Who said I was taking a dump? Backed up so far I might get mankeded.You weren’t meant to take a **** while you were away? That can’t be good for you.
So you sit down to piss?Who said I was taking a dump? Backed up so far I might get mankeded.
Interesting concept of eras.If you wanted to choose three pacers during different eras, post war, may be one would go...
Lindwall, Miller, Bedser
Trueman, Davidson, Hall
P. Pollock, McKenzie, Snow
Lillee, Roberts, Willis
Imran, Botham, Holding
Marshall, Hadlee, Garner
Ambrose, Akram, Waqar
McGrath, Donald, S. Pollock
Steyn, Johnson, Anderson
Rabada, Philander, Starc
No. Call me up when he has significantly better average than Cummins and Haze.If you wanted to choose three pacers during different eras, post war, may be one would go...
Lindwall, Miller, Bedser
Trueman, Davidson, Hall
P. Pollock, McKenzie, Snow
Lillee, Roberts, Willis
Imran, Botham, Holding
Marshall, Hadlee, Garner
Ambrose, Akram, Waqar
McGrath, Donald, S. Pollock
Steyn, Johnson, Anderson
Rabada, Philander, Starc
Details?Yes we are. Shut up, ****.
Just like your posts.Details?
No one is disagreeing with your logicJust like your posts.
Which is like saying a correlation does not imply causation. To suggest a correlation is causation without support is illogical and a fallacy. So how this not a logical disagreement?No one is disagreeing with your logic
The reasoning your hypothesis doesn't translate into a factual conclusion is because there are clearly other factors you're not taking into account. It's really that simple.
There's no point trying to argue against statistical certainty because you thought of a factor that should hypothetically affect said statistical certainty. That's insane. Because it's already statistical certainty!
Details pleaseWhich is like saying a correlation does not imply causation. To suggest a correlation is causation without support is illogical and a fallacy. So how this not a logical disagreement?
Its like you cut and paste this from someone I know.![]()
What a splendid role model you seem to have chosen. Fine choice.Details please![]()
Just like your posts.No one is disagreeing with your logic
The reasoning your hypothesis doesn't translate into a factual conclusion is because there are clearly other factors you're not taking into account. It's really that simple.
There's no point trying to argue against statistical certainty because you thought of a factor that should hypothetically affect said statistical certainty. That's insane. Because it's already statistical certainty!
Details?Just like your posts.
Just like your postsWhich is like saying a correlation does not imply causation. To suggest a correlation is causation without support is illogical and a fallacy. So how this not a logical disagreement?
Its like you cut and paste this from someone I know.
Details?Just like your posts