thomasnash

@leebmx: yeah, that's true. It's also not like it's been a boring game because they're playing badly. The quality's there they've just been very cagey. It's beginning to look like Holland are getting a bit braver but it might be too late now.

There's a strong case for it, unless he's training to be a jedi.

I don't know that I've ever been less enthused by the prospect of 30 more minutes.

Holland seem really timid this game. Really contrasts with Argentina who are really pressing the defense even during quiet moments - a lot like Germany were last night, really.

To clarify quickly, when I say that the dictionary definition specifies physical exertion, I didn't mean that it is the only condition. The definition in full is as follows:

"An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment" (OED)

So I think what I'm saying and what you're saying are compatible - I just left out the stuff about "competition" and "entertainment" largely because I felt that they carried over between Soccer and Dota - the element of physical exertion, if we go by the dictionary definition, is the distinguishing factor between a "sport" and a competitive game. As I said, I only really stuck with this because I think that definition would hold in common usage.

Further examination of my printed OED probably bears you out more than me, though. The above definition is from the Early 16th Century, whereas this definition from Late Middle English rather stamps on my point:

"Diversion, entertainment, fun [this is probably whither the phrase "in good sport"]; an activity providing this, a pastime."

The reason from the change, I would guess, is that in the intervening centuries spectator sports became more prevalent, and technology only really allowed for large, physical contests to be spectated. So where Backgammon might once have been described as a sport, its deficiencies as a watchable activity led to it being considered a game where soccer was a sport that could be spectated. In that case there probably isn't any reason not to call any game a sport as technology now allows us to spectate almost any activity.

@fattony12000 said:

I live in the home of Colman's mustard. There is a shop dedicated to it. They sell mustard chocolate for people who are insane/christmas stocking fillers.

I love mustard. Grainy dijon mustard on a ham sandwich! yellow mustard on hot dogs! Horseradish sauce (yeah I know not really mustard, but similar flavour) on roast beef! Mustard powder in marinades for slow cooked meats! English mustard with strong cheeses!

I love Mustard!!!

Sports aren't called sports because of some element of strategy or competitiveness; the dictionary definition specifies physical exertion. I wouldn't normally get all prescriptive like that but I think it's a definition that holds true for common usage as well. All sports are games, but not all games are sports, basically.

With that said, I think there are more specialised uses of the word which don't follow this rule, chess for example is a recognised "Olympic Sport." I don't know how to resolve this linguistically in terms of how to define sport, but I think it might suffice to say that in that case the "Olympic" part is probably a more important form of legitimating recognition than the "Sport" part.

(Edit: Also what @starvinggamer said about game being short for video game. Similar point from the other direction, I suppose!)

So basically don't worry about it?

I find it more likely to be that not having to worry about where a story is going frees the mind up a bit so that you can think about thee details.

The process of reading anything in detail (novels, films, academic articles, whatever) tends to be that you read the thing once quickly, then one or more times at a more varied pace, paying close attention to things that seem relevant and glossing over things that don't seem relevant. Knowing the details in advance basically jumps the first part of the reading process - so it is a shortcut in one sense, but not quite the sense I think you meant it, because it's actually a short cut to allow for greater thought.

If spoilers allow greater enjoyment, I would say it's because it allows for greater understanding on one reading/viewing, and it's very satisfying to feel like you have "got" a book, or managed to understand it beyond it's plot (when I make this point I'm generally reminded of a Walt Whitman quote from Song of Myself - "Have you ever been o proud to get at the meaning of poems").

This is my totally unscientific, anecdotal and likely spurious reasoning anyway!

@truthtellah: Yeah, I'll leave allegations of corruption to others but there have definitely been a lot of dodgy decisions throughout.

I agree with the first post - mostly. By and large if spoilers are going to ruin your enjoyment of something, I feel like it probably isn't all that and a bag of chips to start with.

But someone brought up the Usual Suspects and I think that is a good argument that sometimes spoilers matter.

It's not really compare that to any of Brazil's previous games in the tournament. For starters Brazil are a far stronger team than any other team Brazil played up to that point. And they were missing two players that they just didn't have a replacement for. So it's not like their total meltdown tonight is good evidence of corruption.