England 1-2 Brazil, comments anyone?
** this post has been maczippied grin **
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by maczippy on 2002-06-21 1226 ]</font>
Yes, read the posting at the top.
Perhaps you should delete your post.
_________________
Keith, Ottawa
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by Keith on 2002-06-21 0937 ]</font>
Did we suck against 10-man Brazil? ???
Didn’t some of the England soccer players pass the ball in a sloppy fashion? How good or bad was the goalie? Was it the heat and pre-game-stress that wore our players down? In short, did we suck against 10-man Brazil? ???
UK_USA
Thankyou for that !
Some people would like to see the game on video!
Keith says delete it and spare someone else from reading this before they have watched the game! roll
Read this thread
http//www.british-expats.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2167&forum=6&9
_________________
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my grandfather did--in his sleep.
Not screaming like the passengers in his car.
Ju
xo
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by marmitemaniac on 2002-06-21 1058 ]</font>
The british-expats home page had the defeat listed as one of the headlines, so I knew the result before I reached the forum.
Cut UKMUS some slack, he might be one of Roger Penycates relatives for all you know.
lol lol
If you don't wanna know seal yourself off until you watch the game...
Your request is somewhat redundant and moot give that, as ebyegumlad (the previous poster) points out “The british-expats home page had the defeat listed as one of the headlines, so I knew the result before I reached the forum.” I respectfully submit that your objection is thereby traversed.
Again like ebyegumlad says, “If you don't wanna know seal yourself off until you watch the game...” I concur, those that want to see the game later will, for the most part, avoid this web site in its entirety until they have watched the game for themselves. Indeed, they will do their best to avoid listening to the television and radio for the same reason, because guess what the scores and results are being reported on just about every channel. The on-line BBC radio and the BBC news web site.
Absent an official line on this matter on this forum and in view of the Constitution of the United States, particularly the First Amendment covering free speech I don't see why my post should be deleted given that it does not involve such language as shouting fire in a crowded theatre absent a fire representing speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.
Some might want to discuss the game and if they do they are free to do so publicly, in private, on a plane, in a moving vehicle, heck on a boat, and in internet chat rooms! Censorship is not part of American culture. You can take that to the bank.
On 2002-06-21 11:16, UK_Meets_USA wrote:
Absent an official line on this matter on this forum and in view of the Constitution of the United States, particularly the First Amendment covering free speech I don't see why my post should be deleted given that it does not involve such language as shouting fire in a crowded theatre absent a fire representing speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.
It's a privately owned BBS...
It has its own Constitution :grin:
Andrew :smile:
On 2002-06-21 11:08, ebyegumlad wrote:
The british-expats home page had the defeat listed as one of the headlines, so I knew the result before I reached the forum.
Cut UKMUS some slack, he might be one of Roger Penycates relatives for all you know.
:lol: :lol:
If you don't wanna know seal yourself off until you watch the game...
A lot of folks go directly to this forum a little tag ( SPOILER ) would,nt hurt just in case and why in caps ..????. Typical
Andrew> Like I said, "absent an official line ..." And anyways, for your information, even a private bbs is subject to the supreme law of the land. That being the US Constitution. smile
Anyway, all you did is edit the header (something I tried to do, but was unable to do, it seems the header of a topic is not editable by the originating poster - is that true?) ???
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by UK_Meets_USA on 2002-06-21 1245 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by UK_Meets_USA on 2002-06-21 1246 ]</font>
Dont get your nickers in a twist, it was only a suggestion, one which was only pointed out by Nigel.
My browser is set to ignore the news that is posted by the BBC News.
I just wanted to watch with my kids tonight.
On the point about "nickers", I don't wear any! grin And if I did, they would be on the right way round. (Unlike in one episode in Columbo where Columbo realizes something is amiss when the body of a woman comprises a pair of nickers the wrong way round. Anyone recall this episode? lol )
What you are talking about with that site is a bit differant . if on your site you promote illegal acts or encourage violence against poeple or the country unlawfull sex acts ,etc etc of course you come under the unbrella of the constitution.
Many sites on here have rules banning the discusions of various subjects and have other * code of conduct *rules that dont violate the constitutional rights of any individual this site is quite liberal in that regard.
I you dont like the rules here DONT come ..
A restaurant can insist you dont wear shorts in thier establishment, even thou there is no law to prevent you doing so elsewhere .
This site is like Nigels home we are guests here and must follow his rules . WITH the caviet that they dont transgress any state or federal law ..which they dont .
The constitution does,nt apply here
The Constitution always applies (in the USA) John. grin
Oh, for your information I don't dislike the rules here! razz