Aleem Dar
max.it
Mike Holmans
keyboard and brought forth:
>
>Even Aleem Dar makes a boo boo.
>Not too many comments here about that one.
What was there to say about it? It didn't go against India and was
therefore unworthy of notice.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> What was there to say about it? It didn't go against India and was
> therefore unworthy of notice.
You are turning into a grumpy ole grandpa! This is what Subi had to
say only a few hours earlier,,,
=====
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: subi...@hotmail.com
Local: Wed, Sep 5 2007 6:25 am
Subject: ah, umpires, umpires
dar gave prior out when shdn't have, the other fellow didn't give
pietersen out when he shd have. sdavmor: it will all work out in
boomland, indeed
=============
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/search?group=rec.sport.cricket&q=subi+dar+prior
Sanjiv Karmarkar
CricketLeague
"Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189048817.1...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Homoman is a grumpy ole grandpa always looking for an excuse to attack you
know who
max.it
I hadn't noticed that.
Did someone call him names ?
Predicting when a ball will go over the top can be difficult, but that
one never ever looked out.
sub...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:52:23 -0700, "CricketLeague"
>
>
> >"max.it" <max.it@teatime> wrote in message
> >news:46defd63...@news.btinternet.com...
>
> >> Even Aleem Dar makes a boo boo.
> >> Not too many comments here about that one.
>
> >> max.it
>
> >He was already abused before on this newsgroup
>
> I hadn't noticed that.
> Did someone call him names ?
> Predicting when a ball will go over the top can be difficult, but that
> one never ever looked out.
>
> max.it
are you and holmans blind or just plain dumb? the thread 'umpires,
umpires' begins with dar's blunder. i didn't see you lot say anything
about hartley's totally biased and atrocious decisions. perhaps
because he is english, and as we know for the past 400 years, they can
do no wrong.
Mike Holmans
<s_kar...@hotmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Sep 5, 9:00 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> What was there to say about it? It didn't go against India and was
>> therefore unworthy of notice.
>
>You are turning into a grumpy ole grandpa! This is what Subi had to
>say only a few hours earlier,,,
So one of the morons who does nothing but whinge about umpires and has
therefore been in my killfile for years whinged about that one too.
Big fucking deal.
Cheers,
Mike
--
sub...@hotmail.com
> So one of the morons who does nothing but whinge about umpires and has
> therefore been in my killfile for years whinged about that one too.
> Big fucking deal.
yeah, great, killfile anyone who disagrees with you, then go to town
looking stupid claiming conversations that have taken place have never
taken place. you are more of a prize dunce than i had thought. keep it
up, they might appoint you to the icc panel.
Mohan
If He hasn't seen a player playing great innings, then that innings
hasn't happened. If He hasn't seen a post, then that post doesn't
exist. It is simple really. I don't know why you stupid natives don't
get it.
sub...@hotmail.com
> On Sep 6, 1:37 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 6 Sep, 09:29, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > So one of the morons who does nothing but whinge about umpires and has
> > > therefore been in my killfile for years whinged about that one too.
> > > Big fucking deal.
so someone who is whinging about umpiring is telling us that he
killfiles those who whinge about umpiring! this is like senator larry
craig voting against gay rights while seeking favours in male toilets
at airports!!!!
prakmel
IMHO, anybody who puts somebody into a KF generally does so to avoid
reading the truth ( there may be an exception if the poster writes
despicably - but even then it is very easy not to read any post by the
poster so a KF seems a strange thing to use instead).
What I find superb is the logic used by Mike:
1. Apparently you have been in his KF 'for years'
2. Yet he says he knows that you do "nothing but whinge about
umpires".
Seems he is clearly contradicting himself:
If you have been in his KF for years, he clearly would not know what
you have been writing during "for years", let alone that it is
"nothing but whinge about umpires".
So at least one of the two conditions cannot be fulfilled.
Wonder why he would claim otherwise !!!!
QED.
sub...@hotmail.com
> IMHO, anybody who puts somebody into a KF generally does so to avoid
> reading the truth ( there may be an exception if the poster writes
> despicably - but even then it is very easy not to read any post by the
> poster so a KF seems a strange thing to use instead).
>
> What I find superb is the logic used by Mike:
>
> 1. Apparently you have been in his KF 'for years'
> 2. Yet he says he knows that you do "nothing but whinge about
> umpires".
>
> Seems he is clearly contradicting himself:
>
> If you have been in his KF for years, he clearly would not know what
> you have been writing during "for years", let alone that it is
> "nothing but whinge about umpires".
>
> So at least one of the two conditions cannot be fulfilled.
>
> Wonder why he would claim otherwise !!!!
well, this is what you can call 'holmanshit', or 'holmanswash'
max.it
What an ignorant assumption to make. You assume that everyone sees
every article. That's a full of your own self importance isn't it.
As for Hartley I wouldn't let him near a cricket pitch let alone
umpire. His performances during some of the FPT matches were dire. I
got to watch a series of clips of Hartley made by a video analyst and
he was crap to the point where some of the other people viewing had
decided that he must be a persistant not outer or biased.
I don't give a tuppenny fuck about England or the English, and I
certainly don't support an umpire just because he is English.
max.it
In fact I did respond to that thread but not to you. How come you
didn't notice that ? Howcome I don't get all of your posts ?
Do you tell fibs ?
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> So one of the morons who does nothing but whinge about umpires and has
> therefore been in my killfile for years whinged about that one too.
If he is in your killfile for years, how do you know he 'whinges'
about umpiring? :-) For all you know, he has switched to discussing
existential philosophy!
The fact is; Subi is one of the very few people who have been slamming
the poor standard of umpiring consistently; irrespective of which team
it benefited. He is unpopular these days with some of you because he
has the guts to point out the 800 lb gorilla in the room; that these
poor decisions are not close to evening out.
> Big fucking deal.
Nothing on RSC is BFD. But creating your own version of reality
comes close. ;-)
Sanjiv Karmarkar
CricketLeague
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:52:23 -0700, "CricketLeague"
> <Cricket...@USA.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"max.it" <max.it@teatime> wrote in message
>>news:46defd63...@news.btinternet.com...
>>>
>>> Even Aleem Dar makes a boo boo.
>>> Not too many comments here about that one.
>>>
>>> max.it
>>
>>
>>He was already abused before on this newsgroup
>>
>>
>
> I hadn't noticed that.
Whose problem is that ?
> Did someone call him names ?
> Predicting when a ball will go over the top can be difficult, but that
> one never ever looked out.
>
>
> max.it
Pretty much all subcontinental umpires including Aleem Dar were abused in
the past.
Rodney
> On 6 Sep, 09:29, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So one of the morons who does nothing but whinge about umpires and has
>> therefore been in my killfile for years whinged about that one too.
>> Big fucking deal.
>
> yeah, great, killfile anyone who disagrees with you
The logic (something in which you're patently lacking, given that you're
aiming a post at someone who can't read you) seems to me to have been
entirely different: the reasons, sir, are your crude, frivolous,
incessant and utterly banal ramblings about umpires and umpiring. You've
made your point amply over the course of my decidedly limited R.S.C.
career, and it's quickly become as wearing as it is lacklustre. You're a
one-trick pony, obviously totally incapable of new and original thought.
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
I'll take a quiet life, a handshake, some carbon monoxide.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Rodney
> On Sep 6, 5:11 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On 6 Sep, 09:54, Mohan <mohandas.konan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 1:37 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 6 Sep, 09:29, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> So one of the morons who does nothing but whinge about umpires and has
>>>>> therefore been in my killfile for years whinged about that one too.
>>>>> Big fucking deal.
>> so someone who is whinging about umpiring is telling us that he
>> killfiles those who whinge about umpiring! this is like senator larry
>> craig voting against gay rights while seeking favours in male toilets
>> at airports!!!!
>
> IMHO, anybody who puts somebody into a KF generally does so to avoid
> reading the truth
No, we do it to avoid childish (and often rancorously unintelligent)
claptrap. Benjamin Franklin, CricketLeague, Skootti and the MI5 Victim
are a few very happy residents of my killfile.
> ( there may be an exception if the poster writes
> despicably - but even then it is very easy not to read any post by the
> poster so a KF seems a strange thing to use instead).
I don't bother to look at whom the poster is as work my way up.
> What I find superb is the logic used by Mike:
>
> 1. Apparently you have been in his KF 'for years'
> 2. Yet he says he knows that you do "nothing but whinge about
> umpires".
It's very easy to pick up when you see the inane little bites that
others quote.
max.it
<Cricket...@USA.com> wrote:
>
>"max.it" <max.it@teatime> wrote in message
>news:46df9af...@news.btinternet.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:52:23 -0700, "CricketLeague"
>> <Cricket...@USA.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"max.it" <max.it@teatime> wrote in message
>>>news:46defd63...@news.btinternet.com...
>>>>
>>>> Even Aleem Dar makes a boo boo.
>>>> Not too many comments here about that one.
>>>>
>>>> max.it
>>>
>>>
>>>He was already abused before on this newsgroup
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I hadn't noticed that.
>
>
>Whose problem is that ?
What problem ?
>
>
>> Did someone call him names ?
>> Predicting when a ball will go over the top can be difficult, but that
>> one never ever looked out.
>>
>>
>> max.it
>
>
>
>Pretty much all subcontinental umpires including Aleem Dar were abused in
>the past.
It seems that every umpire gets it in here.
sub...@hotmail.com
> The logic (something in which you're patently lacking, given that you're
> aiming a post at someone who can't read you) seems to me to have been
> entirely different: the reasons, sir, are your crude, frivolous,
> incessant and utterly banal ramblings about umpires and umpiring. You've
> made your point amply over the course of my decidedly limited R.S.C.
> career, and it's quickly become as wearing as it is lacklustre. You're a
> one-trick pony, obviously totally incapable of new and original thought.
what total holmanure! and of course, your utterances here have been
profound, gleaming with earth-shatteringly new insights into the human
condition, and indicative of the most scintillating brain since, well,
holmans. keep it up, the nobel prize beckons. and please continue
using late-19th century english to appear erudite, it is working
really well.
the point of course is that your friend claiming not to be able to
read me nevertheless know what i am posting about. i know it will do
you head in, but do try to figure that out.
Rodney
> On 6 Sep, 18:35, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The logic (something in which you're patently lacking, given that you're
>> aiming a post at someone who can't read you) seems to me to have been
>> entirely different: the reasons, sir, are your crude, frivolous,
>> incessant and utterly banal ramblings about umpires and umpiring. You've
>> made your point amply over the course of my decidedly limited R.S.C.
>> career, and it's quickly become as wearing as it is lacklustre. You're a
>> one-trick pony, obviously totally incapable of new and original thought.
> what total holmanure! and of course, your utterances here have been
> profound, gleaming with earth-shatteringly new insights into the human
> condition, and indicative of the most scintillating brain since, well,
> holmans. keep it up, the nobel prize beckons. and please continue
> using late-19th century english to appear erudite, it is working
> really well.
Thanks for the support.
> the point of course is that your friend
Mike is not my friend -- aside from my never having met him, he comes
across in his posts as a bit of an arse --, but I wholly respect the man
for his thoughtful and refreshingly original cricketing insights. (You,
on the other hand...)
> claiming not to be able to
> read me nevertheless know what i am posting about. i know it will do
> you head in, but do try to figure that out.
It's actually quite easy (although obviously not for one of your
blatantly partial cerebral acumen). Mike can see what you've written,
Subirwa, through the snippets that others have quoted.
You're not terribly sharp, are you? I recommend that you try using
late-Nineteenth-Century English to compensate; it works really well,
apparently.
sub...@hotmail.com
> It's actually quite easy (although obviously not for one of your
> blatantly partial cerebral acumen). Mike can see what you've written,
> Subirwa, through the snippets that others have quoted.
>
> You're not terribly sharp, are you? I recommend that you try using
> late-Nineteenth-Century English to compensate; it works really well,
> apparently.
well, lord rodney of stunted prose, in that case what is the point of
killfiling me? by the way, does your mum know you are surfing?
Rodney
> On 6 Sep, 23:33, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's actually quite easy (although obviously not for one of your
>> blatantly partial cerebral acumen). Mike can see what you've written,
>> Subirwa, through the snippets that others have quoted.
>>
>> You're not terribly sharp, are you? I recommend that you try using
>> late-Nineteenth-Century English to compensate; it works really well,
>> apparently.
>
> well, lord rodney
I like that.
> of stunted prose
Hey, what happened to the beckoning Nobel Prize?
> in that case what is the point of
> killfiling me?
He's already given a reason. That short-term memory of yours...
> by the way, does your mum know you are surfing?
I generally keep late-night crusades such as this a secret.
sub...@hotmail.com
> Hey, what happened to the beckoning Nobel Prize?
hey don't be impatient sonny, one day, if you are nice, it will be
yours.
> He's already given a reason. That short-term memory of yours...
funny you shd say that, since you don't remember that this thread -
banal rants about umpiring - was started by the noble holmans not me.
must be that good swazi gold eh?
if someone killfiles me, they don't want to read what i write. so what
is the point of piecing together what i said from quotes in others'
posts? waste of time if you ask me.
> I generally keep late-night crusades such as this a secret.
very wise, now go back to the homework.
prakmel
> prakmel wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 5:11 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On 6 Sep, 09:54, Mohan <mohandas.konan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 6, 1:37 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On 6 Sep, 09:29, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> So one of the morons who does nothing but whinge about umpires and has
> >>>>> therefore been in my killfile for years whinged about that one too.
> >>>>> Big fucking deal.
> >> so someone who is whinging about umpiring is telling us that he
> >> killfiles those who whinge about umpiring! this is like senator larry
> >> craig voting against gay rights while seeking favours in male toilets
> >> at airports!!!!
>
> > IMHO, anybody who puts somebody into a KF generally does so to avoid
> > reading the truth
>
> No, we do it to avoid childish (and often rancorously unintelligent)
> claptrap. Benjamin Franklin, CricketLeague, Skootti and the MI5 Victim
> are a few very happy residents of my killfile.
Putting a person into a KF presumably means that you have decided that
you would rather not read anything by that poster. IMHO, this seems an
unusual decision because it assumes that neither the poster or you
will ever change.
>
> > ( there may be an exception if the poster writes
> > despicably - but even then it is very easy not to read any post by the
> > poster so a KF seems a strange thing to use instead).
>
> I don't bother to look at whom the poster is as work my way up.
Supposing that you really do not want to read this poster, it surely
would not be asking too much to check who has written previously in
the message.
Also you should perhaps think why you want to KF a particular poster
but are happy to read another poster who is willing to respond to the
poster KFed by you.
>
> > What I find superb is the logic used by Mike:
>
> > 1. Apparently you have been in his KF 'for years'
> > 2. Yet he says he knows that you do "nothing but whinge about
> > umpires".
>
> It's very easy to pick up when you see the inane little bites that
> others quote.
Clearly the 'others' do not think it sufficiently inane as to ignore
it.
Also it surely must require some effort on your part to 'pick up' and
it would seem simpler to read the original since you are implying the
KF does not work.
> --
> Cheers,
> Rodney Ulyate
>
> I'll take a quiet life, a handshake, some carbon monoxide.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
SultanOfSwing
> prakmel wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 5:11 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On 6 Sep, 09:54, Mohan <mohandas.konan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 6, 1:37 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On 6 Sep, 09:29, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> So one of the morons who does nothing but whinge about umpires and has
> >>>>> therefore been in my killfile for years whinged about that one too.
> >>>>> Big fucking deal.
> >> so someone who is whinging about umpiring is telling us that he
> >> killfiles those who whinge about umpiring! this is like senator larry
> >> craig voting against gay rights while seeking favours in male toilets
> >> at airports!!!!
>
> > IMHO, anybody who puts somebody into a KF generally does so to avoid
> > reading the truth
>
> No, we do it to avoid childish (and often rancorously unintelligent)
> claptrap.
I have been around RSC for several years and have seen
some intellectually dishonest posters sniping at persons
whom they had supposedly killfiled. IMO, that's absolutely
gutless. If one has killfiled an obnoxious person, there's
absolutely *no* reason to be responding to any of his
posts, even "indirectly".
> > ( there may be an exception if the poster writes
> > despicably - but even then it is very easy not to read any post by the
> > poster so a KF seems a strange thing to use instead).
>
> I don't bother to look at whom the poster is as work my way up.
>
> > What I find superb is the logic used by Mike:
>
> > 1. Apparently you have been in his KF 'for years'
> > 2. Yet he says he knows that you do "nothing but whinge about
> > umpires".
>
> It's very easy to pick up when you see the inane little bites that
> others quote.
And that's precisely the danger of seeing only selective portions
of the postings of a poster one may have killfiled.
SultanOfSwing
> > On Sep 6, 5:11 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On 6 Sep, 09:54, Mohan <mohandas.konan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 6, 1:37 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On 6 Sep, 09:29, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> So one of the morons who does nothing but whinge about umpires and has
> >>>>> therefore been in my killfile for years whinged about that one too.
> >>>>> Big fucking deal.
> >> so someone who is whinging about umpiring is telling us that he
> >> killfiles those who whinge about umpiring! this is like senator larry
> >> craig voting against gay rights while seeking favours in male toilets
> >> at airports!!!!
>
> > IMHO, anybody who puts somebody into a KF generally does so to avoid
> > reading the truth
>
> No, we do it to avoid childish (and often rancorously unintelligent)
> claptrap.
I have been around RSC for several years and have seen
some intellectually dishonest posters sniping at persons
whom they had supposedly killfiled. IMO, that's absolutely
gutless. If one has killfiled an obnoxious person, there's
absolutely *no* reason to be responding to any of his
posts, even "indirectly".
> > ( there may be an exception if the poster writes
> > despicably - but even then it is very easy not to read any post by the
> > poster so a KF seems a strange thing to use instead).
>
> I don't bother to look at whom the poster is as work my way up.
>
> > What I find superb is the logic used by Mike:
>
> > 1. Apparently you have been in his KF 'for years'
> > 2. Yet he says he knows that you do "nothing but whinge about
> > umpires".
>
> It's very easy to pick up when you see the inane little bites that
> others quote.
And that's precisely the danger of seeing only selective portions
Rodney
> On 6 Sep, 23:45, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey, what happened to the beckoning Nobel Prize?
> hey don't be impatient sonny, one day, if you are nice, it will be
> yours.
In spite of my "stunted prose"?
>> He's already given a reason. That short-term memory of yours...
> funny you shd say that, since you don't remember that this thread -
> banal rants about umpiring - was started by the noble holmans not me.
Actually, it was max.it who kicked off this one, Subirwa. That
short-term memory of yours...
> must be that good swazi gold eh?
Mm.
> if someone killfiles me, they don't want to read what i write.
Clever boy.
> so what
> is the point of piecing together what i said from quotes in others'
> posts?
It requires very little "piecing together" to tell that you're whining
about umpiring again. A quick glance generally does the trick.
> waste of time if you ask me.
I don't ask you.
>> I generally keep late-night crusades such as this a secret.
> very wise, now go back to the homework.
My third term is finished, which means that I now get to indulge in
illicit toxins, drink tons of alcohol and sit for hours in front of my
computer without any concern of arresting my scholastic progress. Sick
buggers such as yourself who get off on lecturing schoolchildren via
internet really don't hold much sway with me, I'm afraid.
Rodney
> On Sep 7, 1:39 am, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> prakmel wrote:
>>> On Sep 6, 5:11 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 6 Sep, 09:54, Mohan <mohandas.konan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 6, 1:37 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On 6 Sep, 09:29, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> So one of the morons who does nothing but whinge about umpires and has
>>>>>>> therefore been in my killfile for years whinged about that one too.
>>>>>>> Big fucking deal.
>>>> so someone who is whinging about umpiring is telling us that he
>>>> killfiles those who whinge about umpiring! this is like senator larry
>>>> craig voting against gay rights while seeking favours in male toilets
>>>> at airports!!!!
>>> IMHO, anybody who puts somebody into a KF generally does so to avoid
>>> reading the truth
>> No, we do it to avoid childish (and often rancorously unintelligent)
>> claptrap. Benjamin Franklin, CricketLeague, Skootti and the MI5 Victim
>> are a few very happy residents of my killfile.
> Putting a person into a KF presumably means that you have decided that
> you would rather not read anything by that poster.
Go figure.
> IMHO, this seems an
> unusual decision because it assumes that neither the poster or you
> will ever change.
How does that make it "unusual"? I think it completely irrelevant.
>>> ( there may be an exception if the poster writes
>>> despicably - but even then it is very easy not to read any post by the
>>> poster so a KF seems a strange thing to use instead).
>> I don't bother to look at whom the poster is as work my way up.
> Supposing that you really do not want to read this poster, it surely
> would not be asking too much to check who has written previously in
> the message.
I would do that, but why should I when I've the altogether easier mode
of killfiling available to me?
> Also you should perhaps think why you want to KF a particular poster
> but are happy to read another poster who is willing to respond to the
> poster KFed by you.
Why should that come into consideration? I believe firmly in freedom of
association; I do not make conscious judgements of people based on those
with whom they choose to converse.
>>> What I find superb is the logic used by Mike:
>>> 1. Apparently you have been in his KF 'for years'
>>> 2. Yet he says he knows that you do "nothing but whinge about
>>> umpires".
>> It's very easy to pick up when you see the inane little bites that
>> others quote.
> Clearly the 'others' do not think it sufficiently inane as to ignore
> it.
Clearly, but why should I care?
> Also it surely must require some effort on your part to 'pick up'
Some, but not very much. A quick glance is more than enough.
> and it would seem simpler to read the original
But I don't want to.
> since you are implying the KF does not work.
I am not implying anything; you're the one (in your directionlessly
presumptuous ramblings) who's making the implications. Now please,
rather than dillydally around some vague point about the ethics and
morals of killfiling, just get to the bloody point.
Rodney
> On Sep 6, 10:39 pm, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> prakmel wrote:
>>> On Sep 6, 5:11 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 6 Sep, 09:54, Mohan <mohandas.konan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 6, 1:37 pm, subi...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On 6 Sep, 09:29, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> So one of the morons who does nothing but whinge about umpires and has
>>>>>>> therefore been in my killfile for years whinged about that one too.
>>>>>>> Big fucking deal.
>>>> so someone who is whinging about umpiring is telling us that he
>>>> killfiles those who whinge about umpiring! this is like senator larry
>>>> craig voting against gay rights while seeking favours in male toilets
>>>> at airports!!!!
>>> IMHO, anybody who puts somebody into a KF generally does so to avoid
>>> reading the truth
>> No, we do it to avoid childish (and often rancorously unintelligent)
>> claptrap.
> I have been around RSC for several years and have seen
> some intellectually dishonest posters sniping at persons
> whom they had supposedly killfiled. IMO, that's absolutely
> gutless. If one has killfiled an obnoxious person, there's
> absolutely *no* reason to be responding to any of his
> posts, even "indirectly".
Absolutely.
>>> ( there may be an exception if the poster writes
>>> despicably - but even then it is very easy not to read any post by the
>>> poster so a KF seems a strange thing to use instead).
>> I don't bother to look at whom the poster is as work my way up.
>>
>>> What I find superb is the logic used by Mike:
>>> 1. Apparently you have been in his KF 'for years'
>>> 2. Yet he says he knows that you do "nothing but whinge about
>>> umpires".
>> It's very easy to pick up when you see the inane little bites that
>> others quote.
> And that's precisely the danger of seeing only selective portions
> of the postings of a poster one may have killfiled.
Evidently, though, the danger's been averted in this case, as Mike was
perfectly right about Subirwa's generally one-dimensional offerings.
david...@yahoo.com
But remember, He (Holmans) sees everything, knows everything.
He calls them odious, but He watches all those odious ODIs. Aside from
the blatant contradiction, what does it tell us about Him? That He has
too much time on his hands, which can be gauged by the amount of time
He spends watching all cricket live, and posting here at various
different times.
The point about rubbishing ODIs and watching them ball to ball all the
same tells us something more about Him. That He has this insecurity,
this intense desire to appear a 'genuine' cricket fan.
It is easy to see that the all too obvious bitterness in His posts is
a function of having too much time, and nothing to do except watch
cricket and fill up space on the Internet servers. I think He should
concentrate on doing something about this, than worry about killfiles
and what not.
Wog George
<david...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189171840....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
What you've said may be 100% correct, bit I'd rather be ubiquitous than a
mere newsgroup ornament (assuming for a moment that I thought like Micheál).
Of course, suggesting that Mr Holmans is insecure merely because he loves
his cricket is just slightly over the top???
--
George
"Strike me down while you can, but it won't make your dried up ovaries any
more fertile." - Eric Cartman - 3 May 2006
sub...@hotmail.com
> I'll take a quiet life, a handshake, some carbon monoxide.
oh no, you aren't one of those chaps sniffing car exhaust fumes are
you?
Wog George
<david...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189188718.5...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 7, 10:20 am, "Wog George" <wog-NotThisBit-geo...@amd-p.com>
> wrote:
>> Of course, suggesting that Mr Holmans is insecure merely because he loves
>> his cricket is just slightly over the top???
>>
>
> guilty of heinous crimes. Any psychologist will tell you that almost
> all of us have varying levels of insecurities. The person who has
> absolutely no insecurity at all whatsoever is probably a lunatic, or
> at least close to it. You don't even have to be a psychologist to know
> that.
>
> Mr Holman's professed attitude towards ODIs is actually quite common
> amongst a certain clique of internet cricket fans. Many use the word
> JAMODI for ODIs - just another meaningless ODI. The very same folks
> watch these ball to ball, and spend countless hours discussing them on
> the net. I mean if they are as boring and meaningless to you, why
> spend all that much time on it? Unless of course you think pursuit of
> meaningless, boring, banal things is worth your while.
>
I'm astounded that JAMODI doesn't have an "F" in it somewhere.
> This is not confined to cricket. You will not find, say, many literary
> critics who will admit to actually liking a John Grisham novel (even
> if they actually did like it). Not that I mean to imply that Mr
> Holmans is a cricket critic of worthwhile value, but just citing an
> example to illustrate the point.
>
You've made your point very well.
The fact that Mr Holman's keeps his finger on the pulse of a game that he
doesn't necessarily enjoy suggests to me that the art of cricket prevails
over the act of cricket. I've been wrong a great many times in the past,
and will be in future, but I don't think I'm too wide of the mark on this
occasion.
> In case of Mr Holmans, what betrays his insecurity even much more than
> odos etc - is the persistent derogatory nature of his posts directed
> towards various other posters. That holier than thou - I know it all,
> you are an idiot - attitude. The only people who have to resort to
> this consistently or frequently (as opposed to occasionally) are those
> who suffer from low self esteem and feelings of unworthiness. Needless
> to say, this is not all that rare amongst human beings.
>
I generally find Mr Holman's remarks to be light-hearted, though
occasionally provocative, banter. If he calls me an idiot, I'm inclined to
agree.
I've noted your comment about people who feel the need to put everyone else
down in order to "elevate" themselves, and I have witnessed such behaviour
here and elsewhere. I wouldn't stick Mike in that bucket though. That's my
opinion, of course, and you are more than welcome to hold a contrary view.
I'd suggest that if you do hold a contrary view, however, then perhaps
you've taken Mike a bit too seriously on his seemingly less friendly posts.
Again, that's my opinion. If we aren't in accord, that's fine. I won't
judge you simply on your judgment of someone else.
Just out of interest, what do you think Mr Holmans will have to say for
himself when India gives England a hiding tonight?
--
George
"We've got Jews and perverts and bullies and all kinds of sinners in this
town, Sister Ann." - Eric Cartman - 26 July 2000
prakmel
ROFL.
The problem is Rodney that you just don't understand.
My dear friend, changing your nick is of no use because you still
remain just as illogical and lacking in basic IQ as your other nicks.
You have been caught before - and once again you have goofed up :-)
I would suggest you learn some elementary logic - before posting under
yet another name.
BTW, are you that ashamed of using your own name?
G'day mate and regards to the family :-)
QED
> --
> Cheers,
> Rodney Ulyate
Wog George
"prakmel" <prakm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189207176.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
I thought Rodney was his name, prakmel. Rodney Ulyate, just as he signs his
name every time. Have I missed something?
prakmel
wrote:
> "prakmel" <prakmel2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
If you have been on RSC for some time, you begin to notice a certain
style of posting for certain posters as well as interest on certain
topics.
George, it is of course quite normal for you to presume it really is a
Rodney posting as such. However, certain tell-tale signs gave my dear
friend away :-)
It is also not for trying since he has tried other nicks in the past -
and been caught.
I guess the only thing he has in common with you is that he is from
Australia.
Must be really ashamed - understandably so I may add - my good friend
that he tries to pretend he is a new poster.
However, the poster aka Rodney needs to understand that he needs to
change his way of thinking, not simply change his name.
HTH him to turn over a new leaf.
Wog George
You have me at a complete loss, prakmel. I thought Rodney was from Joburg.
Rodney
The most economical high.
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
I'll take a quiet life, a handshake, some carbon monoxide.
--
Rodney
> Of course, suggesting that Mr Holmans is insecure merely because he loves
> his cricket is just slightly over the top???
Don't feed the troll, Wog. It's sick, sordid, spiteful and tasteless.
Rodney
> On Sep 7, 6:54 pm, Rodney <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> prakmel wrote:
>>> since you are implying the KF does not work.
>> I am not implying anything; you're the one (in your directionlessly
>> presumptuous ramblings) who's making the implications. Now please,
>> rather than dillydally around some vague point about the ethics and
>> morals of killfiling, just get to the bloody point.
> ROFL.
> The problem is Rodney that you just don't understand.
Indeed. An adequate explanation on your part would help me to no end.
> My dear friend, changing your nick is of no use because you still
> remain just as illogical and lacking in basic IQ as your other nicks.
I've no reason to change my "nick".
> You have been caught before
Let's have a link to Google Groups.
> and once again you have goofed up :-)
How?
> I would suggest you learn some elementary logic - before posting under
> yet another name.
I've never posted here under a false identity. When I've used a
different email account -- and that's only once or twice --, I've still
signed my name at the bottom. You are sadly deluded.
> BTW, are you that ashamed of using your own name?
I use it in every post.
> G'day mate and regards to the family :-)
The internet truly is overrun with sick fools.
Rodney
> I thought Rodney was his name, prakmel.
I thought so, too. This should be interesting.
Rodney
> You have me at a complete loss, prakmel. I thought Rodney was from Joburg.
I am. It would be nice if this Prakmel idiot would offer some
substantiation for the defamation that he's so smugly flinging about. He
says that I've been caught before; let's have a Google-Groups link,
shall we?
david...@yahoo.com
wrote:
That's my
> opinion, of course, and you are more than welcome to hold a contrary view.
> I'd suggest that if you do hold a contrary view, however, then perhaps
> you've taken Mike a bit too seriously on his seemingly less friendly posts.
> Again, that's my opinion. If we aren't in accord, that's fine.
You sound like a very reasonable person. I am still inclined to
disagree with you a bit on the above, but that is fine. Disagreements
are good for any discussion forum.
The internet has brought about a radical change in which people can
interact with others (and I am not talking about any specific person
here anymore). Before its advent, it was inconceivable that people
could say things like they so easily do on the net. This is now even
under discussion by serious news organizations which are covering
topics about the growing menace of rudeness and outright abuse on
internet discussion forums and blog sites. Well meaning owners of blog
sites on various issues who do what they do in the spirit of public
service complain that they are having to spend too much time 'cleaning
up' their sites and some are folding up the tent altogether (some are
victims of abuse themselves). The human species is a curious one,
isn't it? There is no good thing that it can't find a way to totally
mess up.
sdavmor
He is. And he is a teenager. And he is a complete usenet noob. Were
he a new driver he'd be barely out of having to use "L" plates. I spent
a lot of time over the course of 4 days a couple of months ago getting
him up to speed on using a newsreader, posting, etc. Prakmel is way off
target in this case. As in several light-years off target.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net>
MySpace MP3s <www.myspace.com/systemstheory>
CDBaby <www.cdbaby.com/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming very soon
NP: some new Systems Theory demos
Rodney
> Wog George wrote:
>> You have me at a complete loss, prakmel. I thought Rodney was from
>> Joburg.
> He is. And he is a teenager. And he is a complete usenet noob. Were
> he a new driver he'd be barely out of having to use "L" plates. I spent
> a lot of time over the course of 4 days a couple of months ago getting
> him up to speed on using a newsreader, posting, etc.
And I'm still very grateful for that, Sdavmor. I was on the verge giving
up on Usenet before you so kindly ridded me of the hell-hole that is
Google Groups.
prakmel
How do you know?
> And he is a teenager.
Because he said so.
> And he is a complete usenet noob. Were
> he a new driver he'd be barely out of having to use "L" plates. I spent
> a lot of time over the course of 4 days a couple of months ago getting
> him up to speed on using a newsreader, posting, etc.
And he's put it to good effect with his new nick.
Incidentally, how did he contact you?
> Prakmel is way off
> target in this case. As in several light-years off target.
Ye of little faith.
Perhaps you should wander over to the other thread "Dar ruins the
final match".
Startling revelations there as others begin to see the light of your
old 'teenager'.
> --
> Cheers,
> SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
> Systems Theory internet music project links:
> official site <www.systemstheory.net>
> MySpace MP3s <www.myspace.com/systemstheory>
> CDBaby <www.cdbaby.com/systemstheory>
> "Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
> "Codetalkers" CD coming very soon
> NP: some new Systems Theory demos- Hide quoted text -
SultanOfSwing
> sdavmor wrote:
> > Wog George wrote:
> >> You have me at a complete loss, prakmel. I thought Rodney was from
> >> Joburg.
> > He is. And he is a teenager. And he is a complete usenet noob. Were
> > he a new driver he'd be barely out of having to use "L" plates. I spent
> > a lot of time over the course of 4 days a couple of months ago getting
> > him up to speed on using a newsreader, posting, etc.
>
> And I'm still very grateful for that, Sdavmor. I was on the verge giving
> up on Usenet before you so kindly ridded me of the hell-hole that is
> Google Groups.
It isn't a "hell-hole" by any stretch of imagination. Google
Groups offers a clunky, yet usable interface to Usenet
newsgroups. I agree that any newsreader is much more
powerful than GG. However, there are compelling reasons
why some posters (like yours truly) continue to use GG.
Firstly, it's free (pretty obvious); universally accessible
and one doesn't need to configure any special software.
(All one needs is a browser like Firefox and you're all set
to access RSC via GG)
Secondly, not everyone has access to free NNTP
newservers. BTW, I did try a free newserver a few
months back -- "free.yottanews.com" and found it to
be pretty horrid in terms of time spent in downloading
posts from RSC. I did have a pretty good newsreader
(XanaNews) at the time but the newserver was a big
problem. So it's GG for me right now, unless I find a
much better alternative.
Rodney
> OK. I've waded through every post in the thread (and mighty bored I was
> too). I get to the end and I see an allusion by Andrew that Rodney is
> somebody else
That allusion was made in jest.
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
"If 'a's Niagareur, gi' uz Lascelles 'All." -- Ephraim Lockwood on
seeing the Niagara Falls
Rodney
I'm pretty sure that I wasted far more time repeating myself on Google
Groups than you did waiting for your newsreader to download posts. There
are few internet-related issues, in my limited experience, quite so
irksome as hitting "Send" and then seeing some tame error message.
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
"If 'a's Niagareur, gi' uz Lascelles 'All." -- Ephraim Lockwood on
seeing the Niagara Falls
--
sdavmor
> sdavmor wrote:
>> OK. I've waded through every post in the thread (and mighty bored I
>> was too). I get to the end and I see an allusion by Andrew that
>> Rodney is somebody else
>
> That allusion was made in jest.
Yes. It was very tongue-in-cheek in Andrew's extremely dry style. And it
highlighted the extraordinary lengths that you and your cunning team of
Black Bag operatives have gone to to create your pretend identity as an
18 year old in South Africa. Why! You've even managed to create
fictitious cricket game scorecards for yourself. I wonder where you and
your crew buried the body of the real Rodney Ulyate?!?
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net>
MySpace MP3s <www.myspace.com/systemstheory>
CDBaby <www.cdbaby.com/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming very soon
NP: nothing
Rodney
> Rodney wrote:
>> sdavmor wrote:
>>> OK. I've waded through every post in the thread (and mighty bored I
>>> was too). I get to the end and I see an allusion by Andrew that
>>> Rodney is somebody else
>> That allusion was made in jest.
> Yes. It was very tongue-in-cheek in Andrew's extremely dry style. And it
> highlighted the extraordinary lengths that you and your cunning team of
> Black Bag operatives have gone to to create your pretend identity as an
> 18 year old in South Africa. Why! You've even managed to create
> fictitious cricket game scorecards for yourself. I wonder where you and
> your crew buried the body of the real Rodney Ulyate?!?
You're getting nothing outta me!