No, Europeans say we are arrogant, unsophisticated, and militaristic.Originally Posted by montecristo#4
Yeah, those too. Thanks for completing the set.
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
No, Europeans say we are arrogant, unsophisticated, and militaristic.Originally Posted by montecristo#4
Yeah, those too. Thanks for completing the set.Originally Posted by Fabienne
Indeed. Also both France and the US say that they are better countires than each other...Originally Posted by imageWIS
Um, no. When you start trying to cherry-pick facts about a subject you know nothing about, you know you should give up the argument. American football players don't wear "sneakers". When playing on grass, they wear cleats ("studs"). When playing on artificial turf they wear special athletic shoes with a sole specially designed for that surface. Also, picking the lightest and heaviest players from a football roster tells you nothing useful in this context. Most likely, the 178 pound player was a kicker or punter, a specialized player who for all intents and purposes does not participate in the "normal" part of the game.Originally Posted by lawyerdad
It tells you everything useful when the original point was that they need helmets,padding etc...because the big guys are hitting the little guys.If the little guys don't even get on the field then that argument is non existent.Originally Posted by waldo pepper
Serie B if they're lucky!Originally Posted by romafan
It tells you everything useful when the original point was that they need helmets,padding etc...because the big guys are hitting the little guys.If the little guys don't even get on the field then that argument is non existent.Originally Posted by waldo pepper
I like both rugby and American football. They are both tough, physical games. In rugby, endurance is more of a factor. American football, however, is more dangerous.Originally Posted by LA Guy
Rugby is a waste of time "tweener" sport between the man's game (football) and the beautiful game (football).Originally Posted by montecristo#4
Well, fine. It wasn't my intention to debate which sport is "better" or even "more manly", both of which seem pretty pointless. Just to point out that you were seizing on "fact" that weren't particularly accurate (understandable in discussing a game you don't follow and don't give a "toss" about)Originally Posted by lawyerdad