trophy

[Demmerz]

I'd like to suggest that some sort of comical headgear would be appropriate. A silly bandana, a clapping hat or one of those umbrellas that sits on your head would all be perfect.

Perhaps a T-Shirt could be the answer? "Kiss me quick, squeeze me slowly" should do the trick.

[Mattb]

Or the Classic:

I'm With Stupid

------>

Very appropriate

Matt

[Nil Satis]

Ladies and Gentlemen, call off the dogs, your search has ended:



I thang you!

[Istenem]

okay the trophy is sorted now, i hope to post a pic in due course.
many thanks to those who organised it (you know who you are).

Bob, since you keep shirking challenges i guess you are the reigning champion still, PM me to organise a ceremonial crowning.

[Istenem]

hope this works.

[fotherz]

Brewers?

I salute you.

[Istenem]

good spying Fotherz, the last port of call for the lazy hack
here is the plaque on the front.

[Ernest W. Quality]

Isn't it a bit big for discreet pub presentations? And where is the Blue Riband (wrapper) ornamentation? But well played anyway. Can sort of half see you in the reflection I think.

[Istenem]

who said anything about discretion? the trophy is also accompanied by a couple of semi-naked floozies and a full oompah band.

as for seeing me in the reflection, handsome brute aren't i? :x

[Ernest W. Quality]

I just thought that tacky shittiness was going to be an important quality in the prize. It should make you embarrassed to display. And surely "World Cup" is a bit strong, given that the game is only to be found in Britain, and there's only ever been three matches. Seems more like the sort of thing to be awarded for the best ever score. Or maybe you could clone it and have two.

It just so happens I have a spare table-football trophy which wasn't used last year. It is small though. Maybe it can be titled "Outstanding achievement in the Field of Excellence", like that Simpson's episode.

As for Bob being the reigning champion, his own rules clearly stated that he had to accept any challenge, so he's broken those. I guess Fotherz would therefore be the champ if he wants.

[Guest]

I just thought that tacky shittiness was going to be an important quality in the prize. It should make you embarrassed to display. And surely "World Cup" is a bit strong, given that the game is only to be found in Britain, and there's only ever been three matches. Seems more like the sort of thing to be awarded for the best ever score. Or maybe you could clone it and have two.

Dammit Ernest, stop whining - this is UP's baby. The trophy looks great! And 'World Cup' isn't strong, PRECISELY because the game is not found outside of Britain it is correct to call the top UK player the best in the world!

Furthermore, we can call whatever we like, because it's only a GAME played between a few friends and I doubt the crushing semantic solecism (if it is indeed such) of calling the cup a 'world cup' would bar us entry at the pearly gates!

As for Bob being the reigning champion, his own rules clearly stated that he had to accept any challenge, so he's broken those. I guess Fotherz would therefore be the champ if he wants.

My rules clearly state that the champ must have due notice on a challenge - quote them back to me if you disagree: they're posted on this site! If Fotherz had wanted it, he would have given notice and then beaten me. Of course, all he was really after on the day was to wind me up, as otherwise he would have told me about the challenge the day before. This was obviously the case, as he has certainly not issued a challenge since.

[Ernest W. Quality]

My rules clearly state that the champ must have due notice on a challenge - quote them back to me if you disagree: they're posted on this site!

The rules: http://www.fruitchat.co.uk/viewtopic.ph ... &start=343

Note rule 3 "all challenges must be accepted by the champion". Note also the ensuing discussion where your additional "rule" about due notice was revealed to be a tacked-on afterthought. Note also that the format or nature of the challenge is not specified.

[Guest]

Note rule 3 "all challenges must be accepted by the champion". Note also the ensuing discussion where your additional "rule" about due notice was revealed to be a tacked-on afterthought. Note also that the format or nature of the challenge is not specified.

The due notice thing is merely common sense, you pointlessly pedantic penis. It's to stop ppl from challenging the champ when he or she is not in a fit state. In any case, rule 3 as it originally was does not oblige the champ to fulfil the challenge IMMEDIATELY, does it? That is why the 'tacked-on afterthought' was needed - for clarification. The likes of you obviously require an infinite arsenal of hair-splitting subrules to prevent your brain melting in the fiery chaos that has immolated what was once your common sense.

Anyway, isn't one day's notice enough for you? Could the challenger not muster the feeble foresight required to predict that 'I might just be in the vicinity of the champion tomorrow and so should challenge him now, to forewarn him'? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way).

Please stop trying to be smart, Ernest - especially about things that do not directly concern you.

[Ernest W. Quality]

The due notice thing is merely common sense, you pointlessly pedantic penis. It's to stop ppl from challenging the champ when he or she is not in a fit state. In any case, rule 3 as it originally was does not oblige the champ to fulfil the challenge IMMEDIATELY, does it?

I'm not disputing that it may be a suitable additional rule, you anally alliterative assgoblin, I'm pointing out that it is not part of your listed rules which you so vehemently demanded I quote.
It is a clearly advisable rule to have, but you don't have it, by consequence of your own incompetent rulemaking. Neither do you have a standard vague get-out rule such as "in any disputes common sense will prevail". Indeed it would have been precisely common sense to have such a rule.

That is why the 'tacked-on afterthought' was needed - for clarification. The likes of you obviously require an infinite arsenal of hair-splitting subrules

Nonsense, I'm just refuting your claim yesterday that your rules are sensible. You shouldn't confuse your inability to construct a robust protocol, such as that used in almost any sport/game, with the difference between 5 and infinity, especially now you are meant to be a maths teacher.

The merest effort would have been sufficient, for example: "a challenger may become the new champion only by beating the current champion in a pre-arranged match of mutually accepted format, date and venue."

Anyway, isn't one day's notice enough for you? Could the challenger not muster the feeble foresight required to predict that 'I might just be in the vicinity of the champion tomorrow and so should challenge him now, to forewarn him'?

Why would he want to, when by the given rules there was no need to do so? If anything the opposite is encouraged, i.e. the challenger could secretly prepare in advance without informing the holder of the impending challenge.

Please stop trying to be smart, Ernest - especially about things that do not directly concern you.

I am not simply trying to wind you up for the sake of it, I am interested in taking part and hence am interested in knowing what to expect. Is it OK to impose new rules and apply them retroactively? Who is allowed to make such amendments?

[Guest]

The due notice thing is merely common sense, you pointlessly pedantic penis. It's to stop ppl from challenging the champ when he or she is not in a fit state. In any case, rule 3 as it originally was does not oblige the champ to fulfil the challenge IMMEDIATELY, does it?

I'm not disputing that it may be a suitable additional rule, you anally alliterative assgoblin, I'm pointing out that it is not part of your listed rules which you so vehemently demanded I quote.
It is a clearly advisable rule to have, but you don't have it, by consequence of your own incompetent rulemaking. Neither do you have a standard vague get-out rule such as "in any disputes common sense will prevail". Indeed it would have been precisely common sense to have such a rule.

That is why the 'tacked-on afterthought' was needed - for clarification. The likes of you obviously require an infinite arsenal of hair-splitting subrules

Nonsense, I'm just refuting your claim yesterday that your rules are sensible. You shouldn't confuse your inability to construct a robust protocol, such as that used in almost any sport/game, with the difference between 5 and infinity, especially now you are meant to be a maths teacher.

The merest effort would have been sufficient, for example: "a challenger may become the new champion only by beating the current champion in a pre-arranged match of mutually accepted format, date and venue."

Anyway, isn't one day's notice enough for you? Could the challenger not muster the feeble foresight required to predict that 'I might just be in the vicinity of the champion tomorrow and so should challenge him now, to forewarn him'?

Why would he want to, when by the given rules there was no need to do so? If anything the opposite is encouraged, i.e. the challenger could secretly prepare in advance without informing the holder of the impending challenge.

Please stop trying to be smart, Ernest - especially about things that do not directly concern you.

I am not simply trying to wind you up for the sake of it, I am interested in taking part and hence am interested in knowing what to expect. Is it OK to impose new rules and apply them retroactively? Who is allowed to make such amendments?

I agree.