All P.O.W. presentations by Ariel Mazzarelli, except for "Sweden in the 1994
World Cup" (awarded by yours truly).
[-] P.O.W. meant as a flame
[+] P.O.W. meant as a compliment
* P.O.W. nominee
early 1994 [-] English League (Arthur J Manners)
Mar 15, 1994* [-] Penalty appeal (John Neumann)
Apr 22, 1994 [-] "Colombia" (Hakkim Wong)
Nov 19, 1994 [-] Sweden in the 1994 World Cup (Jakob Jonsson)
May 5, 1995 [-] Matthew Le Tissier (Simon Moore, with reply)
Jul 6, 1995 [+] Dedicated US fan (Dan Goshin)
Jul 22, 1995 [-] World Cup 1978 (Ricardo Amaral)
Sep 22, 1995 [-] Advertiser's logo vs commercials (Dustin Christmann)
Dec 11, 1995 [-] Dutch ECQ (Jack van Rijswijck) + P.O.W. guidelines
Dec 11, 1995* [-] Pele vs. Maradona (Luiz Monteiro Franca Neto)
=====================================================
From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS POST OF THE WEEK [English League]
Date: early 1994
Este tipo estaba muy, muy en pedo cuando escribio esto. Therefore I do not
hesitate (y eso que esta semana el rss se ha llenado de brasucas) in
awarding the RSS Post of the Week award to our friend A.J.
Una palabra esta semana, pa' que aprendan algo de ingles: solipsism. While
you are busy fetching Webster's, you might also look up "cosmopolitan", and
whenever you come across the word "Guyana" in the post, refer to "non
sequitur" and "irrelevant". Y pa' los que ya saben lo que quieren decir
estas palabras, disculpen lo fastidioso que fue este parrafo.
The original subject was "Why the high % of English posts" or something like
that, lo borre y me nefrega.
RSS POST OF THE WEEK
--------------------
Arthur J Manners wrote:
>
>In criticising the number of England fans on this net surely you
>are missing the point. This is an English speaking file so you
>are hardly likely to get vast numbers of Hungarian fans for example
>on it. As the state of league football in the US is dismall that
>only really leaves the English league were 4 nations players play
>(Eire, N.Ireland,England and Wales) plus a load of Scots.
>
>The English league, with the exception of Italy, is the best in
>the world, and the FA Cup is the greatest cup competition in the
>world. I would also say that the English league is probably the
>most cosmopolitan league in the world. How many US players play
>in the English game?
>
>While talking of Guyanan football would be interesting (not) it is
>not the national sport, cricket is and it has no league structure
>as such.
>
>There are loads of Americans interested in English football so why
>slag off the proportions of users. Surely if 95% of people on this
>system are England fans it shows the support football has as opposed
>to the US or places such as Guyana.
=============================================
From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: YOU MAKE THE CALL [Penalty appeal]
Date: 15 Mar 1994 03:17:58 GMT
John Neumann RFTC wrote:
>[His kid was offsides but tried to score anyway, so the defender elbowed
> him on the head. The referee noticed the elbow first and the offside later,
> so Dad thinks it should have been a penalty kick and wants to spend $200
> appealing the call.]
Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
Ariel
PS: A very firm candidate for Post of the Week.
=============================================
From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: World Champions '94 - Rep. of Ireland
Date: 22 Apr 1994
HAKKIM WONG wrote:
> gvanmoor@aoc.nrao.edu writes:
>> ROBINSA@IBM3090.BHAM.AC.UK writes:
>>>Columbia ?
>>The name of the country is CULUMBIA, not COLUMBIA
>Well, actually it is "Colombia"...
Post Of The Week!
---------------------------------
From: gvanmoor@aoc.nrao.edu (Gustaaf Van Moorsel)
Subject: Re: Teofilo Cubillas (was: Re: Telemundo s
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 94 14:13:47 GMT
JUGURTHA@DELPHI.COM writes:
>Peru is a true revelation of Mexico 70 with Sotil, Champitaz, Cubillas.
I understand the reluctance to use the vowel 'u' excessively in South-American
names, but wasn't it 'Chumpitaz'?
Gustaaf - Culumbia for the cup - van Moorsel
========================================
From: stigop@lise.unit.no (Stig Oppedal)
Subject: Return of RSS Post Of The Week (Re: I Survived The Scandinavian Bronze Age)
Date: November 18, 1994
All right, who bamboozled the Swedish newbies into thinking that the winner
of RSS Post Of The Week was entitled to a "fantasy weekend" with Liv Ullmann?
>From the outset of the Scandinavian Bronze Age debacle, three candidates have
been a cut above the rest:
Ahrvid Engholm: refused to "argue with the zillions of more or less biased
views" in my post, deciding instead to argue with something I never wrote.
Fredrik "Breadhead" Osterberg: wondered if I spontaneously lashed out at
Swedish-looking people on the street.
Kurt Swanson: admitted he had no idea of what he was talking about, but
decided to lie about what I wrote and flame me all the same.
It was a tough choice.
Then, out of nowhere, this week's undisputed winner made its triumphant
appearance. I didn't really want to flame the poster, as he made the only
attempt to rebuff what I actually wrote, but on the other hand I knew the
suffering his reply would have caused Ariel Mazzarelli (the now awol
presenter of POTW).
So, in the comforting knowledge that, wherever he may be, at least Ariel
was spared the pain of reading the offending piece, I give you the RSS Post
Of The Week:
--------------------------------------------
m92jaj@miaplacidus.tdb.uu.se (Jakob Jonsson)
Subject: Re: I Survived The Scandinavian Bronze Age
Date: November 18, 1994
[comment on how I couldn't possibly have ever seen Thomas Brolin in action,
since he is actually a "great player", mercifully snipped]
Stig Oppedal claimed that the Swedes were very lucky to meet Saudi Arabia,
instead of "better" teams like Belgium or Argentina. Well, S.A. actually
defeated Belgium. Argentina, weak without Maradona, lost to Bulgaria and
Romania - Sweden won against both Bulgaria and Romania! So you couldn't
possibly say that Sweden had an easier ride to the quarterfinals than eg
Germany or Romania, since Argentina and Belgium were not better than Saudi
Arabia.
=============================================
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS POST OF THE WEEK [Matthew Le Tissier]
Date: May 5, 1995
First of all, I would like to apologize to the hundreds of English posters
whose fine efforts died with a single pressing of the "k" key. Alas, in this
era of over 1,000 weekly posts, RSS can no longer be properly monitored
without some decision being taken as to which sort of topic will be summarily
dismissed.
English futbol is the natural choice.
Nonetheless, one must be careful, for there are genuine gems hidden amidst
so much fungus. Witness the following fine effort, which with merely one
sentence (well, two, actually, because the writer misplaced a period)
manages to outshine even the born-again Jespero, and show to the world the
fine insular qualities of the English fan.
In deference to the clueless (I don't discriminate, specially in official
matters like this one), I have underlined the sentence.
Ariel
---------------------------------
RSS POST OF THE WEEK
>From moore@lts.sel.alcatel.de Fri May 5 14:31:03 PDT 1995
sg@ssru.city.ac.uk (Shaggy) writes:
>[tales of MLT's derring-do deleted]
> If a player of this stature cannot get in the national side, I am not
> interested in it.
You don't mention how (if) he came back to defend when (if) Palace mounted
an attack. And what about his ability to tackle? Never mind about him
creating 375 chances a game & being the highest scoring midfielder in the
Premiership. He just doesn't have what it takes to play for England. Brazil
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
or Italy maybe, but never England.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If I were Venables, I'd give him another chance, perhaps in goal or at left
back.
-------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RSS POST OF THE WEEK
From: moore@lts.sel.alcatel.de (Simon Moore)
Date: May 8, 1995
For the hard-of-understanding like Ariel I was merely trying to point out
that other international teams seem to like "flair" players whereas England
seems very suspicious towards them and doesn't like to play them.
=============================================
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS POST OF THE WEEK [Dedicated US fan]
Date: July 6, 1995
You know, sometimes it has been (erroneously) assumed that to be given this
award is equivalent to being flamed. It ain't necessarily so!
Granted, there were some of those this week. A certain MJP is going for the
Jesper Trophy, but of course that is another competition altogether. One of
the prerequisites of the P.O.W., after all, is that it is worth reading at
least once.
Other candidates failed because of predictability--since the world's second
most prestigious tournament is about to begin, one would expect some
ridiculous predictions to be placed here. I will grant you that to claim
that the USA or Mexico are going to win Copa America is unusually absurd,
but it is still, in some sense, predictable.
And finally, there were some posts suggesting that futbol would soon be
dominated by players from New Jersey who are over 2 meters tall.
Cluelessness is an important factor in the P.O.W. competition, but in
excess, it becomes counterproductive.
So on to this week's winner... if anything speaks volumes about being a
futbol fan in the USA, its quasilegal status, is that... you need a fake ID
to watch the games--or the lovely 'magic box' for pay-per-view events, for
that matter. I think it is time for Bill Clinton to step up and grant us
some sort of amnesty, eh?
Ariel
--------
From: samarmy@aol.com (Samarmy)
Subject: Re: pro soccer in the US ? mmmmh ..... not right now !!!
Date: 4 Jul 1995
I have to disagree with you.I am 15, and my friends and I do not stop
thinking about the sport.We watch it on tv, go to games,and play in the
parks nearly everyday.We are not the onlyones either.Its not that soccer
is not a part of everyday life,its that it is not availible for us to see
on a daily basis.I find myself setting my alarm during the soccer season(at
4 am) just to watch Italian Serie A highlights, or a Premier League match.I
have friends who skip school to watch the Champions League final, or the FA
Cup final, friends who get fake ids just so they can go to the local pub to
watch the Priemier league game of the week.So I take it as a personal insult
when you say that soccer is not a part of our everyday life.Cause it is, and
it would be even more so if it was readily availible.
CHEERS! Dan Goshin
=============================================
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS Post of the Week [World Cup 1978]
Date: July 22, 1995
Although I was myself nominated for this award this week, I cannot in good
conscience be both referee and participant.
There were, of course, an unusual number of candidates for this award. In
the end, however, I decided to select the post that best displayed the
humility, objectivity, and deep understanding of the game that one may find
in the typical brasilero posting on RSS.
As a preamble to the award, let me note how the world cup in 1978 unfolded
for Argentina and Brasil:
Argentina beat Hungary 2-1, France 2-1, then lost to Italia 1-0 and finished
second in its group.
Brasil drew Sweden 1-1, Espa~a 0-0, and beat Austria 1-0, finishing second
in its group.
Thus Brasil and Argentina were paired in the same semifinal group, together
with Poland and Peru. The winner of the group would go on to the final.
In that second round, Brasil beat Peru 3-0, drew Argentina 0-0, then beat
Poland 3-1.
Argentina beat Poland 2-0, drew Brasil 0-0, and beat Peru 6-0. To reach the
final, Argentina had to beat Peru by the same three-goal margin as Brasil,
but needed an additional goal to draw level on total goal count. Hence a
3-0 victory would have put Brasil in, a 4-1 victory would have led to a coin
flip, and a 5-2 victory would have put Argentina in the final.
In the third-place game, Brasil beat Italia 2-1, and Argentina beat
Netherlands 3-1 in extra time.
A big thanx to those that maintain the RSSF archives (eg Karel) at
http://info.risc.uni-linz.ac.at:70/0h/misc-info/rsssf/archive.html
So here, complete with the unique type-setting, I give you the RSS Post of
the Week!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ricardo Amaral
Subject: Re: News : Fifa orders a Arg x Bra rematch!!!!!
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995
On 21 July 1995, Ricardo wrote:
Dear Sergio:
The biggest scandal in World Cup history was in 1978 when Brazil got
eliminated eventhough Brazil had not lost a game, when Argentina had
lost a game to Italy.
When came time for a tie breaker between Brazil and Argentina they
should move Brazil on instead of Argentina, because Brazil had not
lost a game.
They decided to fix the best way they could for Argentina to play
in the final game. Brazil and Argentina had one last game to see
who would move on to play in the final.
Brazil had three goals advantage over Argentina before they played
that semi-final game.
They arranged for Brazil to play the first game, which Brazil beat
Poland 3 X 1, by the end of that game the Brazilian advantage in the
tie breaker with Argentina was 6 ( six ) goals.
Peru had been playing very well until that semi-final game with Argentina
in which they lost 6 X 0. If there was ever a major scandal in soccer
which needed investigation for game fixing was that victory of Argentina.
The World Cup played in Argentina in 1978, in which Argentina had to fix
for them to play in the final game, It is a big black mark in the World
Cup history.
The other great powers of soccer Brazil, Italy, Germany, and Uruguay earned
the World Cup in the soccer field.
If I was an Argentinian I would be embarassed about that game with Peru,
because it was too obvious that the game was fixed in favor of Argentina.
If I remember correctly the Peruvian goalkeeper was born in Argentina and
had a Peruvian citizenship, this puts another black mark on that game.
If there's a World Cup that should be taken away from anybody, would be
the 1978 CUP in Argentina.
When I read in the newspaper about game fixing in any sport, the first
thing that come to mind was that game Argentina X Peru in the 1978
World Cup. I will never forget that game, and what Argentina had to do
to win a World Cup.
RICARDO.
=============================================
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS Post of the Week
Date: Sep 22, 1995 [Advertiser's logo vs commercials]
Due to a variety of factors, from a rather spotty news access to an alarming
growth of provincialism on rss, we have not been able to award the Post of
the Week award for several weeks.
Today marks the end of the dry spell. The category under which falls the
following post might be described as 'momentary loss of faculty to see the
obvious'. In a more clinical vein, 'brainwashing'. The one I prefer is
described by its punishment, which is to go up to the blackboard and write
one hundred times Nancy Reagan's dictum, "Just say no".
As a way of introduction, the post was interred several nodes upwind from a
root message that attempted the difficult task of approximating futbol with
anything played for money in the US. After several mutations (which went
unlabelled in the subject header), it ended thus...
Ariel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSS POST OF THE WEEK
From: Dustin Christmann
Subject: Re: Why is soccer more exciting than US sports?
Date: 19 Sep 1995
wmillerxxx@aol.com (WMillerXXX) wrote:
>Are you happy with the logo blocking the picture? You must be employed by
>an advertising agency. Why should USA viewers have to accept this when the
>rest of the world has a clear picture??
Once again:
I am happy with advertisers logos on a corner of the screen AS THE BEST
ALTERNATIVE TO COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTIONS OF MATCHES.
Thanx, Dustin "And I'm employed by a telecom company, BTW" Christmann
--------------------------------------------
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: Ariel, please monitor this person (was Re: Wacky Frogs)
Date: Dec 12, 1995
Dustin Christmann wrote:
>...as I'm sure she'll utter a pearl eventually that will be worthy of the
>RSS Post of the Week. As a former recipient, I should know. :^)
You know, the winners of the award are rarely considered as consultants, but
we may make an exception in your case.
Nonetheless I believe that Mr. Rosa (or is it Ms. Patrick?) has not quite
met the P.O.W. criteria (as outlined in another post). I'm sure there will
be more chances as the Eurocopa approaches.
=============================================
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS POST OF THE WEEK [Dutch ECQ + P.O.W. guidelines]
Date: Dec 11, 1995
There have been several nominations for this week's award, of varying degrees
of merit. Let me clarify some confusion on some of the parameters for this
competition:
1. The post is worth reading at all.
This is the trickiest parameter, and a perennial source of confusion. Just
because a post is absurd, chauvinistic, ignorant, poorly written, poorly
edited, and a gross violation of netiquette, it need NOT qualify for the
P.O.W. award. So remember, if the thought that runs through your head as
you read the post is
"I wish I had just simply deleted this",
then the post is NOT P.O.W. material. To give a specific example, this is
why Mr. Rosberg@Norway's posts are unlikely to ever win the award.
2. The award is not necessarily a flame.
Sometimes a post is good enough to win the award even though it is a good
post. You must decide on your own whether that was the case or not.
3. The post is at least a little bit original.
Most posts fail this condition. In fact, almost all posts on RSS do. This is
why a post that regurgitates Havelange's programme (say), in crass and
uninspired language, will usually not be a P.O.W. It is possible for a post
to express less-than-original concepts in an original manner, and then of
course it would be eligible.
4. I must have read the post.
This is mostly intended to be an incentive to successfully correlate the
subject of a post with what the "Subject:" line says, and to post on subjects
that we actually care about. For example, 97% of posts that refer exclusively
to the English league would automatically be excluded; if the occasional gem
is buried within a thread titled, say, "LIVERPOOL RULES EVERTON SUX", then
I encourage you to repost it with the prefix "RSS Post of the Week Nominee".
Please do not abuse this suggestion.
Finally, let me add that the competition is simultaneously subjective (I
pick the post, and it is based on how I feel about the post) and objective
(no one is better qualified to pick them).
Now let me apologize for the less-than-weekly frequency of the award. It is
due to three factors:
a) Sometimes it takes more than a week to post a winner, b) My news site is
a bit erratic, c) Sometimes I have better things to do than read 200 RSS
posts/day.
Now that that is settled, on to this week's winner.
Uefa is not known for being sensible, so when they are that, they should
receive the credit. Thus, regarding the qualfication scheme for Eurocopa '96,
if you compare two teams that play in different groups, you are of course
doing something unnatural. This is made worse by the fact that there are
some ridiculously weak teams in Europe; therefore, what seems rather wise
is what was done--you do not count the results against the weaker teams in
a group, when comparing two teams from different groups.
And what could be a better determinant of what constitutes a weaker team than
its results? Surely we would not prefer that the Coca-Cola rankings be used.
The poster below would rather take into account Netherland's results against
Luxembourg (!) than Belarus. Personally, I would be embarrassed to post
something like
"If we are good enough to sweep Luxembourg, we deserve to go to the Eurocopa".
Finally, if you post that it is unfair that your team did not qualify because
Malta failed to win any particular game, you may well have posted the
RSS POST OF THE WEEK
--------------
From: javhar@bausch.nl (Jack van Rijswijck)
Subject: Re: Why Holland?
Date: 5 Dec 1995
John Savage (savagej@gov.on.ca) wrote:
> If the playoff in the European nations Cup is for the two second-place
> qualifiers with the worst record, why is Holland in it? Holland had 20
> points from 10 games, a better record than Turkey's 15 points from 8 games.
In order to make the qualifying scheme more complicated, the UEFA came up with
the following ingenuity. In deciding which teams are the `worst' runners-up,
only the results against the nrs. 1, 3, and 4 in the group count. This led
to the phenomenon that the Dutch team are sent to Liverpool because of the
match Malta - Belarus.
See, Belarus won that match and therefore ended 4th in the group. For the
Dutch team this meant that their results against Belarus, being 1-0 and 0-1,
were counted. If Belarus had not won that match, then Luxemburg would have
ended 4th, Belarus 5th, the 5-0 and 6-0 against Luxemburg would have counted,
and some other team would have to travel to Liverpool to take on Ireland.
=============================================
From: mazzare@primenet.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: Maradona OR Pele! who's better? (it was: Brazil knock down Argentina !!!)
Date: Dec 11, 1995
This is an example of "campaigning" for the RSS Post of the Week that will
simply not work.
Luiz Monteiro Franca Neto wrote:
>On 10 Dec 1995, MJP wrote:
>> I will repeat so you get it right...stats are decieving and misleading.
>> I make judgements from what I see and that's that! I have seen Pele play
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> many many times, and I have watched Maradona play many many times. From
>> what I have seen MARADONA was the better player. He did successfully
>> de-throne Pele in the 1986 World Cup after he scored the second goal
>> against England. It was at that very moment that I became convinced that
>(WASN'T IT A HAND-BALL?)
>> Maradona is the best the World has ever produced!
The alert RSSer will note the comment embedded in mid-paragraph, and ask
himself, "did Diego scored both golazos against England with His hand?"
Let's see how else you are hoping to enlighten us...
>This is a pearl of Arghentinian "clear" thinking. What a shame!
>"Statistics are deceiving" and blah-blah-blah. Only the very
>emotional and subjective ARGHentinian (narrow) point of view counts!
>"I make my judgements from what I see and that's that!" Wow! That
>was cruel!
>Please, give me a break!
>These guys are just too emotional! Let's try to be rational, will you?
Yes, let's. And MJP, I think it is about time that you admitted that you are
"Arghentino".
>Let's try again, maybe this time it works:
It is not nice to quote your (ex?)girlfriend on RSS. Another reason why your
post is not a P.O.W.
>******************************************************************
>Pele: more than one thousand goals in professional
>games, and the *only* man THREE times World Cup champion.
>******************************************************************
So you think that Pele was the reason that Brasil won the world cups of 1958
and 1962. Ok. It is time that I look up "emotional" and "rational", I thought
I knew what these words meant, but English is not my native language....
>Should be noted that Brazil won WC in 58, 62, (missed66),won 70, and
>94. Pele's presence as the Best player in the best team in the world
>(Brazil) spans from more than only the period from 58 to 70.
Hmmm... I am curious about Pele's influence in the 1994 tournament, perhaps
you could enlighten us on that. You might also enlighten us on why he missed
the 1974 tournament (was it the lawsuit?).
>Which means PELE'S PERIOD AS THE BEST PLAYER ON THE
>PLANET SPANS FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS. This means both
>superior soccer talent and *consistency*.
I cannot understand the sentence in all-caps. Was Pele better than Garrincha
in 1958, and does anything that Pele did for the Cosmos count?
>And now, using parts of the post by Manoel Mendonca (with some capitals
>made by me):
I would love to be able to analyze what you wrote below, but alas, your posting
technique leaves a bit to be desired here. Let me give you a couple of tips:
1. it is important for you to separate what you write from what other people
write, 2. when making such a separation, it is important to tell us who wrote
what.
>[Incomprehensible collage deleted]
>Now, dear MJP, try to add some data on Maradona's record! Try to show us
>Maradona's achievement that could back your argument in his favor.
>But, please don't be EMOTIONAL! Don't come with "I judge from what I saw"!
Yes, by all means, do not use what you see as a basis for your judgement.
>This would not convince anybody, not even Madre Thereza of Calcuta'!
Well it is certainly refreshing to find a poster on RSS that cites his
sources, and yours is truly innovative.
>And by the way, if you want to just compare Maradona's nicest plays.
>Please don't try this direction.
I assume that English is not your native language, so tell me, does
Portuguese use periods differently from the rest? I will not ascribe the
logical flaws of these sentences to your language, however, as there are a
couple of theorems that clearly prove that a speaker's language is not the
cause of the absurdity of his claims.
>Pele's nicest games spans for more than 12 YEARS, and it would
>be very boring for us to cite examples in such "endless" sea of
>inspired plays made by Pele over those years!
First of all, an accurate recollection of great plays is not only not boring,
it is in fact an excellent reason to post. This deep into your post, however,
it is not surprising that you do not share my criteria on what is and what
is not a good post.
Proceeding, if we were to adopt your methodology, then our English readers
would be delighted to discover that Sir Stanley Matthews was the greatest
player ever! Angel Labruna would be second, I presume, althought Roger Milla
would certainly be in the running.
However, I assume from the tenor of your post that your futbol culture could
not encompass such a wide berth, so let's stick to a comparison between
Diego and Pele. Diego began to play professionally in 1976, now here is a
little algebra (a rational method, I believe):
1976+13 = 1989,
and note that 13 > 12,
so I suppose that you are either saying that
a) Diego stopped playing nice games after 1988, or
b) Diego did not play any nice games in 1976.
I think that your attempt to establish the above disjunction effectively
settles what place we would give you in any forum that would choose to
debate the relative merits of Pele and Diego. Thank you for participating,
Ariel