatrick) but as it's the actual 

 

Actually I cannot even be arsed to finish this post.

[Happinesstan]

Hot-shot Hamish scored a hat-trick and burst the ball. And he took the burst ball.

 

Or was it Jon Stark?

[Kaizero]

Just stick to why the players do it. WHY?!

 

So fucking what if there are deeper reasons behind it?

 

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard.

 

 

You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it.

 

 

It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with.

 

Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.

 

 

 

If it's now a symbolic act, then fair enough.

 

In what world would you ever think it's not? FFS

 

 

 

 

 

 

This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball.

[Kaizero]

I have no clue where this argument is going like.

 

In a multi-ball system then it's purely symbolism - it's just carrying on the act from when it 'made sense' - "you scored a hatrick so we're giving you a ball, mate". In a one ball system then it's still symbolic in a sense (it's still a ball, not the legitimate incarnation of the hatrick) but as it's the actual 

 

Actually I cannot even be arsed to finish this post.

 

You don’t have to. You understand it. It’s so fucking easy.

[Dinho lad]

Just stick to why the players do it. WHY?!

 

So fucking what if there are deeper reasons behind it?

 

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard.

 

 

You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it.

 

 

It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with.

 

Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.

 

 

 

If it's now a symbolic act, then fair enough.

 

In what world would you ever think it's not? FFS

 

 

 

 

 

 

This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball.

 

So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!)

 

You're contradicting yourself time and time again...

 

Thanks... it's been a pleasure.

 

 

[Kaizero]

Just stick to why the players do it. WHY?!

 

So fucking what if there are deeper reasons behind it?

 

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard.

 

 

You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it.

 

 

It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with.

 

Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.

 

 

 

If it's now a symbolic act, then fair enough.

 

In what world would you ever think it's not? FFS

 

 

 

 

 

 

This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball.

 

So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!)

 

You're contradicting yourself time and time again...

 

Thanks... it's been a pleasure.

 

 

 

Delightfully ironic.

[Stal]

Could I change the subject for a moment as I have a question that I've wanted to understand for ages;

 

Why do players take the ball...kidding...my question is how do football chants get started? I mean like their inception. I see folks on here writing some but how is that transferred to the stands? Especially in the days before the internet and forums such as this one. I've naturally been at the match and joined in ones I knew but I always wondered how they come to be.

[Greg]

Could I change the subject for a moment as I have a question that I've wanted to understand for ages;

 

Why do players take the ball...kidding...my question is how do football chants get started? I mean like their inception. I see folks on here writing some but how is that transferred to the stands? Especially in the days before the internet and forums such as this one. I've naturally been at the match and joined in ones I knew but I always wondered how they come to be.

 

Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/23/terrace-tunes-viral-source-september-chant

[Dinho lad]

Just stick to why the players do it. WHY?!

 

So fucking what if there are deeper reasons behind it?

 

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard.

 

 

You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it.

 

 

It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with.

 

Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.

 

 

 

If it's now a symbolic act, then fair enough.

 

In what world would you ever think it's not? FFS

 

 

 

 

 

 

This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball.

 

So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!)

 

You're contradicting yourself time and time again...

 

Thanks... it's been a pleasure.

 

 

 

Delightfully ironic.

 

How did I contradict myself, then?

 

You mocked me when I touched upon the point that it may no longer symbolic, by asking, sarcastically, when was it ever not symbolic.(And no, you can't mention its 'inherent' nature as clearly I was talking about the act and intention of the player - not the philosophy behind it!)

 

Later, you say oh yes 'I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore'! Time-fucking-waster.

 

Again...this is the impression of you: 

 

 

 

[Stal]

Could I change the subject for a moment as I have a question that I've wanted to understand for ages;

 

Why do players take the ball...kidding...my question is how do football chants get started? I mean like their inception. I see folks on here writing some but how is that transferred to the stands? Especially in the days before the internet and forums such as this one. I've naturally been at the match and joined in ones I knew but I always wondered how they come to be.

 

Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/23/terrace-tunes-viral-source-september-chant

 

That's brilliant, thank you very much!

[Kaizero]

Just stick to why the players do it. WHY?!

 

So fucking what if there are deeper reasons behind it?

 

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard.

 

 

You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it.

 

 

It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with.

 

Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.

 

 

 

If it's now a symbolic act, then fair enough.

 

In what world would you ever think it's not? FFS

 

 

 

 

 

 

This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball.

 

So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!)

 

You're contradicting yourself time and time again...

 

Thanks... it's been a pleasure.

 

 

 

Delightfully ironic.

 

How did I contradict myself, then?

 

You mocked me when I touched upon the point that it may no longer symbolic, by asking, sarcastically, when was it ever not symbolic.(And no, you can't mention its 'inherent' nature as clearly I was talking about the act and intention of the player - not the philosophy behind it!)

 

Later, you say oh yes 'I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore'! Time-fucking-waster.

 

Again...this is the impression of you: 

 

 

The difference between you and I is that I at least try to stick to the discussion at hand rather than resort to weird personal attacks to deflect from a losing hand.

 

Again, as mentioned, the snippet you've chosen to extract and base a new argument on is, in context, used to exemplify why it's always been a symbolic act. My argument started with "When has it not been a symbolic act?", and it's what I've been arguing the entire time. I conceded something raised by KI, which is that there can be different layers of symbolism attached to something. I'm not disputing that if a ball was the ball that was used for all three goals, it does not have more symbolic meaning for someone. But that was never my argument. My argument was that there's never been a time when taking home the match ball after a hat trick was not a symbolic gesture. You've, for some reason, argued against this even though the post I initially replied to said that it was fair enough if it was a symbolic gesture - which I've time and time again have explained to you, but for some reason you refuse to pick up on it.

 

In simplified terms:

 

Question: When has taking the match ball home after a hat trick ever not been symbolic?

 

Example 1: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the one ball era: symbolic.

Example 2: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the multi ball era: symbolic.

 

Resolution: It's always been symbolic.

[Deuce]

[Kaizero]

 

I'll lock your face.

[joeyt]

Could I change the subject for a moment as I have a question that I've wanted to understand for ages;

 

Why do players take the ball...kidding...my question is how do football chants get started? I mean like their inception. I see folks on here writing some but how is that transferred to the stands? Especially in the days before the internet and forums such as this one. I've naturally been at the match and joined in ones I knew but I always wondered how they come to be.

 

My ex thought that all the fans got given a hymn book with all the chants in before entering the ground

[Stal]

Could I change the subject for a moment as I have a question that I've wanted to understand for ages;

 

Why do players take the ball...kidding...my question is how do football chants get started? I mean like their inception. I see folks on here writing some but how is that transferred to the stands? Especially in the days before the internet and forums such as this one. I've naturally been at the match and joined in ones I knew but I always wondered how they come to be.

 

My ex thought that all the fans got given a hymn book with all the chants in before entering the ground

 

This is getting told in the pub tonight 

[Infinitely Content]

Could I change the subject for a moment as I have a question that I've wanted to understand for ages;

 

Why do players take the ball...kidding...my question is how do football chants get started? I mean like their inception. I see folks on here writing some but how is that transferred to the stands? Especially in the days before the internet and forums such as this one. I've naturally been at the match and joined in ones I knew but I always wondered how they come to be.

 

My ex thought that all the fans got given a hymn book with all the chants in before entering the ground

 

 

I'm all for that tbh.

[Kaizero]

Could I change the subject for a moment as I have a question that I've wanted to understand for ages;

 

Why do players take the ball...kidding...my question is how do football chants get started? I mean like their inception. I see folks on here writing some but how is that transferred to the stands? Especially in the days before the internet and forums such as this one. I've naturally been at the match and joined in ones I knew but I always wondered how they come to be.

 

My ex thought that all the fans got given a hymn book with all the chants in before entering the ground

 

[Dinho lad]

Just stick to why the players do it. WHY?!

 

So fucking what if there are deeper reasons behind it?

 

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard.

 

 

You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it.

 

 

It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with.

 

Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.

 

 

 

If it's now a symbolic act, then fair enough.

 

In what world would you ever think it's not? FFS

 

 

 

 

 

 

This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball.

 

So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!)

 

You're contradicting yourself time and time again...

 

Thanks... it's been a pleasure.

 

 

 

Delightfully ironic.

 

How did I contradict myself, then?

 

You mocked me when I touched upon the point that it may no longer symbolic, by asking, sarcastically, when was it ever not symbolic.(And no, you can't mention its 'inherent' nature as clearly I was talking about the act and intention of the player - not the philosophy behind it!)

 

Later, you say oh yes 'I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore'! Time-fucking-waster.

 

Again...this is the impression of you: 

 

 

The difference between you and I is that I at least try to stick to the discussion at hand rather than resort to weird personal attacks to deflect from a losing hand.

 

Again, as mentioned, the snippet you've chosen to extract and base a new argument on is, in context, used to exemplify why it's always been a symbolic act. My argument started with "When has it not been a symbolic act?", and it's what I've been arguing the entire time. I conceded something raised by KI, which is that there can be different layers of symbolism attached to something. I'm not disputing that if a ball was the ball that was used for all three goals, it does not have more symbolic meaning for someone. But that was never my argument. My argument was that there's never been a time when taking home the match ball after a hat trick was not a symbolic gesture. You've, for some reason, argued against this even though the post I initially replied to said that it was fair enough if it was a symbolic gesture - which I've time and time again have explained to you, but for some reason you refuse to pick up on it.

 

In simplified terms:

 

Question: When has taking the match ball home after a hat trick ever not been symbolic?

 

Example 1: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the one ball era: symbolic.

Example 2: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the multi ball era: symbolic.

 

Resolution: It's always been symbolic.

 

 

I agreed that the symbolism is there inherently. I simply was going beyond this (the materialistic factor), and because obviously you can  make everything into a symbol anyway.

 

Keep covering your arse with more bullshit. 'Losing hand', ffs.

[Guest]

Could I change the subject for a moment as I have a question that I've wanted to understand for ages;

 

Why do players take the ball...kidding...my question is how do football chants get started? I mean like their inception. I see folks on here writing some but how is that transferred to the stands? Especially in the days before the internet and forums such as this one. I've naturally been at the match and joined in ones I knew but I always wondered how they come to be.

 

My ex thought that all the fans got given a hymn book with all the chants in before entering the ground

 

 

I’m sure Man Utd do this.

[Kaizero]

Just stick to why the players do it. WHY?!

 

So fucking what if there are deeper reasons behind it?

 

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard.

 

 

You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it.

 

 

It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with.

 

Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.

 

 

 

If it's now a symbolic act, then fair enough.

 

In what world would you ever think it's not? FFS

 

 

 

 

 

 

This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball.

 

So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!)

 

You're contradicting yourself time and time again...

 

Thanks... it's been a pleasure.

 

 

 

Delightfully ironic.

 

How did I contradict myself, then?

 

You mocked me when I touched upon the point that it may no longer symbolic, by asking, sarcastically, when was it ever not symbolic.(And no, you can't mention its 'inherent' nature as clearly I was talking about the act and intention of the player - not the philosophy behind it!)

 

Later, you say oh yes 'I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore'! Time-fucking-waster.

 

Again...this is the impression of you: 

 

 

The difference between you and I is that I at least try to stick to the discussion at hand rather than resort to weird personal attacks to deflect from a losing hand.

 

Again, as mentioned, the snippet you've chosen to extract and base a new argument on is, in context, used to exemplify why it's always been a symbolic act. My argument started with "When has it not been a symbolic act?", and it's what I've been arguing the entire time. I conceded something raised by KI, which is that there can be different layers of symbolism attached to something. I'm not disputing that if a ball was the ball that was used for all three goals, it does not have more symbolic meaning for someone. But that was never my argument. My argument was that there's never been a time when taking home the match ball after a hat trick was not a symbolic gesture. You've, for some reason, argued against this even though the post I initially replied to said that it was fair enough if it was a symbolic gesture - which I've time and time again have explained to you, but for some reason you refuse to pick up on it.

 

In simplified terms:

 

Question: When has taking the match ball home after a hat trick ever not been symbolic?

 

Example 1: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the one ball era: symbolic.

Example 2: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the multi ball era: symbolic.

 

Resolution: It's always been symbolic.

 

 

I agreed that the symbolism is there inherently. I simply was going beyond this (the materialistic factor), and because obviously you can  make everything into a symbol anyway.

 

Keep covering your arse with more bullshit. 'Losing hand', ffs.

 

When you are involved in an argument that you're not winning or can't back up, your standard go-to mechanism is swinging around you with insults and/or attempts at diverting from any discussion. It's quite frankly very annoying, as it makes the discussion take so much longer than it should.

 

The core of the discussion was whether or not it's never not been symbolic. Then KI entered and said it's even better if the ball was used in a one ball system, as the ball then was involved in all goals for certain. I agreed to this, but also said it doesn't change anything from the original argument, which is that it's always been symbolic. To go to your medal example, an Olympic Gold Medal for a cross country skiier would have greater surface "value" (obviously personal circumstances such as a WC being after a battle against injury and similar might change the meaning of a medal for any individual) for the contestant than a WC Gold Medal, purely because the Olympics are every fourth year rather than every second year, which the WCs are. That doesn't change the fact that both Gold Medals would be symbolic.

 

My argument re: anything being a symbol was agreement with you on the fact that you can argue symbolism for anything in life (though not "inherent" symbolism):

 

You could argue an 'inherent' symbolism for everything in life!

 

Anything can have symbolism for any person, it's sentimental value - so yes, you can argue symbolism for anything. Inherent symbolism is a bit different though, due to the use of the word "inherent". Medals, for instance, are inherently symbolic as the symbolism attached to medals being given for performance are permanently symbolic. They're etched into our common consciousness as symbols of great achievements/performance, hence why most of us would mock a participation trophy as it goes against the purpose of the symbolism we've invested in trophies/medals. A rock could have great symbolism to me as an individual, but not to anyone else, hence that rock would not be inherently symbolic - just symbolic.

[Dinho lad]

I haven't bothered to read your last post as it was you who was getting worked up about this right from your very first reply. Your replies are even getting longer and longer, which shows how worked up you're getting. (deep down you know because you spouted some shit!)

 

You've proven fuck all and made a fool out of yourself with shit examples and confused yourself as to what your argument was.

 

Go away, clown.

[Yorkie]

Antiques Roadshow's on, folks.