Stuart Law granted British citizenship

[superkingdave]

oh come on, thats so stereotypical, not everyone has an ******!






















...some of them have Novas, Astras and Sierras

 

[Richard]

was the inference at Essex aswell IIRC

A slightly dubious one.
As far as ODIs are concerned there's only one reason for his exclusion - his average is poor.
As far as Tests - well, he was unfortunate, really - whether he'd have played more but for this perception of his "being up himself" can only be speculation.

 

[marc71178]

So you can only speculate in this case, but you know more than players do in others then?

 

[Richard]

The point is any of it was only speculation.
No-one, as far as I'm aware, ever confirmed they'd said such negative things about him.

 

[marc71178]

Nobody has confirmed you know more about a person than they do themselves, but you still claim that as gospel.

 

[Richard]

Nope, I've done nothing of the sort. I've not said it was impossible that the players know more about themselves than I do about them.
You've said the inverse, though, and I've pointed-out why that's wrong, too.

 

[marc71178]

I've not said it was impossible that the players know more about themselves than I do about them.
You've said the inverse, though, and I've pointed-out why that's wrong, too.

No, it is impossible for you to know more about someone else than that person knows about themself - simply because you are not that person.

 

[Richard]

It is indeed.
Yet it is not impossible for me to know more about their bowling in Test-match cricket.

 

[Richard]

oh come on, thats so stereotypical, not everyone has an ******!






















...some of them have Novas, Astras and Sierras

Not to mention Cavaliers. Or Corsas. Or Fiestas.

 

[marc71178]

Yet it is not impossible for me to know more about their bowling in Test-match cricket.

Yes it is, because you only see the output, and have no knowledge of the input.

 

[Richard]

If you don't have complete knowledge of the output, knowledge of the input can help.
If you have near-complete knowledge of the output, knowledge of the input(s) is unneccessary.

 

[marc71178]

Talking complete rubbish yet again, but why am I not surprised.

You cannot know as much about a person as that person does, and there is no way you can say you do, because you're not him, you're just an arrogant kid who refuses to accept you might be wrong, and refuses to accept that your attitude is losing what little respect you had.

 

[Richard]

And you're getting nowhere, just repeating the same thing over and over again, despite the fact that I've provided quite clear evidence as to why it's irrelevant.
"You cannot know more about him than himself"
When will you learn the significance of the phrase "not relevant to the case"?

 

[Richard]

you're just an arrogant kid who refuses to accept you might be wrong, and refuses to accept that your attitude is losing what little respect you had.

And it's funny how only one other person is actually describing me as something similar (even then there's nothing like the malice here).
If I'm losing so much respect, I'd like to see some more evidence than is presently apparrent.

 

[Smudge]

And you're getting nowhere, just repeating the same thing over and over again, despite the fact that I've provided quite clear evidence as to why it's irrelevant.
"You cannot know more about him than himself"
When will you learn the significance of the phrase "not relevant to the case"?

Of course it's relevant.

 

[Richard]

Yet no-one has ever managed to explain why.
Why does it matter what goes into it, when you know all that matters of what comes out?

 

[marc71178]

And you're getting nowhere, just repeating the same thing over and over again, despite the fact that I've provided quite clear evidence as to why it's irrelevant.
"You cannot know more about him than himself"
When will you learn the significance of the phrase "not relevant to the case"?

I think it's entirely relevant when the whole thing is you saying you know more about him than he does.

 

[Richard]

No, the whole thing is you bringing-in irrelevant matter when all that matters is the deliveries bowled.
Which you've still not managed to come-up with a reason why is false; you've just tended to repeat "you cannot know more about him than he does".