h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Cricket is essentially gladiatorial, but the real reason we love it is that it graces our village greens. What other sports can you enjoy while sitting outside the pub with a pint?

"... all weekend."


There, finished that for you Icy

Only a skinflint would make their pint last all weekend

That'll be me then

Actually, I'm so tight I started my own brewery so I could get cheap beer

Did gladiators stop for tea breaks and to fiddle with their balls?

That is a fascinating article. For me its principal fascination derives from the procedure of naming many possible explanations for the appeal of cricket, and demolishing them, while omitting the most simple and obvious one.

Competitive sports are a sublimation of warfare.

By applying rules, wars may be conducted in less threatening ways. Even warfare itself is generally bound by rules, even if they are often broken: prisoners are to be kept alive, medics are not to be targeted, and so on.

My eldest son, when he was about eleven, was horrified to hear about these rules. To him, if a war was fought in anything less than all-out, no-holds-barred fashion, it wasn't war at all, it was a game.

Frankie Goes to Hollywood made the point in 'Two Tribes' that wars are totally unnecessary: just put two champions in the ring together and abide by the result.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w

This has a long history; think of David and Goliath. The bloody battles in the Irish saga , Táin Bó Cúailnge, are successions of impressive acrobatic 'feats', unhappily culminating in death. But even with blood flowing, war is a game, and the prototype of many quieter games.

http://www.askaboutireland.ie/learning-zone/primary-students/looking-at-places/louth/tain-bo-cuailnge-the-catt/

However far cricket may appear from total warfare, it scratches that itch, for those who like that kind of thing.

"Did gladiators stop for tea breaks and to fiddle with their balls?"

Well in Vinnie and Pauls case the tea break was not needed http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/Paul-Gascoigne-Football_71255.jpg

I'm an American, we call it "soccer", and even I am familiar with that image.

Good old Psycho! Just Vinnie's method of saying hello

Proper footballer.

PP.

BBC News website servers suffer glitch which reverts the date back to April 1st:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-30458480

I've been looking at that and trying to work out how the heck they came to that conclusion

Must have been the Xmas party at the mailbox last night.

I have to say how sad it is that in the past few days -
with all the fuss about the Sony hack and the decision
to withhold release of a 'controversial comic film' called
The Interview because of threats from hackers to harm
theaters and theater goers - that no one has bothered
to point out that the film's premise is in bad taste and
well beyond the pale of human decency. It ought never
to have been made.

It is portrayed as a light-hearted approach to the taking
of another human life.

That life may be evil and flawed but never before in history
has a play or film or story-line advocated without remorse
the permanent removal of such a villain. In terms of politics
and diplomacy it has never been acceptable to openly discuss
the murder of an international leader with whom we are not
actively at war.

Yes, assassination is a well established method for influencing
foreign policies but public advocacy of such a potential,
especially with a specific real life target, sets a whole
new level of indecency, insensitivity and arrogance now
hiding behind raw notions of Free Speech.

Thou shalt not kill. Not even for comedic effect.

~jwf~

Sorry jwf, but have you watched any recent films? And by recent I mean the last 40 years or so. It's a very common theme in films.

I agree with Jwf it is in bad taste to make a film based on the premise of trying to kill a real person
its even more ridiculous to then be astonished that that person or their followers or anyone.... might object to such a film in this case the film has been withdrawn I can imagine in the future this may not be the case...
since when has death threats (which it surely could be seen as no matter how 'comic' the delivery) been free speech?

Thank you Dr Anthea.
I sometimes think I am the only sane one left anywhere.

~jwf~

I didn't say it wasn't in bad taste, just it's not unusual.

Lots of films revolve around killing people.

I also agree with ~jwf~

Why they had to be so specific, I don't know.

Sacha Baron-Cohen makes comedy films in a similar vein, but his characters are generic. It's not so difficult for us to imprint the features of our dictator of choice when we watch it, is it. Why insult the guy while he's a) still alive and b) may have nuclear weapons?