Well guys, not to get too technical or anything but he's got a point.
Let's look at it this way...let's say you get your average popular local series paintball tournament...say, 20 teams. One team will win the tournament, everyone else won't. So, 19 out of 20 teams are, in fact, "losers," which translates to 95% of all in attendance. If any of those "losing" teams have alternate players, the percentage rises slightly when you start looking at players instead of teams.
Now let's get bigger...let's say it's a NPPL or PSP event...let's say we've got, awwww hell, 60 teams in div 3, 20 teams in div. 2, and 10 teams in div 1. That translates to a division 1 field that's an even 90% losers, div. 2 that's 95% losers, and div. 3 that's 98.333% losers. Take the whole tournament into account, and you'll realize that 96.67% of the teams in attendance are losers.
Now, start figuring that the national level is really dominated by a select few teams and you've got several "lesser" teams that show up sometimes and not others, well they are always losing and the percentage continues to rise...and rise...and rise.
Add in Bartholemew's theorem of quantum occurrance where the odds of actually beating Dynasty equates to the negative balance of the square root of absolute zero displaced by the likelihood of winning the lottery twice in a week while wearing shrek 2 underwear and being struck by lightning on half of your manhood and, well...
...paintball seems to be for us losers.
PS...that post was meant in obvious fun and jest. I'm being sarcastic. Please do not ban me. I do not, of course, really believe paintball is for "losers" as the "loser" who started this thread obviously meant to imply.