If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Youth Soccer League removes ball from soccer. "This year to address some of the negative effects of competition, we've actually removed the ball"   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 37
    More: Asinine, no balls, soccer balls  
•       •       •

2555 clicks; posted to Sports » on 05 Sep 2013 at 6:06 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-05 03:03:12 PM
How long until that top line about it being satire is removed and this Fw: to you 8 times by your stupid cousin.
 
2013-09-05 03:18:47 PM
Oh my god the Washington Times is so stupid it believes obvious satire.
 
2013-09-05 03:32:18 PM
Idiots. The kids will still feel pressure over field position and who has the better imagination for where the ball is, etc.

I tell you, the sport won't be truly kid-safe until they remove the players from the game all together.
 
2013-09-05 04:20:57 PM
Hey, Moonie Times -- That was a stupid attempt at satire, and you should feel bad for copypasta-ing it and pretending that it in any way is yours.  While you're at it, you should stop pretending that you initially thought it was a real story.
 
2013-09-05 04:36:11 PM
I really hate it when people feel the need to overtly label things as satire.
But the worst part is that they actually do need to overtly label those things as satire.
 
2013-09-05 04:44:50 PM
Everyone point and laugh at Subby for thinking it's real.
 
2013-09-05 04:45:37 PM

maudibjr: How long until that top line about it being satire is removed and this Fw: to you 8 times by your stupid cousin.


I'm counting on this being posted on Facebook with a "this is what liberalism does!!!" rant.

PLEASE let it happen!
 
2013-09-05 04:49:29 PM
Editor's note: The following is a story based on satire originally created by OpposingViews.com

Can someone explain to me what this even means?

It's not satire, it's "based on satire?"
So that means it's real?
 
2013-09-05 04:51:22 PM

Theaetetus: Everyone point and laugh at Subby for thinking it's real.


It got him the greenlight didn't it?

/that's all that matters
 
2013-09-05 05:14:02 PM
The original story gets redlit, but the theft posted by Wa Times gets greenlit?!?!?
 
2013-09-05 05:32:54 PM

sigdiamond2000: Editor's note: The following is a story based on satire originally created by OpposingViews.com

Can someone explain to me what this even means?

It's not satire, it's "based on satire?"
So that means it's real?


Satireception?
 
2013-09-05 06:11:15 PM
LOL CONSERVATIVE HUMOR
 
2013-09-05 06:17:11 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Oh my god the Washington Times is so stupid it believes obvious satire.


Satire that came from Opposing Views, no less.  Jesus H. Christ, it's like fail cubed.
 
2013-09-05 06:23:29 PM
I heard that the liberals have removed actual teams because it makes kids feel sad.
 
2013-09-05 06:23:59 PM

mediablitz: The original story gets redlit, but the theft posted by Wa Times gets greenlit?!?!?


Here's your answer...

HMS_Blinkin: Satire that came from Opposing Views, no less.  Jesus H. Christ, it's like fail cubed.


The OV article didn't have enough fail, they needed fail cubed for greenlight.
 
2013-09-05 06:26:59 PM
Well somebody's balls need to be kicked.
 
2013-09-05 06:29:07 PM

sigdiamond2000: Editor's note: The following is a story based on satire originally created by OpposingViews.com

Can someone explain to me what this even means?

It's not satire, it's "based on satire?"
So that means it's real?


Not to defend the Times, but the grammar is cromulent.

It's like: "I visit Fark based on goodwill created by its members."
 
2013-09-05 06:29:18 PM
In my defense the Washington Times did not have the editors note at the time I submitted it. It isn't my fault, it is shotty journalism!
 
2013-09-05 06:59:47 PM
Either way real or satire, balls or balless theyd score roughly the same number of times
 
2013-09-05 07:05:03 PM
It's a well known media ploy to put these types of stories out there with a tag stating "this is satire" or "this is based on satire" knowing it will explode on social media and that the "tag" will somehow get lost in the wash.

They get hits, people comment, no harm done - except for that whole Muhammad movie Benghazi thing.
 
2013-09-05 07:06:01 PM
I can just hear all the Italian moms now: "hey, whatsamatter with you? How do you get grass stains on your uniform when you play without a ball?"
 
2013-09-05 07:12:05 PM
Soccer is already an non-competitive leisure activity for children in North America. The writer should have picked something more like a real sport to make fun of the cult of self-esteem.
 
2013-09-05 07:13:42 PM

Agent Nick Fury: It's a well known media ploy to put these types of stories out there with a tag stating "this is satire" or "this is based on satire" knowing it will explode on social media and that the "tag" will somehow get lost in the wash.

They get hits, people comment, no harm done - except for that whole Muhammad movie Benghazi thing.


I'm just waiting to find out that Putin and Obama shook hands satirically today.

Or was it an ironic handshake?
 
2013-09-05 08:03:38 PM

MrBallou: Idiots. The kids will still feel pressure over field position and who has the better imagination for where the ball is, etc.

I tell you, the sport won't be truly kid-safe until they remove the players from the game all together.


I wouldn't go as far as removing them. At least let them sit cross-legged on the field, eyes closed and verbally say who they are passing the ball to. Of course, this will work until everyone stops passing it to Billy, then his mom will complain and everyone will just sit quietly thinking about who they'd pass the ball too.
 
2013-09-05 08:13:04 PM

sigdiamond2000: Editor's note: The following is a story based on satire originally created by OpposingViews.com

Can someone explain to me what this even means?

It's not satire, it's "based on satire?"
So that means it's real?


It means that not only did the Washington Post fail to independently verify the veracity of the story before stealing it, they didn't even independently verify that the place they stole it from didn't itself steal the content.  This all came from This Is That, a satirical CBC radio show.
 
2013-09-05 08:19:30 PM
And speaking of failure, I meant the Washington Times, not the Post.
 
2013-09-05 08:28:43 PM

Resolute: And speaking of failure, I meant the Washington Times, not the Post.


Good save.

Would hate to have had the NSA read that the wrong way.
 
2013-09-05 09:24:40 PM
But, will anyone actually notice?
 
2013-09-05 10:03:48 PM
sigdiamond2000
Editor's note: The following is a story based on satire originally created by OpposingViews.com

Can someone explain to me what this even means?

It's not satire, it's "based on satire?"
So that means it's real?


It means the idiot of an author thought it was real and didn't bother to check (or even think).

In best "professional journalism, PAY FOR 'OUR' QUALITY CONTENT"-style, the author just copied and reworded an article he read on some other website.
The other website's author was regurgitating the content of a radio(?) show, but was too much of a moran to realize he was listening to a satire show.

So you end up with an article "based on satire".
 
2013-09-05 11:15:51 PM

gfid: Agent Nick Fury: It's a well known media ploy to put these types of stories out there with a tag stating "this is satire" or "this is based on satire" knowing it will explode on social media and that the "tag" will somehow get lost in the wash.

They get hits, people comment, no harm done - except for that whole Muhammad movie Benghazi thing.

I'm just waiting to find out that Putin and Obama shook hands satirically today.

Or was it an ironic handshake?


Can't be ironic if they're not hipsters.

Unsure whether Obama liked M83 before they were cool.
 
2013-09-05 11:18:05 PM
Ricky the penguin: the spread is too damn high!Broncos: lol, no.
 
2013-09-05 11:27:01 PM
Will they still allow flopping and fake injuries?
 
2013-09-06 12:05:11 AM
This fake article still proves that rocks should be thrown at kids who play soccer.
 
2013-09-06 12:12:50 AM
Okay, this is a start.  Next we need to remove all the restrictive things that still exist in soccer like the lines, the goals, coaches, refs and stop cutting the grass.  After all that you would get more attention as folks will wonder why there is a bunch of stupid kids running around a field in their underwear.
 
2013-09-06 12:52:00 AM

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: gfid: Agent Nick Fury: It's a well known media ploy to put these types of stories out there with a tag stating "this is satire" or "this is based on satire" knowing it will explode on social media and that the "tag" will somehow get lost in the wash.

They get hits, people comment, no harm done - except for that whole Muhammad movie Benghazi thing.

I'm just waiting to find out that Putin and Obama shook hands satirically today.

Or was it an ironic handshake?

Can't be ironic if they're not hipsters.

Unsure whether Obama liked M83 before they were cool.



When was M83 ever not cool?

messier.seds.org

Silly hipsters.
 
2013-09-06 08:39:58 AM

Unoriginal_Username: I wouldn't go as far as removing them. At least let them sit cross-legged on the field, eyes closed and verbally say who they are passing the ball to.


This is horribly offensive to children without legs.  Also, children with speech impediments will not be able to fully enjoy the game this way.  Why do you hate children, you farking monster?

lack of warmth: After all that you would get more attention as folks will wonder why there is a bunch of stupid kids running around a field in their underwear.


chrishanson.jpeg
 
2013-09-06 12:32:26 PM
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report