|
|
Post by verigoth on Nov 12, 2008 17:33:56 GMT -5
Wow looks like pretty good seats! I wouldn't mind seeing them play, but Man U is definitely not my favorite team.
|
|
|
|
Post by BA on Nov 12, 2008 18:39:51 GMT -5
Man City is mine!
|
|
|
|
Post by roger888 on Nov 13, 2008 2:19:09 GMT -5
Wow looks like pretty good seats! I wouldn't mind seeing them play, but Man U is definitely not my favorite team. If you want good seats for a football match,get yourself down to Wembley,the facilities there are perfect for a wheelchair  |
|
|
|
Post by dublintrouble on Nov 13, 2008 5:53:23 GMT -5
Not anymore. She was up until about a year ago but we're still very good friends. Yes the facilities at old Trafford are excellent and the seats were terrific. I'd recommend it to anyone..
|
|
|
|
Post by E on Nov 13, 2008 9:36:59 GMT -5
Jason this could get nasty LOL Real football was created by us English. What Americans call football is shocking, only one man kicks the ball! American footbal = rugby for girls! Real men don't need all that padding and helmets! Even as an American, I gotta say that he's right on this one... |
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Nov 13, 2008 10:41:51 GMT -5
lol, he's got ya' - but both pale in comparison to the Australian game from what I've seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by dublintrouble on Nov 13, 2008 13:24:39 GMT -5
You forgot to mention the manly CUP they also ware! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by roger888 on Nov 13, 2008 13:27:01 GMT -5
Pardon me, but that appears to be soccer, not football. Real football is played by large, muscular men; and the game is so dangerous that pads and helmets - rather than little shorts and jerseys - are required.  I'm with ukquad on this one.We are talking about Real Football,that's the one played by the rest of the world.Yours is American Football |
|
|
|
Post by verigoth on Nov 13, 2008 14:25:42 GMT -5
Mine too! I even have a nice MCFC hat..maybe I'll take a picture with it on if I can find a camera that's half decent. As far as football vs American football: I don't understand this country's obsession with such a silly game. The players spend more time standing around looking stupid than actually playing because they stop the clock every 20-30 seconds. In real football the clock never stops, and the players are active (read: running) for 45 minutes with almost no breaks! Yet somehow "soccer" is a "girly" sport! |
|
|
|
Post by BA on Nov 13, 2008 17:37:20 GMT -5
Mine too! I even have a nice MCFC hat..maybe I'll take a picture with it on if I can find a camera that's half decent. As far as football vs American football: I don't understand this country's obsession with such a silly game. The players spend more time standing around looking stupid than actually playing because they stop the clock every 20-30 seconds. In real football the clock never stops, and the players are active (read: running) for 45 minutes with almost no breaks! Yet somehow "soccer" is a "girly" sport! I am an American and a New York Giants season ticket holder, because they were passed down to me by my Dad who was a rabid fan. I have never liked the sport. I am sure the country's obessession has something to do with the testosterone culture that surrounds it. It's a brutish game, the sound of the helments banging, the gunts and the groans, the sheer size of the players.... It's BIG and American's tend to like BIG STUFF. |
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Nov 13, 2008 19:01:36 GMT -5
it's true that there is an awful damn lot of standing around in american football. and soccer looks like it would be a blast to play. speaking of this did anyone see that news item a few weeks ago about the young brit footballer who got paralyzed in a game last spring, travelled to swtzerland and requested to be euthanized. he was too.
|
|
|
|
Post by roger888 on Nov 14, 2008 2:32:00 GMT -5
Yeah ,it was front page news here ,it was a rugby union player who got injured in a scrum.Caused quite a stir over here,anyone & everyone who had an opinion had to make themselves known to the press whether they knew what they were talking about or not. Worst thing about it was the police went & interviewed the parents as soon as they returned even though they were trying to grieve.  |
|
|
|
Post by charlene on Nov 14, 2008 8:00:22 GMT -5
Yeah ,it was front page news here ,it was a rugby union player who got injured in a scrum.Caused quite a stir over here,anyone & everyone who had an opinion had to make themselves known to the press whether they knew what they were talking about or not. Worst thing about it was the police went & interviewed the parents as soon as they returned even though they were trying to grieve. Just read the article. This is extremely sad... |
|
|
|
Post by Claire on Nov 14, 2008 10:05:36 GMT -5
It's very sad. The thing that hits me most from that article is this... " “At Dignitas we started with people with cancer and motor neurone disease, then we went to chronically ill people and those with conditions such as diabetes or multiple sclerosis where their life expectancy isn’t necessarily shortened. “Now we are moving on to people with severe disabilities. It is turning into a copycat scenario and it disturbs me. It is right for the police to investigate these cases.” " It is a slippery slope. They started with terminal cancer, now they're accepting quads. Next they'll be accepting paraplegics 6 months into injury, and then people who have lost one leg in a motorcycle accident...or anyone who is suffering post-injury depression and subscribes to the "I'd reather be dead than disabled" philosophy that apparently 50% of the population believe (according to a recent study). Where does it stop? Why are some people more concerned about the right to die than the right to proper care, rehabilitation and integration into society? Because "it's better to be dead than disabled"? Because they're better off without the disabled inconveniencing them? Because "assisted suicide" is faster, cheaper and easier than giving a severely disabled person the assistance needed to learn to live a full and rewarding life? It is hard to judge Daniel, but it's difficult to understand the people around him. Here's the report of a vent-dependent quad who tried, and failed, to change this guy's mind: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4969444.ece |
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Nov 14, 2008 10:38:44 GMT -5
It is unfortunate that someone would take that choice. There are, quite clearly, ways that he could've certainly lived his life proficiently post-injury.
However, it's is that person's life! Therefore, should he (and only he) wish to end it, then that choice should not be taken away from that person, especially if done in a 'safe' manner in which no others are harmed with minimal to no general asset loss, no matter what some people believe their deity has told them to do otherwise.
I do agree, that making available satisfactory and proper care, and having a full range of rehabilitation services (some places only rehabilitate the body, and unfortunately, not the mind), and support services available would likely reduce an incidence of this nature. Unfortunately, a failing in this part will lead to a person's resolve to seek other 'alternatives'. That's the really sad part of it. Having methods of prevention would certainly help, but it's riddiculous to take the right for him to have made that personal choice.
|
|
