Pukko

Thats U2 'A sort of homecoming' nordin Whats this? Sweet child in time you'll see the line The line that's drawn between the good and the bad See the blind man shooting at the world Bullets flying taking toll If you've been bad, Lord I bet you have And you've been hit by flying lead You'd better close your eyes and bow your head And wait for the ricochet

I hereby predict USA- Senegal in the final. And Senegal will win! Because its Senegals first WC ever, there are no greater underdog to be found. And I would ofcourse like to see Senegal win for other reasons, like for the good of Africa in general and the nations football, and of course because they will host WC 2010 - or am I wrong there? (and of course to save improve Swedens honour) I would neither by principles dislike if USA won, only if they would 'take over' football and make it another cheap US entertainment thinngy. But thats probably quite unlikely in the present world; but if would probably be real good for our planet if USA really joined up the rest of the world in the only truly international language - the language of fooball

Nice to see that we have some common views after all But I think you have mis-interpreted some of mine points a little. It still sounds like you think that I am pessimistic about the future. But that could not be more wrong (with the big exeption of a great global war). I'll quote you on this one. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I essentially agree that we are living in a world of -if not illusions- then certainly under-examined human constructions. But what you suggest is that people are increasingly 'seeing through' this and becoming disillusioned with the world that has been passed onto them. I would say that this is an exaggeration. Most people do not see or question most of what you call illusions (for example childhood-a largely victorian construction - is still widely accepted and 'protected' ) Only a few are truly coming under public scrutiny , such as the nature of our western democracies.<span id='postcolor'> Ok, at first I thought you meant that my point was that disillusion in it self would be a good thing (it always hurt at first, but is also always replaced by something, most of the time at least, more positive with time (if handeled in a bad way crucial disillusion might of course be too much for some people). The best is of course to let a new perspective 'shine through' the illusion in question; which it self will be replaced in time too). But you rather seem to be sceptical about peoples ability to see through illusions - and thats probably where our conceptions separate the most; that I think that the western peolple is just about (ok, talking decades maybe) to start a revolution because it is SO much that dont make sense anymore. You write "such are the nature of our western democracies"; and thats what I mean; I believe more and more people start questioning our socio-cultural world, and since that world in this case is the western world - that would be the end of the western world as we know it . And that do not mean that we are all gonna die, but that we take a large step towards a 'better' society for everyone. I think that this might go quite fast actually, like a chain reaction, a revolution or even as quick as a 'collapse'. How quick it will go, and thereby also how much it will hurt us, is all depending on how open we are towards social change - and in that case I think that Europe is more open than the USA, and thereby my vision of a US collapse in maybe 2 - 5 decades or so.. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is some discussion of nationalism/super/internationalism/globalisation throughout the west, but most do not seem willing to abandon their national ties any time soon. And certainly most are not 'seeing through' their national divides (unfortunatly) Nationalism is still seen as a positive force and a means of empowerment especially in people feeling oppressed or attacked people. As such i do not believe nationalism is in much danger of collapse. In fact i think that enforced (or rushed) globalisation can fan the flames of nationalism. If a nation feels under threat from globalisation, its sense of national identity will thrive, something more eager internationalists seem not to realise(and so they have screwed it up). The best way to create a truly globalised, peaceful world is to let nationalism slowly die out and very gradually faze in a supernational sense of identity instead. But i think the walls between people are still too great (not least language) for an international identity to truly emerge.<span id='postcolor'> I think its far too late to stop globalisation now, or it could rather never be stopped. I agree to 100% that it should not be rushed (as should'nt anything be. Just look at the radical feminism...), but the outcome of a great big global war now would be very bad for a positive globalisation, at best! It might even be the end of mankind. Therefore mine, and many others, big concern about this 'war on terrorism'. And we will probably not for several thousand years develop a "international identity", but we will be able to enjoy living in 'cultural borderlands' for sure - where one belongs to all cultures and, almost, none. Im very sure that humans do not need a common enemy to unite them, by nature! </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"All these detainings without trials and ridiculously increased powers for the law-enforcement, the making of a police state. I'd say this is Osama's greatest victory." There is some truth to this, but i do not believe this was >precisely< Al Quaidas aim.... certainly to make Americans live in fear - of which that is a result. But the point is, Americans are swallowing this as the price of safety... there is not real widespread opposition to this, at least certainly not to a degree that would fragment the nation. Also it can be exaggerated. For example Japan is something of a police state even without terrorism .The ability to hold people for almost 2 weeks without charge in terrible conditions, all non-Japanese must carry passport at all times etc and almost noone makes a fuss of this. <span id='postcolor'> I recon that the aim of the terrorists behind 9/11 was primary to make USA act exactly as they did in Afganistan (or even less sucessful of course). So that there would be no doubt among the majority of our planets population that USA is a bad/evil nation (the symphaty quota for the dead of 9/11 is probably almost non existant when compared to the hatered for many of USA:s earlier and present weakly - or not at all - globally justified actions). If USA continues to expand the war on terrorism new terror organisations will pop up everywhere in the world, based on the aim to crush USA. USA is not popular globally as it is, and will not improve their relation to most people internationally by military force.

Ok, I'll make a try to write some short concrete examples and answers. The problem is that its a really big, self-interacting, coplex phenomenon this, and mentioning one or a few questionable things do not give my argument much more substance; the other way rather. But if one consider that there are 10 000 'a little wrong things' that all put together form a abstract picture of another society than we believe we are living in. I'll mention a few, by them selves quite pointless, things quickly here that are the first I come to think of: A short mentioning of a few illusions more or less related to reducing humans, and that are with many other things building a fundament of our present conception of the world: ---The differance between adults and children - is it really different life forms or is it rather a question about interests (the concept of childhood was invented not long ago)? Here is also many other illusions of differances present of course. One of these is the very present destruction of the white heterosexual male's natural superiority. ---Our nationalism (also a recent invention) - is our national identity really worth anything more than historical sub/pre national regions/counties? ---The western labour market a a whole - how long will it survive in its ever more demanding form? How long can we motivate ourselves working to death producing quite meaningless (also new inventions) services (there are not many percents working with fundamental things anymore)? Regarding alternatives to representative democracy, look some 20 pages or so back on this thread. And no, people in general will probaly not wake up one day and kill themselves (even if the ones who do probably will increase wastly in numbers). But one can in some perspectives consider society as a living organism, and as such it will have a strong survival instinct - breaking anything apart if necessary. Fallen illusions will make humans look for other values in life to comfort them; an ever refining phenomenon towards an utopic society. And I work actively to find and destroy such illusions. My point about USA is that it very often seems conservative and isolated in some crucial parts. And if the pride of living in 'the best nation in the world' - even if only lets say 20% really think that - live on, USA might have big problems changing in a changing world. And no changes (development)= obsolete= no good. And as you said, 9/11 made the Americans rally around its flag making them stronger for a while, but that probebly only strengthen conservatism; and that do not hold in the long run. And finally to connect to war again: Most of say at some times that we live in a sick society, without being able to specify what the problem really is (personally I recon most things in our society comes to one thing in the end - the reducing of one self and others). But on a governmental level it might be real good to avoid that people are digging and criticising the government and nation, and thereby give the people a evil enemy as a scrape goat (only one of dozens of reasons to go to war) to make them forget all about their closer problems. But for how long do you think that such a policy will be sucessful? One do might argue forever about USA:s real reasons to go to war, but while we do maybe 2 to 4 billion people on this planet (many of them Americans) gets more and more sceptical about USA:s foregin policies and actions. And unfortionally I cant see any hope that USA will either work harder just to improve international relations (wars never do that, maybe to the few but not for the majority) OR be able to convince people that they are doing it in the best interests of everyone. Prior to 9/11 I was merely a little irritated at USA for a 100 reasons, but since then I am really scared about what they might start now. Start - as in executing many unnecessary and violent actions around the world in the 'war on terrorism' - probaly the most pathetic concept in the history of mankind.... Â I think I have answered some of your questions here to some extent at least. Oh, the one about conscious change of individuals in institutions: thats about the only reason for our present institutions (globally). I can tell you that I am not a friend of educational systems, even on more fundamental levels.

I dont think that I could explain this to you IsthatyouJohnWayne even on 1000 pages, since we seem to have quite different ontological views and there are no real good (objective) and concrete references that I know of, but I'll continue giving you a hint about it </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 15 2002,22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"All that terrorist need is a reason, and if we continues to alienate, exploit and oppress 'less developed' nations we will soon be no more" Â That doesnt constitute a very convincing argument for many in the western world. "Im not oppressing anyone, why should i change?" this will be the attitude of most... people are not willing to make sacrifices without obvious gain. What sacrifices do you refer to? 'we must change or the bad guys will kill us' That how your views could be generalised (though according to you no doubt they are not bad , only 'abused' ) and that is not very convincing at all. Why should people change to accomodate a violent minority? And what changes in most peoples lives precisely would bring about this globalised utopia? Or are you referring more (as i suspect) to government policy? If it harms economies and therefore costs people their jobs, it will not be popular. Thus governments will not pursue it, such is the nature of democracy.<span id='postcolor'> I should probably always start with saying that I do not 'predict' the end of the world, or even anything negative, with the changes I mention. Its rather a very positive social development that I'm thinking of. If we refuse to develop do we will just collapse one day over a night.. And I should maybe also mention that I currently study educational science (which is a part of behavioral science) which focus on how we construct (and/or affect) human beings at institutions, family and other social contexts. I therefore dont think that a human being is born to 'anything' by nature; we are maybe to 80 or 90% just social products of our own time. Therefore I will NEVER say anything like: "People would never accept or do this or that". Who the fuck are we to speak of what future generations will or wont do? Well I have indeed my vision of it, but since it involves social development its more likely than to think that the humans we see around us today are the one and only true & everlasting kind of humans; I see our social world rather like the guy in Matrix - only as very temporary and constanltly changing codes and labels.... Now for your reply: I am not claiming that the 'bad guys will kill us' if we do not change; rather that we will kill ourselves if we dont. The basic thing is that I do not for one second doubt that we will continue to develop ourselves socially with time - BUT if we today stagnate in a century long global conflict there might not be hopes for a VERY long time, or ever (while humans exists, not necessarily for long), to come further than we are today.. The western world are without doubt in a deep crisis. More and more people see through more and more of the, for the western world, vital illusions. The illusion of our 'representative democracies' maybe one of the most important at this time. Whatever comes out of it (breaking illusions) in the long run can almost only be for the better though. I fear that USA, the western nation, will refuse develop in any larger extent due to national pride, and will therefore keep going strong until one day just collapse, because the illusions that holds it up is seen through, in kind of a chain reaction maybe. I just hope that USA will not let its frustrations (continue) to be aimed at the rest of the world; if thats the case USA might bring the rest of the world to chaos and destruction on their way to collapse. I also hope that Europeans continue to eat its daily portion of shit, instead of piling it (one finally collapses from it) up or throwing it at others (it always comes back you know). That way Europe might avoid a collapse, but instead slowly just changing form; because the 'western world' as we know it today is definitely history, I cant see anything else. - - - Here I thought of a concrete connection from the above to the war on terrorism, but it all just becomes so empty and meaningless. Please tell me if it made any sense before I write more maybe too abstract bullshit to make any sense - trying to answer your direct questions! But Ill end with this slogan anyway : Dont let our western (more and more present) misfortune go out over the others in the world - we will need them as brothers and sisters in the long run.

Congratulations Senegal! Now GO FOR GOLD - you can do it!

I think the quite simple and only way is to act creatively in all our actions with the goal of a positive globalisation in mind. Only work to improve relations between groups and people. Our differances are not there by nature; they are only our social constructions. It will be very costly for all, not only economically; and we must accept that our rich western world is not the result of us being better or working harder, rather to be lucky enough to be the first ones to exploit resourses and people in huge extent. We must all make sacrifices, or mankind will not survive for much longer; we cant just sit on all our gold and cry lazy people and terrorists at everything we dont like, but the most costly will not be our gold, but our pride......... All that terrorist need is a reason, and if we continues to alienate, exploit and oppress 'less developed' nations we will soon be no more

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Espectro @ June 15 2002,16:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, now i dont have to worry about getting further in the cub.. were out <span id='postcolor'> Well, thats not so bad. I almost envy you actually To be able to just enjoy the beauty of the WC, and only complain when a team plays boring football.... I will probably not be able to judge it, but if Sweden dont improve and play more positive and beautiful football (maybe Zlatan? ) then the team might as well leave. I agree with latin Americans: The important thing is not the result, but how its played. I would never reduce football by betting on results, football is so much more....

Poor Martin Laursen. From his bad mistake in the 4:th minute it was obvious that Denmark would not make it. Maybe they were a little arrogant after beating France. Incredible cheap misstakes in the first half... I really hope the Swedish guys go out hard tomorrow. Sweden is NOT favourites there! Those damn Senegaleses might take win their first WC!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ June 14 2002,10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's just that the conflict you have is such a bitch and it gets worse the more you dig for the reasons. Goddamn, it must be the worst tangled mess that has ever existed. Â <span id='postcolor'> Only to be beaten by the violence spiral that the war on terorism (and all what came before) is very likely to start; the main differance is that this conflict will be global.......... Â

That referee Albert posted there must be Swedish, since the players are dressed in Black & Yellow - I have never seen a non-Swedish team wearing those colours (last year 3 teams in the Swedish primier league did)... Do you guys know any other yellow & black team? And now both my predicted (only on paper for myself) final teams are gone: Argentina & Portugal (2-1 for Argentina). But now it will be Italy & Brazil instead (the other teams in my semi final). Of course IRL Brazil will be replaced by Sweden

Grand Prix Legends! No question about it.. When I have not played it for a while, and stamp the throttle of my Ferrari, I cant help but putting a BIG stupid smile on my face then. I dont remember if I have downloaded the Ferarri sound, but its awesome. And then the feeling driving on those great tracks with that poor traction is just too much. I just love it BTW. the Avon Lady has her counterpart in the GPL community - a (at least some time ago) very dedicated and helpful woman -> the Eagle Woman.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ June 12 2002,12:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">England are, after all, the only team  in the 2002 world cup to beat Argentina since nigeria or swedan couldn't and Argentina were favorites<span id='postcolor'> And Sweden played a draw against a desperate Argentina.. And if I dont get it wrong, Sweden is the only one that made a goal during gameplay in group F .....oh wait Nigeria made a beautiful goal too.. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's funny how people are conservative. And its very funny to see it this WC, where none of those things stand. Brazil - almost beaten by Turkey. I wouldn't put my money on Ronaldo. Italy - perhaps. They were pretty good against Croatia, and their team seems ok this year. Croatia - perhaps. Very good team. They played awful against Mexico though. Came in third last WC where they kicked the living crap out of several 'favourites' amongst them Germany and the Netherlands. England - no luck there chaps. Denmark will beat the crap out of you unless you really get your shit together. Sweden - hmm.. I really don't know. We seem to be playing crappy all the time but yet we also seem to come up on top. Denmark - nope. Won't happen. FIFA will sooner burn down the stadium then letting Denmark take away the prize Senegal - Don't know. They are really  a wild-card. Spain - Good so far, but they have yet to play against somebody serious.<span id='postcolor'> What about Portugal?? And Sweden continues to improve. I was very happy after the Nigeria match; it gave me great hope due to a number of things (poor defence is not a real problem for Sweden, only temporary) EDIT: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wouldn't mind if swedan/denmark (although obviously i'd love denamrk to lose against england ) won though, they have loads of good players and don't have girly haircuts <span id='postcolor'> But today our two most famous players (Patrik Andersson and Fredrik Ljungberg) were injured..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Espectro @ June 12 2002,12:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ June 12 2002,11:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hopefully if england don't win Brazil will.<span id='postcolor'> Dont worry, Engand wont make it to the Quarter final <span id='postcolor'> Dont think so either, quite seriously actually.. I have not seen any signs in this WC that England would be any better than Sweden; but Denmark might be......

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 12 2002,110)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In my opinion the favourites are now Italy (beaten by a lesser team but still solid) Brazil (will probably concede goals and go out in style) Germany (back from their 5-1 defeat to England) Spain (look good but havent met another great team yet) England (outside chance if they play up to the occasion)<span id='postcolor'> Its good if neither Denmark or Sweden are favourites, coz scandies always play better when not favourites. Unfortionally (? ) Swedens probable opponents (Senegal and probably Japan + Costa Rica or Turkey) on the way to semi are quite easy on the paper (making Sweden favourites) - so that might our fall. Denmark, Brazil and England in the other....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 12 2002,10:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">England V Denmark Sweden V Senegal<span id='postcolor'> = Denmark and Sweden through

See you in the semi final Denmark!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Look what happened when I was clicking around (while watching TV) in your post Nordin!

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Vi ćr rřde vi ćr vide, vi stĺr sammen side om side!</span> Unfortionally we will not see Zidane in more than one match this WC......

Happy birthday old chap

I have actually not played against strangers on the Internet since I got my first Internet connection in 1997: Playing Quake (the original of course) online for many hours that summer; I was very impressed to be able to run around 'killing' many completely unknown strangers for a while then. I remember one time I had most frags when running around with double barreled shotgun, and I also remeber fun with 'guided rockets' (camping while chasing people with the rocket around the map) and many other things But then all of a sudden I lost interest in it; and since then I have only played against people I know on LAN:s or with a few guys over the Internet.. Quake is actually still my favourite amongst all FPS after OFP; OFP which is as revolutionary as Quake was in those days. Maybe one can say that OFP is the first FPS to really go beyond Quake - the first in a new generation; I personally consider Dungeon Master from 1986 marking the first generation, Quake 10 yrs later the 2:nd and OFP 16 yrs later the 3:rd. The biggest problem in online gaming is that there are so many different interests (in this case interests=reasons for playing) in gaming; making it a lame compromise of the majorities 'interests' in the end.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hilandor @ June 08 2002,14:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">im afraid sweden wouldnt have a chance against croatia  i watched their last two games and sweden cant control the forward counter attacks of other teams,  Nigeria should have had a couple of goals against them if they had decent finishers  like what croatia have    I was expecting more from sweden  <span id='postcolor'> Ok, I might not be a great football analyser, but I really thought it was mostly a midfield ball possesion and pressure problem against Nigeria, like I have said earlier. But I remember that the former Norwegian coach "Drillo" (who comments the WC on Swedish TV) thought the Swedish defence against England was completely perfect. Not once did we let one English player pass the defenders during normal play according to him; and I think he is right about that. Normally the defence is Swedens best part, and it was real nice to see that not even an injured Patrik Andersson (captain, central defender) replaced by a very (in the naitional team) green Jakobsson would make the defence weaker against England. I think they will take the bad defence against Nigeria with them for the best agaist Argentina. The question is how important Patrik Andersson really is... Maybe he is not really injured at all now; they might use it as an official reason to keep him of - he might very well be in a too bad 'match shape' (only one or two matches in 2 months if I recall it right) to be a safe choise...

OK, I'll pull myself together: Congratulations England! (just saw the match an hour ago) You had a iron will there, no beauty play, but damn tight defensive... Now you have put us in a awful situation though; have to get at least a draw (if England dont lose to Nigeria) against Argentina who MUST win. Swedens defensive midfield play (what I commented earlier was the defence line) was disgusting against Nigeria; we have to get that bloody Ljungberg in particular to take some defensive resposibility; and Hedman got some problems with cross balls. If Sweden continues to improve (generally) we got a decent chance against Argentina though. See you in the semi final England! But I am much happier with the win over Nigeria than the draw, or even a win, against England - because England fits us better. therefore we have improved so far, and hopefully will continue with that! BTW: Actually I almost wish that Sweden goes home - so that one just can enjoy beautiful football without only hoping for Sweden to go far; Sweden better begins to play entertaining (have already seen some of that) and beautiful football if we go for gold

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ June 07 2002,11:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe. I think its cultural though. Many muslims do not want to become intigrated.<span id='postcolor'> Cultural it is! But the problem dont have to be only the immigrants. We Swedes dont want to 'be integrated in the world' either. In these globalisation times - the sooner you give up your national bullshit (really not worth anything more that different sub/pre-national historical regions/counties) and embrace other people/cultures, the better it will be for everyone in the long run. Oh, but I forgot; in our time long thinking is absolutely taboo.....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 07 2002,10:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sweden-Nigeria 2-1. Actually Nigeria deserved to win. The Swedish team played like drunken hippos. No defence organization at all, and the technical skill of the Nigerians was much higher. They just had bad luck. Anyway I'm happy with the result <span id='postcolor'> Naah, I dont know really. It really could have been a draw instead, but dont think any team were much better than the other; both had lot of luck (ok maybe more visible for the Swedes). But it was not a bad match of Sweden, even if it of course could be better; the question is - will it be? EDIT: The Nigerians might be better individually (or at least in man-to-man), but Swedens team spirit and defence saving the midfield is not bad; since we lost the ball all the tim at midfield, the defence had no easy job against those dribblers!