Michael Holding on "Double Standards"
Reverse Swing
Sept 4, 2006 (web edition is available only on payment)
Column is titled - "Double Standards - Inflexibility and insensitivity sink
a Test match as first world hypocrisy comes to the forefront"
To quotet the most interesting paragraph:
"There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only
highlighted it. When England used reverse swing to beat the Australians in
the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. I can't say they were
tampering with the ball but then no one even contemplated the idea that they
could possibly be getting reverse swing the unfair way. When Pakistan does
it, the opposite happens, no one thinks it is great skill. Everyone
associates it with skullduggery. When bombs go off in Karachi and Colombo
everyone wants to go home. When bombs go off in London, no one says
anything. That is first world hypocrisy and we have to live with it."
SP [ Don't shoot the messanger! ]
Sampath
"Reverse Swing" <NOswinging...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44f1d...@x-privat.org...
Are you the REAL "Reverse Swing" ?
If so, is it a full moon day today ? LoL.....
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
noel....@webtribe.net
Reverse Swing wrote:
> When bombs go off in Karachi and Colombo everyone wants to go home. When
> bombs go off in London, no one says anything. That is first world hypocrisy and we
> have to live with it."
>
Actually, when bombs go off in London we have a vast number of sad
individuals appearing on television telling us that we need a national
identity card.
Apparently, if everyone possesses one of these cards, all the evil in
the world will go away.
Can't see it myself and, oddly, no-one seems willing to explain exactly
why possessing an id card will eliminate crime.
But they keep banging the drum......................what's the
phrase....? "if you tell a lie often enough.............."
Sampath
<noel....@webtribe.net> wrote in message
news:1156707206.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Those are people who are programmed by the govts to behave like "USEFUL
IDIOTS" so govts can give themselves MORE POWER and CONTROL the whole
populace.
GREED for POWER is INFINITE and POWER is the MOST POTENT APHRODISIAC known
to mankind.
max.it
wrote:
Back to cricket umpires.
I stood three matches this week. The first one was abandoned because
of weather. The guys got 6 minutes play on the first attempt and about
twenty on the second attempt. We had to tell them that at 4 o'clock
we will pull the plug on the game. We had the power to stop a cricket
match, but we were powerless in our efforts to get the match
completed.
BTW. Some parts of the UK already have id cards. I have had a
photograpic driving licence for 25 years.
Sampath
"max.it" <m...@teatime.co.uk> wrote in message
news:44f2032f...@news.btopenworld.com...
National identity card is different from a driving license.
R. Bharat Rao
max.it wrote:
> BTW. Some parts of the UK already have id cards. I have had a
> photograpic driving licence for 25 years.
That is voluntary. You only need get one if you intend to drive a car;
and even if you possess one, you are under no obligation to carry it
around, when you are NOT driving.
Bharat
A few days after 9/11, in a USA Today poll, 49 percent of Americans
polled
supported special IDs for Arabs, including U.S. citizens.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Sampath
"R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156714176.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I am sure those 49% USEFUL AMERICAN IDIOTS will even SUPPORT their govt to
install video surveillance devices in THEIR HOMES so they can be PROTECTED
from fictitious MONSTER EVIL ENEMIES.
yudever
> max.it wrote:
>
> > BTW. Some parts of the UK already have id cards. I have had a
> > photograpic driving licence for 25 years.
>
> That is voluntary. You only need get one if you intend to drive a car;
and even then it is not always necessary; if you are a visitor to UK,
you are allowed to drive a car using your country's license - even if
it does not have your photograph - as long as you have not lived in UK
for 12 consecutive months.
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Yes, but liberty should not confused with anonymity. Asking people to
carry some sort of ID cards does not mean you are stripping them of
their liberties. You could not find a more committed libertarian than
Alan Berkowitz, and even he argues in favor of ID cards. Like he
always says, "Right to liberty does not imply a right to
obscurity".
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Don Aitken
wrote:
>
>max.it wrote:
>
>> BTW. Some parts of the UK already have id cards. I have had a
>> photograpic driving licence for 25 years.
>
>That is voluntary. You only need get one if you intend to drive a car;
>and even if you possess one, you are under no obligation to carry it
>around, when you are NOT driving.
>
Or even when you are - a feature of British law which bemuses
foreigners. If you are stopped while driving by a police officer who
wants to see it, he issues you with a document colloquially known as a
"producer", which requires you to appear with the licence within seven
days at a specified police station, selected by you.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
R. Bharat Rao
yudever wrote:
> R. Bharat Rao wrote:
>
> > "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> > - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
>
> Yes, but liberty should not confused with anonymity. Asking people to
> carry some sort of ID cards does not mean you are stripping them of
> their liberties. You could not find a more committed libertarian than
> Alan Berkowitz, and even he argues in favor of ID cards. Like he
> always says, "Right to liberty does not imply a right to
> obscurity".
I made two distinct points in my response. One was the main one,
namely that
a driver's license card was not the same as a mandatory ID card. There
may be
an implication that I think a national ID card is a bad idea --
actually, I have no
problems with national ID cards. My concern is that if there is a
card, it could
be used to harass "funny looking" people -- to go ask people who look
like they
are from some part of the world for a card, to routinely track people
of a certain
ethnicity, etc. That, I do have a problem with.
The second point I made was specifically about cards only for people
from a
particular region of the world. You only quoted part of what I wrote
for that.
A few days after 9/11, in a USA Today poll, 49 percent of Americans
polled supported special IDs for Arabs, including U.S. citizens.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
That quote is a bit different in that context isn't it? And yes, I
think having
ID cards only from a certain part of the world is racist and wrong; and
while
I have no problems with national ID cards for everyone, I do have a
problem
with using them for consistently tracking only those from a particular
ethnicity.
And from the issuance of national cards to using them for selective
tracking
to big brother for all, is a very short couple of steps.
You just have to look at the recent "telephone log" issue, that has
fast become
a non-issue...
HVS
> On 27 Aug 2006 14:29:36 -0700, "R. Bharat Rao"
> <rao2_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> max.it wrote:
>>> BTW. Some parts of the UK already have id cards. I have had
>>> a photograpic driving licence for 25 years.
>> That is voluntary. You only need get one if you intend to
>> drive a car; and even if you possess one, you are under no
>> obligation to carry it around, when you are NOT driving.
> Or even when you are - a feature of British law which bemuses
> foreigners. If you are stopped while driving by a police
> officer who wants to see it, he issues you with a document
> colloquially known as a "producer", which requires you to
> appear with the licence within seven days at a specified
> police station, selected by you.
That's interesting; I thought it was something like 48 hours to
produce. (I don't know where I got that impression, as I've never
had to do it.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
max.it
wrote:
>
>max.it wrote:
>
>> BTW. Some parts of the UK already have id cards. I have had a
>> photograpic driving licence for 25 years.
>
>That is voluntary.
It was not voluntary in my jurisdiction.
> You only need get one if you intend to drive a car;
>and even if you possess one, you are under no obligation to carry it
>around, when you are NOT driving.
"Excuse me sir, do you have any identification?" Id card gets you on
your way , no id card gets you scooped.
Voting, no id means no vote, my driving licence is an id for the
purpose of voting.
It's sometimes good to have an id card.
Jim Ley
wrote:
>On 27 Aug 2006, Don Aitken wrote
>> Or even when you are - a feature of British law which bemuses
>> foreigners. If you are stopped while driving by a police
>> officer who wants to see it, he issues you with a document
>> colloquially known as a "producer", which requires you to
>> appear with the licence within seven days at a specified
>> police station, selected by you.
>
>That's interesting; I thought it was something like 48 hours to
>produce. (I don't know where I got that impression, as I've never
>had to do it.)
Even the 7 days isn't hard and fast, there's a reasonably practicable
time limit to, so lost licence, or away on holiday are likely to be
fine, no guarantee there of course.
Jim.
yudever
> yudever wrote:
> > You could not find a more committed libertarian than Alan Berkowitz
Sorry for the typo; I meant Alan Dershowitz.
> My concern is that if there is a card, it could
> be used to harass "funny looking" people -- to go ask people who look
> like they are from some part of the world for a card, to routinely track
> people of a certain ethnicity, etc. That, I do have a problem with.
Why do you have problem with 'tracking' people of certain ethnicity?
All the terrorists have been Moslem men in the age group of 18 to 40.
Is it really that unreasonable to say that Moslem men in the age group
of 18 to 40 deserve special scrutiny? Frisking them a bit more
carefully would be a lot more efficient than strip-searching 70 year
old grannies and 4 year old toddlers.
> The second point I made was specifically about cards only for people
> from a particular region of the world. You only quoted part of what I wrote
I snipped because I agreed with you! What's the point in arguing
about something I'm if full agreement with? :-) I do however see how
that could twist the meaning; from now on I will be more discriminatory
with my scissor.
> A few days after 9/11, in a USA Today poll, 49 percent of Americans
> polled supported special IDs for Arabs, including U.S. citizens.
Give them a break; they were scared. Given the circumstances, 49% is
not a big number. I bet - now that people have had more time to
reflect - the number will be significantly lower.
> That quote is a bit different in that context isn't it? And yes, I think having
> ID cards only from a certain part of the world is racist and wrong; and while
> I have no problems with national ID cards for everyone, I do have a problem
> with using them for consistently tracking only those from a particular ethnicity.
> And from the issuance of national cards to using them for selective tracking
> to big brother for all, is a very short couple of steps.
Look, we all have ID cards, whether we like them or not. We already
have a national card in form of the Social Security card; but we also
carry other ID cards viz. drivers license, passport, medical insurance
card, and even credit cards. The big brother is all around us; if
anything the government is way behind the private enterprise in this
regard. (Did you catch the NY Times article about the data uncovered
by the AOL search engine?). So, if your purpose is to prevent the 'big
brother', it is too late. Knowing how smart you are, you already know
that, and my guess is that you want to limit its growth and prevent
misuse of its powers. And those are commendable attributes; but they
need to be tempered with our need to live in a just society.
Allow me to remind you of the classic definition of liberty as defined
by Chanakya and by Victorian England; those two definitions are
remarkably similar. Liberty is allowing people to live freely within
the constraints of the rule of law. Freedom without enforcement of
rule would lead to chaos. A government has dual responsibility; to
preserve freedom and to enforce law. There are times when these two
dictums run contrary to each other, and that's when the resolve of
the government is truly tested. IMO, a big component of 'enforcing
law' is to prevent crime. Legal profiling of citizens based on ethnic
and religious attributes can be a very useful tool in preventing crime.
Of course it can be misused, but then almost everything that is good
can be - and has been - misused.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Phil.
yudever wrote:
> R. Bharat Rao wrote:
> > yudever wrote:
> > > You could not find a more committed libertarian than Alan Berkowitz
>
> Sorry for the typo; I meant Alan Dershowitz.
>
> > My concern is that if there is a card, it could
> > be used to harass "funny looking" people -- to go ask people who look
> > like they are from some part of the world for a card, to routinely track
> > people of a certain ethnicity, etc. That, I do have a problem with.
>
> Why do you have problem with 'tracking' people of certain ethnicity?
> All the terrorists have been Moslem men in the age group of 18 to 40.
> Is it really that unreasonable to say that Moslem men in the age group
> of 18 to 40 deserve special scrutiny? Frisking them a bit more
> carefully would be a lot more efficient than strip-searching 70 year
> old grannies and 4 year old toddlers.
>
'Moslem' describes a religion not an ethnicity, not all the terrorists
have been Arabs.
Phil.
yudever
> 'Moslem' describes a religion not an ethnicity, not all the terrorists
> have been Arabs.
Duh, we all know that. I did say ethnicity and religion later on.
These subtleties are supposed to be obvious.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Sampath
"yudever" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156715150.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> R. Bharat Rao wrote:
>> max.it wrote:
>>
>> > BTW. Some parts of the UK already have id cards. I have had a
>> > photograpic driving licence for 25 years.
>>
>> That is voluntary. You only need get one if you intend to drive a car;
>
> and even then it is not always necessary; if you are a visitor to UK,
> you are allowed to drive a car using your country's license - even if
> it does not have your photograph - as long as you have not lived in UK
> for 12 consecutive months.
>
>> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>> - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
>
> Yes, but liberty should not confused with anonymity. Asking people to
> carry some sort of ID cards does not mean you are stripping them of
> their liberties.
Yes they are. Govts does NOT need every human being in the country to CARRY
an ID ALL THE TIME.
>You could not find a more committed libertarian than
> Alan Berkowitz, and even he argues in favor of ID cards. Like he
> always says, "Right to liberty does not imply a right to
> obscurity".
>
> Sanjiv Karmarkar
Right to PARANOID SAFETY should NEVER erode LIBERTIES and FREEDOM.
Will_S
> Sept 4, 2006 (web edition is available only on payment)
>
> Column is titled - "Double Standards - Inflexibility and insensitivity
> sink a Test match as first world hypocrisy comes to the forefront"
>
> To quotet the most interesting paragraph:
>
> "There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only
> highlighted it. When England used reverse swing to beat the Australians
> in the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. I can't say they
> were tampering with the ball but then no one even contemplated the idea
> that they could possibly be getting reverse swing the unfair way.
christ, under what tree has Mikey been sleeping....cough , cough ( lollies
actually )
Without a doubt Michael Holding is one of my favourite cricketers and
commentators but he missed the boat there.
Gafoor
> Look, we all have ID cards, whether we like them or not.
This crap rationalization can be used for anything & everything.
For eg. no point in complaining about corruptiion in India,
because it's there everywhere, whether we like it or not.
> We already
> have a national card in form of the Social Security card;
> but we also
> carry other ID cards viz. drivers license, passport, medical insurance
> card, and even credit cards.
I don't carry around my passport or medical insurance card.
You don't need to carry your driver's license around unless you
are driving.
I have gone without credit cards for long periods of time.
The point is that all of these are voluntary - you can choose
not to have a DL or a CC & get by.
> The big brother is all around us; if
> anything the government is way behind the private enterprise in this
> regard. (Did you catch the NY Times article about the data uncovered
> by the AOL search engine?). So, if your purpose is to prevent the
> 'big brother', it is too late.
Forget AOL, google probably knows what colour underwear you are
wearing now.
> Knowing how smart you are, you
> already know that, and my guess is that you want to limit its growth
> and prevent misuse of its powers. And those are commendable
> attributes; but they need to be tempered with our need to live in a
> just society.
Tell me how a national ID would help?
Qasim
>> My concern is that if there is a card, it could
>> be used to harass "funny looking" people -- to go ask people who look
>> like they are from some part of the world for a card, to routinely track
>> people of a certain ethnicity, etc. That, I do have a problem with.
>
> Why do you have problem with 'tracking' people of certain ethnicity?
> All the terrorists have been Moslem men in the age group of 18 to 40.
Because not all terrorists are thereby guaranteed to be in the age group of
18 to 40. Forget how you identify this ethnicity in the first place.
> Is it really that unreasonable to say that Moslem men in the age group
> of 18 to 40 deserve special scrutiny?
Yes. You are too bigoted to see that.
> Frisking them a bit more
> carefully would be a lot more efficient than strip-searching 70 year
> old grannies and 4 year old toddlers.
>
Why would you strip a 70 year old granny naked to search her but just frisk
18-40 year old moslems a little more carefully?
Can you see why you are a stupid bigot.?
And what happens when the granny you did not strip naked and search goes
ahead and blows it all up?
>> The second point I made was specifically about cards only for people
>> from a particular region of the world. You only quoted part of what I
>> wrote
>
> I snipped because I agreed with you! What's the point in arguing
> about something I'm if full agreement with? :-) I do however see how
> that could twist the meaning; from now on I will be more discriminatory
> with my scissor.
>
>> A few days after 9/11, in a USA Today poll, 49 percent of Americans
>> polled supported special IDs for Arabs, including U.S. citizens.
>
> Give them a break; they were scared. Given the circumstances, 49% is
> not a big number. I bet - now that people have had more time to
> reflect - the number will be significantly lower.
>
Give the moslems a break, you moron.
>> That quote is a bit different in that context isn't it? And yes, I think
>> having
>> ID cards only from a certain part of the world is racist and wrong; and
>> while
>> I have no problems with national ID cards for everyone, I do have a
>> problem
>> with using them for consistently tracking only those from a particular
>> ethnicity.
>> And from the issuance of national cards to using them for selective
>> tracking
>> to big brother for all, is a very short couple of steps.
>
> Look, we all have ID cards, whether we like them or not. We already
> have a national card in form of the Social Security card; but we also
> carry other ID cards viz. drivers license, passport, medical insurance
> card, and even credit cards.
Then you do not need any more cards.
> The big brother is all around us; if
> anything the government is way behind the private enterprise in this
> regard. (Did you catch the NY Times article about the data uncovered
> by the AOL search engine?). So, if your purpose is to prevent the 'big
> brother', it is too late.
Then you do not need any more cards.
> Knowing how smart you are, you already know
> that, and my guess is that you want to limit its growth and prevent
> misuse of its powers. And those are commendable attributes; but they
> need to be tempered with our need to live in a just society.
>
To live in a just society, bigoted idiots like you must be deported. To any
country but mine.
> Allow me to remind you of the classic definition of liberty as defined
> by Chanakya and by Victorian England; those two definitions are
> remarkably similar. Liberty is allowing people to live freely within
> the constraints of the rule of law. Freedom without enforcement of
> rule would lead to chaos. A government has dual responsibility; to
> preserve freedom and to enforce law.
You idiot, if the government starts adopting the same procedure on enforcing
laws, you will have a lot more people in prison. There are thousands of
homicides in the country, are you going to frisk civilians who fit a
particular description on the street corner everyday ? You must be an
immigrant in the US. Approximately 3000 people died in the 9-11 bombings,
a lot more die in homicides every year. Why is it that you did not ask for
strip searches of other ethnicities ?
You are a stupid bigot.
> There are times when these two
> dictums run contrary to each other, and that's when the resolve of
> the government is truly tested. IMO, a big component of 'enforcing
> law' is to prevent crime. Legal profiling of citizens based on ethnic
> and religious attributes can be a very useful tool in preventing crime.
You moron, how do you determine someone's religious attributes ? Are you
really that stupid to realise that someone willing to blow himself up will
have any qualms about lying about his religion ?
You are a stupid bigot.
Sampath
"yudever" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156719043....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> yudever wrote:
>> > You could not find a more committed libertarian than Alan Berkowitz
>
> Sorry for the typo; I meant Alan Dershowitz.
Alan Dershowitz is jewish and didnt he offer to defend OJ or wasnt he a
consultant for OJ legal team ?
>> My concern is that if there is a card, it could
>> be used to harass "funny looking" people -- to go ask people who look
>> like they are from some part of the world for a card, to routinely track
>> people of a certain ethnicity, etc. That, I do have a problem with.
>
> Why do you have problem with 'tracking' people of certain ethnicity?
> All the terrorists have been Moslem men in the age group of 18 to 40.
> Is it really that unreasonable to say that Moslem men in the age group
> of 18 to 40 deserve special scrutiny?
John Reid is WHITE, Johnny Walker Lindh is WHITE.
What makes you think WHITE CHRISTIAN converts to Islam won't take REVENGE on
USA ?
>Frisking them a bit more
> carefully would be a lot more efficient than strip-searching 70 year
> old grannies and 4 year old toddlers.
How STUPID can you get than this ?
Do you NEED an IDENTIFICATION CARD "NOT" to strip search 70 yr old grannies
and 4 yr old toddlers ?
>> The second point I made was specifically about cards only for people
>> from a particular region of the world. You only quoted part of what I
>> wrote
>
> I snipped because I agreed with you! What's the point in arguing
> about something I'm if full agreement with? :-) I do however see how
> that could twist the meaning; from now on I will be more discriminatory
> with my scissor.
>
>> A few days after 9/11, in a USA Today poll, 49 percent of Americans
>> polled supported special IDs for Arabs, including U.S. citizens.
>
> Give them a break; they were scared.
What is SO SCARY ? Wasnt USA attacked in Pearl Harbor ? or Oklahoma 1996 or
WTC 1992 ?
Aren't lot of other countries in the world and IRAQIs SCARED of USA MASS
MURDERING 100,000 of them so US can TEST their WEAPON STOCKPILES and
replenish them to improve their economy and TO CONTROL OIL in the middle
east ?
Werent nicaraguans, grenadans, cubans, venezuelans, iranians, north koreans
SCARED of the BIG EVIL MONSTER BULLY called USA ?
What are they SUPPOSED to do to PROTECT THEMSELVES from the MONSTER BULLY
USA ?
>Given the circumstances, 49% is
> not a big number. I bet - now that people have had more time to
> reflect - the number will be significantly lower.
It was ONLY 49% in Oct 2001, but it was 70% in Mar 2003 when iraq war
started.
>> That quote is a bit different in that context isn't it? And yes, I think
>> having
>> ID cards only from a certain part of the world is racist and wrong; and
>> while
>> I have no problems with national ID cards for everyone, I do have a
>> problem
>> with using them for consistently tracking only those from a particular
>> ethnicity.
>> And from the issuance of national cards to using them for selective
>> tracking
>> to big brother for all, is a very short couple of steps.
>
> Look, we all have ID cards, whether we like them or not. We already
> have a national card in form of the Social Security card; but we also
> carry other ID cards viz. drivers license, passport, medical insurance
> card, and even credit cards. The big brother is all around us;
So then why do the FASCIST GOVTS need ANOTHER CARD is the TRILLION DOLLAR
QUESTION you have to answer and WHY wisdom should DAWN on you if you think
about it.
>if
> anything the government is way behind the private enterprise in this
> regard. (Did you catch the NY Times article about the data uncovered
> by the AOL search engine?).
Then you DONT have a CLUE about FBI, CIA and NSA just like the rest of the
MAJORITY of the americans.
>So, if your purpose is to prevent the 'big
> brother', it is too late. Knowing how smart you are, you already know
> that, and my guess is that you want to limit its growth and prevent
> misuse of its powers. And those are commendable attributes; but they
> need to be tempered with our need to live in a just society.
What is the PROBABILITY of YOU dying in a REVENGE ATTACK by muslims on USA
compared to death by ACCIDENT, death in a RANDOM SHOOTING RAMPAGE or
ROBBERIES ?
AMERICANS buy GUNS and KILL lot of other INNOCENT americans.
HOW COME your PROTECTOR american govt DID NOT ban guns ?
> Allow me to remind you of the classic definition of liberty as defined
> by Chanakya and by Victorian England; those two definitions are
> remarkably similar. Liberty is allowing people to live freely within
> the constraints of the rule of law.
There are HARDLY any FREEDOMS left in USA.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism/msg/a87b4edf3ab67867
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Indymedia/
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.prisons/msg/4fc45a6540cd4d90
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activism/msg/0455284119e3b8c9
I can post another 1000 links but its a WASTE of time and energy as long as
the READERS are CLOSE MINDED OBSTINATE paranoid programmed robots.
>Freedom without enforcement of
> rule would lead to chaos. A government has dual responsibility; to
> preserve freedom and to enforce law.
>There are times when these two
> dictums run contrary to each other, and that's when the resolve of
> the government is truly tested. IMO, a big component of 'enforcing
> law' is to prevent crime. Legal profiling of citizens based on ethnic
> and religious attributes can be a very useful tool in preventing crime.
> Of course it can be misused, but then almost everything that is good
> can be - and has been - misused.
>
> Sanjiv Karmarkar
There are atleast 10,000 or may be more homicides in USA every year. HOW
ABOUT giving POWERS to the GOVT TO TRACK EVERY HUMAN BEING 24x7 so these
10,000 people can be SAVED and the TENS OF THOUSANDS of CULPRITS can be
brought to justice ?
Its better to KEEP ONEs MOUTH SHUT when he does NOT understand the CONCEPTS
of LIBERTY, FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY and GOVT POWERS.
yudever
> yudever wrote:
> > Look, we all have ID cards, whether we like them or not.
>
> This crap rationalization can be used for anything & everything.
> For eg. no point in complaining about corruptiion in India,
> because it's there everywhere, whether we like it or not.
This analogy is just silly; I'd expect better from you! (-:
Corruption is fundamentally wrong; a social security card is not,
although it can be stolen and misused.
> I don't carry around my passport or medical insurance card.
> You don't need to carry your driver's license around unless you
> are driving.
A social security card is mandatory, everyone must have it. You don't
have to carry it around with you at all times, but you need to produce
the number if a govt officer demands it. Each time you travel, you
need to produce your passport. Are these infringements on your rights?
> I have gone without credit cards for long periods of time.
Really? Why? Why lose that 1 month float, not to mention other great
benefits?
> The point is that all of these are voluntary - you can choose
> not to have a DL or a CC & get by.
you cannot get by w/o these things and maintain any reasonable standard
of living. You may choose to live like a hermit; anything more than
that would require you to carry your drivers license and credit card.
You may call a driver's license voluntary, but most people outside
the NE Tri-state area would disagree with you. This is akin to the TV
in the book 1984; you may choose not to watch it, but you could never
turn it off.
> Tell me how a national ID would help?
I could answer you, but that would cost you, and cost you plenty! But
you don't use credit cards, and I don't accept cash or checks! (-:
Sanjiv Karmarkar
yudever
--==snip==--
I stopped reading your post after 2-3 lines because those 2-3 lines
were full of personal insults and I'd guess rest of the post is no
different.
If you want to have conversation with me, you need to bring your
A-game. Else, go back to the group of losers you normally hang out
with.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Sampath
"yudever" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156719043....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Herman Goering is talking about people like you Sanjiv Karmakar. So EASY for
govts to MANIPULATE.
*********************************************************************************************
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
----Herman Goering, Hitler's designated successor, before being sentenced to
death at the Nuremberg trials.
Sampath
You mean A-game like this one ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/76c8df8a24a89467
Gafoor
> Gafoor wrote:
>> yudever wrote:
>>> Look, we all have ID cards, whether we like them or not.
>>
>> This crap rationalization can be used for anything & everything.
>> For eg. no point in complaining about corruptiion in India,
>> because it's there everywhere, whether we like it or not.
>
> This analogy is just silly; I'd expect better from you! (-:
> Corruption is fundamentally wrong; a social security card is not,
> although it can be stolen and misused.
>
>> I don't carry around my passport or medical insurance card.
>> You don't need to carry your driver's license around unless you
>> are driving.
>
> A social security card is mandatory, everyone must have it.
Show me the law in the US requiring a US citizen born
in the US to apply for a SSN to live or work in the US?
> You don't
> have to carry it around with you at all times, but you need to produce
> the number if a govt officer demands it. Each time you travel, you
> need to produce your passport. Are these infringements on your
> rights?
Nobody knows as of now - Check Gilmore v Ashcroft.
>
>> I have gone without credit cards for long periods of time.
>
> Really? Why? Why lose that 1 month float, not to mention other great
> benefits?
Irrelevant to the point under discussion.
>> The point is that all of these are voluntary - you can choose
>> not to have a DL or a CC & get by.
>
> you cannot get by w/o these things and maintain any reasonable
> standard of living.
Crap. Tell me exactly what standard of living would I lose by not
having a CC?
> You may choose to live like a hermit; anything
> more than that would require you to carry your drivers license and
> credit card. You may call a driver's license voluntary, but most
> people outside
> the NE Tri-state area would disagree with you. This is akin to the TV
> in the book 1984; you may choose not to watch it, but you could never
> turn it off.
>
>> Tell me how a national ID would help?
>
> I could answer you, but that would cost you, and cost you plenty! But
> you don't use credit cards, and I don't accept cash or checks! (-:
Novel way of ducking the question.
Basically you don't know how a national ID would help, right?
eusebius
Reverse Swing wrote:
> Quoting from Michael Holding's column in India Today's print edition dated
> Sept 4, 2006 (web edition is available only on payment)
>
> Column is titled - "Double Standards - Inflexibility and insensitivity sink
> a Test match as first world hypocrisy comes to the forefront"
>
> To quotet the most interesting paragraph:
>
> "There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only
> highlighted it. When England used reverse swing to beat the Australians in
> the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. I can't say they were
> tampering with the ball but then no one even contemplated the idea that they
> could possibly be getting reverse swing the unfair way. When Pakistan does
> it, the opposite happens, no one thinks it is great skill. Everyone
> associates it with skullduggery. When bombs go off in Karachi and Colombo
> everyone wants to go home. When bombs go off in London, no one says
> anything. That is first world hypocrisy and we have to live with it."
>
> SP [ Don't shoot the messanger! ]
Don't be frightened Shishir, or should I say Reverse. The fact is, that
the murmurings against Jones et al were rather muted, and this might
have been different had he been of Pakistani origin or playing for
Pakistan against Australia. But it isn't true to say that the
murmurings of possible ball tampering were non-existent. In any case,
the individual umpires standing in the Oval test were the driving
force, not "1st world nations". Had Hair and Doctrove been standing in
tests last year, penalties may have been applied then. We shall never
know.
What 1st country is Doctrove supposed to be, or represent?
Sampath
"eusebius" <euseb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156741297.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
eusebius,
A hightly manipulative pubic Hair can easily convince doctrove to go along
with him if need be. Thats NO BIG DEAL.
What do you think about Michael Holdings comments of DOUBLE STANDARDS and
HYPOCRISY in cricket of calling it an ART when brit bowlers did it and
calling it CHEATING when Pak did it ?
Sampath
"eusebius" <euseb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156741297.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
Isnt this Holdings statement true, which is what I said last week when SA
decided to cancel SL tour and go home.
Did you notice he said "WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT".
"When bombs go off in Karachi and Colombo
everyone wants to go home. When bombs go off in London, no one says
anything. That is first world hypocrisy and we have to live with it."
--
Sampath
> Sept 4, 2006 (web edition is available only on payment)
>
> Column is titled - "Double Standards - Inflexibility and insensitivity
> sink a Test match as first world hypocrisy comes to the forefront"
>
> To quotet the most interesting paragraph:
>
> "There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only
> highlighted it. When England used reverse swing to beat the Australians
> in the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. I can't say they
> were tampering with the ball but then no one even contemplated the idea
> that they could possibly be getting reverse swing the unfair way. When
> Pakistan does it, the opposite happens, no one thinks it is great skill.
> Everyone associates it with skullduggery. When bombs go off in Karachi
> and Colombo everyone wants to go home. When bombs go off in London, no
> one says anything. That is first world hypocrisy and we have to live with
> it."
>
> SP [ Don't shoot the messanger! ]
No comments from dunford, Will_S, Colin Kynoch, phil, dave turner and the
rest yet.
sdavmor
Sampath, we've been over this several times already. If the
ball-tampering at The Oval last Sunday was of the raised ("picked")
quarter-seam variety then it's hardly any surprise that Pakistan was
called for it. It's the most blatent, easy to detect, and also the
most easy to implement kind of ball-tampering. It took umpire Doctorve
only a matter of seconds after he was shown the ball to no his head in
agreement.
My best guess is the umpire Hair showed him the picked area of the
quarter-seam and asked him if he agreed the seam had been tampered
with. We're talking about 25 deliveries having passed since Cook was
out and the ball last officially examined so it hardly could have been
"roughing the surface" that had them alarmed, since only one ball had
gone to the boundary in those 23 deliveries.
Maybe it is unfair that it's this team is in the gunsight, but
ball-tampering, if the law is to be enforced, starts somewhere and
that means some team is going to be first up. And this Pakistan team
had already announced (via Mr. Afridi) that in order to facilitate
reverse swing it engaged in ball-tampering, would continue to do so,
and didn't see that it was cheating. Like it or not, attention had
already been drawn. And that has nothing at all to do with bombs going
off anywhere.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
garageband <http://www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming very soon in 2006
NP: nothing
Sampath
"sdavmor" <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com> wrote in message
news:GsvIg.338316$bN2.2...@fe09.news.easynews.com...
> Sampath wrote:
>> "Reverse Swing" <NOswinging...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:44f1d...@x-privat.org...
>>> Quoting from Michael Holding's column in India Today's print edition
>>> dated Sept 4, 2006 (web edition is available only on payment)
>>>
>>> Column is titled - "Double Standards - Inflexibility and insensitivity
>>> sink a Test match as first world hypocrisy comes to the forefront"
>>>
>>> To quotet the most interesting paragraph:
>>>
>>> "There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only
>>> highlighted it. When England used reverse swing to beat the Australians
>>> in the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. I can't say they
>>> were tampering with the ball but then no one even contemplated the idea
>>> that they could possibly be getting reverse swing the unfair way. When
>>> Pakistan does it, the opposite happens, no one thinks it is great skill.
>>> Everyone associates it with skullduggery. When bombs go off in Karachi
>>> and Colombo everyone wants to go home. When bombs go off in London, no
>>> one says anything. That is first world hypocrisy and we have to live
>>> with it."
>>>
>>> SP [ Don't shoot the messanger! ]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No comments from dunford, Will_S, Colin Kynoch, phil, dave turner and the
>> rest yet.
>
> Sampath, we've been over this several times already.
sdavmor,
I merely asked why these posters did not post about Michael Holdings
comments of DOUBLE STANDARDS that exist in cricket.
They were posting every comment from pubic hair's friends, aunts and uncles
too and were attacking Atherton, Lamb and pretty much EVERY brit media
columnist who dared to criticize pubic Hair.
Phil.
Well I didn't find it particularly interesting, just the usual polemic
based on a number of false premises.
Phil.
Sampath
"Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:1156744833.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The TRUTH is you didnt find it interesting because he is criticizing the
DOUBLE STANDARDS and HYPOCRISY of the first world that RAN away from Karachi
and Colombo while opting to stay and play in London and the DOUBLE STANDARDS
of calling it SKILL when brit bowlers did it and CHEATING when Pak bowlers
did it.
sdavmor
I apologize. I just re-read your post and realize that I got the wrong
end of the stick. I only just read the Holding column (10pm in SoCal)
so maybe not many people have seen it.
> They were posting every comment from pubic hair's friends, aunts and uncles
> too and were attacking Atherton, Lamb and pretty much EVERY brit media
> columnist who dared to criticize pubic Hair.
I don't have time to read every post here so I can't comment on that.
But I do think the pubic hair's friend was clearly a double-entendre
joke, as in he's a good bloke, he calls a spade a spade. Which could
easily have been poking fun at Hair and other Australians for
"insensitivity". I presume that it's not only in the US that spde is
a slang term for a black man. Though it is a good 25 years since I
actually heard it used.
Sampath
dunford, will_s, kynoch, dave turner dont live in So Cal. I didnt ask you
what time you read the post and why you didnt respond to holdings comment.
>> They were posting every comment from pubic hair's friends, aunts and
>> uncles too and were attacking Atherton, Lamb and pretty much EVERY brit
>> media columnist who dared to criticize pubic Hair.
>
> I don't have time to read every post here so I can't comment on that.
But you read my comment in this thread and I didnt mention your VERY FAMOUS
name.
eusebius
Sampath wrote:
I said above, that he may be correct. But we will never know. It
depends what Hair would have done in last year's ashes.
I am not saying that Hair is totally without biases.
sdavmor
[snip]
> But you read my comment in this thread and I didnt mention your
> VERY FAMOUS name.
If I'm that famous, how come you haven't bought my album? ;-)
Sampath
I would rather join your band as a singer :-)
Jim Ley
>On 27 Aug 2006 14:29:36 -0700, "R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>> BTW. Some parts of the UK already have id cards. I have had a
>>> photograpic driving licence for 25 years.
>>
>>That is voluntary.
>
>It was not voluntary in my jurisdiction.
They force you to drive?
>> You only need get one if you intend to drive a car;
>>and even if you possess one, you are under no obligation to carry it
>>around, when you are NOT driving.
>
>"Excuse me sir, do you have any identification?" Id card gets you on
>your way , no id card gets you scooped.
"scooped" ?
>Voting, no id means no vote, my driving licence is an id for the
>purpose of voting.
Are you in Northern Ireland? as for the rest of the UK you do not
need ID to vote at a polling station, let alone other methods which
don't even require you to be there.
Jim.
yudever
> Novel way of ducking the question.
> Basically you don't know how a national ID would help, right?
For God's sake, Gafoor, I was being facetious. (Except about the
'cost' part) I do have many strong arguments in its favor, and a few
against it. But they are extensive and they are quite staid.
I made a mistake of entering into this discussion. These issues are
too serious to be discussed on a few posts penned casually while
watching South Park. (-: Besides, this is a completely wrong forum
for it.
So, I'd like to correct my mistake by getting outta this thread but not
before telling you that I truly admire your thought-process and spirit.
We mostly disagree, but I'd rather talk to somebody who disagrees with
me intelligently than someone who agrees with me but has no independent
thought.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Howard9
says...
> Quoting from Michael Holding's column in India Today's print edition dated
> Sept 4, 2006 (web edition is available only on payment)
>
> Column is titled - "Double Standards - Inflexibility and insensitivity sink
> a Test match as first world hypocrisy comes to the forefront"
>
> To quotet the most interesting paragraph:
>
> "There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only
> highlighted it. When England used reverse swing to beat the Australians in
> the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. I can't say they were
> tampering with the ball but then no one even contemplated the idea that they
> could possibly be getting reverse swing the unfair way. When Pakistan does
> it, the opposite happens, no one thinks it is great skill. Everyone
> associates it with skullduggery. When bombs go off in Karachi and Colombo
> everyone wants to go home. When bombs go off in London, no one says
> anything. That is first world hypocrisy and we have to live with it."
>
A shockingly small stupid, minded, prejudiced and racist comment that
destroys my previous view of Holding forever.
--
Howard
sdavmor
> "sdavmor" <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com> wrote in message
> news:QFwIg.339616$bN2.2...@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>> Sampath wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> But you read my comment in this thread and I didnt mention your VERY
>>> FAMOUS name.
>> If I'm that famous, how come you haven't bought my album? ;-)
>
LOL!
Good lord man! Why would you want to do that? If you think umpiring is
thankless, try selling albums as an indie artist not purveying modern
pop schlock! We're seriously in the hole on the first official release
(not to mention thousands in the hole on each of the two older "demo"
albums), plus we're about to go even further into the red on the new
one. And the next one after that (recorded, mixed, in the can) is
already lining up it's vampire teeth to bite us.
noel....@webtribe.net
yudever wrote:
> I made a mistake of entering into this discussion. These issues are
> too serious to be discussed on a few posts penned casually while
> watching South Park. (-: Besides, this is a completely wrong forum
> for it.
>
Well Holding chose to throw the "let's introduce politics into cricket"
ball into the air.
Human nature dictates that someone will pick that ball up and run with
it.......
Bob Dubery
Reverse Swing wrote:
> Quoting from Michael Holding's column in India Today's print edition dated
> Sept 4, 2006 (web edition is available only on payment)
>
> Column is titled - "Double Standards - Inflexibility and insensitivity sink
> a Test match as first world hypocrisy comes to the forefront"
>
> To quotet the most interesting paragraph:
>
> "There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only
> highlighted it. When England used reverse swing to beat the Australians in
> the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. I can't say they were
> tampering with the ball but then no one even contemplated the idea that they
> could possibly be getting reverse swing the unfair way.
I recall suggestions that there had been skulduggery. Something to do
with using sweets to load saliva with substances that would impart
extra shine to the ball. There was also a suggestion from Australia
that England had been taking liberties with substitute fielders.
I can also recall an England captain having to go before the beak for
"unfamiliar action" with the ball.
I've met Michael Holding, and he's a lovely man, but if he's being
quoted accurately here then he's taking a rather one-eyed view of
things.
Phil.
Firstly that "no one even contemplated the idea that they could
possibly be getting reverse swing the unfair way."
ball to reverse after 20 overs and this couldn't possibly be right,
Freddy was interviewed and specifically asked about picking the seam
with his fingernails, that shut up rapidly when he showed that his
fingernails were bitten down to the quick, and finally Bracken's
accusations that England were using 'sugary saliva' to doctor the ball.
So clearly Holding's statement is incorrect!
Secondly, "When bombs go off in London, no one says anything."
Again not true, several Aussie players expressed concern and security
was looked into, it was said at the time that had there been a second
occurance that they might well have gone. Bear in mind too that the
event in Sri Lanka was an attack on a Pakistani diplomat who was
receiving top security not on public transit. Promises of beefed up
security aren't as convincing when the attack was against a high
security target.
I'm afraid that clearly exaggerating (to be charitable) his underlying
premise Holding has greatly undermined the credibility of his article.
Phil.
noel....@webtribe.net
Bob Dubery wrote:
>
> I recall suggestions that there had been skulduggery. Something to do
> with using sweets to load saliva with substances that would impart
> extra shine to the ball. There was also a suggestion from Australia
> that England had been taking liberties with substitute fielders.
>
Oh there's no doubt England were bending the rules last summer where
subsitute fielders were concerned. Even the pro-BBC TMS made more than
one reference to it.
As far as the application of "substances that would impart extra shine
to the ball", some of us are old enough to remember the England tour of
India in 1976 and the very ordinary John Lever's fondness for headbands
and pots of Vaseline.
Sampath
<noel....@webtribe.net> wrote in message
news:1156780579.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> yudever wrote:
>
>> I made a mistake of entering into this discussion. These issues are
>> too serious to be discussed on a few posts penned casually while
>> watching South Park. (-: Besides, this is a completely wrong forum
>> for it.
>>
>
> Well Holding chose to throw the "let's introduce politics into cricket"
> ball into the air.
There is no politics in cricket ??????
Newz to me !!!!!
Sampath
> Sampath wrote:
>> "sdavmor" <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com> wrote in message
>> news:QFwIg.339616$bN2.2...@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>>> Sampath wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> But you read my comment in this thread and I didnt mention your VERY
>>>> FAMOUS name.
>>> If I'm that famous, how come you haven't bought my album? ;-)
>>
>> I would rather join your band as a singer :-)
>
> LOL!
>
> Good lord man! Why would you want to do that? If you think umpiring is
> thankless,
Umpires make TOO MANY MISTAKES.
>try selling albums as an indie artist not purveying modern
> pop schlock! We're seriously in the hole on the first official release
> (not to mention thousands in the hole on each of the two older "demo"
> albums), plus we're about to go even further into the red on the new
> one. And the next one after that (recorded, mixed, in the can) is
> already lining up it's vampire teeth to bite us.
> --
> Cheers,
> SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
> Systems Theory internet music project links:
> soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
> garageband <http://www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
> "Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
> "Codetalkers" CD coming very soon in 2006
> NP: nothing
Make me the lead singer in your band and I will get you into black soon.
Sampath
So tell me HOW flintoff and Jones got REVERSE SWING and won ashes without
tampering the ball.
I would LOVE to do it myself and fuck the gorgeous blonde brit model who had
a one night stand with Jones.
> Secondly, "When bombs go off in London, no one says anything."
> Again not true, several Aussie players expressed concern and security
> was looked into, it was said at the time that had there been a second
> occurance that they might well have gone.
NICE EXCUSE. The FACT is the TOUR WENT ON.
>Bear in mind too that the
> event in Sri Lanka was an attack on a Pakistani diplomat who was
> receiving top security not on public transit. Promises of beefed up
> security aren't as convincing when the attack was against a high
> security target.
> I'm afraid that clearly exaggerating (to be charitable) his underlying
> premise Holding has greatly undermined the credibility of his article.
>
> Phil.
It is you who will do anything and offer any no.of excuses and spin to
support your view point.
Sampath
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156782402.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Was there any investigation by media, columnists, fans, officials and
umpires HOW flintoff and jones got REVERSE SWING during the ashes series ?
Are you telling me that they got REVERSE SWING without tampering the ball.
Phil.
That isn't the point Holding claimed that no-one questioned it, I
demonstrated that they had.
Bowling at over 90 mph with a Dukes ball helps, of course not all their
wickets were taken by reverse swing.
>
> I would LOVE to do it myself and fuck the gorgeous blonde brit model who had
> a one night stand with Jones.
>
>
>
> > Secondly, "When bombs go off in London, no one says anything."
> > Again not true, several Aussie players expressed concern and security
> > was looked into, it was said at the time that had there been a second
> > occurance that they might well have gone.
>
>
> NICE EXCUSE. The FACT is the TOUR WENT ON.
Again you're changing the subject, Holding said that nothing was said,
in fact something was said.
>
>
> >Bear in mind too that the
> > event in Sri Lanka was an attack on a Pakistani diplomat who was
> > receiving top security not on public transit. Promises of beefed up
> > security aren't as convincing when the attack was against a high
> > security target.
> > I'm afraid that clearly exaggerating (to be charitable) his underlying
> > premise Holding has greatly undermined the credibility of his article.
> >
> > Phil.
>
>
>
>
> It is you who will do anything and offer any no.of excuses and spin to
> support your view point.
Well in this case I offered facts, Holding did not.
Phil.
Sampath
Where did I change the subject ?
The visiting team DID NOT cancel the tour. Thats ALL THAT MATTERS compared
to visiting teams canceling the tours to Pak and SL.
>> >Bear in mind too that the
>> > event in Sri Lanka was an attack on a Pakistani diplomat who was
>> > receiving top security not on public transit. Promises of beefed up
>> > security aren't as convincing when the attack was against a high
>> > security target.
>> > I'm afraid that clearly exaggerating (to be charitable) his underlying
>> > premise Holding has greatly undermined the credibility of his article.
>> >
>> > Phil.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is you who will do anything and offer any no.of excuses and spin to
>> support your view point.
>
>
> Well in this case I offered facts, Holding did not.
>
> Phil.
Did Aussies publicly say ENG bowlers CHEATED and called UK a NATION OF
CHEATS ?
So tell me how did Flintoff and Jones GOT REVERSE SWING without tampering
the ball ?
Phil.
The subject was the truth or otherwise of Holding's statements, you
avcoided answering by changing the subject.
>
> The visiting team DID NOT cancel the tour. Thats ALL THAT MATTERS compared
> to visiting teams canceling the tours to Pak and SL.
>
>
>
>
> >> >Bear in mind too that the
> >> > event in Sri Lanka was an attack on a Pakistani diplomat who was
> >> > receiving top security not on public transit. Promises of beefed up
> >> > security aren't as convincing when the attack was against a high
> >> > security target.
> >> > I'm afraid that clearly exaggerating (to be charitable) his underlying
> >> > premise Holding has greatly undermined the credibility of his article.
> >> >
> >> > Phil.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It is you who will do anything and offer any no.of excuses and spin to
> >> support your view point.
> >
> >
> > Well in this case I offered facts, Holding did not.
> >
> > Phil.
>
>
>
>
>
> Did Aussies publicly say ENG bowlers CHEATED and called UK a NATION OF
> CHEATS ?
Actually yes, see Bracken for one.
>
> So tell me how did Flintoff and Jones GOT REVERSE SWING without tampering
> the ball ?
>
Already answered.
Phil.
sdavmor
No. They did however suggest through backdoor channels that England
might be ball-tampering.
> So tell me how did Flintoff and Jones GOT REVERSE SWING without tampering
> the ball ?
I will do that ASAP. I'm tied up supporting some customers (Monday
being my busiest day of the week), but I will be glad to do that one
for you. I will be happy to go it great technical detail so it's clear
how legal reverse swing is achieved, vs illegal (ball-tampering)
reverse swing. It will be a few hours before I get started, but I will
get to it sometime before the end of the day here in SoCal.
sdavmor
We're an instrumental trio, though we do use vocals for effect. If
you're being serious, then send me a tape of you doing three different
songs and we'll give it a listen. We have worked with guests before
so it all depends on what you bring to the table.
We have the next album already mixed and will be releasing it shortly
("Codetalkers"), also the third album to follow it ("Overful Noise
Cascade"). It's in the can ready to go in late 2007/early 2008.
shariq...@yahoo.com
Phil. wrote:
> > So tell me how did Flintoff and Jones GOT REVERSE SWING without tampering
> > the ball ?
> >
>
> Already answered.
>
> Phil.
Is it? You assertion is that since Flintoff's fingernails were cut
short so he could not have scuffed/tampered with the ball. So by that
assertion if the fingernails of the Pakistanis were short,
scuffing/tampering could not have happend. Care to tell us why Hair,
who is striking back like a cornered alley cat, not speaking out
against the "illegal" length of the Pakistani pacemen's fingernails
It is no coincidence that England's premier exponents of reverse swing
came from counties that had the services of Wasim and Waqar as their
overseas professionals. It is also no secret that reverse swing was
discovered on the dusty "maidaans" of Pakistan and and not the
manicured cricket fields of England. Hence, it is unlikely that England
bowlers would know how to do something that the Pakistanis don't
Your points about the Duke ball being easier to reverse are well made
but the fact remains that the Duke ball was used last summer and was
also used in this summer as well. England, with Jones and Flintoff out
of the reckoning were not able to effectively reverse the ball but the
Pakistanis, especially in the last test of the series were. So why
should fingers have been only pointed at the Pakistanis?
Shariq
R. Bharat Rao
> R. Bharat Rao wrote:
> > yudever wrote:
> > > You could not find a more committed libertarian than Alan Berkowitz
>
> Sorry for the typo; I meant Alan Dershowitz.
>
> > My concern is that if there is a card, it could
> > be used to harass "funny looking" people -- to go ask people who look
> > like they are from some part of the world for a card, to routinely track
> > people of a certain ethnicity, etc. That, I do have a problem with.
> Why do you have problem with 'tracking' people of certain ethnicity?
Assuming that is a serious question, because from there to "lets stick
all
Jews/Japanese/Arabs into a camp," is a very short step.
> All the terrorists have been Moslem men in the age group of 18 to 40.
> Is it really that unreasonable to say that Moslem men in the age group
> of 18 to 40 deserve special scrutiny?
Because, I fundamentally don't believe you can do that to random people
on the street in a democracy. By all means do it when people fly -- I
have
no real issues with that, as you know that going in, you will be
searched -
but I have real issues with randomly questioning people of a certain
ethnic/racial profile, as they walk down the street, drink a cup of
coffee, etc.
For instance, many drug dealers are black/Hispanic -- I know, lets stop
every
car driven by black/Hispanic men, and search it thoroughly. We will
find some
drug dealers for sure, and that will reduce the # of drug dealers.
Sounds like
a good deal doesn't it?
Except it isn't. For good reason, a police officer needs either a
warrant or
reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed to stop or
question
people, let alone search someone.
> Frisking them a bit more
> carefully would be a lot more efficient than strip-searching 70 year
> old grannies and 4 year old toddlers.
Let me give you an extreme analogy. Let us say the cops know of a
secret
society of people who carry dangerous explosives in body orifices, that
could
blow up a city. They also know that all these people have a first name
that begins
with "San". So in a protective measure -- after all several million
people in the
city are at risk, they round up everyone whose first name begins with
"San" --
including you -- and perform forcible cavity searches.
Doesn't sound like fun. And yes, that is a ridiculous analogy.
But your connection with others whose first name begins with "San" is
not
to different from the connections of millions of Moslems who have
nothing
to do with the bombings; and frisking them for no reason on the street,
is
humiliating and discriminatory..
All IMO, of course. It is always interesting to argue with someone who
can
frame their thoughts cogently. Lets stick to the fundamental issue if
we can --
not ID cards -- but whether it is OK to routinely target some minority,
in the
interests of national security...
Bharat
PS: You said you agreed with my quote by Ben Franklin. It seems to me
that
this selective targeting of certain races/minorities, was exactly what
old Ben was
talking about...
Phil.
shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Phil. wrote:
> > > So tell me how did Flintoff and Jones GOT REVERSE SWING without tampering
> > > the ball ?
> > >
> >
> > Already answered.
> >
> > Phil.
>
> Is it? You assertion is that since Flintoff's fingernails were cut
> short so he could not have scuffed/tampered with the ball. So by that
> assertion if the fingernails of the Pakistanis were short,
> scuffing/tampering could not have happend. Care to tell us why Hair,
> who is striking back like a cornered alley cat, not speaking out
> against the "illegal" length of the Pakistani pacemen's fingernails
Put it like this as soon as the interviewer saw the state of his
fingernails the subject was dropped never to be raised again! His
fingernails weren't cut they were bitten, which if you know anyone who
does this is far more drastic than any cutting. I would agree with you
that if the Pakistani nails were trimmed right down this would remove
the most obvious tool for ball tampering thus making a charge of
'tampering' less credible. Hair is forbidden from talking about the
charges that have been laid so we don't yet know if the issue of
fingernails will be a factor. I would draw your attention to the
images on this site however, particularly the thumb in the first.
>
> It is no coincidence that England's premier exponents of reverse swing
> came from counties that had the services of Wasim and Waqar as their
> overseas professionals. It is also no secret that reverse swing was
> discovered on the dusty "maidaans" of Pakistan and and not the
> manicured cricket fields of England. Hence, it is unlikely that England
> bowlers would know how to do something that the Pakistanis don't
Although Troy Cooley who was England's bowling coach last year and who
was responsible for perfecting Flintoff and Jones reversing spent time
discussing the subject with Mehta, a fluid mechanics prof, who has
studied the phenomenon in the wind tunnel and published articles about
it. So it is possible England do know something about it that Pakistan
do not. Pakistan players apparently believe that you can only get
reverse swing by tampering with the ball and don't consider that
cheating if Afridi is to be believed.
>
> Your points about the Duke ball being easier to reverse are well made
> but the fact remains that the Duke ball was used last summer and was
> also used in this summer as well. England, with Jones and Flintoff out
> of the reckoning were not able to effectively reverse the ball but the
> Pakistanis, especially in the last test of the series were. So why
> should fingers have been only pointed at the Pakistanis?
>
As far as I'm aware the umpires thought that the ball was being
tampered with based on what they saw had happened to the surface of the
ball not because it was reversing. Some apologists for the Pakistan
team such as Imran, a self confessed ball tamperer himself, have tried
to make this argument but it is an illogical, unless you accept that
reverse swing can only be achieved by cheating.
Phil.
max.it
>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:31:12 GMT, m...@teatime.co.uk (max.it) wrote:
>
>>On 27 Aug 2006 14:29:36 -0700, "R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>>> BTW. Some parts of the UK already have id cards. I have had a
>>>> photograpic driving licence for 25 years.
>>>
>>>That is voluntary.
>>
>>It was not voluntary in my jurisdiction.
>
>They force you to drive?
>
>>> You only need get one if you intend to drive a car;
>>>and even if you possess one, you are under no obligation to carry it
>>>around, when you are NOT driving.
>>
>>"Excuse me sir, do you have any identification?" Id card gets you on
>>your way , no id card gets you scooped.
>
>"scooped" ?
That would be the old "suss" law kicking in.
Not so common these days.
>
>>Voting, no id means no vote, my driving licence is an id for the
>>purpose of voting.
>
>Are you in Northern Ireland? as for the rest of the UK you do not
>need ID to vote at a polling station, let alone other methods which
>don't even require you to be there.
Correct Jim. Northern Ireland.
>
>Jim.
Sampath
"R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156790412.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> yudever wrote:
>> R. Bharat Rao wrote:
>> > yudever wrote:
>> > > You could not find a more committed libertarian than Alan Berkowitz
>>
>> Sorry for the typo; I meant Alan Dershowitz.
>>
>> > My concern is that if there is a card, it could
>> > be used to harass "funny looking" people -- to go ask people who look
>> > like they are from some part of the world for a card, to routinely
>> > track
>> > people of a certain ethnicity, etc. That, I do have a problem with.
>
>> Why do you have problem with 'tracking' people of certain ethnicity?
>
> Assuming that is a serious question, because from there to "lets stick
> all
> Jews/Japanese/Arabs into a camp," is a very short step.
And then chinese and indians too later.
Benjamin Franklin was also talking about GOVTS taking away FREEDOMS and
LIBERTIES of citizens by MANIPULATING them to become PARANOID.
Sampath
But we already knew NOBODY including the aussies called brit bowlers CHEATS
even though aussies made SOME DIPLOMATIC NOISES with words saliva, mint etc.
>It
> depends what Hair would have done in last year's ashes.
> I am not saying that Hair is totally without biases.
>
Holding did criticize ICC for the 15% bending rule in case of muralitharan.
I think he is SPOT ON with his CRITICISM of FIRST WORLD HYPOCRISY and DOUBLE
STANDARDS.
Sampath
He meant nobody ACCUSED the BRIT BOWLERS of "CHEATING" and britain a NATION
OF CHEATS which is being done in case of Pak.
Are you that dense ?
>> >Bear in mind too that the
>> > event in Sri Lanka was an attack on a Pakistani diplomat who was
>> > receiving top security not on public transit. Promises of beefed up
>> > security aren't as convincing when the attack was against a high
>> > security target.
>> > I'm afraid that clearly exaggerating (to be charitable) his underlying
>> > premise Holding has greatly undermined the credibility of his article.
>> >
>> > Phil.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is you who will do anything and offer any no.of excuses and spin to
>> support your view point.
>
>
> Well in this case I offered facts, Holding did not.
>
> Phil.
What FACTS did you OFFER ?
NONE.
Sampath
You are SPINNING it like the GENIUS SPINMEISTER the one and only Bill O
Reilly.
Some wickets were taken by REVERSE SWING and how did flintoff and jones got
the REVERSE SWING ?
>> >> I would LOVE to do it myself and fuck the gorgeous blonde brit model
>> >> who
>> >> had
>> >> a one night stand with Jones.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Secondly, "When bombs go off in London, no one says anything."
>> >> > Again not true, several Aussie players expressed concern and
>> >> > security
>> >> > was looked into, it was said at the time that had there been a
>> >> > second
>> >> > occurance that they might well have gone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> NICE EXCUSE. The FACT is the TOUR WENT ON.
>> >
>> >
>> > Again you're changing the subject, Holding said that nothing was said,
>> > in fact something was said.
>>
>>
>> Where did I change the subject ?
>
> The subject was the truth or otherwise of Holding's statements, you
> avcoided answering by changing the subject.
It is you and the rest of the brits and aussies who CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.
You guys need to GROW UP.
>> The visiting team DID NOT cancel the tour. Thats ALL THAT MATTERS
>> compared
>> to visiting teams canceling the tours to Pak and SL.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >Bear in mind too that the
>> >> > event in Sri Lanka was an attack on a Pakistani diplomat who was
>> >> > receiving top security not on public transit. Promises of beefed up
>> >> > security aren't as convincing when the attack was against a high
>> >> > security target.
>> >> > I'm afraid that clearly exaggerating (to be charitable) his
>> >> > underlying
>> >> > premise Holding has greatly undermined the credibility of his
>> >> > article.
>> >> >
>> >> > Phil.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It is you who will do anything and offer any no.of excuses and spin to
>> >> support your view point.
>> >
>> >
>> > Well in this case I offered facts, Holding did not.
>> >
>> > Phil.
Holding did OFFER FACTS. You chose to turn a blind eye.
FACT 1: Visiting teams DID NOT cancel their tour to Eng despite 7-11
bomblasts in London where as in case of karachi and colombo, they did.
FACT 2: No aussie accused the brits of CHEATING and called britain a NATION
of CHEATS and infact everybody PRAISED flintoff and Jones for their SKILL of
REVERSE SWING and a gorgeous brit model even went to the xtent of having a
one night stand as is customary in western societies :-) with Jones for his
REVERSE SWING SKILLS.
>> Did Aussies publicly say ENG bowlers CHEATED and called UK a NATION OF
>> CHEATS ?
>
> Actually yes, see Bracken for one.
Show me a link where Bracken USED the word "CHEATS" and I will APOLOGISE
here.
>> So tell me how did Flintoff and Jones GOT REVERSE SWING without tampering
>> the ball ?
>>
>
> Already answered.
>
> Phil.
You didnt, you are an expert skillful dodger.
Sampath
Then CASE CLOSED.
>They did however suggest through backdoor channels that England might be
>ball-tampering.
The keyword is "might be" but nobody DIRECTLY CALLED the brit bowlers
CHEATS.
>> So tell me how did Flintoff and Jones GOT REVERSE SWING without tampering
>> the ball ?
>
> I will do that ASAP. I'm tied up supporting some customers (Monday
> being my busiest day of the week), but I will be glad to do that one
> for you. I will be happy to go it great technical detail so it's clear
> how legal reverse swing is achieved, vs illegal (ball-tampering)
> reverse swing. It will be a few hours before I get started, but I will
> get to it sometime before the end of the day here in SoCal.
> --
> Cheers,
> SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
>
While you are at it, if YOU KNOW how to REVERSE SWING the ball WITHOUT BALL
TAMPERING then explain to me why YOU DIDNT BECOME a CONSULTANT to the brit
team and COACH EVERY BRIT BOWLER how to get REVERSE SWING LEGALLY all THESE
YEARS.
shariq...@yahoo.com
Phil. wrote:
>
> Put it like this as soon as the interviewer saw the state of his
> fingernails the subject was dropped never to be raised again! His
> fingernails weren't cut they were bitten, which if you know anyone who
> does this is far more drastic than any cutting.
Let me play devil's advocate but bitten nails tend to be more jagged
than those trimmed with a nail cutter. Plus who is to say that
Flintoff's nails did not get the way they did from him "working" on the
ball? Do you know for a fact that Simon Jones' nails were also bitten
as drastically as Flintoff's? What about those of England's fielders?
Is there no possiblity that they "worked" on the wall?
> I would agree with you
> that if the Pakistani nails were trimmed right down this would remove
> the most obvious tool for ball tampering thus making a charge of
> 'tampering' less credible. Hair is forbidden from talking about the
> charges that have been laid so we don't yet know if the issue of
> fingernails will be a factor. I would draw your attention to the
> images on this site however, particularly the thumb in the first.
>
Phil at this point Hair has indulged in more than one "forbidden" acts
as far as the professional umpiring conduct goes. So trying to pass him
off as the strong silent type does not exactly fly IMHO. I personally
think it is only a matter of time before he will reveal that Duncan
Fletcher was the guy who asked him to look out for the Pakistanis
tampering the ball
As far as that picture goes we don't even know if it is from the same
test or from the same game. I mean no widely run publication that I
know of has picked up that picture and run with it. If there are can
you please post the links in response to this post
>
>
> Although Troy Cooley who was England's bowling coach last year and who
> was responsible for perfecting Flintoff and Jones reversing spent time
> discussing the subject with Mehta, a fluid mechanics prof, who has
> studied the phenomenon in the wind tunnel and published articles about
> it. So it is possible England do know something about it that Pakistan
> do not. Pakistan players apparently believe that you can only get
> reverse swing by tampering with the ball and don't consider that
> cheating if Afridi is to be believed.
Well if England know something that the Pakistanis don't then why have
their other pacemen not been able to master reverse swing like Flintoff
and Jones? I mean if Professor Mehta was the reverse swing guru why
could he not impart the knowledge to England's other bowlers?
>
> As far as I'm aware the umpires thought that the ball was being
> tampered with based on what they saw had happened to the surface of the
> ball not because it was reversing.
Actually England players had their binoculars out as early as the 20th
over of the innings. The ball started reversing around the 50th over
and it was changed around the 55th over. Rumour has it that Bell
uttered something to Hair after coming in at the fall of Cook's wicket
> Some apologists for the Pakistan
> team such as Imran, a self confessed ball tamperer himself, have tried
> to make this argument but it is an illogical, unless you accept that
> reverse swing can only be achieved by cheating.
>
> Phil.
That's not a correct statement. If doctoring/tampering with the ball
was all that was required, reverse swing could be achieved under any
sort of conditions and by any kind of bowler with any kind of ball and
without any kind of method. That's not the case and this has been
discussed in great detail by cricket analysts in the commentary booth
and in print media
Hair apologists are trying to portray him as a whistle blowing martyr
whose pricipled stand have landed him in hot water. However, the
sequence of events that have occurred suggest that his high handedness,
arrogance and sinister lack of integrity have left him in a position
where continuing his career as an international umpire seems like a
longshot at best
Shariq
yudever
would very cathartic, especially since I'm not totally convinced of
my own position! (-:
R. Bharat Rao wrote:
> yudever wrote:
> > Why do you have problem with 'tracking' people of certain ethnicity?
>
> Assuming that is a serious question, because from there to "lets stick
> all Jews/Japanese/Arabs into a camp," is a very short step.
Not really, there is a large valley between these two things.
'Slippery slope' is a very seductive argument and a valid one. But
no one is asking for concentration camps; this is 21st century America!
All that is being asked for is more scrutiny of certain people. Like
Reagan used to say, "Trust, but verify"!
> > All the terrorists have been Moslem men in the age group of 18 to 40.
> > Is it really that unreasonable to say that Moslem men in the age group
> > of 18 to 40 deserve special scrutiny?
>
> Because, I fundamentally don't believe you can do that to random people
> on the street in a democracy. By all means do it when people fly -- I
> have no real issues with that, as you know that going in, you will be
> searched
See how even you are asking for profiling for air-travelers? You are
willing to allow this exception because you fly and you don't want to
be victim of some madman. Lemme tell you, intelligence based profiling
is not the worst thing in the world. Unfortunately, the problem with
intelligence is that it is very expensive and very imperfect. So you
check the luggage of certain people a bit more carefully or ask them
some additional questions. "Trust, but verify."
> but I have real issues with randomly questioning people of a certain
> ethnic/racial profile, as they walk down the street, drink a cup of coffee, etc.
That will never happen, not in the societies we live in.
> For instance, many drug dealers are black/Hispanic -- I know, lets stop
> every car driven by black/Hispanic men, and search it thoroughly. We will
> find some drug dealers for sure, and that will reduce the # of drug dealers.
> Sounds like a good deal doesn't it?
No. it sounds awfully inefficient! (-:
> Let me give you an extreme analogy. Let us say the cops know of a
> secret society of people who carry dangerous explosives in body orifices, that
> could blow up a city. They also know that all these people have a first name
> that begins with "San". So in a protective measure -- after all several million
> people in the city are at risk, they round up everyone whose first name begins with
> "San" -- including you -- and perform forcible cavity searches.
> Doesn't sound like fun. And yes, that is a ridiculous analogy.
> But your connection with others whose first name begins with "San" is
> not to different from the connections of millions of Moslems who have
> nothing to do with the bombings; and frisking them for no reason on the street,
> is humiliating and discriminatory..
For once, we are in complete agreement; it is a ridiculous analogy.
(-:
London Times got their hands on a confidential government survey and
published it. According to that survey, 24% of Moslems in Britain feel
sympathy for the "feelings and motives" of those who carried out the
7/7 attacks and 56% "understand why some people behave in that way".
24% and 56% is not 100% but it is not 1% o 2% either. Under these
circumstances, a government that does pay additional attention to these
people is being lax in carrying out their responsibilities, IMO.
> All IMO, of course. It is always interesting to argue with someone who
> can frame their thoughts cogently. Lets stick to the fundamental issue if
> we can -- not ID cards -- but whether it is OK to routinely target some minority,
> in the interests of national security...
Target is strong word. I'd settle for scrutiny.
> PS: You said you agreed with my quote by Ben Franklin. It seems to me
> that this selective targeting of certain races/minorities, was exactly what
> old Ben was talking about...
I do agree with Ben Franklin, on that point and almost everything else
he believed in. What I said earlier and I repeat here is that just
because you are looking at someone more carefully does not mean you are
infringing on their persons rights. Sure such scrutiny can be misused,
but anything that is good can be misused.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Phil.
shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Phil. wrote:
> >
> > Put it like this as soon as the interviewer saw the state of his
> > fingernails the subject was dropped never to be raised again! His
> > fingernails weren't cut they were bitten, which if you know anyone who
> > does this is far more drastic than any cutting.
>
> Let me play devil's advocate but bitten nails tend to be more jagged
> than those trimmed with a nail cutter. Plus who is to say that
> Flintoff's nails did not get the way they did from him "working" on the
> ball? Do you know for a fact that Simon Jones' nails were also bitten
> as drastically as Flintoff's? What about those of England's fielders?
> Is there no possiblity that they "worked" on the wall?
OK, let's remember that I cited this in refutation of Holding's point
that no one had questioned the legality of the England bowlers' reverse
swing, I take it that a reasonable man such as yourself accepts that I
proved my case?
To discuss the merits of the case, my experience of habitual nailbiters
is that while the nails are rough they're also rather soft and would be
useless for the purpose of opening up a quarter seam for example. In
the specific case of Flintoff the interview went along the following
lines:
"Fred some of the Aussie broadcaster's think you're using your nails to
work on the seams"
"What, with these?" Fred holds hands out to interviewer.
Oh,.............<change of subject>
Clearly the interviewer immediately recognised that the accusation was
nonsense and the subject was totally dropped.
I've no idea whether any of the fielders or Jones had nails capable of
working the seams, I suspect that they did, however the only specific
accusation was made against Flintoff and was refuted in the manner
described.
>
> > I would agree with you
> > that if the Pakistani nails were trimmed right down this would remove
> > the most obvious tool for ball tampering thus making a charge of
> > 'tampering' less credible. Hair is forbidden from talking about the
> > charges that have been laid so we don't yet know if the issue of
> > fingernails will be a factor. I would draw your attention to the
> > images on this site however, particularly the thumb in the first.
> >
> Phil at this point Hair has indulged in more than one "forbidden" acts
> as far as the professional umpiring conduct goes. So trying to pass him
> off as the strong silent type does not exactly fly IMHO. I personally
> think it is only a matter of time before he will reveal that Duncan
> Fletcher was the guy who asked him to look out for the Pakistanis
> tampering the ball
I don't know what acts you're referring to but as far as the specifics
of the case are concerned he quite properly has not talked about it so
I think he has to get credit for that. What's really annoying is all
the writers etc ranting on about how no evidence has been produced
knowing full well that's that is the way it is supposed to be. Of
course the ICC has ensured that this is the case by dragging out the
hearing process, normally this would have been held immediately after
the match. I see no reason why the ball tampering hearing could not
have been held right away. Only one person suffers from this
development is Hair, everybody else benefits from the delay.
>
> As far as that picture goes we don't even know if it is from the same
> test or from the same game. I mean no widely run publication that I
> know of has picked up that picture and run with it. If there are can
> you please post the links in response to this post.
This picture series is documented as having being taken after the ball
was exchanged at the Oval.
> >
> >
> > Although Troy Cooley who was England's bowling coach last year and who
> > was responsible for perfecting Flintoff and Jones reversing spent time
> > discussing the subject with Mehta, a fluid mechanics prof, who has
> > studied the phenomenon in the wind tunnel and published articles about
> > it. So it is possible England do know something about it that Pakistan
> > do not. Pakistan players apparently believe that you can only get
> > reverse swing by tampering with the ball and don't consider that
> > cheating if Afridi is to be believed.
>
> Well if England know something that the Pakistanis don't then why have
> their other pacemen not been able to master reverse swing like Flintoff
> and Jones? I mean if Professor Mehta was the reverse swing guru why
> could he not impart the knowledge to England's other bowlers?
I think it was not for want of trying! A couple of points: in the most
part it requires speed so Hoggard for the most part probably doesn't
bowl fast enough, it also requires a good wrist position and the
ability to maintain an erect seam, Sajid isn't that good at this yet.
Harmison bowls shorter and wouldn't be a good candidate for reversing.
An additional point is that swing induced by tampering, such as picking
a quarter seam isn't so restricted, it would swing at lower speeds.
> >
> > As far as I'm aware the umpires thought that the ball was being
> > tampered with based on what they saw had happened to the surface of the
> > ball not because it was reversing.
>
> Actually England players had their binoculars out as early as the 20th
> over of the innings. The ball started reversing around the 50th over
> and it was changed around the 55th over. Rumour has it that Bell
> uttered something to Hair after coming in at the fall of Cook's wicket.
Maybe so but the umpires were looking at the condition of the ball, by
the way tampered balls don't typically reverse they just swing unless
it's general scuffing.
>
> > Some apologists for the Pakistan
> > team such as Imran, a self confessed ball tamperer himself, have tried
> > to make this argument but it is an illogical, unless you accept that
> > reverse swing can only be achieved by cheating.
> >
> > Phil.
>
> That's not a correct statement. If doctoring/tampering with the ball
> was all that was required, reverse swing could be achieved under any
> sort of conditions and by any kind of bowler with any kind of ball and
> without any kind of method. That's not the case and this has been
> discussed in great detail by cricket analysts in the commentary booth
> and in print media.
Exactly which was my point, just because it's possible to make a ball
reverse by tampering doesn't mean that all reversing is caused by
tampering which is the inference made by Imran among others. Reverse
swing needs a rough ball with a good seam and you still have to bowl
fast with a good seam position as I've said above. Picking the quarter
seam is a different matter though, it might look like reverse under
some circumstances but it ain't.
>
> Hair apologists are trying to portray him as a whistle blowing martyr
> whose pricipled stand have landed him in hot water. However, the
> sequence of events that have occurred suggest that his high handedness,
> arrogance and sinister lack of integrity have left him in a position
> where continuing his career as an international umpire seems like a
> longshot at best
>
I would dispute the lack of integrity part, I'm more inclined to
attribute that to the ICC, the whole release of the documents without
reference to the preceding conversations stinks to high heaven. The
ultimate cause of the whole business was the umpires' decision that the
ball had been tampered with, whether high handed or not that is no
excuse for what followed. Say for the sake of argument that the
quarter seam had been opened up over about 5 overs when no particular
pyrotechnics with the bat, what would you have the the umpires do?
Phil.
Bob Dubery
noel....@webtribe.net wrote:
> Bob Dubery wrote:
> >
> > I recall suggestions that there had been skulduggery. Something to do
> > with using sweets to load saliva with substances that would impart
> > extra shine to the ball. There was also a suggestion from Australia
> > that England had been taking liberties with substitute fielders.
> >
>
> Oh there's no doubt England were bending the rules last summer where
> subsitute fielders were concerned. Even the pro-BBC TMS made more than
> one reference to it.
In my experience commentators are not necessarily accquainted with the
laws an playing conditions. Personally I couldn't see anything illegal
with what England were up to, and I recall an incident in which
Australia similarly fielded a substitute fielder from outside of their
squad.
Andrew Dunford
"Reverse Swing" <NOswinging...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44f1d...@x-privat.org...
> Quoting from Michael Holding's column in India Today's print edition dated
> Sept 4, 2006 (web edition is available only on payment)
Will 500 grand cover it?
<snip>
Andrew
Phil.
Contrary to what is believed by some, e.g. Afridi it is possible to
reverse a ball without tampering.
Which is not what Holding said. He said "When bombs go off in London,
no one says anything."
>
> FACT 2: No aussie accused the brits of CHEATING and called britain a NATION
> of CHEATS and infact everybody PRAISED flintoff and Jones for their SKILL of
> REVERSE SWING and a gorgeous brit model even went to the xtent of having a
> one night stand as is customary in western societies :-) with Jones for his
> REVERSE SWING SKILLS.
>
If you want to be that literal no one accused the Pakistan team of
cheating and certainly not of being a nation of cheats. It was the
Pakistan team themselves who said that! They said if you accuse us of
ball tampering you're saying we cheat and it's a slur on our nation's
honour, why is it not the same when Aussies accuse the England team of
ball tampering? As I've already shown several accusations were made
but none substantiated, the most persistent being Bracken's 'sugary
saliva' nonsense. However you continue to trot out the Imran/Holding
et al. line that "no one even contemplated the idea that they could
possibly be getting reverse swing the unfair way."
>
> >> Did Aussies publicly say ENG bowlers CHEATED and called UK a NATION OF
> >> CHEATS ?
> >
> > Actually yes, see Bracken for one.
>
>
> Show me a link where Bracken USED the word "CHEATS" and I will APOLOGISE
> here.
>
The only ones using the word 'cheats' in this whole mess has been
Pakistan.
>
> >> So tell me how did Flintoff and Jones GOT REVERSE SWING without tampering
> >> the ball ?
> >>
> >
> > Already answered.
> >
> > Phil.
>
>
>
>
> You didnt, you are an expert skillful dodger.
Which part of "bowling with a Dukes ball at over 90mph" didn't you
understand? Or would you like the full fluid mechanics explanation?
Phil.
R. Bharat Rao
yudever wrote:
> > Because, I fundamentally don't believe you can do that to random people
> > on the street in a democracy. By all means do it when people fly -- I
> > have no real issues with that, as you know that going in, you will be
> > searched
>
> See how even you are asking for profiling for air-travelers? You are
> willing to allow this exception because you fly and you don't want to
> be victim of some madman.
Now who is getting personal and (semi) insulting -- not much difference
between your inferring ignoble motives than the abuse directed at you
calling you a bigot -- except phrased in a more civilized manner..
> Lemme tell you, intelligence based profiling
> is not the worst thing in the world. Unfortunately, the problem with
> intelligence is that it is very expensive and very imperfect. So you
> check the luggage of certain people a bit more carefully or ask them
> some additional questions. "Trust, but verify."
I have no problem with that. When I go to an airport, I have an
expectation
of passing through security and being searched. I willingly cooperate.
I
travel to Israel frequently, and have been through 3 hour interrogation
and
detailed search sessions (at least, until I got a security clearance
which
now breezes me through in 10 minutes) and accepted that.
> > but I have real issues with randomly questioning people of a certain
> > ethnic/racial profile, as they walk down the street, drink a cup of coffee, etc.
>
> That will never happen, not in the societies we live in.
What do you mean by "extra scrutiny". If you want to apply extra
scrutiny
to certain people in the airport, by all means. I've myself been
subject to
that -- I've learned to shave my beard when I travel, it cuts a good 30
minutes
off at many international airports -- and accept it willingly.
Then we have no argument.
If you mean extra scrutiny of citizens in their day to day life (such
as wire
taps, etc.) just because they fit a racial profile, then I do have an
issue.
I have no issue with extra scrutiny at airports or borders. I have no
issue
with extra scrutiny of people who meet some suspicious activity (like
going
to a Madrasa, etc., or even belonging to some organizations/attending
their
meetings) -- I have an issue with profiling people just because of
their ethnicity
or their religion, and/or for normal activities of that religion (going
to a mosque
etc.), and thus putting them under extra scrutiny.
Bharat
Gafoor
> I have no issue with extra scrutiny at airports or borders. I have no
> issue
> with extra scrutiny of people who meet some suspicious activity (like
> going
> to a Madrasa, etc., or even belonging to some organizations/attending
> their
> meetings) -- I have an issue with profiling people just because of
> their ethnicity
> or their religion, and/or for normal activities of that religion
> (going to a mosque
> etc.), and thus putting them under extra scrutiny.
What's the difference between profiling someone going to
a madrassa & someone going to a mosque?
R. Bharat Rao
Fair point -- I'm going to take the 5th on this one.
Bharat
shariq...@yahoo.com
Phil. wrote:
> OK, let's remember that I cited this in refutation of Holding's point
> that no one had questioned the legality of the England bowlers' reverse
> swing, I take it that a reasonable man such as yourself accepts that I
> proved my case?
Fair enough but Nathan Bracken, who IIRC did not play a single test,
doing it at the end of the series, is not the same as the umpire
accusing them of foul play. So to the letter of the law Holding's
statement is not correct, but looking at the big picture I think
Holding's statement has merit.
> To discuss the merits of the case, my experience of habitual nailbiters
> is that while the nails are rough they're also rather soft and would be
> useless for the purpose of opening up a quarter seam for example. In
> the specific case of Flintoff the interview went along the following
> lines:
> "Fred some of the Aussie broadcaster's think you're using your nails to
> work on the seams"
> "What, with these?" Fred holds hands out to interviewer.
> Oh,.............<change of subject>
>
> Clearly the interviewer immediately recognised that the accusation was
> nonsense and the subject was totally dropped.
> I've no idea whether any of the fielders or Jones had nails capable of
> working the seams, I suspect that they did, however the only specific
> accusation was made against Flintoff and was refuted in the manner
> described.
>
Phil do you see the premise with which the interviewer asked the
question? I mean he was going to believe what Flintoff said at face
value. That's not investigative journalism but a mere/trivial query.
Even though you have acknowledged that other players could have
indulged in working on the ball your initial viewpoint suggested that
because Flintoff lacked adequate nail length, according to what you
read in an interview, England could possibly not have tampered with
the ball
> I don't know what acts you're referring to but as far as the specifics
> of the case are concerned he quite properly has not talked about it so
> I think he has to get credit for that. What's really annoying is all
> the writers etc ranting on about how no evidence has been produced
> knowing full well that's that is the way it is supposed to be. Of
> course the ICC has ensured that this is the case by dragging out the
> hearing process, normally this would have been held immediately after
> the match. I see no reason why the ball tampering hearing could not
> have been held right away. Only one person suffers from this
> development is Hair, everybody else benefits from the delay.
No disagreements here other than umpire Hair being the only one who
suffers. The longer this gets drawn out the more agonizing it will be
for all and sundry. The cloud of a 8 match ban for allegations of
1.) Ball tampering
2.) Bringing the game into disrepute
hangs menacingly over Inzamam's head along with the knowledge that the
last such extended ban ended the career of one Rashid Latif, the last
Pakistani skipper before him. There are planty of whispers in and
around the cricketing circles that Inzamam is going to be replaced by
Younis Khan who is the more dynamic and preferred captain. Inzamam
despite his laidback demeanour is well aware of all these rumours.
Please note that the PCB was/is keen to have a meeting as soon as
possible and it is only the ICC that is spinning its wheels by
endlessly delaying the meeting. Many believe, and I don't necessarily
subscribe to this view, that in the process the ICC is shielding its
employee,who happens to be chairman Speed's personal friend, when a
third party examines the evidence surrounding this case
> I think it was not for want of trying! A couple of points: in the most
> part it requires speed so Hoggard for the most part probably doesn't
> bowl fast enough, it also requires a good wrist position and the
> ability to maintain an erect seam, Sajid isn't that good at this yet.
> Harmison bowls shorter and wouldn't be a good candidate for reversing.
> An additional point is that swing induced by tampering, such as picking
> a quarter seam isn't so restricted, it would swing at lower speeds.
>
Fair point although I have seen Hoggard reverse the ball quite
effectively in India, on a couple of occasions in Pakistan. However, I
have a hard time believing that Flintoff and Jones being able to
reverse the ball as well as they do has more to do with their bowling
coach than the tutelate/tipcs they received from Wasim and Waqar.
Perhaps the fluids professor taught them how the sugary saliva created
by hard candy could unbalance the ball and make it more likely to
reverse
>
> Maybe so but the umpires were looking at the condition of the ball, by
> the way tampered balls don't typically reverse they just swing unless
> it's general scuffing.
>
If that's the case then they surely knew who was indulging in this
practice. If so why did they not tell Inzamam who the culprit was; I
mean they were examining the ball every over and saw whose hands it was
going into. Instead they just said that the ball was tampered with and
had to be changed
> Exactly which was my point, just because it's possible to make a ball
> reverse by tampering doesn't mean that all reversing is caused by
> tampering which is the inference made by Imran among others. Reverse
> swing needs a rough ball with a good seam and you still have to bowl
> fast with a good seam position as I've said above. Picking the quarter
> seam is a different matter though, it might look like reverse under
> some circumstances but it ain't.
I don't recall Imran ever advicating picking the seam of the ball to
make it reverse. If you do please post the appropriate
links/references. He has mentioned how bowlers speed up the roughing
process of the shell of the ball using their fingernails and that this
process has been around for a long time. Except for Botham and Kapil no
other pace bowler worth his salt refuted Imran's claim. Unless Flintoff
and Jones and the rest of the England team found a novel way of
speeding up the roughing process on the shell of a ball, I suspect a
lot of "working on the ball" may have taken place in last year's Ashes
series when the ball unlike the one that was used in the Oval test this
year reversed around the 20th over mark as opposed to the 50th over
mark. Care to tell me which ball is more likely to have the natural
wear and tear as opposed to the one that was induced
>
> I would dispute the lack of integrity part, I'm more inclined to
> attribute that to the ICC, the whole release of the documents without
> reference to the preceding conversations stinks to high heaven.
As a person who claimed to not budge from his principles when
officiating a game I find it both amusing and tragic that had the gall
to actually name his price to essentially bury this matter. To me it
stinks not only of lack of integrity but also of extreme hypocrisy. I
don't care how ICC lured him into a trap , the fact remains that Hair
attempted to gain financially from a situation where he was accountable
to nobody
> The
> ultimate cause of the whole business was the umpires' decision that the
> ball had been tampered with, whether high handed or not that is no
> excuse for what followed. Say for the sake of argument that the
> quarter seam had been opened up over about 5 overs when no particular
> pyrotechnics with the bat, what would you have the the umpires do?
>
> Phil.
For starters I would like them to warn the captain and name the player
that they suspected was indulging in tampering. Then I would have them
show to the captain where on the ball the tampering took place.
Supposedly none of the above happend. Inzamam as Pakistan captain has a
genuine reason to feel let down especially if Hair's decision was
influenced by what Fletcher and/or Bell told him.
Shariq
yudever
> yudever wrote:
>
> > > Because, I fundamentally don't believe you can do that to random people
> > > on the street in a democracy. By all means do it when people fly -- I
> > > have no real issues with that, as you know that going in, you will be
> > > searched
> >
> > See how even you are asking for profiling for air-travelers? You are
> > willing to allow this exception because you fly and you don't want to
> > be victim of some madman.
>
> Now who is getting personal and (semi) insulting -- not much difference
> between your inferring ignoble motives than the abuse directed at you
> calling you a bigot -- except phrased in a more civilized manner..
How is what I said personal and semi-insulting? I simply made an
observation of what you wrote, and you don't exactly disagree with that
in your response. Frankly, I am shocked by your characterization. I
still do not see how my comments were personal. My only intention was
to point out that people usually get out of their ivory tower when an
issue affects them personally. Absolutely nothing personal was
intended, and insults couldn't be further from my mind. You did go a
little too far BTW. I guess you figured it would be OK to insult me
since I insulted you first! (-: These key-board wars, I tell ya; good
thing I don't take these seriously, else I'd be down and depressed
right about now, and reaching for the bottle! (-:
> > Lemme tell you, intelligence based profiling
> > is not the worst thing in the world. Unfortunately, the problem with
> > intelligence is that it is very expensive and very imperfect. So you
> > check the luggage of certain people a bit more carefully or ask them
> > some additional questions. "Trust, but verify."
>
> I have no problem with that. When I go to an airport, I have an
> expectation of passing through security and being searched. I willingly cooperate.
> I travel to Israel frequently, and have been through 3 hour interrogation
> and detailed search sessions (at least, until I got a security clearance
> which now breezes me through in 10 minutes) and accepted that.
I'd imagine going to Israel must be very hard, no one is attacked as
much as Israel is, not even India. I have never been to the great land
of Israel, but I travel a huge amount mostly to Europe, but I have
absolutely no problem in any airport in the world. I'd imagine that's
partly because of my looks and my passport, but also because my profile
is already in their databases due to my travel frequency and they know
that the only chemicals I'm looking for come in cardboard cups and
corked bottles.
> What do you mean by "extra scrutiny". If you want to apply extra
> scrutiny to certain people in the airport, by all means. I've myself been
> subject to that -- I've learned to shave my beard when I travel, it cuts a good 30
> minutes off at many international airports -- and accept it willingly.
As I learned to wear slip-on shoes! (-:
> Then we have no argument.
No we don't. so far we agree entirely.
> If you mean extra scrutiny of citizens in their day to day life (such as wire
> taps, etc.) just because they fit a racial profile, then I do have an issue.
Now here is where we start diverting a little. Let's go a little
beyond racial or religious profile. Let's say that a certain charity
has been discovered to have built a few madrasas in Pakistan. Chances
are, the people who donated the money thought they were doing a noble
thing. Why, even the mosque that built the madrasas thought they were
building educational institutions for poor children. I'm willing to
give them the benefit of doubt. But at the same time, I'd like to pay
extra attention to the people associated with this charity. Just to
make sure that my confidence is not misplaced. Like the great
communicator said, "Trust, but verify".
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Sampath
"yudever" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156879138.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Sanjiv Karmakar deludes himself that he is an INTELLECTUAL because he uses
"Trust, but verify" frequently.
Roflmao..........
Reverse Swing
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:4lipr4F...@individual.net...
1. Payment must be made to a nominated bank a/c before 31st August 2006.
2. This matter may not be discussed in public.
3. The amount may be revised upwards after I have a rethink.
4. The media and members of the public will respect the privacy of my
partner, I and our neighbours.
Andrew Dunford
This offer may have some merit. I will speak to my boss, Prakash, about it.
He in turn will speak to the world, without breaching your right to
confidentiality.
In the meantime, please send a list of the names and addresses of your
neighbours, in order that I can respect their privacy.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
"Bob Dubery" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156828873.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No rules were infringed by the choice of substitute fieldsman. If a Law was
being bent/broken, it concerns the reason for a player leaving the field and
therefore whether a substitute fieldsman should be allowed to replace him.
As far as I could see, England operated a rotation policy for letting
players leave the field during the Ashes series, and if anything, have done
so even more frequently during the home Test matches this year.
Which is not to say that England are the only guilty team, but they seem to
operate in the most blatant manner. That said, it is up to the umpires to
enforce Law 2.
Andrew
Phil.
shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Phil. wrote:
> > OK, let's remember that I cited this in refutation of Holding's point
> > that no one had questioned the legality of the England bowlers' reverse
> > swing, I take it that a reasonable man such as yourself accepts that I
> > proved my case?
>
> Fair enough but Nathan Bracken, who IIRC did not play a single test,
> doing it at the end of the series, is not the same as the umpire
> accusing them of foul play. So to the letter of the law Holding's
> statement is not correct, but looking at the big picture I think
> Holding's statement has merit.
Construing Holding's statement that narrowly is a stretch I believe,
the other two cases were contemporaneous which is why I included them.
>
> > To discuss the merits of the case, my experience of habitual nailbiters
> > is that while the nails are rough they're also rather soft and would be
> > useless for the purpose of opening up a quarter seam for example. In
> > the specific case of Flintoff the interview went along the following
> > lines:
> > "Fred some of the Aussie broadcaster's think you're using your nails to
> > work on the seams"
> > "What, with these?" Fred holds hands out to interviewer.
> > Oh,.............<change of subject>
> >
> > Clearly the interviewer immediately recognised that the accusation was
> > nonsense and the subject was totally dropped.
> > I've no idea whether any of the fielders or Jones had nails capable of
> > working the seams, I suspect that they did, however the only specific
> > accusation was made against Flintoff and was refuted in the manner
> > described.
> >
>
> Phil do you see the premise with which the interviewer asked the
> question? I mean he was going to believe what Flintoff said at face
> value. That's not investigative journalism but a mere/trivial query.
> Even though you have acknowledged that other players could have
> indulged in working on the ball your initial viewpoint suggested that
> because Flintoff lacked adequate nail length, according to what you
> read in an interview, England could possibly not have tampered with
> the ball
No I didn't suggest that England couldn't have tampered with the ball,
just that I didn't think it was likely that Flintoff was doing it with
his fingernails, which was also the conclusion of that interview.
Either way the fact that it was raised shows that there were
contemporary accusations against the England team, contrary to
Holding's assertion.
>
> > I don't know what acts you're referring to but as far as the specifics
> > of the case are concerned he quite properly has not talked about it so
> > I think he has to get credit for that. What's really annoying is all
> > the writers etc ranting on about how no evidence has been produced
> > knowing full well that's that is the way it is supposed to be. Of
> > course the ICC has ensured that this is the case by dragging out the
> > hearing process, normally this would have been held immediately after
> > the match. I see no reason why the ball tampering hearing could not
> > have been held right away. Only one person suffers from this
> > development is Hair, everybody else benefits from the delay.
>
> No disagreements here other than umpire Hair being the only one who
> suffers. The longer this gets drawn out the more agonizing it will be
> for all and sundry. The cloud of a 8 match ban for allegations of
>
> 1.) Ball tampering
> 2.) Bringing the game into disrepute
>
> hangs menacingly over Inzamam's head along with the knowledge that the
> last such extended ban ended the career of one Rashid Latif, the last
> Pakistani skipper before him. There are planty of whispers in and
> around the cricketing circles that Inzamam is going to be replaced by
> Younis Khan who is the more dynamic and preferred captain. Inzamam
> despite his laidback demeanour is well aware of all these rumours.
He's also aware of all the politicing on his behalf by the PCB who are
suggesting that all charges will be dropped, indeed we hear that the
ICC meeting was cancelled perhaps because the PCB was trying to force a
motion to drop all charges. Delay might be working for Inzy rather
than against him.
>
> Please note that the PCB was/is keen to have a meeting as soon as
> possible and it is only the ICC that is spinning its wheels by
> endlessly delaying the meeting. Many believe, and I don't necessarily
> subscribe to this view, that in the process the ICC is shielding its
> employee,who happens to be chairman Speed's personal friend, when a
> third party examines the evidence surrounding this case
With friends like Speed who needs enemies!
>
> > I think it was not for want of trying! A couple of points: in the most
> > part it requires speed so Hoggard for the most part probably doesn't
> > bowl fast enough, it also requires a good wrist position and the
> > ability to maintain an erect seam, Sajid isn't that good at this yet.
> > Harmison bowls shorter and wouldn't be a good candidate for reversing.
> > An additional point is that swing induced by tampering, such as picking
> > a quarter seam isn't so restricted, it would swing at lower speeds.
> >
>
> Fair point although I have seen Hoggard reverse the ball quite
> effectively in India, on a couple of occasions in Pakistan. However, I
> have a hard time believing that Flintoff and Jones being able to
> reverse the ball as well as they do has more to do with their bowling
> coach than the tutelate/tipcs they received from Wasim and Waqar.
> Perhaps the fluids professor taught them how the sugary saliva created
> by hard candy could unbalance the ball and make it more likely to
> reverse
I didn't say they owed more to Cooley, more that he refined them, they
certainly advanced under his tutelage. For what it's worth sugary
saliva might help conventional swing but it would totally ruin reverse
swing for which you need a dry ball.
>
> >
> > Maybe so but the umpires were looking at the condition of the ball, by
> > the way tampered balls don't typically reverse they just swing unless
> > it's general scuffing.
> >
>
> If that's the case then they surely knew who was indulging in this
> practice. If so why did they not tell Inzamam who the culprit was; I
> mean they were examining the ball every over and saw whose hands it was
> going into. Instead they just said that the ball was tampered with and
> had to be changed
It wasn't checked every over and presumably went through more than one
set of hands often with their backs turned to the umpires.
>
>
> > Exactly which was my point, just because it's possible to make a ball
> > reverse by tampering doesn't mean that all reversing is caused by
> > tampering which is the inference made by Imran among others. Reverse
> > swing needs a rough ball with a good seam and you still have to bowl
> > fast with a good seam position as I've said above. Picking the quarter
> > seam is a different matter though, it might look like reverse under
> > some circumstances but it ain't.
>
> I don't recall Imran ever advicating picking the seam of the ball to
> make it reverse. If you do please post the appropriate
> links/references. He has mentioned how bowlers speed up the roughing
> process of the shell of the ball using their fingernails and that this
> process has been around for a long time. Except for Botham and Kapil no
> other pace bowler worth his salt refuted Imran's claim. Unless Flintoff
> and Jones and the rest of the England team found a novel way of
> speeding up the roughing process on the shell of a ball, I suspect a
> lot of "working on the ball" may have taken place in last year's Ashes
> series when the ball unlike the one that was used in the Oval test this
> year reversed around the 20th over mark as opposed to the 50th over
> mark. Care to tell me which ball is more likely to have the natural
> wear and tear as opposed to the one that was induced
Actually those critics of the England bowlers (that Holding said didn't
exist) said that the roughing of the ball was caused by the England
fielders bouncing the ball into the keeper's glove, the Aussies even
asked the referee to tell them to desist.
>
> >
> > I would dispute the lack of integrity part, I'm more inclined to
> > attribute that to the ICC, the whole release of the documents without
> > reference to the preceding conversations stinks to high heaven.
>
> As a person who claimed to not budge from his principles when
> officiating a game I find it both amusing and tragic that had the gall
> to actually name his price to essentially bury this matter. To me it
> stinks not only of lack of integrity but also of extreme hypocrisy. I
> don't care how ICC lured him into a trap , the fact remains that Hair
> attempted to gain financially from a situation where he was accountable
> to nobody
He didn't name a price to bury the matter, the case would have still
gone on, where did you get that from?
>
> > The
> > ultimate cause of the whole business was the umpires' decision that the
> > ball had been tampered with, whether high handed or not that is no
> > excuse for what followed. Say for the sake of argument that the
> > quarter seam had been opened up over about 5 overs when no particular
> > pyrotechnics with the bat, what would you have the the umpires do?
> >
> > Phil.
>
> For starters I would like them to warn the captain and name the player
> that they suspected was indulging in tampering. Then I would have them
> show to the captain where on the ball the tampering took place.
> Supposedly none of the above happend. Inzamam as Pakistan captain has a
> genuine reason to feel let down especially if Hair's decision was
> influenced by what Fletcher and/or Bell told him.
>
They would have still have had to change the ball surely, I would think
that Inzy would have still been insulted, his team is still being
called cheaters by his standards. If Inzy wasn't shown the ball I
don't know what the photos of the two umpires showing the ball to him
was all about? Inzy's statements about what happened and what was said
to him don't seem to fit with other evidence, I suspect that he didn't
completely understand what was being said to him.
Phil.
Bob Martin
>They would have still have had to change the ball surely, I would think
>that Inzy would have still been insulted, his team is still being
>called cheaters by his standards. If Inzy wasn't shown the ball I
>don't know what the photos of the two umpires showing the ball to him
>was all about?
This has been addressed over and over - Inzy was not shown the ball until
he walked over and asked what was going on. The umpires first action
should have been to approach the fielding captain.
What the umpires SHOULD have done was go to Inzy and explain that the ball
was being changed so that the suspect ball could be preserved for subsequent
investigation.
R. Bharat Rao
yudever wrote:
> R. Bharat Rao wrote:
> > yudever wrote:
> > > See how even you are asking for profiling for air-travelers? You are
> > > willing to allow this exception because you fly and you don't want to
> > > be victim of some madman.
> >
> > Now who is getting personal and (semi) insulting -- not much difference
> > between your inferring ignoble motives than the abuse directed at you
> > calling you a bigot -- except phrased in a more civilized manner..
>
> How is what I said personal and semi-insulting? I simply made an
> observation of what you wrote, and you don't exactly disagree with that
> in your response. Frankly, I am shocked by your characterization. I
> still do not see how my comments were personal. My only intention was
> to point out that people usually get out of their ivory tower when an
> issue affects them personally. Absolutely nothing personal was
> intended, and insults couldn't be further from my mind. Y
Not intended perhaps, but if you think about it, there is no difference
except in
degree between
"I don't believe you are saying because you believe its safe. I believe
you are saying what you say because you are a bigot who hates Muslims."
This is clearly personal and insulting. And
"I don't believe your reasons are principled. You just claim they are.
The
moment they impact you, you step out of your ivory tower -- see, you
have
no principles."
Either way, it says -- your stated reasons are false. You don't
believe them
yourself -- you are just saying them to hide your bigotry / because you
want
to sound oh-so-lofty-and-principled.
Finally, I'm not in the least bit bothered or upset by what you said.
I just
thought it was funny when you refused to respond to others for ad
hominem
attacks -- which were very insulting -- and then indulged in some
questioning
of personal motives yourself...
> > If you mean extra scrutiny of citizens in their day to day life (such as wire
> > taps, etc.) just because they fit a racial profile, then I do have an issue.
>
> Now here is where we start diverting a little. Let's go a little
> beyond racial or religious profile. Let's say that a certain charity
> has been discovered to have built a few madrasas in Pakistan. Chances
> are, the people who donated the money thought they were doing a noble
> thing. Why, even the mosque that built the madrasas thought they were
> building educational institutions for poor children. I'm willing to
> give them the benefit of doubt. But at the same time, I'd like to pay
> extra attention to the people associated with this charity. Just to
> make sure that my confidence is not misplaced. Like the great
> communicator said, "Trust, but verify".
There is a HUGE difference between "I'm going to look carefully at ALL
Muslims
because 41% said in a poll that they were sympathetic to Islam."
Versus
"I'm going to look carefully at the Muslims who indulged in some
potentially
suspect behavior."
Now, we can quibble about where we draw the line re' what is suspicious
behavior. If "suspicious behavior" is "suspected of attending a
terrorist
training camp", no one would quibble. If, however, the "suspicious
behavior" is defined so as to include most everyone in that
religous group, then I do have a problem.
This is a far cry from your original position of (vaguely paraphrased)
"whats wrong
with scrutinizing all Moslems."
If you have been on this ng for a while, you would have seen my posts
around
9/11 -- I was about as infuriated as the most fervent right wing
Republican at
that time -- and did, and still do, support the attack on the training
camps in
Afghanistan. But at the same time, I'm well aware of how easy it is,
in the
name of national safety, throw away the democratic ideals underpinning
society.
Anyway, I think we should give this a rest. Other than you, me, and
potentially
folks combing ng's for "suspicious behavior", I don't think anyone is
reading
our posts. Over to you for the final word on this argument.
Bharat
Bharat
Phil.
Bob Martin wrote:
> in 626112 20060830 041446 "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> >They would have still have had to change the ball surely, I would think
> >that Inzy would have still been insulted, his team is still being
> >called cheaters by his standards. If Inzy wasn't shown the ball I
> >don't know what the photos of the two umpires showing the ball to him
> >was all about?
>
> This has been addressed over and over - Inzy was not shown the ball until
> he walked over and asked what was going on. The umpires first action
> should have been to approach the fielding captain.
No their first action should be to get together to decide whether the
ball has been tampered with.
Followed by:
"(i) change the ball forthwith. In the event that a ball has been
interfered with and requires replacement the batsman at the wicket
shall choose the replacement ball from a selection of six other balls
of various degrees of usage (including a new ball) and of the same
brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.
(ii) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side.
(iii) inform the captain of the fielding side that the reason for
the action was the unfair interference with the ball."
This would imply that the notification of the fielding captain isn't
treated as a priority in the Laws.
> What the umpires SHOULD have done was go to Inzy and explain that the ball
> was being changed so that the suspect ball could be preserved for subsequent
> investigation.
And that his side was being penalised 5 runs.
Phil.
Bob Martin
>Bob Martin wrote:
>> What the umpires SHOULD have done was go to Inzy and explain that the ball
>> was being changed so that the suspect ball could be preserved for subsequent
>> investigation.
>
>And that his side was being penalised 5 runs.
Policeman to murder suspect : "ok, we'll execute you now and hear your case in
court next week".
What do you do at Princeton? Does it involve thinking?
yudever
> yudever wrote:
> > How is what I said personal and semi-insulting?
>
>
> "I don't believe you are saying because you believe its safe. I believe
> you are saying what you say because you are a bigot who hates Muslims."
>
> This is clearly personal and insulting. And
>
> "I don't believe your reasons are principled. You just claim they are.
> The moment they impact you, you step out of your ivory tower -- see, you
> have no principles."
Naturally, I disagree, but I'll defer to your superior intellect!
(-: I'm not saying you have no principles (that would be
ridiculous), I'm saying that there is no such thing as an absolute
principle. We all bend them; the only difference might be as to where
we draw the line. That was my point and I don't know how else to say
that.
> Either way, it says -- your stated reasons are false. You don't
> believe them yourself -- you are just saying them to hide your bigotry
And calling me a bigot is not a personal insult? (-: You surely
don't know me that well, Do you?
Personally, I don't care what I'm called in this forum (although it
is surprising coming from you); but it is sad when good arguments are
terminated by name calling. If one is against affirmative action, call
him racist, if one is against the war in Iraq, call him a coward; and
if one is for intelligence based profiling, call him a bigot. I'm
not impinging any personal motives on you, but in general, this
convenient tool has been used way too often in these politically
correct times when one cannot argue against the substance of the
argument. Since the argument cannot be refuted, call him an A' hole!
Oh, well!
> Now, we can quibble about where we draw the line re' what is suspicious
> behavior. If "suspicious behavior" is "suspected of attending a
> terrorist training camp", no one would quibble. If, however, the "suspicious
> behavior" is defined so as to include most everyone in that
> religious group, then I do have a problem.
Like I've said many times before, the solution in somewhere in the
middle of the two extremes you describe above. I've already talked
about that in my previous posts. It is very tempting to see everything
in black and white, but I implore you to look at the shades of grey;
that's where most of the pragmatic solutions reside.
> 9/11 -- I was about as infuriated as the most fervent right wing Republican at
> that time -- and did, and still do, support the attack on the training camps in
> Afghanistan. But at the same time, I'm well aware of how easy it is, in the
> name of national safety, throw away the democratic ideals underpinning society.
First of all, not all Republicans are fervent right wingers; as a
matter of fact, most of them aren't. Second, the fury you felt was
universal; it had nothing to do with political affiliation. And,
historically speaking Republicans have been much better guardians of
democratic ideals than the Democrats. It's sad to see that the
current government has diverted from that conservative privacy agenda
just as it as diverted from the conservative fiscal agenda.
> Anyway, I think we should give this a rest.
Ok then!
> Other than you, me, and potentially folks combing ng's for "suspicious behavior",
> I don't think anyone is reading our posts.
And then you wonder why you get detained at the airports! Jokes aside,
if my person email box is any indicator, a lot more people are reading
our posts that you think!
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Andrew Dunford
"Bob Martin" <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:v5wJg.1696$TF5....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Why is this newsgroup so riddled with bad - just plain inappropriate -
analogies?
Read the law as it relates to murder, then read the Laws of Cricket. There
is no comparison between Hair's act, which is supported by the Laws however
much anyone may think he was wrong to act in the way he did, and the analogy
you gave.
Andrew
Gafoor
> R. Bharat Rao wrote:
>> Republican at that time -- and did, and still do, support the attack
>> on the training camps in Afghanistan. But at the same time, I'm
>> well aware of how easy it is, in the name of national safety, throw
>> away the democratic ideals underpinning society.
>
> First of all, not all Republicans are fervent right wingers;
I don't think there is any connection at all between Republicans
& conservatives for many years now.
The only conservative president in the last few decades has
been Bill Clinton.
> as a
> matter of fact, most of them aren't. Second, the fury you felt was
> universal; it had nothing to do with political affiliation. And,
> historically speaking Republicans have been much better guardians of
> democratic ideals than the Democrats. It's sad to see that the
> current government has diverted from that conservative privacy agenda
> just as it as diverted from the conservative fiscal agenda.
It has diverted from almost all conservative agenda(except
maybe tax cuts). That's probably because it is not a conservative
government - it's is a "neo-con" goverment - neo-con
has nothing to do with conservatives - they just sound
similiar.
Bob Martin
Don't be so literal. I was just pointing out that normally the punishment follows the
hearing rather than preceding it as Phil was advocating.
At last Friday's press conference Speed outlined the procedure which should be
followed when ball-tampering is suspected. It did NOT involve instant on-field
action by the umpires.
Andrew Dunford
Indeed, but the Laws and Playing Conditions seem to indicate otherwise.
> At last Friday's press conference Speed outlined the procedure which
should be
> followed when ball-tampering is suspected. It did NOT involve instant
on-field
> action by the umpires.
I guess the key word there is 'suspected'.
Let us be perfectly clear here that the umpires were beyond any doubt
empowered to 'punish' Pakistan with a five-run penalty, if they had due
cause to do so. I didn't see the press conference to which you refer, but
find it inconceivable that Malcolm Speed would have said anything that
contradicts Law 42.3.
At the same time it is further worth noting that the punishment in question
(i.e. mentioned by Phil)is a five-run penalty. In most circumstances that
represents nothing more than a minor irritation to the punished team -
unless it has a profound effect on the result of the match - but has been
blown out of all proportion by the actions it precipitated.
The Code of Conduct hearing has not yet been held; Inzamam has not been
'sentenced' in advance of being found guilty (or otherwise) at that hearing.
Finally, even if the umpires were guilty of 'punishing' Pakistan in advance
of the hearing, in doing so they would be following the Laws. If there is
something wrong, it is in the writing of the Laws, not their application by
the umpires. As far as I can see, what Phil was 'advocating' was merely the
observance of Law 42.3.
Andrew
Phil.
Bob Martin wrote:
> in 626335 20060831 103121 "Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote:
> >"Bob Martin" <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote in message
> >news:v5wJg.1696$TF5....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> >> in 626267 20060831 041532 "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> >Bob Martin wrote:
> >> >> What the umpires SHOULD have done was go to Inzy and explain that the
> >ball
> >> >> was being changed so that the suspect ball could be preserved for
> >subsequent
> >> >> investigation.
> >> >
> >> >And that his side was being penalised 5 runs.
> >>
> >> Policeman to murder suspect : "ok, we'll execute you now and hear your
> >case in
> >> court next week".
> >> What do you do at Princeton? Does it involve thinking?
Yes and reading comprehension!
> >
> >Why is this newsgroup so riddled with bad - just plain inappropriate -
> >analogies?
> >
> >Read the law as it relates to murder, then read the Laws of Cricket. There
> >is no comparison between Hair's act, which is supported by the Laws however
> >much anyone may think he was wrong to act in the way he did, and the analogy
> >you gave.
>
> Don't be so literal. I was just pointing out that normally the punishment follows the
> hearing rather than preceding it as Phil was advocating.
Not in cricket it doesn't, I was merely advocating that the umpires
should follow the Laws and playing conditions of the game, apparently a
radical concept where you come from!
>
> At last Friday's press conference Speed outlined the procedure which should be
> followed when ball-tampering is suspected. It did NOT involve instant on-field
> action by the umpires.
If you are correct then he is indeed an ass and doesn't know the
playing conditions decided on by his own organisation during his
tenure!
Ball tampering requires on field action by the umpires and incurs the
same penalty as seven other
offences:
Time wasting,
fielder returning to the field without permission,
deliberate short running,
illegal fielding.,
distraction/obstruction of a batsman,
fielder damaging a pitch,
stealing a run during the bowler's run up.
All of which are decided on the field and are referrable to the match
referee for further action.
Note the following from the Test Playing conditions:
"penalty runs can be referred to the ICC Match Referee for further
action if necessary."
Further action not adjudication, under the Playing conditions the
Pakistan team have been found guilty of tampering with the ball, end of
story there is no review, all that remains to be determined is whether
Inzy will pay any further penalty on behalf of his team. That's not my
view that's what the ICC's own playing rules say, much as Speed might
want to spin them to placate Pakistan.
Phil.
eusebius
Phil. wrote:
> Bob Martin wrote:
> > At last Friday's press conference Speed outlined the procedure which should be
> > followed when ball-tampering is suspected. It did NOT involve instant on-field
> > action by the umpires.
>
> If you are correct then he is indeed an ass and doesn't know the
> playing conditions decided on by his own organisation during his
> tenure!
I doubt whether Speed knows much about cricket at all. He has no real
background in the sport whatever.
Sampath
"sdavmor" <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com> wrote in message
news:PkGIg.128267$P02.1...@fe07.news.easynews.com...
> Sampath wrote:
>> "sdavmor" <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com> wrote in message
>> news:e2EIg.126871$P02....@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>> Sampath wrote:
>>>> "sdavmor" <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:QFwIg.339616$bN2.2...@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>>>>> Sampath wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> But you read my comment in this thread and I didnt mention your VERY
>>>>>> FAMOUS name.
>>>>> If I'm that famous, how come you haven't bought my album? ;-)
>>>> I would rather join your band as a singer :-)
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> Good lord man! Why would you want to do that? If you think umpiring is
>>> thankless,
>>
>>
>>
>> Umpires make TOO MANY MISTAKES.
>>
>>
>>
>>> try selling albums as an indie artist not purveying modern
>>> pop schlock! We're seriously in the hole on the first official release
>>> (not to mention thousands in the hole on each of the two older "demo"
>>> albums), plus we're about to go even further into the red on the new
>>> one. And the next one after that (recorded, mixed, in the can) is
>>> already lining up it's vampire teeth to bite us.
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
>>> Systems Theory internet music project links:
>>> soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
>>> garageband <http://www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
>>> "Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
>>> "Codetalkers" CD coming very soon in 2006
>>> NP: nothing
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Make me the lead singer in your band and I will get you into black soon.
>
> We're an instrumental trio, though we do use vocals for effect. If
> you're being serious, then send me a tape of you doing three different
> songs and we'll give it a listen. We have worked with guests before
> so it all depends on what you bring to the table.
>
> We have the next album already mixed and will be releasing it shortly
> ("Codetalkers"), also the third album to follow it ("Overful Noise
> Cascade"). It's in the can ready to go in late 2007/early 2008.
> --
> Cheers,
> SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
> Systems Theory internet music project links:
> soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
> garageband <http://www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
> "Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
> "Codetalkers" CD coming very soon in 2006
> NP: nothing
I might go to SoCal in the near future. Email me your address and phone num
so I can meet you personally and deliver the cassettes or you can even
listen to me sing live. My email add is roo...@volcanomail.com thats
room123 at volcanomail.com
sdavmor
Nothing quite like gallows humour. Nice to see it going strong.
shariq...@yahoo.com
Andrew Dunford wrote:
> Why is this newsgroup so riddled with bad - just plain inappropriate -
> analogies?
>
> Read the law as it relates to murder, then read the Laws of Cricket. There
> is no comparison between Hair's act, which is supported by the Laws however
> much anyone may think he was wrong to act in the way he did, and the analogy
> you gave.
>
> Andrew
Fair point Andrew. However, IMHO the law is long past its use by date,
because it relies on the an the antiquated premise that the umpire is
always right and because cricket is a gentleman's game you have to
sportingly accept decisions when the umpire makes human errors. Things
have changed and it is widely acknowledged and accepted that umpires
are not always right and that's why the concept of technology and a
third umpire has been introduced into the game. Secondly cricket, as it
has become more and more competitive, has evolved from a gentleman's
game to a gladitorial and cut-throat spectacle. If you have individuals
lacking moral integrity manifesting high handedness based on the
premise that they are not accountable to anyone, you are asking for
trouble. I reckon a couple of laws have met their Waterloo at the
conclusion of the Oval test
Shariq
Sampath
And how do you know pak bowlers got reverse swing in oval test WITH ball
tampering since there is NO video evidence yet ?
Holding MEANT nobody ACCUSED britain to be CHEATING, which is very OBVIOUS
except for people like YOU.
You DID NOT answer my question.
Did Bracken USE the word "CHEATS" against England.
Just google for CHEATS on rsc and see how many brit, aussie RACISTS called
pak a nation of CHEATS !!!!
>> >> So tell me how did Flintoff and Jones GOT REVERSE SWING without
>> >> tampering
>> >> the ball ?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Already answered.
>> >
>> > Phil.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You didnt, you are an expert skillful dodger.
>
> Which part of "bowling with a Dukes ball at over 90mph" didn't you
> understand? Or would you like the full fluid mechanics explanation?
>
> Phil.
If it is that EASY and even YOU KNEW how to get REVERSE SWING with a duke
ball, then how come PROFESSIONAL CRICKET PLAYERS Hoggard, Harmison and
Aussie bowlers DIDNT GET REVERSE SWING ?
Waiting for ANOTHER MASTER SPIN from you.
sdavmor
[snip]
> Was there any investigation by media, columnists, fans, officials
> and umpires HOW flintoff and jones got REVERSE SWING during the
> ashes series ?
I don't think it can be called an investigation. Flintoff was hit up
by the UK press and answered with a strong denial. I'm sure if anyone
asks him now he'll say the same thing. But that would be the official
party line so nothing would change either way. I appreciate that he
and Jones play for counties that contracted the services of the two
Pakistani seamers most likely to be named when the issue of
ball-tampering comes up, and I'm not so naive as to think that F&J
don't know exactly how to illegally tamper with a ball, and do it
quickly. However they have also been coached by Troy Cooley, in how to
create reverse swing through ball-maintenance that is within the laws.
So it comes down to this. When the umpires last summer conducted
their irregular inspections of the ball (also done at the fall of each
wicket) they would have either seen something that was untoward (like
a raised "picked" quarter-seam) or not. If they did and did nothing
about it then that's simply wrong. But if they didn't, and the only
allegation was Bracken's late-in-the-day noises about "sticky sweets"
(which would only assist normal swing) then I have to say this is a
red herring.
> Are you telling me that they got REVERSE SWING without tampering
> the ball.
It's feasible to get reverse swing without it. Though much harder to
do than by tampering with the ball. It involves the maintenance of the
side of the shiny side to keep it polished to a "T" with any rough
pockets on that side polished (rubbed) away. That is ball-maintaining
within the law. It leaves the other side to deteriorate creating the
hills and valleys kind of drag that will make an old ball reverse
swing. The direct opposite of intentionally working one side and/or
picking the quarter-seam so it deteriorates faster to get reverse swing.
Now, does this mean there wasn't any tampering by England? No of
course it doesn't, and I won't try to kid you that I think all English
1st class seam bowlers are lilly white (ditto Aussies, etc). But since
England's national team reverse swing specialists do at least know how
to get reverse swing without tampering with the ball, as does their
ex-fast bowling coach Troy Cooley, who is on-record as not coaching
reverse swing via ball-tampering, you'll have to decide for yourself
if Flintoff, Cooley et al are liars. Speculating on something that
didn't happen, might have happened, did happen in a parallel universe,
etc., becomes like a dog chasing its own tail after a while.
IMO all bowlers in tests will now be watched like hawks, especially
down under in the upcoming Ashes series. The whole cricketing world's
journos will have telephoto lenses zeroed in to see if they can catch
Freddie, McGrath etc., pulling a fast one, so we'll have to wait
until then I guess. The first time a batsmen falls to old-ball reverse
swing that ball will be examined very closely by the umpires.
And if Flintoff (and Jones if healthy) can't get any reverse swing
going under vigilant oversight, there may be an unpleasant answer
there for Englishmen to deal with. But that's all yet to come.
I think there's not much more that can be said about any of this until
the ICC hold their CoC inquiry and say something definitive. So I'm
going to go back to posting on actual cricket as it goes on, leaving
the speculation, finger-pointing, mud-slinging and name-calling to
anyone else at rsc that has time and energy for it. Time to mark these
threads as "ignore" from here on, go see what the affliate tournaments
have going on, and start thinking about the ICC Champions Trophy.
sub...@hotmail.com
yudever wrote:
> R. Bharat Rao wrote:
> > > You could not find a more committed libertarian than Alan Berkowitz
>
> Sorry for the typo; I meant Alan Dershowitz.
Sorry, Alan Dershowitz gave up whatever commitment and principles he
had on 9/11. now he is just parroting the bush line, and supports
israel's illegal actions. i get a feeling you do too.
> Why do you have problem with 'tracking' people of certain ethnicity?
> All the terrorists have been Moslem men in the age group of 18 to 40.
> Is it really that unreasonable to say that Moslem men in the age group
> of 18 to 40 deserve special scrutiny? Frisking them a bit more
> carefully would be a lot more efficient than strip-searching 70 year
> old grannies and 4 year old toddlers.
>
Right! Numerically, most corrupt people in the world are from India.
therefore the bank accounts of all indians should be put under
surveillance. india has more people with hiv (or soon will be) so all
indians must be checked for it before employment. hizbollah is from
lebanon so it is reasonable to raze that country to the ground. brave,
techie!
i think you might want to reconsider the basics of your logic. racism
always looks reasonable when practiced on people you don't like.
.
>
> > A few days after 9/11, in a USA Today poll, 49 percent of Americans
> > polled supported special IDs for Arabs, including U.S. citizens.
>
> Give them a break; they were scared. Given the circumstances, 49% is
> not a big number. I bet - now that people have had more time to
> reflect - the number will be significantly lower.
yes, and maybe it was reasonable to bump off a few bearded darkies too,
and for 70% to still believe that saddam was behind 9/11. this is more
loyalty to your adopted country than is warranted by a green card.
>
> Look, we all have ID cards, whether we like them or not. We already
> have a national card in form of the Social Security card; but we also
> carry other ID cards viz. drivers license, passport, medical insurance
> card, and even credit cards. The big brother is all around us; if
> anything the government is way behind the private enterprise in this
> regard. (Did you catch the NY Times article about the data uncovered
> by the AOL search engine?). So, if your purpose is to prevent the 'big
> brother', it is too late. Knowing how smart you are, you already know
> that, and my guess is that you want to limit its growth and prevent
> misuse of its powers. And those are commendable attributes; but they
> need to be tempered with our need to live in a just society.
>
you start your post praising a has-been libertarian. you end it with a
plea for accepting the inevitability of big brother. well done
indeed!!! i am sure you will find a job with the bush adminsitration.
>
> Sanjiv Karmarkar
Phil.
I don't know that they did get reverse swing at the Oval, however they
were found guilty of balltampering by the umpires for which video
evidence is not required.
Who accused Pakistan of cheating, no-one as far as I know.
It was the Pakistan team and officials who called it cheating, not the
umpires, English cricket writers or commentators.
>
> >> >> So tell me how did Flintoff and Jones GOT REVERSE SWING without
> >> >> tampering
> >> >> the ball ?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Already answered.
> >> >
> >> > Phil.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You didnt, you are an expert skillful dodger.
> >
> > Which part of "bowling with a Dukes ball at over 90mph" didn't you
> > understand? Or would you like the full fluid mechanics explanation?
> >
> > Phil.
>
>
>
>
> If it is that EASY and even YOU KNEW how to get REVERSE SWING with a duke
> ball, then how come PROFESSIONAL CRICKET PLAYERS Hoggard, Harmison and
> Aussie bowlers DIDNT GET REVERSE SWING ?
I didn't say it's easy I said I know how it's done, Hoggard doesn't
bowl fast enough, Harmison bowls too short, the Aussie Tait did get it
to reverse however he couldn't land the same ball in the same place
twice in three overs so it was hardly a threat!
Phil.