All P.O.W. presentations by Ariel Mazzarelli, except for "Sweden in the 1994 
World Cup" (awarded by yours truly).

[-] P.O.W. meant as a flame
[+] P.O.W. meant as a compliment
 *  P.O.W. nominee 

  early 1994	[-] English League (Arthur J Manners) 
Mar 15, 1994*	[-] Penalty appeal (John Neumann)
Apr 22, 1994	[-] "Colombia" (Hakkim Wong)
Nov 19, 1994	[-] Sweden in the 1994 World Cup (Jakob Jonsson)
May  5, 1995	[-] Matthew Le Tissier (Simon Moore, with reply)
Jul  6, 1995	[+] Dedicated US fan (Dan Goshin)
Jul 22, 1995	[-] World Cup 1978 (Ricardo Amaral) 
Sep 22, 1995	[-] Advertiser's logo vs commercials (Dustin Christmann) 
Dec 11, 1995	[-] Dutch ECQ (Jack van Rijswijck) + P.O.W. guidelines
Dec 11, 1995*	[-] Pele vs. Maradona (Luiz Monteiro Franca Neto) 

From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS POST OF THE WEEK [English League] 
Date: early 1994
Este tipo estaba muy, muy en pedo cuando escribio esto. Therefore I do not 
hesitate (y eso que esta semana el rss se ha llenado de brasucas) in 
awarding the RSS Post of the Week award to our friend A.J.  
Una palabra esta semana, pa' que aprendan algo de ingles: solipsism. While 
you are busy fetching Webster's, you might also look up "cosmopolitan", and 
whenever you come across the word "Guyana" in the post, refer to "non 
sequitur" and "irrelevant". Y pa' los que ya saben lo que quieren decir 
estas palabras, disculpen lo fastidioso que fue este parrafo. 
The original subject was "Why the high % of English posts" or something like 
that, lo borre y me nefrega. 
Arthur J Manners  wrote: 
>In criticising the number of England fans on this net surely you 
>are missing the point. This is an English speaking file so you 
>are hardly likely to get vast numbers of Hungarian fans for example 
>on it. As the state of league football in the US is dismall that 
>only really leaves the English league were 4 nations players play 
>(Eire, N.Ireland,England and Wales) plus a load of Scots. 
>The English league, with the exception of Italy, is the best in 
>the world, and the FA Cup is the greatest cup competition in the 
>world. I would also say that the English league is probably the 
>most cosmopolitan league in the world. How many US players play 
>in the English game? 
>While talking of Guyanan football would be interesting (not) it is 
>not the national sport, cricket is and it has no league structure 
>as such. 
>There are loads of Americans interested in English football so why 
>slag off the proportions of users. Surely if 95% of people on this 
>system are England fans it shows the support football has as opposed 
>to the US or places such as Guyana. 

From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: YOU MAKE THE CALL [Penalty appeal] 
Date: 15 Mar 1994 03:17:58 GMT 
John Neumann RFTC wrote: 
>[His kid was offsides but tried to score anyway, so the defender elbowed 
> him on the head. The referee noticed the elbow first and the offside later, 
> so Dad thinks it should have been a penalty kick and wants to spend $200 
> appealing the call.] 
Pull the other one, it has bells on it. 

PS: A very firm candidate for Post of the Week. 

From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: World Champions '94 - Rep. of Ireland 
Date: 22 Apr 1994 
> writes: 
>> ROBINSA@IBM3090.BHAM.AC.UK writes: 
>>>Columbia ? 
>>The name of the country is CULUMBIA, not COLUMBIA 
>Well, actually it is "Colombia"... 
Post Of The Week! 
From: (Gustaaf Van Moorsel) 
Subject: Re: Teofilo Cubillas (was: Re: Telemundo s 
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 94 14:13:47 GMT 
>Peru is a true revelation of Mexico 70 with Sotil, Champitaz, Cubillas. 
I understand the reluctance to use the vowel 'u' excessively in South-American 
names, but wasn't it 'Chumpitaz'? 
Gustaaf - Culumbia for the cup - van Moorsel 

From: (Stig Oppedal) 
Subject: Return of RSS Post Of The Week (Re: I Survived The Scandinavian Bronze Age) 
Date: November 18, 1994 
All right, who bamboozled the Swedish newbies into thinking that the winner 
of RSS Post Of The Week was entitled to a "fantasy weekend" with Liv Ullmann?  
>From the outset of the Scandinavian Bronze Age debacle, three candidates have 
been a cut above the rest:  

Ahrvid Engholm: refused to "argue with the zillions of more or less biased 
views" in my post, deciding instead to argue with something I never wrote. 
Fredrik "Breadhead" Osterberg: wondered if I spontaneously lashed out at 
Swedish-looking people on the street. 
Kurt Swanson: admitted he had no idea of what he was talking about, but 
decided to lie about what I wrote and flame me all the same. 
It was a tough choice.  
Then, out of nowhere, this week's undisputed winner made its triumphant 
appearance. I didn't really want to flame the poster, as he made the only 
attempt to rebuff what I actually wrote, but on the other hand I knew the 
suffering his reply would have caused Ariel Mazzarelli (the now awol 
presenter of POTW). 
So, in the comforting knowledge that, wherever he may be, at least Ariel 
was spared the pain of reading the offending piece, I give you the RSS Post 
Of The Week: 
-------------------------------------------- (Jakob Jonsson)  
Subject: Re: I Survived The Scandinavian Bronze Age 
Date: November 18, 1994 
[comment on how I couldn't possibly have ever seen Thomas Brolin in action, 
since he is actually a "great player", mercifully snipped] 
Stig Oppedal claimed that the Swedes were very lucky to meet Saudi Arabia, 
instead of "better" teams like Belgium or Argentina. Well, S.A. actually 
defeated Belgium. Argentina, weak without Maradona, lost to Bulgaria and 
Romania - Sweden won against both Bulgaria and Romania! So you couldn't 
possibly say that Sweden had an easier ride to the quarterfinals than eg 
Germany or Romania, since Argentina and Belgium were not better than Saudi 
From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS POST OF THE WEEK [Matthew Le Tissier] 
Date: May 5, 1995 
First of all, I would like to apologize to the hundreds of English posters 
whose fine efforts died with a single pressing of the "k" key. Alas, in this 
era of over 1,000 weekly posts, RSS can no longer be properly monitored 
without some decision being taken as to which sort of topic will be summarily 
English futbol is the natural choice. 
Nonetheless, one must be careful, for there are genuine gems hidden amidst 
so much fungus. Witness the following fine effort, which with merely one 
sentence (well, two, actually, because the writer misplaced a period) 
manages to outshine even the born-again Jespero, and show to the world the 
fine insular qualities of the English fan. 
In deference to the clueless (I don't discriminate, specially in official 
matters like this one), I have underlined the sentence. 
>From Fri May 5 14:31:03 PDT 1995 (Shaggy) writes:  
>[tales of MLT's derring-do deleted] 
> If a player of this stature cannot get in the national side, I am not  
> interested in it. 
You don't mention how (if) he came back to defend when (if) Palace mounted 
an attack. And  what about his ability to tackle? Never mind about him 
creating 375 chances a game & being  the highest scoring midfielder in the 
Premiership. He just doesn't have what it takes to play for England. Brazil 
or Italy maybe, but never England.
If I were Venables, I'd give him another chance, perhaps in goal or at left 
From: (Simon Moore) 
Date: May 8, 1995 
For the hard-of-understanding like Ariel I was merely trying to point out 
that other international teams seem to like "flair" players whereas England 
seems very suspicious towards them and doesn't like to play them.  
From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS POST OF THE WEEK [Dedicated US fan] 
Date: July 6, 1995 
You know, sometimes it has been (erroneously) assumed that to be given this 
award is equivalent to being flamed. It ain't necessarily so! 
Granted, there were some of those this week. A certain MJP is going for the 
Jesper Trophy, but of course that is another competition altogether. One of 
the prerequisites of the P.O.W., after all, is that it is worth reading at 
least once. 
Other candidates failed because of predictability--since the world's second 
most prestigious tournament is about to begin, one would expect some 
ridiculous predictions to be placed here. I will grant you that to claim 
that the USA or Mexico are going to win Copa America is unusually absurd, 
but it is still, in some sense, predictable. 
And finally, there were some posts suggesting that futbol would soon be 
dominated by players from New Jersey who are over 2 meters tall. 
Cluelessness is an important factor in the P.O.W. competition, but in 
excess, it becomes counterproductive. 
So on to this week's winner... if anything speaks volumes about being a 
futbol fan in the USA, its quasilegal status, is that... you need a fake ID 
to watch the games--or the lovely 'magic box' for pay-per-view events, for 
that matter. I think it is time for Bill Clinton to step up and grant us 
some sort of amnesty, eh? 
From: (Samarmy) 
Subject: Re: pro soccer in the US ? mmmmh ..... not right now !!!  
Date: 4 Jul 1995 
I have to disagree with you.I am 15, and my friends and I do not stop 
thinking about the sport.We watch it on tv, go to games,and play in the 
parks nearly everyday.We are not the onlyones either.Its not that soccer 
is not a part of everyday life,its that it is not availible for us to see 
on a daily basis.I find myself setting my alarm during the soccer season(at 
4 am) just to watch Italian Serie A highlights, or a Premier League match.I 
have friends who skip school to watch the Champions League final, or the FA 
Cup final, friends who get fake ids just so they can go to the local pub to 
watch the Priemier league game of the week.So I take it as a personal insult 
when you say that soccer is not a part of our everyday life.Cause it is, and 
it would be even more so if it was readily availible. 
CHEERS! Dan Goshin 
From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS Post of the Week [World Cup 1978] 
Date: July 22, 1995 
Although I was myself nominated for this award this week, I cannot in good 
conscience be both referee and participant.  
There were, of course, an unusual number of candidates for this award. In 
the end, however, I decided to select the post that best displayed the 
humility, objectivity, and deep understanding of the game that one may find 
in the typical brasilero posting on RSS.  
As a preamble to the award, let me note how the world cup in 1978 unfolded 
for Argentina and Brasil: 
Argentina beat Hungary 2-1, France 2-1, then lost to Italia 1-0 and finished 
second in its group. 
Brasil drew Sweden 1-1, Espa~a 0-0, and beat Austria 1-0, finishing second 
in its group. 
Thus Brasil and Argentina were paired in the same semifinal group, together 
with Poland and Peru. The winner of the group would go on to the final. 
In that second round, Brasil beat Peru 3-0, drew Argentina 0-0, then beat 
Poland 3-1. 
Argentina beat Poland 2-0, drew Brasil 0-0, and beat Peru 6-0. To reach the 
final, Argentina had to beat Peru by the same three-goal margin as Brasil, 
but needed an additional goal to draw level on total goal count. Hence a 
3-0 victory would have put Brasil in, a 4-1 victory would have led to a coin 
flip, and a 5-2 victory would have put Argentina in the final. 
In the third-place game, Brasil beat Italia 2-1, and Argentina beat 
Netherlands 3-1 in extra time. 
A big thanx to those that maintain the RSSF archives (eg Karel) at 
So here, complete with the unique type-setting, I give you the RSS Post of 
the Week! 
From: Ricardo Amaral   
Subject: Re: News : Fifa orders a Arg x Bra rematch!!!!!  
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 
 On 21 July 1995, Ricardo wrote: 
 Dear Sergio: 
 The biggest scandal in World Cup history was in 1978 when Brazil got  
eliminated eventhough Brazil had not lost a game, when Argentina had 
lost a game to Italy. 
 When came time for a tie breaker between Brazil and Argentina they 
should move Brazil on instead of Argentina, because Brazil had not 
lost a game.  
 They decided to fix the best way they could for Argentina to play 
in the final game. Brazil and Argentina had one last game to see 
who would move on to play in the final. 
 Brazil had three goals advantage over Argentina before they played  
that semi-final game. 
 They arranged for Brazil to play the first game, which Brazil beat 
Poland 3 X 1, by the end of that game the Brazilian advantage in the 
tie breaker with Argentina was 6 ( six ) goals. 
 Peru had been playing very well until that semi-final game with Argentina 
in which they lost 6 X 0. If there was ever a major scandal in soccer 
which needed investigation for game fixing was that victory of Argentina. 
 The World Cup played in Argentina in 1978, in which Argentina had to fix  
for them to play in the final game, It is a big black mark in the World 
Cup history. 
 The other great powers of soccer Brazil, Italy, Germany, and Uruguay earned 
the World Cup in the soccer field. 
 If I was an Argentinian I would be embarassed about that game with Peru, 
because it was too obvious that the game was fixed in favor of Argentina. 
If I remember correctly the Peruvian goalkeeper was born in Argentina and 
had a Peruvian citizenship, this puts another black mark on that game. 
 If there's a World Cup that should be taken away from anybody, would be 
the 1978 CUP in Argentina. 
 When I read in the newspaper about game fixing in any sport, the first  
thing that come to mind was that game Argentina X Peru in the 1978 
World Cup. I will never forget that game, and what Argentina had to do 
to win a World Cup. 
From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS Post of the Week  
Date: Sep 22, 1995 [Advertiser's logo vs commercials] 
Due to a variety of factors, from a rather spotty news access to an alarming 
growth of provincialism on rss, we have not been able to award the Post of 
the Week award for several weeks. 
Today marks the end of the dry spell. The category under which falls the 
following post might be described as 'momentary loss of faculty to see the 
obvious'. In a more clinical vein, 'brainwashing'. The one I prefer is 
described by its punishment, which is to go up to the blackboard and write 
one hundred times Nancy Reagan's dictum, "Just say no". 
As a way of introduction, the post was interred several nodes upwind from a 
root message that attempted the difficult task of approximating futbol with 
anything played for money in the US. After several mutations (which went 
unlabelled in the subject header), it ended thus... 
From: Dustin Christmann  
Subject: Re: Why is soccer more exciting than US sports?  
Date: 19 Sep 1995 (WMillerXXX) wrote:  
>Are you happy with the logo blocking the picture? You must be employed by  
>an advertising agency. Why should USA viewers have to accept this when the  
>rest of the world has a clear picture?? 
Once again: 
I am happy with advertisers logos on a corner of the screen AS THE BEST 
Thanx, Dustin "And I'm employed by a telecom company, BTW" Christmann 
From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: Ariel, please monitor this person (was Re: Wacky Frogs)  
Date: Dec 12, 1995  
Dustin Christmann  wrote:  
> I'm sure she'll utter a pearl eventually that will be worthy of the 
>RSS Post of the Week. As a former recipient, I should know. :^) 
You know, the winners of the award are rarely considered as consultants, but 
we may make an exception in your case. 
Nonetheless I believe that Mr. Rosa (or is it Ms. Patrick?) has not quite 
met the P.O.W. criteria (as outlined in another post). I'm sure there will 
be more chances as the Eurocopa approaches. 
From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: RSS POST OF THE WEEK [Dutch ECQ + P.O.W. guidelines] 
Date: Dec 11, 1995 
There have been several nominations for this week's award, of varying degrees 
of merit. Let me clarify some confusion on some of the parameters for this 
1. The post is worth reading at all. 
This is the trickiest parameter, and a perennial source of confusion. Just 
because a post is absurd, chauvinistic, ignorant, poorly written, poorly 
edited, and a gross violation of netiquette, it need NOT qualify for the 
P.O.W. award. So remember, if the thought that runs through your head as 
you read the post is  
"I wish I had just simply deleted this", 
then the post is NOT P.O.W. material. To give a specific example, this is 
why Mr. Rosberg@Norway's posts are unlikely to ever win the award. 
2. The award is not necessarily a flame. 
Sometimes a post is good enough to win the award even though it is a good 
post. You must decide on your own whether that was the case or not. 
3. The post is at least a little bit original. 
Most posts fail this condition. In fact, almost all posts on RSS do. This is 
why a post that regurgitates Havelange's programme (say), in crass and 
uninspired language, will usually not be a P.O.W. It is possible for a post 
to express less-than-original concepts in an original manner, and then of 
course it would be eligible. 
4. I must have read the post. 
This is mostly intended to be an incentive to successfully correlate the 
subject of a post with what the "Subject:" line says, and to post on subjects 
that we actually care about. For example, 97% of posts that refer exclusively 
to the English league would automatically be excluded; if the occasional gem 
is buried within a thread titled, say, "LIVERPOOL RULES EVERTON SUX", then 
I encourage you to repost it with the prefix "RSS Post of the Week Nominee". 
Please do not abuse this suggestion. 
Finally, let me add that the competition is simultaneously subjective (I 
pick the post, and it is based on how I feel about the post) and objective 
(no one is better qualified to pick them). 
Now let me apologize for the less-than-weekly frequency of the award. It is 
due to three factors: 
a) Sometimes it takes more than a week to post a winner, b) My news site is 
a bit erratic, c) Sometimes I have better things to do than read 200 RSS 
Now that that is settled, on to this week's winner. 
Uefa is not known for being sensible, so when they are that, they should 
receive the credit. Thus, regarding the qualfication scheme for Eurocopa '96, 
if you compare two teams that play in different groups, you are of course 
doing something unnatural. This is made worse by the fact that there are 
some ridiculously weak teams in Europe; therefore, what seems rather wise 
is what was done--you do not count the results against the weaker teams in 
a group, when comparing two teams from different groups. 
And what could be a better determinant of what constitutes a weaker team than 
its results? Surely we would not prefer that the Coca-Cola rankings be used. 
The poster below would rather take into account Netherland's results against 
Luxembourg (!) than Belarus. Personally, I would be embarrassed to post 
something like 
"If we are good enough to sweep Luxembourg, we deserve to go to the Eurocopa". 
Finally, if you post that it is unfair that your team did not qualify because 
Malta failed to win any particular game, you may well have posted the 
From: (Jack van Rijswijck) 
Subject: Re: Why Holland?  
Date: 5 Dec 1995 
John Savage ( wrote:  
> If the playoff in the European nations Cup is for the two second-place  
> qualifiers with the worst record, why is Holland in it? Holland had 20  
> points from 10 games, a better record than Turkey's 15 points from 8 games. 
In order to make the qualifying scheme more complicated, the UEFA came up with 
the following ingenuity. In deciding which teams are the `worst' runners-up, 
only the results against the nrs. 1, 3, and 4 in the group count. This led 
to the phenomenon that the Dutch team are sent to Liverpool because of the 
match Malta - Belarus. 
See, Belarus won that match and therefore ended 4th in the group. For the 
Dutch team this meant that their results against Belarus, being 1-0 and 0-1, 
were counted. If Belarus had not won that match, then Luxemburg would have 
ended 4th, Belarus 5th, the 5-0 and 6-0 against Luxemburg would have counted, 
and some other team would have to travel to Liverpool to take on Ireland. 
From: (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Subject: Re: Maradona OR Pele! who's better? (it was: Brazil knock down Argentina !!!) 
Date: Dec 11, 1995 
This is an example of "campaigning" for the RSS Post of the Week that will 
simply not work.  
Luiz Monteiro Franca Neto  wrote:  
>On 10 Dec 1995, MJP wrote:  
>> I will repeat so you get it right...stats are decieving and misleading.  
>> I make judgements from what I see and that's that! I have seen Pele play  
>> many many times, and I have watched Maradona play many many times. From  
>> what I have seen MARADONA was the better player. He did successfully  
>> de-throne Pele in the 1986 World Cup after he scored the second goal  
>> against England. It was at that very moment that I became convinced that  
>> Maradona is the best the World has ever produced! 
The alert RSSer will note the comment embedded in mid-paragraph, and ask 
himself, "did Diego scored both golazos against England with His hand?" 
Let's see how else you are hoping to enlighten us... 
>This is a pearl of Arghentinian "clear" thinking. What a shame!  
>"Statistics are deceiving" and blah-blah-blah. Only the very  
>emotional and subjective ARGHentinian (narrow) point of view counts!  
>"I make my judgements from what I see and that's that!" Wow! That  
>was cruel!  
>Please, give me a break!  
>These guys are just too emotional! Let's try to be rational, will you? 
Yes, let's. And MJP, I think it is about time that you admitted that you are 
>Let's try again, maybe this time it works:  
It is not nice to quote your (ex?)girlfriend on RSS. Another reason why your 
post is not a P.O.W. 
>Pele: more than one thousand goals in professional  
>games, and the *only* man THREE times World Cup champion.  
So you think that Pele was the reason that Brasil won the world cups of 1958 
and 1962. Ok. It is time that I look up "emotional" and "rational", I thought 
I knew what these words meant, but English is not my native language.... 
>Should be noted that Brazil won WC in 58, 62, (missed66),won 70, and  
>94. Pele's presence as the Best player in the best team in the world  
>(Brazil) spans from more than only the period from 58 to 70.  
Hmmm... I am curious about Pele's influence in the 1994 tournament, perhaps 
you could enlighten us on that. You might also enlighten us on why he missed 
the 1974 tournament (was it the lawsuit?). 
>superior soccer talent and *consistency*.  
I cannot understand the sentence in all-caps. Was Pele better than Garrincha 
in 1958, and does anything that Pele did for the Cosmos count? 
>And now, using parts of the post by Manoel Mendonca (with some capitals  
>made by me): 
I would love to be able to analyze what you wrote below, but alas, your posting 
technique leaves a bit to be desired here. Let me give you a couple of tips: 
1. it is important for you to separate what you write from what other people 
write, 2. when making such a separation, it is important to tell us who wrote 
>[Incomprehensible collage deleted] 
>Now, dear MJP, try to add some data on Maradona's record! Try to show us  
>Maradona's achievement that could back your argument in his favor.  
>But, please don't be EMOTIONAL! Don't come with "I judge from what I saw"!  
Yes, by all means, do not use what you see as a basis for your judgement. 
>This would not convince anybody, not even Madre Thereza of Calcuta'! 
Well it is certainly refreshing to find a poster on RSS that cites his 
sources, and yours is truly innovative.  
>And by the way, if you want to just compare Maradona's nicest plays.  
>Please don't try this direction.  
I assume that English is not your native language, so tell me, does 
Portuguese use periods differently from the rest? I will not ascribe the 
logical flaws of these sentences to your language, however, as there are a 
couple of theorems that clearly prove that a speaker's language is not the 
cause of the absurdity of his claims. 
>Pele's nicest games spans for more than 12 YEARS, and it would  
>be very boring for us to cite examples in such "endless" sea of  
>inspired plays made by Pele over those years! 
First of all, an accurate recollection of great plays is not only not boring, 
it is in fact an excellent reason to post. This deep into your post, however, 
it is not surprising that you do not share my criteria on what is and what 
is not a good post. 
Proceeding, if we were to adopt your methodology, then our English readers 
would be delighted to discover that Sir Stanley Matthews was the greatest 
player ever! Angel Labruna would be second, I presume, althought Roger Milla 
would certainly be in the running. 
However, I assume from the tenor of your post that your futbol culture could 
not encompass such a wide berth, so let's stick to a comparison between 
Diego and Pele. Diego began to play professionally in 1976, now here is a 
little algebra (a rational method, I believe): 
1976+13 = 1989, 
and note that 13 > 12, 
so I suppose that you are either saying that  
a) Diego stopped playing nice games after 1988, or  
b) Diego did not play any nice games in 1976. 
I think that your attempt to establish the above disjunction effectively 
settles what place we would give you in any forum that would choose to 
debate the relative merits of Pele and Diego. Thank you for participating,