Quake3World

no offence to anybody but fucking hell what a shite halftime!

i like tom petty fine enough but fucking ell' he look like he has had givin in to the munchies, for ten years!

and fuc me what a low energy show with all those ancien fuckers

they could have at least put on a pot of coffee or chugged some red bulls for ffs

When a question about his leaving the field was shouted at him in a terse postgame press conference, Belichick ignored it.

rofl, homo

http://www.nbcsports.com/portal/site/nb ... rchannel=1

plained wrote:no offence to anybody but fucking hell what a shite halftime!

i like tom petty fine enough but fucking ell' he look like he has had givin in to the munchies, for ten years!

and fuc me what a low energy show with all those ancien fuckers

they could have at least put on a pot of coffee or chugged some red bulls for ffs

Amen to that. I don't understand the choices for halftime shows lately - who was it last year?

They are bringing in these old guys (and sure they are/were legends) but there just isn't big energy it seems like. I'd think halftime would want a hard-hitting band with energy to fire up the crowd.

respect The Eagles

fucking sports fans r morons...

tnf wrote:

plained wrote:no offence to anybody but fucking hell what a shite halftime!

i like tom petty fine enough but fucking ell' he look like he has had givin in to the munchies, for ten years!

and fuc me what a low energy show with all those ancien fuckers

they could have at least put on a pot of coffee or chugged some red bulls for ffs

Amen to that. I don't understand the choices for halftime shows lately - who was it last year?

They are bringing in these old guys (and sure they are/were legends) but there just isn't big energy it seems like. I'd think halftime would want a hard-hitting band with energy to fire up the crowd.

wasnt it prince last year? the year before i think it was rolling stones and before that paul mccartney. before that was janet jackson et al.

yes and imo they were all higher energy and more suited to the over-the-topness that exemplifies superbowl halftime

i liked prince cuz he was channeling sweet Jimi!

Chupacabra wrote:
wasnt it prince last year? the year before i think it was rolling stones and before that paul mccartney. before that was janet jackson et al.

I forgot prince...I was thinking the stones and McCartney.

And just like that, the Giants are the bad guys for winning the super bowl.

tnf wrote:

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:LOL the slo-mo of brady getting the ball stripped.

things like poor sportsmanship, poor manners, projecting that people are to dumb to see the truth as a way to force and control them

these things are acceptable more now than ever b4

no fucking shame and public acceptance for the ill-mannerd .

all

I don't really understand American football (I know the basics, downs, etc) but that was a pretty good game. I'd quite like to try playing it but it's not hugely big over here, though saying that neither is Ice Hockey and a friend of mine plays for a few teams.

It's a fun game to play and in all honesty if you're playing pick-up games you need nothing more than the ball.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:fuck the R8 is fucking gorgeous.

http://www.audiusa.com/audi/us/en2.html

eh its ok

yeah, sorry it's not some shitty suv

tnf wrote:

So in general it's a good idea to put images on your own webspace. You can also use free image hosts. This stops other people from footing the bill for linked bandwidth.

Oh, and it also stops funny things like this. On second thought, leech away.

lol...oops. We are going to have an updated page of the globe in this thread.

Hannibal wrote:

Wizard .3 wrote:Still convinced that the Pats are the greatest team to have played the game though

The Pats (including all their super bowl years) are certainly the best team of this decade. But is this years team the best EVAR? Certainly not. They aren't even the best team this year.

Ya, I can agree with that. It's silly anyways to say the greatest team ever (it's an uncertainty). It's possible to say that they are one of the best (and the records are there to prove it).
And if you win the Superbowl, does that necessarily mean you are that year's best team? In title, yes. Unequivocally. But the Pats were by far the best team this year, and got outworked in the most important game. You can take that whichever way you want.

Wizard .3 wrote: And if you win the Superbowl, does that necessarily mean you are that year's best team? In title, yes. Unequivocally. But the Pats were by far the best team this year, and got outworked in the most important game. You can take that whichever way you want.

I don't tend to quibble over this kind of stuff....because frankly, the only the thing the regular season is about is prepping for the playoffs...getting a decent seed and making sure your team is improving week to week as the playoffs arrive. The Pats were dominant in the first half of the season....which, except for fantasy football freaks and stats obsessed jock sniffers, means exactly zero. By the time the playoffs rolled around, the Pats were very beatable...they were not head and shoulders above the other quality teams in the league at that point. Thus I can't agree with your 'by far the best team' idea. They were (and are) a great team, but they got beat by a better team...the Giants peaked at just the right time...when it ultimately mattered...in the playoffs and the Super Bowl. Stats don't win championships; quarterbacks and coaches don't either--teams do. The Pats played their hearts out, didn't make any unforced errors (one fumble that led to no points for NY) and got beat anyway. I can't think of any interpretation under which it would make sense to say that the better team lost Super Bowl XLII.

Here's the picture tnf meant to post:

lol, Brady looks like such a weak little bitch in that picture. Jesus, they manhandled him.

r0n1n wrote:Here's the picture tnf meant to post:

originally, that was the image he posted.