A little about where i'm from...

[Mikey]

No, it isn't. Other nations may benefit from the outcome, but the victors are those whose contribution was decisive.

No, those whose contributions were decisive are known as "decisive contributors." By your "logic," the USSR was the only entity to have come out on the winning side in the ETO. Was France still occupied after the cessation of hostilities? Was the Donitz government still intact? Did any other nation have its goals met by the defeat of Nazi Germany?

Here's an example from a slightly different semantic tack: let's say (to appease your personal bent) that Gerrard has a phenomenal match - scores all 4 goals in a 4-0 rout of Man U. Who won the game - Gerrard, or Liverpool FC?

Saratoga was important, certainly, but the identification of it as a turning point only comes with hindsight - it was far from clear at the time that the long-term effect of the battle would be British withdrawal, and therefore the actions cannot be said to have decided the central issue of the war.

Who cares what was clear at the time? You and I are having this discussion now, with all the benefit of hindsight. If we were discussing whether or not Lincoln or Arnold or Gates or Morgan thought it was a decisive victory, then you'd have a point. However, we aren't.

It's become more and more apparent that somebody really should have given a caveat to this discussion, something like this:

this is one of those things about which we probably shouldn't get too deep, because there is no way to determine anything other than subjectively. While we'll obviously agree on historical facts - them being facts and all - to "answer" this question would require an epistemological dissection of the meaning of "decisive" and the term's practical applications.

[IanKennedy]

What's rationalizing is that the sport is indeed called "American football" over there, but the fact that we call it "football" still - after 1-1/2 centuries - bugs you enough that you have to make jokes about calling it "hand egg." Trust me, nobody over here has ever bought a ticket to a football game and been shocked to see a soccer match instead, nor has anyone over there gone to see soccer and by some semantic mishap ended up at an American football game. So why, exactly, do you care what we call it? As I've said before, we could call it "your mom's hairy ass" but a) that name is already taken by a picnic game and b) the etymology would be rather convoluted.

I think it's more that you can't get a joke when you see one. Even when it's been seen here many times. Do I really have to post the picture again (not that I've posted it more than once myself, but others have).

You seriously think I give a shit what you call a game... really... good grief.

No, I understand perfectly well. I even agreed about how ridiculous the title "World Series" is. Obviously, you do give at least a fraction of a flying fuck if you bothered to write even this much on the matter. And no, trust me - we definitely do not think that the game has any importance outside of the USA. Even the pro and semi-pro leagues in Japan, South Korea, and Latin America are viewed here primarily as talent development leagues for Major League Baseball. Just because Toronto still has a team, don't make the mistake of thinking that Canada attaches any importance to the sport. The point is that we have no reason to give enough of a shit about whether anyone else cares about the game to stop calling it the World Series... even when there WAS a true world championship.

I don't think anyone out side the US thinks it's important. It's just rather pompus to call it a 'world' series when the world, if it were to see it, would think it was a game of rounders.

[Mikey]

I think it's more that you can't get a joke when you see one. Even when it's been seen here many times. Do I really have to post the picture again (not that I've posted it more than once myself, but others have).

You seriously think I give a shit what you call a game... really... good grief.

To be fair, I think we can safely say that I recognize a joke when I refer to it as a "joke."

I don't think anyone out side the US thinks it's important. It's just rather pompus to call it a 'world' series when the world, if it were to see it, would think it was a game of rounders.

That's been my point - that it is the height of hubris to call it the "World Series" when it is a distinctly American sport. BTW, I don't know what rounders is and I get the distinct impression that I don't want you to explain it to me.

However, there is an interesting tangential development as we discuss this. While we discuss this, you still know fully well what baseball is and to what sport the term "World Series" refers. I, in the reversed position of an American looking at British sport, have a passing knowledge of soccer and only the vaguest notions of cricket, rugby league, rugby union, or whatever other sports you have going on over there. I have absolutely no idea what you call your national championships in any of them, save the term "British Football Cup" - I don't know if that's an actual championship award, I just heard it once in a Monty Python sketch. There is a far greater chance that the average Briton knows of the World Series, Super Bowl, or Stanley Cup than there is that the average American knows the analogs in similarly uniquely British sports.

[Captain Seafort]

I, in the reversed position of an American looking at British sport, have a passing knowledge of soccer and only the vaguest notions of cricket, rugby league, rugby union, or whatever other sports you have going on over there...There is a far greater chance that the average Briton knows of the World Series, Super Bowl, or Stanley Cup than there is that the average American knows the analogs in similarly uniquely British sports.

This is a big part of the problem - those aren't uniquely British sports. They're all played worldwide (Including the US, with varying degrees of success), and cricket boasts the sportsman with the biggest and most enthusiastic fanbase on the planet (and no, he isn't a Brit). You're welcome to have your own sports, its the habit of trying to pretend that the US version/competition is the only one that counts that irritates people.

[IanKennedy]

I think it's more that you can't get a joke when you see one. Even when it's been seen here many times. Do I really have to post the picture again (not that I've posted it more than once myself, but others have).

You seriously think I give a shit what you call a game... really... good grief.

To be fair, I think we can safely say that I recognize a joke when I refer to it as a "joke."

Yes, but clearly it annoys you as you go on about it every time it's mentioned. Accusing people of being obsessed with naming your sports. Really, if you get that it's a joke I would think that the appropriate response with be either ignoring it or 'ha ha, not funny'.

I don't think anyone out side the US thinks it's important. It's just rather pompus to call it a 'world' series when the world, if it were to see it, would think it was a game of rounders.

That's been my point - that it is the height of hubris to call it the "World Series" when it is a distinctly American sport. BTW, I don't know what rounders is and I get the distinct impression that I don't want you to explain it to me.

However, there is an interesting tangential development as we discuss this. While we discuss this, you still know fully well what baseball is and to what sport the term "World Series" refers. I, in the reversed position of an American looking at British sport, have a passing knowledge of soccer and only the vaguest notions of cricket, rugby league, rugby union, or whatever other sports you have going on over there. I have absolutely no idea what you call your national championships in any of them, save the term "British Football Cup" - I don't know if that's an actual championship award, I just heard it once in a Monty Python sketch. There is a far greater chance that the average Briton knows of the World Series, Super Bowl, or Stanley Cup than there is that the average American knows the analogs in similarly uniquely British sports.

The only explanation required is that rounders is the very unsophisticated children's game baseball is based upon (no pun intended with 'based').

The reason we know about these sports in the UK isn't because they are followed here in any way. It's because they are seen or referred to in US films and TV shows. There was a few years where the NFL and final where shown here but that was about 20-30 years ago. I've never seen basket ball or baseball shown on TV.

As for the fame of football (the UK game) you have, of cause, heard of the most famous championship in that game. Just to remind you it's called the World Cup, and perhaps rather surprising for you, it's involved a large portion of the world.

I would think the average Briton would have heard of the Superbowl. The World Series possibly and possibly not. As for the Stanley Cup, I've no idea of what it is or the sport involved. As a test I asked my mother, who has little to no interest in sport, and she didn't know any of them. My father new the Superbowl but not the others. As a feel for that they pretty much don't watch US programs on TV but do see quite a few films.

[Mikey]

This is a big part of the problem - those aren't uniquely British sports. They're all played worldwide (Including the US, with varying degrees of success), and cricket boasts the sportsman with the biggest and most enthusiastic fanbase on the planet (and no, he isn't a Brit). You're welcome to have your own sports, its the habit of trying to pretend that the US version/competition is the only one that counts that irritates people.

Surely soccer is truly global, and if we're speaking culturally I would mention that cricket and various forms of rugby are certainly most prevalent in places that were formerly parts of the Empire. The point remains that these are sports that are popular spectator sports in the UKoGBaNI, whereas baseball and American football are not. However, I think we're getting to the crux - you think we believe that our "things" are the only things that matter; the reality is that our "things" are the only things that matter to us, and we haven't really a reason to care whether they matter to anyone else.

The reason we know about these sports in the UK isn't because they are followed here in any way. It's because they are seen or referred to in US films and TV shows. There was a few years where the NFL and final where shown here but that was about 20-30 years ago.

Fair enough, the reasons why there is greater knowledge of American sport there than there is of British sport here aren't really material to me.

Yes, but clearly it annoys you as you go on about it every time it's mentioned. Accusing people of being obsessed with naming your sports. Really, if you get that it's a joke I would think that the appropriate response with be either ignoring it or 'ha ha, not funny'.

Well here we are. You keep needing to respond to our use of the term "football," and I keep needing to respond when you crack wise about same. Which of us is goose and which gander?

As for the fame of football (the UK game) you have, of cause, heard of the most famous championship in that game. Just to remind you it's called the World Cup, and perhaps rather surprising for you, it's involved a large portion of the world.

Of course, and I think this is an example of what's telling: I've heard of - and even watched - some World Cup competition, because it's a truly international competition (much as I almost had an aneurysm when Hope Solo was benched vs. Brazil in 2007...) My point here would be that the average American has seen or has knowledge of as much World Cup - an international competition - as the average Briton might have knowledge of the Super Bowl or World Series - a uniquely American competition.

[IanKennedy]

You keep needing to respond to our use of the term "football," and I keep needing to respond when you crack wise about same. Which of us is goose and which gander?

Actually you started it with this, in response to someone else.

Unless you count the idea of taking what you call "football," turning it into the real sport it is over here, and keeping the name the same - that's been a century and a half and it still manages to put a burr under your saddle.

All I did was summon up the hand egg joke. It seems a fitting response to you referring to "football", the quotes being your poke at our name. Seems quite reasonable to me. You poked at our name so I simply poked back. After all this is DITL and we don't let a good poke go to waste.

as the average Briton might have knowledge of the Super Bowl or World Series - a uniquely American competition.

As I pointed out before and you choose to ignore : As for that I did a very little straw poll of some average British people (my parents) and gave you the results. Only the Superbowl seems to be known here and only because the NFC was working with a UK TV channel to try and make it popular. It didn't really work and hasn't been seen since (20+ years ago). I also pointed out how the names of American things are spread by your TV and Films and so are more familiar outside of the US than the other way around.

As a measure of how this works the very same TV channel also showed an Indian game called Kabbadi. That game gained temporary popularity here (as a TV spectator sport) but has since disappeared into the depths of time also.

[Mikey]

Actually you started it with this, in response to someone else.

This sounds suspiciously like an argument provided to me by my four-year-old regarding a disagreement with his sister.

All I did was summon up the hand egg joke. It seems a fitting response to you referring to "football", the quotes being your poke at our name. Seems quite reasonable to me. You poked at our name so I simply poked back. After all this is DITL and we don't let a good poke go to waste.

Well, certainly I'm in favor of utilizing a good poke... but in actuality I only used the quotes because of the disparity between the usage of the term over here and over there. I didn't mean to imply any disparagement to your use of the term; no matter what our respective usages, you guys certainly had it first. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It didn't really work and hasn't been seen since (20+ years ago).

Certainly American football was far more popular on the Continent than it was in the UK while extant, though one of the last NFL Europa games in England sold 21,500 tickets at Ashton Gate and last year's NFL game in London sold 84,000 tickets at Wembley. However, this isn't a discussion of TV ratings versus live event attendance.

I also pointed out how the names of American things are spread by your TV and Films and so are more familiar outside of the US than the other way around.

True, you did point that out; again I'd say the medium through which the disparity in general knowledge is constructed is tangential at best.

As a measure of how this works the very same TV channel also showed an Indian game called Kabbadi. That game gained temporary popularity here (as a TV spectator sport) but has since disappeared into the depths of time also.

OMG, that looks like it would be a bizarrely awesome thing to watch. Is there a judge or referee of some sort who determines if a player is really holding his breath or not?

[Vic]

Kabbadi would be something to see, I have one question. How does one hold ones breath and still be able to chant "Kabbadi" at the same time? It would seem that holding your breath would keep you from saying anything. Or is that just another Wiki artifact.

[Graham Kennedy]

It's not so much hold your breath as "constantly exhale without breathing in". That's the idea behind saying Kabbadi - there are no pauses between it, you have to just keep chanting "Kabbadi Kabbadi Kabbadi Kabbadi Kabbadi" to demonstrate that you aren't taking a breath.

It's actually a pretty fun game to watch, as I recall.

[IanKennedy]

This sounds suspiciously like an argument provided to me by my four-year-old regarding a disagreement with his sister.

Except I wasn't the person involved. I simply responded to it. Also, you asked who was the originator I was answering that question, which seems only reasonable.

Well, certainly I'm in favor of utilizing a good poke... but in actuality I only used the quotes because of the disparity between the usage of the term over here and over there. I didn't mean to imply any disparagement to your use of the term; no matter what our respective usages, you guys certainly had it first. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Apology accepted...

[Angharrad]

Just jumping in uninvited, I know baseball fans in Ireland and England and they all seem to be either NY Yankee fans or Red Sox fans. I don't know any that are fans of other teams. It may just be my limited exposure to these countries, but it perplexes me. Why just those two teams?

[Captain Seafort]

Because if you asked 90% of people this side of the pond to name any baseball teams other than those two they'd be stumped.

[IanKennedy]

Just jumping in uninvited, I know baseball fans in Ireland and England and they all seem to be either NY Yankee fans or Red Sox fans. I don't know any that are fans of other teams. It may just be my limited exposure to these countries, but it perplexes me. Why just those two teams?

The Red Socks are from Boston, yes? I know this because they where talked about in Cheers, didn't Sam play for them at one point?

The New York Yankies feature in Brewster's Millions and have also been talked about in Friends.

I couldn't name any other baseball clubs off the top of my head.

[Teaos]