Posts by graniteotter6

Andrew Rodriguez16 said:Brojidb is just some local slang for "statistics"...

By all means, keep going.

Brojidb 🤣
Where on earth did you pick that up? Did you just decide to start making stuff up by tossing "-dba" onto everything, whether it actually belongs there or not? 🙂

I guess Gustavsson is working his magic too 🙏

There we go, the classic Frenchies are at it again; feels like we're heading straight for Gazimestan at this rate.

How would the late Beak have put it after we punched our way into the 2010 semifinals?

I suppose we'll have to settle this now. Little Poland And now we head into the finals to settle the score with the Frenchmen. 🤣

And it doesn't stop there; even the color commentator is just hopeless. He brings absolutely nothing to the broadcast, just recycling stats, shouting "boom," and throwing out these incredibly vague clichés. It’s pretty obvious.

That said, I suspect this will still end up being a passing phase for Sweden, even though facing Poland would have been a much easier path.

Lichtlein mentioned he went to the casino the other day and was sitting on a 67% defense rating. At this rate, they’re just going to cruise through the championship as complete underdogs. And honestly? That works for me.

An excellent, high-energy start. Just try to stay on even ground a bit longer, guys.
Even those brave Pharaohs are managing to hold their own on level ground. I suppose that’s not a bad thing.

Are you serious? Is that really the only thing you took from my entire post? Is that truly the one point you’re choosing to latch onto?
In other words, you're dodging the actual arguments while throwing in a hint of inevitable ad hominem attacks and a dash of condescension. And all directed at some anonymous user, 🤣. Who do you think you are—some kind of high-profile celebrity? We're just on an online forum, for heaven's sake.
I suppose taste is subjective; nobody expects to find Baudelaire tucked into a classic country ballad, after all. Even a well-written lyric can be, as you put it, "banal." Though, if I recall, I already expressed my dislike for that particular song.

Fine. Have it your way. Let's all just go back to enjoying the music we love. I can certainly get behind that.

John Stewart9 said:Care to elaborate, please?

No. Why don't you start by explaining your thesis and providing a concrete example. Who are these "best musicians" coming from over there? For every single one you name, I can find someone better right here in the States.

hahaha, damn, what a genius lyric. Tell me you're kidding me.

I won't, because that's just how I feel. It's a forum, you know? I have my opinion, you have yours, and we exchange them. The lyric is great. It manages to convey a profound truth in very few words.

genius lyric, classic, you're throwing around some big words there.

🙄 Are we moving toward ad hominem attacks now? You're really lowering the quality of this discussion.

Give me just one example of that folk-pop mandolin song that's actually going to become a classic.

My crystal ball is currently being repaired, but I'll be sure to let you know as soon as I get it back.
I wasn't talking about some folk song on a mandolin—don't twist my words. I read your original post carefully, and it only mentioned that Southern ballad 🙂

John Stewart9 said:let's be honest, that's where you find the best musicians.

That’s a bold take.

it depends on who you ask. Personally, I think the song is pretty mediocre. The lyrics are just painfully cliché. "It's not those with much who are happy, but those who need little"... give me a break.

I suppose I agree regarding that specific example, though even in that same track, there is a brilliant line: "people being people, always finding something to complain about."

it's an example of genre drifting—that sort of pseudo-folk sentimentality many artists lean into, and not just in folk music. Take Škoro, for instance.

Even Djolo mentions how he feels like some version of Škoro is getting under his skin.

outside of the Midwest, you really have to mention two groups: "Serbus" and "Svita." "Serbus" is actually a joy to listen to.

Serbus isn't even around anymore.

the constant push for those West Coast style songs really grates on me.

If we're being honest, they did produce a few lovely tracks that will likely become classics, but I have to admit, even I find this hyper-production a bit much.

Penalty shootout.

The Mexicans missed first, then the Portuguese went fourth, and finally the Mexicans landed in fifth.

Final score, 4-3.

Dana Anderson4 said:He’s just messing around; I don't think he's actually going to take off. 😬

🤣

Damn it, Jason Williams5, my cigarette break is the only reason you didn't get wrecked while I was AFK. ☕

Mićko, if you pull the trigger on this, people are going to flock to it. It’s a solid concept, and I’m fully behind it. I suppose I should sit down and actually parse through the rulebook before I make a formal suggestion, but overall, the vision is excellent. By the way, the finals really ought to feature two players. Who cares if there aren't many matches in the semifinals? You'll still rack up plenty of points regardless of the sample size. Again, I’ll need to look closer at the details first.
We don't necessarily need 32 participants; for our tournament, 24 players would be plenty—essentially eight groups of three, with one person getting a bye. If we end up somewhere between 24 and 32, some groups will just have three people while others have four, and two move on. Just drop a few national teams and we're good to go.

Following the recent trend seen in places like London or Sochi, I’ll preemptively set the stage with a title: "The World Cup through the lens of the US Soccer Federation." ☕ I just hope nobody tries to screw me over. 🙂

Yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before. ☕

Important Reminders
Advertising is strictly prohibited in posts, signatures, quotes, or location fields.
Buying, selling, or trading tickets on this subforum is not allowed.
When a moderator issues instructions or warnings in red font, don't bother replying; just follow them.
You may use images as thumbnails or embed them directly, provided they don't exceed 800x600 resolution and stay under roughly 200kb.
During live game threads, moderation tends to be a bit more relaxed, so sanctions are generally reserved for more significant violations.

Violating these group rules will result in your post being deleted without warning. More serious infractions may lead to a formal warning or a ban. You can find more details regarding warnings and bans over here.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Look, an internet stream isn't "broadcasting" in the legal sense because for that "signal" to actually reach your computer, you have to explicitly go out and request it. Beyond that, a computer can't even display that signal unless you have the specific software support installed to handle it. If you don't have Flash player—and let them try to prove I do—you can't watch the PBS stream, which means your computer isn't capable of reproducing the PBS signal and, by extension, doesn't fall under the definition of a receiver. They can't even prove you have an internet connection, let alone that your connection is fast enough to sustain a stream. It’s exactly like having an old analog TV in an area where only digital signals exist; you don't own a receiver capable of playing back audiovisual content.

Of course, when it comes to those FAQ pages, PBS interprets the law however suits their interests, but once things head toward a legal dispute, their little interpretations don't mean much anymore. If they actually dared to enter a legal battle and lost, a consumer protection group could demand they scrub that nonsense from their FAQs entirely, so they probably won't even bother stepping into a fight like that.

Everything mentioned above holds up, which pretty much summarizes what I was getting at in my original post.
My setup is basically the same—I have a television, but zero digital tuner capability. No external box, nothing integrated into the set itself...

If this subscription fee is supposedly a charge for transmitter services, then I don't use them.
If it's a fee for device ownership, well, that doesn't apply either, since nothing in my house even qualifies as a receiver under those terms.

It’s all just a bunch of hot air and nothing more. Honestly, I'd just ignore it. Someone already broke this down in either this thread or the previous one.

They are streaming, alright. Sure, the quality is absolutely abysmal—but I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.

But honestly, comparing those two things is like comparing apples to oranges; they aren't even in the same ballpark. It feels a bit cheeky, doesn't it? We pay for the infrastructure—well, maybe not the transmitter itself, but certainly the high-speed internet—so it seems a little rich to claim this is just a hardware fee rather than paying for the content itself. At the end of the day, we're still paying for their programming, just via an internet connection... I mean, I knew that all along, but I didn't feel like bringing it up in my first reply. Besides, for the people who already signed off on it, the damage is already done.

Absolute nonsense. They’ll probably even try to pull your utility bill out as evidence that you actually pay for electricity, as if you aren't just using it for the stove and the washing machine 🙄

🤣
That’s exactly why I specified a camera instead of just using a phone. 😬