OrangeWhoopass.com Forums

General Discussion => Beer and Queso => Topic started by: austro on March 22, 2013, 10:03:38 pm

Title: Comical qualifier
Post by: austro on March 22, 2013, 10:03:38 pm
If you see this before the match is over, check out the US-Costa Rica World Cup qualifier on ESPN. I believe it's in Colorado, and it's snowing like a son-of-a-bitch, a nice, wet snow so that it's really accumulating on the field. I'm reasonably sure that the Costa Ricans are unaccustomed to conditions like this. US leads 1-0 at the half.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: chuck on March 22, 2013, 10:38:27 pm
If you see this before the match is over, check out the US-Costa Rica World Cup qualifier on ESPN. I believe it's in Colorado, and it's snowing like a son-of-a-bitch, a nice, wet snow so that it's really accumulating on the field. I'm reasonably sure that the Costa Ricans are unaccustomed to conditions like this. US leads 1-0 at the half.

I'm sure everyone's going to praise the venue selection if the US wins but it's obviously serious bullshit. I hope Costa Rica ties this thing and I hope the US misses the World Cup entirely.

My guys drew with Jamaica in Kingston tonight. I'll take it. Drawing against Costa Rica at home when we started with a 2-0 lead hurt but the hex is a marathon. Take points when you can.

I can't wait for the game in the Rommel on Tuesday. It's going to be a fucking madhouse.

We play in Seattle in June. It was very generous of these pricks to let us know yesterday.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: chuck on March 22, 2013, 11:08:23 pm
Fucking garbage.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: chuck on March 23, 2013, 12:03:05 am
At least Georgetown lost, papist fucks.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Duman on March 23, 2013, 06:43:27 am
The refs asked Costa Rica if they wanted to stop the game and they said to continue. 
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: MusicMan on March 23, 2013, 08:41:59 am
At least Georgetown lost, papist fucks.

With all sincerity, fuck you.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Uncle Charlie on March 23, 2013, 09:15:33 am
With all sincerity, fuck you.
+1
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Navin R Johnson on March 23, 2013, 11:33:28 am

We play in Seattle in June. It was very generous of these pricks to let us know yesterday.

What is the beef here?  Is 2 months notice not enough?

Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Mr. Happy on March 23, 2013, 11:42:14 am
With all sincerity, fuck you.

+∞ As a Georgetown Law (LL.M.) alum, I was embarrassed by that loss.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: MusicMan on March 23, 2013, 11:50:49 am
+∞ As a Georgetown Law (LL.M.) alum, I was embarrassed by that loss.

I don't give a damn about Georgetown, but "papist fucks" crosses the line with room to spare.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Bench on March 23, 2013, 11:57:59 am
I don't give a damn about Georgetown, but "papist fucks" crosses the line with room to spare.

Would rapist fucks be better?

(Just kidding)
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Mr. Happy on March 23, 2013, 11:59:51 am
I don't give a damn about Georgetown, but "papist fucks" crosses the line with room to spare.

Consider. The. Source. It's Chuck.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Col. Sphinx Drummond on March 23, 2013, 12:15:53 pm
Would rapist fucks be better?

(Just kidding)

Or Mackerel Snappers?
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: chuck on March 23, 2013, 01:23:42 pm
Or Mackerel Snappers?

Where the hell did you learn that? My grandfather used to say that and I always assumed he'd made it up. I've never heard it used anywhere else.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Col. Sphinx Drummond on March 23, 2013, 01:45:29 pm
Where the hell did you learn that? My grandfather used to say that and I always assumed he'd made it up. I've never heard it used anywhere else.

I learned it from my grandfather, of course.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Bench on March 23, 2013, 01:49:17 pm
Where the hell did you learn that? My grandfather used to say that and I always assumed he'd made it up. I've never heard it used anywhere else.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackerel_snapper
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: cougar on March 23, 2013, 03:36:29 pm
Costa Rica is now going to protest the match, saying it should have been postponed because of the weather conditions.  So if the U.S. plays a friendly in C.R., we can protest if we have to play a game in 90+ degrees and 90% humidity (AKA a typical Houston summer day)?
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Uncle Charlie on March 23, 2013, 10:10:41 pm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackerel_snapper

I, for one, don't care AT ALL for where this thread went.  Line was definitely crossed.  I don't care who the fucking source was...
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Ron Brand on March 23, 2013, 11:03:47 pm
I see no line at all.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Uncle Charlie on March 24, 2013, 08:53:04 am
I see no line at all.

That is due to the earth's curvature.  We're too far past it to see...
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Mr. Happy on March 24, 2013, 09:17:27 am
I see no line at all.

I'm a self-professed papal historian (remind me to tell you the story about Pope Formosus) and wasn't that offended, in large part because it was angry Chuck. Mackerel snappers has always made me laugh, and I've heard that one for decades. We Roman Catholics have to maintain healthy senses of humor.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Ron Brand on March 24, 2013, 09:18:31 am
We Roman Catholics People have to maintain healthy senses of humor.

Amen.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: strosrays on March 24, 2013, 09:29:57 am
Amen.

A sense of humor when a line is crossed; which is different from seeing no line at all.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Ron Brand on March 24, 2013, 09:32:59 am
A sense of humor when a line is crossed; which is different from seeing no line at all.

It is, but seeing no lines means there aren't any boundaries to cross.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: strosrays on March 24, 2013, 09:34:22 am
It is, but seeing no lines means there aren't any boundaries to cross.

Fair enough; I was thinking more along the lines of ignoring an obvious slur.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Ron Brand on March 24, 2013, 09:35:59 am
Fair enough; I was thinking more along the lines of ignoring an obvious slur.

NatLamp unto my feet.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Mr. Happy on March 24, 2013, 09:40:53 am
Fair enough; I was thinking more along the lines of ignoring an obvious slur.

People are way too sensitive today and almost search out opportunities to be offended.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: strosrays on March 24, 2013, 09:51:43 am
People are way too sensitive today and almost search out opportunities to be offended.

Of course. Goes both ways.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: NeilT on March 24, 2013, 09:58:49 am
In The Virginian, the big line from the Virginian to Trampas was "when you call me that, smile." If it was a joke, it may be tasteless, but fine.  If it wasn't a joke, not fine.  Frankly, I couldn't tell.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Ron Brand on March 24, 2013, 09:59:55 am
Of course. Goes both ways.

Oh please. Humor has had a significant outrage component for centuries.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Ron Brand on March 24, 2013, 10:00:30 am
In The Virginian, the big line from the Virginian to Trampas was "when you call me that, smile." If it was a joke, it may be tasteless, but fine.  If it wasn't a joke, not fine.  Frankly, I couldn't tell.

It was pretty clearly humor to me. Unlike this handwringing discussion.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: strosrays on March 24, 2013, 10:59:48 am
It was pretty clearly humor to me. Unlike this handwringing discussion.

I was, like Happy, not overly offended by what chuck said. Chuck is chuck (I mean that in a good way), and rough humor is rough humor.

I fucking hate being condescended to, though.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Ron Brand on March 24, 2013, 11:00:46 am
I fucking hate being condescended to, though.

Yep, me too. I think that's universal.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Ebby Calvin on March 24, 2013, 11:01:33 am
It was pretty clearly humor to me.

Yep.  
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Mr. Happy on March 24, 2013, 11:49:28 am
I was, like Happy, not overly offended by what chuck said. Chuck is chuck (I mean that in a good way), and rough humor is rough humor.

I fucking hate being condescended to, though.

+1
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Col. Sphinx Drummond on March 24, 2013, 11:56:21 am
I believe that being offended is one own choosing. And if you don't agree you're an idiot.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Mr. Happy on March 24, 2013, 12:11:01 pm
I believe that being offended is one own choosing. And if you don't agree you're an idiot.

+1 The same is true about anger and happiness. For years, I didn't think that I had a choice but to be angry and unhappy.  Thankfully, I learned that I had a choice in my mid-to-late 40's, and life has been much better since then. I simply choose to be happy and calm.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: strosrays on March 24, 2013, 12:37:50 pm
Yep, me too.

Well, I appreciate the civility. I think what's done is done, though.

What comes after?

As Clint Eastwood/Jim Duncan said, "Then you live with it."
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: MusicMan on March 24, 2013, 05:24:24 pm
I was, like Happy, not overly offended by what chuck said. Chuck is chuck (I mean that in a good way), and rough humor is rough humor.

I fucking hate being condescended to, though.

I told him to fuck off, and I meant it.  It's not acceptable in my eyes, but ymmv.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: ybbodeus on March 25, 2013, 12:05:39 pm
As a new member of the Catholic Light community (Anglican), I found it to be inflammatory and mean-spirited.

Signed, a former Baptist fuck.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: BudGirl on March 25, 2013, 01:03:09 pm
As a new member of the Catholic Light community (Anglican), I found it to be inflammatory and mean-spirited.

Signed, a former Baptist fuck.

We are supposed to ignore it because it is chuck and he's angry.
Title: Comical qualifier
Post by: geezerdonk on March 25, 2013, 01:26:23 pm
The best comedy is unintentional.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: JimR on March 25, 2013, 01:32:32 pm
Well, I appreciate the civility. I think what's done is done, though.

What comes after?


a cigarette?
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Mr. Happy on March 25, 2013, 01:38:28 pm
We are supposed to ignore it because it is chuck and he's angry.

No. Just consider the source and respond accordingly, as MM did.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Ron Brand on March 25, 2013, 02:01:46 pm
I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe
I was not offended
For I knew I had to rise above it all
Or drown in my own shit.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Limey on March 25, 2013, 02:20:03 pm
I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe
I was not offended
For I knew I had to rise above it all
Or drown in my own shit.

Nietzsche?
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Col. Sphinx Drummond on March 25, 2013, 06:27:36 pm
Nietzsche?

Gesundheit.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: MusicMan on March 25, 2013, 09:34:30 pm
Nietzsche?

The central message of Buddhism is not "every man for himself."
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: chuck on March 26, 2013, 07:56:39 pm
Me voy pa'el Rommel - vamos a capturar los tres puntos contra los catrachos, no nos duden, chucha madre!
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Mr. Happy on March 26, 2013, 08:19:52 pm
Me voy pa'el Rommel - vamos a capturar los tres puntos contra los catrachos, no nos duden, chucha madre!

If you have something ugly to say, be a man and say it in English.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Ron Brand on March 26, 2013, 08:31:36 pm
I believe he's addressing the game.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Mr. Happy on March 26, 2013, 08:33:09 pm
I believe he's addressing the game.

I saw the name Rommel in there and assumed that it was ugly.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Ron Brand on March 26, 2013, 08:55:58 pm
Would it be ok if he's mischievous in the Original Latin?
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Mr. Happy on March 26, 2013, 09:05:14 pm
Would it be ok if he's mischievous in the Original Latin?

Sure. Why not. I can figure out what he would be saying. With Spanish, I have no clue.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Bench on March 26, 2013, 10:32:47 pm
I saw the name Rommel in there and assumed that it was ugly.

Rommel is a place, not a name.

ETA: it's also a name, but not the name you're thinking of.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: strosrays on March 26, 2013, 10:40:23 pm
The most cogent statement in this entire thread is MM's.

Fuck you.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Bench on March 26, 2013, 11:27:15 pm
One very fortunate non-call in the box, but overall a very organized defensive effort.  Stole a point and nicely done.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: chuck on March 27, 2013, 12:57:11 am
The most cogent statement in this entire thread is MM's.

Fuck you.

What is this? Are you responding to me for some reason? If not, then to whom? And if to me, why?

I don't mind receiving crisp replies if I'm deliberately seeking them but if not I find it disconcerting.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: ybbodeus on March 27, 2013, 09:40:59 am
On Sunday I an going to write the name "chuck" on a piece of paper, place that paper on the floor and then have my Sunday School students stomp on it. It will be explained as an exercise to demonstrate the power of words.

Said exercise has done wonders to raise the name recognition of Florida Atlantic University. I suspect they plotted this bizarre exercise out of jealousy due to all the attention and praise being lavished on their sister school, the Gulf Coast people.
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: Matt on March 27, 2013, 11:34:23 am
One very fortunate non-call in the box, but overall a very organized defensive effort.  Stole a point and nicely done.

Beasley was scaring me the whole match but manned up when he had to. Usi on the other hand was huge on the other side!
Title: Re: Comical qualifier
Post by: strosrays on March 27, 2013, 04:17:18 pm
What is this? Are you responding to me for some reason? If not, then to whom? And if to me, why?

I don't mind receiving crisp replies if I'm deliberately seeking them but if not I find it disconcerting.

No. Nothing against you. I apologize for giving you that impression.