David Terbrugge

[marc71178]

Try reading posts next time before you slag them off, especially if the poster has a point, because it just makes you look silly!

I could suggest that you haven't read it if you're posting what you just have.

As does having a go at one poster, whatever the post or the opinion, simply because their name appears.

Right, and what is it you've just done, here then - more than just one person posts against him, and you single one out.

 

[Swervy]

Not really, when you take into account the percentage of SA'ers who for many years had no hope of representing the country...

oh i see what you mean now

 

[Rik]

I could suggest that you haven't read it if you're posting what you just have.

Due to the length of my post, I'd hazard a guess I did read the post. Also that has to be one of the most pathetic comebacks I've ever read to boot.

Right, and what is it you've just done, here then - more than just one person posts against him, and you single one out.

One other person posted agreeing with you, so of course I'll single you out, since that person doesn't make a habit of arguing with Richard about anything.

Marc, seriously, the definition of "all-rounder" has changed in the view of many people, especially those higher up in cricket than your royal armchairness. Richard said that, he has a point, people agree, you brand him an idiot, you expect everyone to accept you are right...same old? Getting a little boring?

 

[Rik]

Which is incidentally not the same as Richard has posted, and more like what I thought the general view of an AR was.

I fail to see how:

"Genuine all-rounder" doesn't, despite some people's misconceptions, mean you have to be able to use either trait to get into the side.

isn't the same. You quoted that, and that is the post you commented on and came up with:

Says who?

Is this another of your proclamations that we must all just nod and accept?

Are you trying to tell me that this isn't showing that you can't accept Richard's opinion? That you believe he's wrong and you are right? And that of course, since we shouldn't believe him, you must be right and we must agree with you. Sorry mate, life's a bitch, people have open minds, that's why Bush and Blair are currently hated so...

Anyway the post in question was reported to the moderators, as yet another example of your tirades against Richard. It's up to them now.

 

[Prince EWS]

Right, and what is it you've just done, here then - more than just one person posts against him, and you single one out. [/B]

First of all, you started the arguement.

Second of all, oit would look silly if he quoted 4 or 5 people posts and said the exact samt thing to them.

And finally, only one person who disagreed with him on this occassion has made a permenant habbit of doing so whenever RIchard turns on his computer. Ill let you guess who that it.

 

[Rik]

And finally, only one person who disagreed with him on this occassion has made a permenant habbit of doing so whenever RIchard turns on his computer. Ill let you guess who that it.

Actually Tom Halsey was the other member I mentioned who commented:

It would appear so.

But only he knows what that means.

Or did you mean him replying to me?

 

[Prince EWS]

I meant that out of all (two) people who disagreed with Richard, only one of them (Marc) has made a habbit of doing it to virtually every opinion Richard has. And thats why he was singled out.

 

[marc71178]

Due to the length of my post, I'd hazard a guess I did read the post. Also that has to be one of the most pathetic comebacks I've ever read to boot.[/B]

If that is so, then how come your backing up of Richard's definition involves a different definition of All Rounder to his then?

 

[marc71178]

Anyway the post in question was reported to the moderators, as yet another example of your tirades against Richard. It's up to them now.

More than a little hypocritical this last paragraph...

 

[Rik]

If that is so, then how come your backing up of Richard's definition involves a different definition of All Rounder to his then?

I'm not, I'm backing up that Richard says an all-rounder is someone who can bat and bowl/keep, not someone who is good enough to be picked for either. And unless I'm blind:

"Genuine all-rounder" doesn't, despite some people's misconceptions, mean you have to be able to use either trait to get into the side.

My definition seems to be the same as Richard's. I'm backing up his view with the same view.

 

[Rik]

More than a little hypocritical this last paragraph...

With comebacks of this quality, I think reporting the post to the moderaters was the least hypocritical thing I could do. Although, of course, this comeback just showed you up even more.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not, I'm backing up that Richard says an all-rounder is someone who can bat and bowl/keep, not someone who is good enough to be picked for either.

Yes, but that's not the definition that Richard has used.

 

[marc71178]

With comebacks of this quality, I think reporting the post to the moderaters was the least hypocritical thing I could do. Although, of course, this comeback just showed you up even more.

Can you really not see the hypocracy in accusing me of tirades against one person? :rolleyes:

And how does pointing out the hypocracy show me up?

 

[Rik]

Yes, but that's not the definition that Richard has used.

Yes it is, I just quoted it, I said what I said and they matched. I even used Richard's post you replied to. Need it be more black and white?

 

[Rik]

Can you really not see the hypocracy in accusing me of tirades against one person? :rolleyes:

And how does pointing out the hypocracy show me up?

No I can't see any hypocracy in accusing you of that, because, and this is so blazingly obvious Prince EWS even had to spell it to your face, every time Richard posts you must disagree, no matter what he has posted.

Pointing this out shows you up because you accuse me of hypocracy and then post a comeback designed only to stir things even more. If that doesn't show up hypocracy then obviously you nicked the bulb...

 

[Rik]

I meant that out of all (two) people who disagreed with Richard, only one of them (Marc) has made a habbit of doing it to virtually every opinion Richard has. And thats why he was singled out.

Yeah reading it again it makes sense, I just wasn't fully with it and didn't read it properly. It was rather late and the wording's a bit complicated to understand when you've hardly slept all week

 

[Neil Pickup]

We really don't need any more of this..