"We Are the Champions" and GP?

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

Jbot, I'm not sure why it matters who requests the song. If you think, as I do, that the song takes a dismissive attitude towards the losing alliance - 'mock' may be too strong - (if you agree that "No time for losers" refers to the team that just lost), it should incredibly obvious how this song is not GP. If you don't agree with that, and you realize that I think differently about this song, then why would you bother asking how I find this song un-GP? I'm confused here.

Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that the non-GP elements are minor and can be overlooked. But if you acknowledge that the "losers" in the song are the teams that just lost, it's fairly hard not to see parts of this song as (at least in minor ways) exhibiting qualities that are diametrically opposed to the concept of gracious professionalism. And again, if you agree that the song is dismissive of the losing alliance, how does gracious professionalism being "an internal ruler" have anything to do with it? I'm not saying this is what the song says, but if I walk up to a losing team and say "your robot sucks and I'm glad you lost," would you say "Oh, well GP is an internal ruler, and I guess for Paul, that was GP"? No. We may not be able to describe the entirety of possible actions that fall under the 'GP' label, but to paraphrase Justice Stewart, we know it when we see it, and being dismissive of losing teams is not gracious professionalism.

Wow.... Well, that's like saying stepping on ant and genocide are the same thing because they're both killing.

The song is fine.... If it wasn't I'm sure Dean Kamen, Woodie Flowers, or Dave Lavery would've put an end to it a long time ago.