“This” being
The comment sent me down a rabbit hole.
In 1955, Confdential magazine published an article “Does Desi love Lucy?” that pretty explicitly told of his dalliances with other women (including prostitutes)
Although not in that article, a reference to his indifference is documented.
So was the Russian Empire and many others.
If you aren’t playing for money, you’re playing for some other reason. If you want money, you’d be playing some other sport, or working for a living.
If you want a fair competition, one of the steps you take is to avoid gambling, and if you avoid gambling, there is no money to pay the participants.
One the one hand, that’s not a universal rule. On the other hand, it’s still true today: gambling is paying for the professional sports, and it has a corrupting influence that (1) requires constant supervision and (2) is resulting in rule changes across all the affected sports.
Because it’s a mortal insult.
That’s part of the reason why the south was and is more polite than the north: the north didn’t do duelling.
It’s a given that there was a difference between “Gentlemen” and “Players”, but I’m not sure that’s the right way around for early FIFA?
I’ve got the idea that England couldn’t compete in the World Cup because the UK was already professional, which FIFA didn’t accept. It wasn’t the “English Gentlemen” who were objecting. I may be wrong / you may be right.
Maybe that was supposed to be the point of amateur games, but it sure seems less than compelling.
-Everybody wants money.
-Most people aren’t good enough to play on a paying team.
-Some want money more than others.
-Unless a person is rich or a student, they work for a living (in addition to playing sports).
-People get themselves into debt.
-People like to bet on games.
-Sometimes players are threatened into throwing a game.
Ok, well the observed history seems to be against you.
Since when is the South polite?
The observed history of lots and lots of betting on amateur sports?
From my reading, all dueling societies were wildly hypocritical. They made a vast show out of politeness, deference, and protection in order to have excuses to publicly chastise offenders with a display of their outsized manhood. Dueling cultures were run by would-be alpha men who scorned and bullied all lower creatures: women, workmen, foreigners, and in the American south blacks whether slave or free. Although not every member of the haughty class was wealthy, only societies with vast wealth inequalities could afford to develop such classes.
Duelers stink. A pox upon them all.
Yeah, they were the more reasonable and humane society. Ending your sentences with “ma’am” or “sir” OTOH is just decorum for nobody’s sake.
See Thomas Sowell’s “Black Rednecks” for a review of traditional Southern white “honor” culture, a culture that was barely explicable given that crack and meth hadn’t been invented yet.
When once asked about my opinion about duelling, a long time ago, I spontaneously answered “I would never, ich bin nicht satisfaktionfähig”. Only later I realized that I don’t know how to say that neither in Spanish nor in English. Because in German duelling tradition it took a certain standing, for lack of a better word, to be considered worthy of duelling, that is, to be satisfaktionsfähig (note that this wikipage only links to translations in Russian, Ukrainian, and Esperanto 
). Jews, for instance, were of course excluded from this “privilege”. I wonder whether @EinsteinsHund, @Schnitte or anybody else can help me here.
Oh, and yes a pox upon them all indeed.
I have no idea how to translate “nicht satisfaktionsfähig” into English, but of course I know the meaning. It’s “you’re below your ranks to be given the chance for getting satisfaction in a duel against someone nobler”, but there’s not one word that captures it.
At first I thought, using vibe etymologies, that it meant something like “below the level that can demand satisfaction” or something like that.
Yeah, you’re absolutely on the right track.
That is correct, but “below the level that can grant satisfaction (by losing the duell, or even dying)” is correcter. But both interpretations go hand in hand, of course.
A big factor in this was the difference between honor and dignity. In the South, honor was extremely important. In the North, dignity was more important.
The problem is that when your society is based on honor, it’s very easy to insult one’s honor. People need to defend their honor, and dueling was one way to do it.
But when your society is based on dignity, you remain dignified in the face of insults, which means you ignore them or give a verbal put-down. Your goal is to not lower yourself to their level.
I thought there was already a thread like this but I can’t seem to find it. So …
Today I learned the the marmalade that I’ve loved all my life is not in fact called Dundee Marmalade (as in the brand name), but it’s actually James Keiller & Sons Dundee Marmalade.
And, sadly, it’s gone out of business, or at least has been bought and sold into unrecognizeability 
Yes, this is what I was looking for. Thanks for the move!
Dundee marmalade is a style of marmalade - named for and originating in the Scottish city.
It may seem a weird place for it, as oranges can’t survive outside in the area, but it’s a big fruit producing district known for jams, and has a busy port. The Seville oranges they use were available imported later in the year than the local fruit, so I believe the marmalade was originally developed to allow the jam manufacturers to keep the factories operating through the winter, after the local fruit season was finished.
Have you tried any other Dundee style ones? There’s quite a few available in Scotland at least; Mackays is one of the commoner brands and I think they export a fair bit. They claim their recipe was developed from the original Keiller one, having poached some former staff back in the 1970s.