Disgusting Slater
Dr Stumps
an incredible nerve to complain about not being awarded a catch he thought
he took.
6:11
It is a very hard thing when you think you have taken one like that.
Plus Ganguly provoked him.
So Slater had every right to get into his face.
We deserve to get the last say.
It's the Aussie way.
SAE
pavillion and beat the crap out of him.
I'm sure most Indian fans would not have minded.
SAE
"6:11" <tc6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a9e3...@news01.one.net.au...
Paul Caren
6:11 wrote:
I think this says it all really
P
Moby Dick
Does it? You've taken the lowest common denominator and instantly
proclaimed that this must be the Aussie way?
Tell you what, Paul, what if I insisted that biting was the kiwi way?
Hmm? Or burning stands down was the Indian way? How about rioting afer
soccer games, is that the "British" way?
Slater's behaviour was abysmall, but it does rather take away from any
clout someone has to say it when every single time an Australia so much as
sneezes they're jumping up and down deploring it while being completely
willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.
(Oh yeah, that's accepting "sneezing" from other teams, not the rubbish
Slater carried on with.)
It must be a NSW disease. If someone complains about something they've
done, they instantly become incredibly alert for similar behaviour in
others to complain about it. :)
Moby Dick.
And that smiley was for the intentional irony in that last paragraph.
Paul Caren
Moby Dick wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Paul Caren submitted to the Inquisition's torture and said:
>
> > 6:11 wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah i agree, sorta.
> > > It is a very hard thing when you think you have taken one like that.
> > > Plus Ganguly provoked him.
> > > So Slater had every right to get into his face.
> > > We deserve to get the last say.
> > > It's the Aussie way.
> >
> > I think this says it all really
>
> Does it? You've taken the lowest common denominator and instantly
> proclaimed that this must be the Aussie way?
>
have I?
If you reread the post, you'll find that it's 6:11 who proclaimed it to be the
Aussie way.
I merely added an aside because, quite frankly, it gets a bit tedious reading yet
another post about how actually the bad behaviour involving an Australian was all
due to the guy on the other team.
As it happens, today was one of the first times that there seemed to be a majority
of posters condeming Slater, notwithstanding the riders 'I'm sure Ganguly said
something anyway'.
a few months ago, myself and a couple of others (Australian AFAIK) posted something
about general poor behaviour over a period of time by this Australian team, most of
them perhaps minor, but all the same pretty constant.
We were roundly abused in no uncertain terms, told we were making up lies and
anyway all the examples we gave were all perfectly defensible.
Moby, perhaps you're not aware of it, but as a student of journalism, you might be
expected to be; but some people whilst agreeing that this present team is head and
shoulders above virtually everyone else, leave more than a bit to be desired in
their actions. It's often in the letter pages of the papers.
I did think that if I posted something along the lines of 'don't be such a moron,
Sllater was well out of order', I'd have gotten innumerable posts about how it
wasn't his fault, actually it didn't happen, Ganguly is the guilty party etc. so I
put in a one liner.
>
> Tell you what, Paul, what if I insisted that biting was the kiwi way?
> Hmm? Or burning stands down was the Indian way? How about rioting afer
> soccer games, is that the "British" way?
>
Well, isn't that what you normally say?
>
> Slater's behaviour was abysmall, but it does rather take away from any
> clout someone has to say it when every single time an Australia so much as
> sneezes they're jumping up and down deploring it while being completely
> willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.
>
What behaviour have I been willing to accept from other players or teams?
Have I condoned anyone chucking balls at batsmen or sledging people or getting
involved with bookies? Am I the one who comes out with these crapulous excuses
about any transgressions another team makes? Did I proclaim Hansie as some poor
misguided man tempted by the devil?
It's like that argument about why Australia gets more LBW decisions than others, ie
they bowl more better balls than anyone else.
They get more stick for bad behaviour because they do it more often than anyone
else, IMHO, of course.
It cuts both ways.
>
> (Oh yeah, that's accepting "sneezing" from other teams, not the rubbish
> Slater carried on with.)
>
Such as?
>
> It must be a NSW disease. If someone complains about something they've
> done, they instantly become incredibly alert for similar behaviour in
> others to complain about it. :)
>
> Moby Dick.
> And that smiley was for the intentional irony in that last paragraph.
Just what do you mean by that last para?
I've complained about Australians behving badly but excuse it when others do so?
Or that because Slater refused to walk the previous night he was more aware of
Ganguly not walking?
Or something else?
You sure as hell read a fuck of a lot into the one line I wrote
P
Moby Dick
> Moby Dick wrote:
>
> Moby, perhaps you're not aware of it, but as a student of journalism,
> you might be
> expected to be; but some people whilst agreeing that this present team
> is head and
> shoulders above virtually everyone else, leave more than a bit to be
> desired in
> their actions. It's often in the letter pages of the papers.
"Charlie Creek" writes letters too.
> I did think that if I posted something along the lines of 'don't be
> such a moron,
> Sllater was well out of order', I'd have gotten innumerable posts about
> how it
> wasn't his fault, actually it didn't happen, Ganguly is the guilty
> party etc. so I
> put in a one liner.
You would, would you?
> > Tell you what, Paul, what if I insisted that biting was the kiwi way?
> > Hmm? Or burning stands down was the Indian way? How about rioting afer
> > soccer games, is that the "British" way?
>
> Well, isn't that what you normally say?
Name once.
> > Slater's behaviour was abysmall, but it does rather take away from any
> > clout someone has to say it when every single time an Australia so much as
> > sneezes they're jumping up and down deploring it while being completely
> > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.
>
> What behaviour have I been willing to accept from other players or teams?
> Have I condoned anyone chucking balls at batsmen or sledging people
You haven't made any fuss at all about the same behaviour displayed in the
first instance by RSA and in the second by, oh, Srinath.
> or
> getting
> involved with bookies? Am I the one who comes out with these crapulous
> excuses
> about any transgressions another team makes?
No, instant crucification seems to be stock-in-trade.
> Did I proclaim Hansie as
> some poor
> misguided man tempted by the devil?
> It's like that argument about why Australia gets more LBW decisions
> than others, ie
> they bowl more better balls than anyone else.
> They get more stick for bad behaviour because they do it more often
> than anyone
> else, IMHO, of course.
> It cuts both ways.
If they do it more often they should receive more. At this stage, in the
on-field behaviour market, they receive it all, not the simple more that
would be appropriate.
> > (Oh yeah, that's accepting "sneezing" from other teams, not the rubbish
> > Slater carried on with.)
>
> Such as?
Not a single word was said about Agarkar's send-off of Slater in the first
innings. I don't have a problem with it, but you can bet your personally
autographed cache of used Gilly gum that if McGrath had done the same,
there would have been gripes all-round.
> > It must be a NSW disease. If someone complains about something they've
> > done, they instantly become incredibly alert for similar behaviour in
> > others to complain about it. :)
> >
> > Moby Dick.
> > And that smiley was for the intentional irony in that last paragraph.
>
> Just what do you mean by that last para?
Didn't have anything to do with you.
Moby Dick.
David Barnett
Well, I was a Michael Slater fan, but not now.
I agree with the subject header "disgusting".
Why do "We deserve to get the last say"?
"It's the Aussie way" - I hope not.
Apologies if you were being sarcastic.
--
David Barnett
"Are you a doctor? I am today!" (The Pretender)
Paul Caren
Moby Dick wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Paul Caren submitted to the Inquisition's torture and said:
>
> > Moby Dick wrote:
> >
> > Moby, perhaps you're not aware of it, but as a student of journalism,
> > you might be
> > expected to be; but some people whilst agreeing that this present team
> > is head and
> > shoulders above virtually everyone else, leave more than a bit to be
> > desired in
> > their actions. It's often in the letter pages of the papers.
>
> "Charlie Creek" writes letters too.
I'm sure he does.
For example, in Saturdays Herald:
'Once again an Australian cricketer is guilty of the sort of behaviour expected
from a spoilt 10 year old brat....Not good enough lads' Michael Hever, Greystanes
'...I admire the achievements of this great cricket team, but do not ask me to be
proud of them' David Hibbott, Sylvania
'...yet again we see an invigorating Test match sullied by an Australian's
petulance..' Redmond Lee, Cromer
'Slaters failure to accept the third umpires decision is another example of
Australian cricketers going too far in their quest for victory...' Damon Roast,
Caringbah.
I'm sure you are aware of the common journalistic practice of checking these letter
writers.
And not one from Charlie Chan.
Moby, not everyone shares these views for sure, but when I point them out, the
likes of you and Ian tell me I'm paranoid, am in a minority, it never happened
anyway, I'm making it all up.
I don't think I am.
>
>
> > I did think that if I posted something along the lines of 'don't be
> > such a moron,
> > Sllater was well out of order', I'd have gotten innumerable posts about
> > how it
> > wasn't his fault, actually it didn't happen, Ganguly is the guilty
> > party etc. so I
> > put in a one liner.
>
> You would, would you?
>
For sure.
>
> > > Tell you what, Paul, what if I insisted that biting was the kiwi way?
> > > Hmm? Or burning stands down was the Indian way? How about rioting afer
> > > soccer games, is that the "British" way?
> >
> > Well, isn't that what you normally say?
>
> Name once.
>
No Moby, you name a few instances.
You accuse me of hypocrisy and 'being completely
willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.' I asked you for some examples.
You provide them.
>
> > > Slater's behaviour was abysmall, but it does rather take away from any
> > > clout someone has to say it when every single time an Australia so much as
> > > sneezes they're jumping up and down deploring it while being completely
> > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.
> >
> > What behaviour have I been willing to accept from other players or teams?
> > Have I condoned anyone chucking balls at batsmen or sledging people
>
> You haven't made any fuss at all about the same behaviour displayed in the
> first instance by RSA and in the second by, oh, Srinath.
pinging batsmen is a hot topic at present. RSA are not currently playing Test or
ODIs so I'd be a bit off the mark if I started complaining about them doing it.
Perhaps they will next week, in which case I shall.
And what did Srinath do?
I didn't complain about the Lara incident, because quite frankly, I saw the whole
match and didn't see him ping anyone.
>
>
> > or
> > getting
> > involved with bookies? Am I the one who comes out with these crapulous
> > excuses
> > about any transgressions another team makes?
>
> No, instant crucification seems to be stock-in-trade.
>
Really?
I've certainly been critical of those who have transgressed, but I've pretty much
stuck to the facts.
>
> > Did I proclaim Hansie as
> > some poor
> > misguided man tempted by the devil?
> > It's like that argument about why Australia gets more LBW decisions
> > than others, ie
> > they bowl more better balls than anyone else.
> > They get more stick for bad behaviour because they do it more often
> > than anyone
> > else, IMHO, of course.
> > It cuts both ways.
>
> If they do it more often they should receive more. At this stage, in the
> on-field behaviour market, they receive it all, not the simple more that
> would be appropriate.
IMHO, they do it more and recieve more. Quite simple really.
>
>
> > > (Oh yeah, that's accepting "sneezing" from other teams, not the rubbish
> > > Slater carried on with.)
> >
> > Such as?
>
> Not a single word was said about Agarkar's send-off of Slater in the first
> innings. I don't have a problem with it, but you can bet your personally
> autographed cache of used Gilly gum that if McGrath had done the same,
> there would have been gripes all-round.
If he did that, he deserves punishment. I didn't see that.
>
>
> > > It must be a NSW disease. If someone complains about something they've
> > > done, they instantly become incredibly alert for similar behaviour in
> > > others to complain about it. :)
> > >
> > > Moby Dick.
> > > And that smiley was for the intentional irony in that last paragraph.
> >
> > Just what do you mean by that last para?
>
> Didn't have anything to do with you.
>
> Moby Dick.
Good
P
Moby Dick
> Moby Dick wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Paul Caren submitted to the Inquisition's torture and said:
> >
> > > Moby Dick wrote:
> > >
> > > Moby, perhaps you're not aware of it, but as a student of journalism,
> > > you might be
> > > expected to be; but some people whilst agreeing that this present team
> > > is head and
> > > shoulders above virtually everyone else, leave more than a bit to be
> > > desired in
> > > their actions. It's often in the letter pages of the papers.
> >
> > "Charlie Creek" writes letters too.
<snip letters>
> Moby, not everyone shares these views for sure, but when I point them
> out, the
> likes of you and Ian tell me I'm paranoid, am in a minority, it never
> happened
> anyway, I'm making it all up.
> I don't think I am.
What an appalling piece of snipping. You've completely removed all of my
statements to the effect that what Slater did was terrible (along with
several of the rest of the team's actions) and gone on to insist that I
don't recognize that they've happen.
My point is most certainly not that these incidents don't happen, but
rather most of the people who jump up and down about them
1) Don't bother to jump up and down about similar behaviour from other
sides.
and
2) Insist on putting every single action taken by the Australians in the
worst possible light. (an example of this would be some people's
insistance that Slater "abused" Dravid when it is entirely possible that
Dravid had called him a cheat and he was vehemenantly denying it. This
doesn't make Slater's actions right, but it doesn't make what he said
"abuse" either.)
<snip>
> No Moby, you name a few instances.
> You accuse me of hypocrisy and 'being completely
> willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.' I asked you for some examples.
> You provide them.
Ajit Agarkar. Send off of Michael Slater in the *1st* innings.
> > > > Slater's behaviour was abysmall, but it does rather take away from any
> > > > clout someone has to say it when every single time an Australia so much as
> > > > sneezes they're jumping up and down deploring it while being completely
> > > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.
> > >
> > > What behaviour have I been willing to accept from other players or teams?
> > > Have I condoned anyone chucking balls at batsmen or sledging people
> >
> > You haven't made any fuss at all about the same behaviour displayed in the
> > first instance by RSA and in the second by, oh, Srinath.
>
> pinging batsmen is a hot topic at present. RSA are not currently
playing Test or
> ODIs so I'd be a bit off the mark if I started complaining about them
> doing it.
And *why* is it a hot topic now instead of when other teams did it?
Because it was done by an Australian.
> Perhaps they will next week, in which case I shall.
> And what did Srinath do?
"Sledging" Ponting during last Aus tour. Not that I found anything wrong
with it, but then I'm not the one complaining vociferously every time an
Australian says something mean to a batsman.
> I didn't complain about the Lara incident, because quite frankly, I saw
> the whole
> match and didn't see him ping anyone.
Did I say he did?
> > > or
> > > getting
> > > involved with bookies? Am I the one who comes out with these crapulous
> > > excuses
> > > about any transgressions another team makes?
> >
> > No, instant crucification seems to be stock-in-trade.
>
> Really?
> I've certainly been critical of those who have transgressed, but I've
> pretty much
> stuck to the facts.
Oh, everything you've said (on the subject of cricket) has been
completely correct. Whether or not it's been a selection of the whole is
another matter.
> > If they do it more often they should receive more. At this stage, in the
> > on-field behaviour market, they receive it all, not the simple more that
> > would be appropriate.
>
> IMHO, they do it more and recieve more. Quite simple really.
Yes, fine. But at the moment they're receiving it *all*
> > > > (Oh yeah, that's accepting "sneezing" from other teams, not the rubbish
> > > > Slater carried on with.)
> > >
> > > Such as?
> >
> > Not a single word was said about Agarkar's send-off of Slater in the first
> > innings. I don't have a problem with it, but you can bet your personally
> > autographed cache of used Gilly gum that if McGrath had done the same,
> > there would have been gripes all-round.
>
> If he did that, he deserves punishment. I didn't see that.
Did you see the Slater incident as well or just on the news?
Moby Dick.
The revolution is dead. Long live the revolution.
Spectrolab
in to the conversation but no name's are given of the sa player that over
steps
his and the opposing players boundaries,ok hansie had had mild anger burst
in aus but that was of the field(sh*t ump by haire will do that to a
captain)
who?where?when?please point this sa player out!
"Moby Dick" <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.30.010305...@student.uq.edu.au...
Moby Dick
> i don't see why every time a aus player misbehave sa players must be pulled
> in to the conversation but no name's are given of the sa player that over
> steps
> his and the opposing players boundaries,ok hansie had had mild anger burst
> in aus but that was of the field(sh*t ump by haire will do that to a
> captain)
> who?where?when?please point this sa player out!
I've seen all of Alan Donald, Shaun Pollock, and Fannie
De'Villiars return the ball to the keeper through the batsman. Gibbs and
Cronje I remember doing so from the field. If memory serves me correctly,
most of the WI fast bowlers (when they could be called that), weren't too
shy about where they threw the ball either.
Of course, I don't actally have a problem with this "behaviour"
^Cicero
First up I only saw the incident on he news. But after reading everything on
this newsgroup, I thought it must have been something really horrible. What
I saw was ordinary, and what Slater and his captain have resiled from.
I wish it hadn't happened for the sake of cricket, but I wish it also
hadn't happened for giving those looking for side issues a chance to take
away from the fantastic performance of the Australian side.
Paul Caren
Moby Dick wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Paul Caren submitted to the Inquisition's torture and said:
>
> > Moby Dick wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Paul Caren submitted to the Inquisition's torture and said:
> > >
> > > > Moby Dick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Moby, perhaps you're not aware of it, but as a student of journalism,
> > > > you might be
> > > > expected to be; but some people whilst agreeing that this present team
> > > > is head and
> > > > shoulders above virtually everyone else, leave more than a bit to be
> > > > desired in
> > > > their actions. It's often in the letter pages of the papers.
> > >
> > > "Charlie Creek" writes letters too.
>
> <snip letters>
how VERY convenient
>
>
> > Moby, not everyone shares these views for sure, but when I point them
> > out, the
> > likes of you and Ian tell me I'm paranoid, am in a minority, it never
> > happened
> > anyway, I'm making it all up.
> > I don't think I am.
>
> What an appalling piece of snipping. You've completely removed all of my
> statements to the effect that what Slater did was terrible (along with
> several of the rest of the team's actions) and gone on to insist that I
> don't recognize that they've happen.
>
Bollocks.
I was attempting to illustrate that I'm not alone in my views.
See the Littlemore program last night, by chance?
>
> My point is most certainly not that these incidents don't happen, but
> rather most of the people who jump up and down about them
> 1) Don't bother to jump up and down about similar behaviour from other
> sides.
> and
> 2) Insist on putting every single action taken by the Australians in the
> worst possible light. (an example of this would be some people's
> insistance that Slater "abused" Dravid when it is entirely possible that
> Dravid had called him a cheat and he was vehemenantly denying it. This
> doesn't make Slater's actions right, but it doesn't make what he said
> "abuse" either.)
>
Of course, and it's also quite possible that Charlie Chan was sitting in the stands and
threw his voice out here and actually neither of the players said anything.
>
> <snip>
>
> > No Moby, you name a few instances.
> > You accuse me of hypocrisy and 'being completely
> > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.' I asked you for some examples.
> > You provide them.
>
> Ajit Agarkar. Send off of Michael Slater in the *1st* innings.
what did he say?
Perhaps Slater was the one doingthe abuse in this instance?
>
>
> > > > > Slater's behaviour was abysmall, but it does rather take away from any
> > > > > clout someone has to say it when every single time an Australia so much as
> > > > > sneezes they're jumping up and down deploring it while being completely
> > > > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.
> > > >
> > > > What behaviour have I been willing to accept from other players or teams?
> > > > Have I condoned anyone chucking balls at batsmen or sledging people
> > >
> > > You haven't made any fuss at all about the same behaviour displayed in the
> > > first instance by RSA and in the second by, oh, Srinath.
> >
> > pinging batsmen is a hot topic at present. RSA are not currently
> playing Test or
> > ODIs so I'd be a bit off the mark if I started complaining about them
> > doing it.
>
> And *why* is it a hot topic now instead of when other teams did it?
> Because it was done by an Australian.
>
It hasn't happened much before, certainly not with the regularity
>
> > Perhaps they will next week, in which case I shall.
> > And what did Srinath do?
>
> "Sledging" Ponting during last Aus tour. Not that I found anything wrong
> with it, but then I'm not the one complaining vociferously every time an
> Australian says something mean to a batsman.
Oh come on
>
>
> > I didn't complain about the Lara incident, because quite frankly, I saw
> > the whole
> > match and didn't see him ping anyone.
>
> Did I say he did?
You took me to task for NOT complaining
>
>
> > > > or
> > > > getting
> > > > involved with bookies? Am I the one who comes out with these crapulous
> > > > excuses
> > > > about any transgressions another team makes?
> > >
> > > No, instant crucification seems to be stock-in-trade.
> >
> > Really?
> > I've certainly been critical of those who have transgressed, but I've
> > pretty much
> > stuck to the facts.
>
> Oh, everything you've said (on the subject of cricket) has been
> completely correct. Whether or not it's been a selection of the whole is
> another matter.
>
I don't profess to be always correct, but I am entitled to my view
>
> > > If they do it more often they should receive more. At this stage, in the
> > > on-field behaviour market, they receive it all, not the simple more that
> > > would be appropriate.
> >
> > IMHO, they do it more and recieve more. Quite simple really.
>
> Yes, fine. But at the moment they're receiving it *all*
Because we haven't actually caught anyone else except a junior Mumbai player doing it.
>
>
> > > > > (Oh yeah, that's accepting "sneezing" from other teams, not the rubbish
> > > > > Slater carried on with.)
> > > >
> > > > Such as?
> > >
> > > Not a single word was said about Agarkar's send-off of Slater in the first
> > > innings. I don't have a problem with it, but you can bet your personally
> > > autographed cache of used Gilly gum that if McGrath had done the same,
> > > there would have been gripes all-round.
> >
> > If he did that, he deserves punishment. I didn't see that.
>
> Did you see the Slater incident as well or just on the news?
>
> Moby Dick.
> The revolution is dead. Long live the revolution.
Saw it.
P
Spectrolab
"Spectrolab" <danie.n...@iscor.com> wrote in message
news:97uqtj$f...@godzilla.ast.co.za...
Anthony Swann
# Moby Dick wrote:
#
# > My point is most certainly not that these incidents don't happen, but
# > rather most of the people who jump up and down about them
# > 1) Don't bother to jump up and down about similar behaviour from other
# > sides.
# > and
# > 2) Insist on putting every single action taken by the Australians in the
# > worst possible light. (an example of this would be some people's
# > insistance that Slater "abused" Dravid when it is entirely possible that
# > Dravid had called him a cheat and he was vehemenantly denying it. This
# > doesn't make Slater's actions right, but it doesn't make what he said
# > "abuse" either.)
#
# Of course, and it's also quite possible that Charlie Chan was sitting in the stands and
# threw his voice out here and actually neither of the players said anything.
Do you know what Slater actually said to Dravid? If not, you cannot call
it "abuse" because for all you know, he could have simply been telling
Dravid that he felt it was a legitimate catch - which is quite possible to
do without resorting to abuse.
# > <snip>
# >
# > > No Moby, you name a few instances.
# > > You accuse me of hypocrisy and 'being completely
# > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.' I asked you for some examples.
# > > You provide them.
# >
# > Ajit Agarkar. Send off of Michael Slater in the *1st* innings.
#
# what did he say?
# Perhaps Slater was the one doingthe abuse in this instance?
Slater didn't open his mouth. Agarkar was the one doing all of the
talking.
For crying out loud. Moby provides you with an example (one of many, I
might add), and you're still arguing the point that Australian players are
the only ones "abusing" other players.
# > > > > > Slater's behaviour was abysmall, but it does rather take away from any
# > > > > > clout someone has to say it when every single time an Australia so much as
# > > > > > sneezes they're jumping up and down deploring it while being completely
# > > > > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.
# > > > >
# > > > > What behaviour have I been willing to accept from other players or teams?
# > > > > Have I condoned anyone chucking balls at batsmen or sledging people
# > > >
# > > > You haven't made any fuss at all about the same behaviour displayed in the
# > > > first instance by RSA and in the second by, oh, Srinath.
# > >
# > > pinging batsmen is a hot topic at present. RSA are not currently playing Test or
# > > ODIs so I'd be a bit off the mark if I started complaining about them
# > > doing it.
# >
# > And *why* is it a hot topic now instead of when other teams did it?
# > Because it was done by an Australian.
#
# It hasn't happened much before, certainly not with the regularity
Have you watched much international cricket in the last twenty or so
years? Have you read any books by players who were on the field,
describing certain incidents?
# > > Perhaps they will next week, in which case I shall.
# > > And what did Srinath do?
# >
# > "Sledging" Ponting during last Aus tour. Not that I found anything wrong
# > with it, but then I'm not the one complaining vociferously every time an
# > Australian says something mean to a batsman.
#
# Oh come on
No, you cut the bullshit.
I'm not condoning Australian players carrying on like pork chops whenever
something goes against them (I personally don't carry on like that when it
happens to me on the field). However, I'm not stupid enough to say that
Australians are the only guilty parties in this respect.
--
remove "antispam." to reply.
![C Kelly [BCTA]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjVv-1ms9e2763QxlQxKoSq19eq8o7sshR6pYUVWL9ceTsAjjg=s40-c)
C Kelly [BCTA]
Anthony Swann wrote:
> Do you know what Slater actually said to Dravid?
I believe he questioned the quality of his mother's curries.
--
Cheers
Christian Kelly
"I came, I saw, I couldn't be bothered."
Paul Caren
Anthony Swann wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul Caren wrote:
> [snip]
> # Of course, and it's also quite possible that Charlie Chan was sitting in the stands and
> # threw his voice out here and actually neither of the players said anything.
>
> Do you know what Slater actually said to Dravid? If not, you cannot call
> it "abuse" because for all you know, he could have simply been telling
> Dravid that he felt it was a legitimate catch - which is quite possible to
> do without resorting to abuse.
>
Someone posted it earlier.
Something along the lines of
S: I'm not f###ing cheating you here, I caught it
D: what would you do in my position?
S: F##k you
D: and you too
Watch the tape, it looks remarkably correct.
If the above is correct, do you consider that abuse?
>
> # > <snip>
> # >
> # > > No Moby, you name a few instances.
> # > > You accuse me of hypocrisy and 'being completely
> # > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.' I asked you for some examples.
> # > > You provide them.
> # >
> # > Ajit Agarkar. Send off of Michael Slater in the *1st* innings.
> #
> # what did he say?
> # Perhaps Slater was the one doingthe abuse in this instance?
>
> Slater didn't open his mouth. Agarkar was the one doing all of the
> talking.
>
then he should've gotten the same punishment as Slater.
>
> For crying out loud. Moby provides you with an example (one of many, I
> might add), and you're still arguing the point that Australian players are
> the only ones "abusing" other players.
>
Where have I ever said that?
Moby accuses me of it, however it isn't true.
I'm accusing Australians of doing it more often.
There IS a difference.
And as for examples, he conveniently sidesteps my requests.....
>
> # > > > > > Slater's behaviour was abysmall, but it does rather take away from any
> # > > > > > clout someone has to say it when every single time an Australia so much as
> # > > > > > sneezes they're jumping up and down deploring it while being completely
> # > > > > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.
> # > > > >
> # > > > > What behaviour have I been willing to accept from other players or teams?
> # > > > > Have I condoned anyone chucking balls at batsmen or sledging people
> # > > >
> # > > > You haven't made any fuss at all about the same behaviour displayed in the
> # > > > first instance by RSA and in the second by, oh, Srinath.
> # > >
> # > > pinging batsmen is a hot topic at present. RSA are not currently playing Test or
> # > > ODIs so I'd be a bit off the mark if I started complaining about them
> # > > doing it.
> # >
> # > And *why* is it a hot topic now instead of when other teams did it?
> # > Because it was done by an Australian.
> #
> # It hasn't happened much before, certainly not with the regularity
>
> Have you watched much international cricket in the last twenty or so
> years? Have you read any books by players who were on the field,
> describing certain incidents?
>
Yes.
I contend that the behaviour on field is getting worse.
questioning the umpires decision in the way Slater did is not common practice and I'd really
prefer that it doesn't become so.
>
> # > > Perhaps they will next week, in which case I shall.
> # > > And what did Srinath do?
> # >
> # > "Sledging" Ponting during last Aus tour. Not that I found anything wrong
> # > with it, but then I'm not the one complaining vociferously every time an
> # > Australian says something mean to a batsman.
> #
> # Oh come on
>
> No, you cut the bullshit.
>
Moby is calling me a hypocrite because I didn't recently castigate Srinath for sledging
Ponting 18 months ago.
and anyway, what did Srinath say? Perhaps he wasn't resorting to abuse. Do you know what was
actually said?
>
> I'm not condoning Australian players carrying on like pork chops whenever
> something goes against them (I personally don't carry on like that when it
> happens to me on the field). However, I'm not stupid enough to say that
> Australians are the only guilty parties in this respect.
>
> --
Hey, that's all fine and dandy.
But I'm not stupid enough to say it either.
Moby has made up a nice little story that people like yourself get hooked by.
I say Australia are the worst offenders, certainly at present.
I guess I get a bit peeved with the riders of posters who begin 'I'm not condoning what xxxxx
did, but perhaps it's understandable.....'
and then go on to give some weird excuse, which on this group leaves me with the impression
that whatever has happened has always been quite defensible.
Perhaps a small proportion of the incidents have been blown out of proportion/due to some
media baet up, whatever. But there are so many of them, I can't believe that all of them
didn't actually occur, which is what I'm so often accused of ie making it up
P
>
>
> remove "antispam." to reply.
Moby Dick
> that's what i thought
I've replied already.
Donald and De villiers bowling, Cronje and Gibbs in the field.
> "Spectrolab" <danie.n...@iscor.com> wrote in message
> news:97uqtj$f...@godzilla.ast.co.za...
> > i don't see why every time a aus player misbehave sa players must be
> pulled
> > in to the conversation but no name's are given of the sa player that over
> > steps
> > his and the opposing players boundaries,ok hansie had had mild anger burst
> > in aus but that was of the field(sh*t ump by haire will do that to a
> > captain)
> > who?where?when?please point this sa player out!
Anthony Swann
# Anthony Swann wrote:
#
# > Do you know what Slater actually said to Dravid?
#
# I believe he questioned the quality of his mother's curries.
If someone asked me about my mother's curries, I'd have them over to
sample the curries for themselves. :-)
If I say so myself, they're fantastic!
Anthony Swann
# Anthony Swann wrote:
#
# > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul Caren wrote:
# > [snip]
# > # Of course, and it's also quite possible that Charlie Chan was sitting in the stands and
# > # threw his voice out here and actually neither of the players said anything.
# >
# > Do you know what Slater actually said to Dravid? If not, you cannot call
# > it "abuse" because for all you know, he could have simply been telling
# > Dravid that he felt it was a legitimate catch - which is quite possible to
# > do without resorting to abuse.
# >
#
# Someone posted it earlier.
# Something along the lines of
# S: I'm not f###ing cheating you here, I caught it
# D: what would you do in my position?
# S: F##k you
# D: and you too
#
# Watch the tape, it looks remarkably correct.
# If the above is correct, do you consider that abuse?
I suppose it varies from person to person.
For instance, if someone told me "F@^k you!", I wouldn't be overly
concerned by it. However, Matt (for instance) considers it personal abuse
when someone takes him to task for saying that Gilchrist is the world's
best ever keeper.
Taken at face value, I wouldn't consider "F@^k you!" to be personal abuse.
There wasn't any name-calling (for instance, "curry-munching bastard").
# > # > <snip>
# > # >
# > # > > No Moby, you name a few instances.
# > # > > You accuse me of hypocrisy and 'being completely
# > # > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.' I asked you for some examples.
# > # > > You provide them.
# > # >
# > # > Ajit Agarkar. Send off of Michael Slater in the *1st* innings.
# > #
# > # what did he say?
# > # Perhaps Slater was the one doingthe abuse in this instance?
# >
# > Slater didn't open his mouth. Agarkar was the one doing all of the
# > talking.
#
# then he should've gotten the same punishment as Slater.
Exactly.
I do think that Slater should have been at least fined (and/or suspended)
simply for the manner of his remonstration with the umpire alone.
Confrontations between players CAN be tolarated (up to a point, of
course), but spitting the dummy at the umpire is totally unacceptable.
# > For crying out loud. Moby provides you with an example (one of many, I
# > might add), and you're still arguing the point that Australian players are
# > the only ones "abusing" other players.
#
# Where have I ever said that?
# Moby accuses me of it, however it isn't true.
# I'm accusing Australians of doing it more often.
# There IS a difference.
# And as for examples, he conveniently sidesteps my requests.....
Are you sure of "Australians ... doing it more often"? What about all of
the incidents that occur in matches that Australia isn't involved in (like
the current England vs Sri Lanka series, where I hear tempers have been
frayed quite a bit).
# > # > > > > > Slater's behaviour was abysmall, but it does rather take away from any
# > # > > > > > clout someone has to say it when every single time an Australia so much as
# > # > > > > > sneezes they're jumping up and down deploring it while being completely
# > # > > > > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.
# > # > > > >
# > # > > > > What behaviour have I been willing to accept from other players or teams?
# > # > > > > Have I condoned anyone chucking balls at batsmen or sledging people
# > # > > >
# > # > > > You haven't made any fuss at all about the same behaviour displayed in the
# > # > > > first instance by RSA and in the second by, oh, Srinath.
# > # > >
# > # > > pinging batsmen is a hot topic at present. RSA are not currently playing Test or
# > # > > ODIs so I'd be a bit off the mark if I started complaining about them
# > # > > doing it.
# > # >
# > # > And *why* is it a hot topic now instead of when other teams did it?
# > # > Because it was done by an Australian.
# > #
# > # It hasn't happened much before, certainly not with the regularity
# >
# > Have you watched much international cricket in the last twenty or so
# > years? Have you read any books by players who were on the field,
# > describing certain incidents?
#
# Yes.
# I contend that the behaviour on field is getting worse.
# questioning the umpires decision in the way Slater did is not common practice and I'd really
# prefer that it doesn't become so.
In so far as players questioning umpiring decisions, I agree. However, in
cases of players clashing with other players, I believe that this started
to become a regular occurrence in the 70's - increased cricket coverage
has only brought to the fore what was already there.
# > # > > Perhaps they will next week, in which case I shall.
# > # > > And what did Srinath do?
# > # >
# > # > "Sledging" Ponting during last Aus tour. Not that I found anything wrong
# > # > with it, but then I'm not the one complaining vociferously every time an
# > # > Australian says something mean to a batsman.
# > #
# > # Oh come on
# >
# > No, you cut the bullshit.
#
# Moby is calling me a hypocrite because I didn't recently castigate
# Srinath for sledging Ponting 18 months ago. and anyway, what did
# Srinath say? Perhaps he wasn't resorting to abuse. Do you know what
# was actually said?
From memory, Srinath told Ponting something like "Can't you hit the ball?"
- I may be wrong, of course, but it seems that he was having a go at
Ponting's ability to play the bouncer. Similar to McGrath (for instance)
saying to a batsman who has just played and missed "You lucky bastard" -
in other words, having a go at the batsman's (lack of) ability.
# > I'm not condoning Australian players carrying on like pork chops whenever
# > something goes against them (I personally don't carry on like that when it
# > happens to me on the field). However, I'm not stupid enough to say that
# > Australians are the only guilty parties in this respect.
#
# Hey, that's all fine and dandy.
# But I'm not stupid enough to say it either.
# Moby has made up a nice little story that people like yourself get hooked by.
# I say Australia are the worst offenders, certainly at present.
Would this be, perhaps, due to the fact that Australia are the
most-covered team in the media?
# I guess I get a bit peeved with the riders of posters who begin 'I'm
# not condoning what xxxxx did, but perhaps it's understandable.....'
# and then go on to give some weird excuse, which on this group leaves
# me with the impression that whatever has happened has always been
# quite defensible.
#
# Perhaps a small proportion of the incidents have been blown out of
# proportion/due to some media baet up, whatever. But there are so many
# of them, I can't believe that all of them didn't actually occur, which
# is what I'm so often accused of ie making it up
Increased (and closer!) media coverage is only showing us what has been
happening since the 70's. The only way we hear about incidents from the
70's is from the players' own anecdotes, because back then they weren't
being monitored by stump-cams, pitch microphones, etc.
Matthew O'Neill
Anthony Swann wrote:
>
> If someone asked me about my mother's curries, I'd have them over to
> sample the curries for themselves. :-)
>
> If I say so myself, they're fantastic!
Your Mum is probably a great cook and lovely person but anything
but hot or spicy food :)
Nice Chicken dish would be good :o)
Cheers,
Matt.
ICQ 1444514
Anthony Swann
# Anthony Swann wrote:
#
# > If someone asked me about my mother's curries, I'd have them over to
# > sample the curries for themselves. :-)
# >
# > If I say so myself, they're fantastic!
#
# Your Mum is probably a great cook and lovely person but anything
# but hot or spicy food :)
Spoilsport. :-)
# Nice Chicken dish would be good :o)
Like a Chicken Vindaloo, perhaps? *LOL* :-)
Paul Caren
Anthony Swann wrote:
OK, I'll come straight out.
I consider the term 'F**k you' to be abuse.
What sort of comments would you consider to be abuse?
>
> Taken at face value, I wouldn't consider "F@^k you!" to be personal abuse.
> There wasn't any name-calling (for instance, "curry-munching bastard").
>
at face value, I'd say the incident is a pretty fair example of abuse.
Perhaps something else occured.
Perhaps, as Moby says ..'when it is entirely possible that
Dravid had called him a cheat and he was vehemenantly denying it.'
So in the light of what we do actually know, lets speculate and blame Dravid.....
>
> # > # > <snip>
> # > # >
> # > # > > No Moby, you name a few instances.
> # > # > > You accuse me of hypocrisy and 'being completely
> # > # > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.' I asked you for some examples.
> # > # > > You provide them.
> # > # >
> # > # > Ajit Agarkar. Send off of Michael Slater in the *1st* innings.
> # > #
> # > # what did he say?
> # > # Perhaps Slater was the one doingthe abuse in this instance?
> # >
> # > Slater didn't open his mouth. Agarkar was the one doing all of the
> # > talking.
> #
> # then he should've gotten the same punishment as Slater.
>
> Exactly.
>
which was a slap on the wrist.
>
> I do think that Slater should have been at least fined (and/or suspended)
> simply for the manner of his remonstration with the umpire alone.
> Confrontations between players CAN be tolarated (up to a point, of
> course), but spitting the dummy at the umpire is totally unacceptable.
>
agreed
>
> # > For crying out loud. Moby provides you with an example (one of many, I
> # > might add), and you're still arguing the point that Australian players are
> # > the only ones "abusing" other players.
> #
> # Where have I ever said that?
> # Moby accuses me of it, however it isn't true.
> # I'm accusing Australians of doing it more often.
> # There IS a difference.
> # And as for examples, he conveniently sidesteps my requests.....
>
> Are you sure of "Australians ... doing it more often"? What about all of
> the incidents that occur in matches that Australia isn't involved in (like
> the current England vs Sri Lanka series, where I hear tempers have been
> frayed quite a bit).
>
OK, I don't watch EVERY Test in the world, but my view is that Aus are more involved than anyone
else.
From what I've seen of E v SL, Hick was fined for shaking his head as he left the field after a
dubious decision and 4 SL players were fined for excessive appealing. If you equate this with
abusing the umpire and perhaps abusing another player, well, we are miles apart.
> It has occured since the 70s, but I think it's getting worse. failure to keep it in check will
> lead to even more incidents of this kind, IMHO
>
> # > # > > Perhaps they will next week, in which case I shall.
> # > # > > And what did Srinath do?
> # > # >
> # > # > "Sledging" Ponting during last Aus tour. Not that I found anything wrong
> # > # > with it, but then I'm not the one complaining vociferously every time an
> # > # > Australian says something mean to a batsman.
> # > #
> # > # Oh come on
> # >
> # > No, you cut the bullshit.
> #
> # Moby is calling me a hypocrite because I didn't recently castigate
> # Srinath for sledging Ponting 18 months ago. and anyway, what did
> # Srinath say? Perhaps he wasn't resorting to abuse. Do you know what
> # was actually said?
>
> From memory, Srinath told Ponting something like "Can't you hit the ball?"
> - I may be wrong, of course, but it seems that he was having a go at
> Ponting's ability to play the bouncer. Similar to McGrath (for instance)
> saying to a batsman who has just played and missed "You lucky bastard" -
> in other words, having a go at the batsman's (lack of) ability.
so you consider 'Can you hit the ball?' to be abuse, but 'F**k you' is ok?
And you are able to accept that the report of what Srinath said as correct, yet you question the
validity of reports of what Slater said.
>
>
> # > I'm not condoning Australian players carrying on like pork chops whenever
> # > something goes against them (I personally don't carry on like that when it
> # > happens to me on the field). However, I'm not stupid enough to say that
> # > Australians are the only guilty parties in this respect.
> #
> # Hey, that's all fine and dandy.
> # But I'm not stupid enough to say it either.
> # Moby has made up a nice little story that people like yourself get hooked by.
> # I say Australia are the worst offenders, certainly at present.
>
> Would this be, perhaps, due to the fact that Australia are the
> most-covered team in the media?
>
That MAY be part of it.
>
> # I guess I get a bit peeved with the riders of posters who begin 'I'm
> # not condoning what xxxxx did, but perhaps it's understandable.....'
> # and then go on to give some weird excuse, which on this group leaves
> # me with the impression that whatever has happened has always been
> # quite defensible.
> #
> # Perhaps a small proportion of the incidents have been blown out of
> # proportion/due to some media baet up, whatever. But there are so many
> # of them, I can't believe that all of them didn't actually occur, which
> # is what I'm so often accused of ie making it up
>
> Increased (and closer!) media coverage is only showing us what has been
> happening since the 70's. The only way we hear about incidents from the
> 70's is from the players' own anecdotes, because back then they weren't
> being monitored by stump-cams, pitch microphones, etc.
>
> --
>
> remove "antispam." to reply.
I find that a bit simplistic
P
Anthony Swann
# Anthony Swann wrote:
#
# > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Paul Caren wrote:
# >
# > # Anthony Swann wrote:
# > #
# > # > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul Caren wrote:
# > # > [snip]
# > # > # Of course, and it's also quite possible that Charlie Chan was sitting in the stands and
# > # > # threw his voice out here and actually neither of the players said anything.
# > # >
# > # > Do you know what Slater actually said to Dravid? If not, you cannot call
# > # > it "abuse" because for all you know, he could have simply been telling
# > # > Dravid that he felt it was a legitimate catch - which is quite possible to
# > # > do without resorting to abuse.
# > #
# > # Someone posted it earlier.
# > # Something along the lines of
# > # S: I'm not f###ing cheating you here, I caught it
# > # D: what would you do in my position?
# > # S: F##k you
# > # D: and you too
# > #
# > # Watch the tape, it looks remarkably correct.
# > # If the above is correct, do you consider that abuse?
# >
# > I suppose it varies from person to person.
# >
# > For instance, if someone told me "F@^k you!", I wouldn't be overly
# > concerned by it. However, Matt (for instance) considers it personal abuse
# > when someone takes him to task for saying that Gilchrist is the world's
# > best ever keeper.
#
# OK, I'll come straight out.
# I consider the term 'F**k you' to be abuse.
# What sort of comments would you consider to be abuse?
If someone has a go at someone else's parentage, race, whatever, then I
consider that to be abuse. Simply telling someone "F@^k you!" isn't doing
any of that, so I don't consider it to be abuse.
I've had it said to me a few times on the cricket field, and I just ignore
it.
# > Taken at face value, I wouldn't consider "F@^k you!" to be personal abuse.
# > There wasn't any name-calling (for instance, "curry-munching bastard").
#
# at face value, I'd say the incident is a pretty fair example of abuse.
Except that you don't actually know what Slater said to Dravid - you've
only speculated that "it looks remarkably correct".
# Perhaps something else occured. Perhaps, as Moby says ..'when it is
# entirely possible that Dravid had called him a cheat and he was
# vehemenantly denying it.' So in the light of what we do actually know,
# lets speculate and blame Dravid.....
Who said I was blaming anyone?
# > # > # > <snip>
# > # > # >
# > # > # > > No Moby, you name a few instances.
# > # > # > > You accuse me of hypocrisy and 'being completely
# > # > # > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.' I asked you for some examples.
# > # > # > > You provide them.
# > # > # >
# > # > # > Ajit Agarkar. Send off of Michael Slater in the *1st* innings.
# > # > #
# > # > # what did he say?
# > # > # Perhaps Slater was the one doingthe abuse in this instance?
# > # >
# > # > Slater didn't open his mouth. Agarkar was the one doing all of the
# > # > talking.
# > #
# > # then he should've gotten the same punishment as Slater.
# >
# > Exactly.
#
# which was a slap on the wrist.
Was he actually oficially warned though?
# > I do think that Slater should have been at least fined (and/or suspended)
# > simply for the manner of his remonstration with the umpire alone.
# > Confrontations between players CAN be tolerated (up to a point, of
# > course), but spitting the dummy at the umpire is totally unacceptable.
#
# agreed
Finally we agree on something! :-)
# > # > For crying out loud. Moby provides you with an example (one of many, I
# > # > might add), and you're still arguing the point that Australian players are
# > # > the only ones "abusing" other players.
# > #
# > # Where have I ever said that?
# > # Moby accuses me of it, however it isn't true.
# > # I'm accusing Australians of doing it more often.
# > # There IS a difference.
# > # And as for examples, he conveniently sidesteps my requests.....
# >
# > Are you sure of "Australians ... doing it more often"? What about all of
# > the incidents that occur in matches that Australia isn't involved in (like
# > the current England vs Sri Lanka series, where I hear tempers have been
# > frayed quite a bit).
#
# OK, I don't watch EVERY Test in the world, but my view is that Aus are
# more involved than anyone else.
#
# From what I've seen of E v SL, Hick was fined for shaking his head as
# he left the field after a dubious decision and 4 SL players were fined
# for excessive appealing. If you equate this with abusing the umpire
# and perhaps abusing another player, well, we are miles apart.
I would imagine, during the "excessive appealing", that some words would
have been exchanged between the SL fielders and the English batsmen - I
may be only speculating, but I find it very hard to believe that the SL
fieldsmen ONLY appealed excessively.
# > # > # > > > > > Slater's behaviour was abysmall, but it does rather take away from any
# > # > # > > > > > clout someone has to say it when every single time an Australia so much as
# > # > # > > > > > sneezes they're jumping up and down deploring it while being completely
# > # > # > > > > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.
# > # > # > > > >
# > # > # > > > > What behaviour have I been willing to accept from other players or teams?
# > # > # > > > > Have I condoned anyone chucking balls at batsmen or sledging people
# > # > # > > >
# > # > # > > > You haven't made any fuss at all about the same behaviour displayed in the
# > # > # > > > first instance by RSA and in the second by, oh, Srinath.
# > # > # > >
# > # > # > > pinging batsmen is a hot topic at present. RSA are not currently playing Test or
# > # > # > > ODIs so I'd be a bit off the mark if I started complaining about them
# > # > # > > doing it.
# > # > # >
# > # > # > And *why* is it a hot topic now instead of when other teams did it?
# > # > # > Because it was done by an Australian.
# > # > #
# > # > # It hasn't happened much before, certainly not with the regularity
# > # >
# > # > Have you watched much international cricket in the last twenty or so
# > # > years? Have you read any books by players who were on the field,
# > # > describing certain incidents?
# > #
# > # Yes.
# > # I contend that the behaviour on field is getting worse.
# > # questioning the umpires decision in the way Slater did is not common practice and I'd really
# > # prefer that it doesn't become so.
# >
# > In so far as players questioning umpiring decisions, I agree. However, in
# > cases of players clashing with other players, I believe that this started
# > to become a regular occurrence in the 70's - increased cricket coverage
# > has only brought to the fore what was already there.
# > It has occured since the 70s, but I think it's getting worse. failure to keep it in check will
# > lead to even more incidents of this kind, IMHO
#
# >
# > # > # > > Perhaps they will next week, in which case I shall.
# > # > # > > And what did Srinath do?
# > # > # >
# > # > # > "Sledging" Ponting during last Aus tour. Not that I found anything wrong
# > # > # > with it, but then I'm not the one complaining vociferously every time an
# > # > # > Australian says something mean to a batsman.
# > # > #
# > # > # Oh come on
# > # >
# > # > No, you cut the bullshit.
# > #
# > # Moby is calling me a hypocrite because I didn't recently castigate
# > # Srinath for sledging Ponting 18 months ago. and anyway, what did
# > # Srinath say? Perhaps he wasn't resorting to abuse. Do you know what
# > # was actually said?
# >
# > From memory, Srinath told Ponting something like "Can't you hit the ball?"
# > - I may be wrong, of course, but it seems that he was having a go at
# > Ponting's ability to play the bouncer. Similar to McGrath (for instance)
# > saying to a batsman who has just played and missed "You lucky bastard" -
# > in other words, having a go at the batsman's (lack of) ability.
#
# so you consider 'Can you hit the ball?' to be abuse, but 'F**k you' is
# ok? And you are able to accept that the report of what Srinath said as
# correct, yet you question the validity of reports of what Slater said.
Hang on just a moment. I never said that I was correct. In fact, read it
again: I said "I may be wrong". I was speculating, but without actually
knowing what was said, I wasn't the one jumping to the conclusion that
Srinath "abused" Ponting - I only said that he "sledged" Ponting. I
consider "abuse" and "sledging" to be quite different.
# > # > I'm not condoning Australian players carrying on like pork chops whenever
# > # > something goes against them (I personally don't carry on like that when it
# > # > happens to me on the field). However, I'm not stupid enough to say that
# > # > Australians are the only guilty parties in this respect.
# > #
# > # Hey, that's all fine and dandy.
# > # But I'm not stupid enough to say it either.
# > # Moby has made up a nice little story that people like yourself get hooked by.
# > # I say Australia are the worst offenders, certainly at present.
# >
# > Would this be, perhaps, due to the fact that Australia are the
# > most-covered team in the media?
#
# That MAY be part of it.
:-)
# > # I guess I get a bit peeved with the riders of posters who begin 'I'm
# > # not condoning what xxxxx did, but perhaps it's understandable.....'
# > # and then go on to give some weird excuse, which on this group leaves
# > # me with the impression that whatever has happened has always been
# > # quite defensible.
# > #
# > # Perhaps a small proportion of the incidents have been blown out of
# > # proportion/due to some media baet up, whatever. But there are so many
# > # of them, I can't believe that all of them didn't actually occur, which
# > # is what I'm so often accused of ie making it up
# >
# > Increased (and closer!) media coverage is only showing us what has been
# > happening since the 70's. The only way we hear about incidents from the
# > 70's is from the players' own anecdotes, because back then they weren't
# > being monitored by stump-cams, pitch microphones, etc.
#
# I find that a bit simplistic
Would you say that this is correct though?
Paul Caren
Anthony Swann wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Paul Caren wrote:
> [snip]
> # OK, I'll come straight out.
> # I consider the term 'F**k you' to be abuse.
> # What sort of comments would you consider to be abuse?
>
> If someone has a go at someone else's parentage, race, whatever, then I
> consider that to be abuse. Simply telling someone "F@^k you!" isn't doing
> any of that, so I don't consider it to be abuse.
>
> I've had it said to me a few times on the cricket field, and I just ignore
> it.
> so you'd ignore one type of abuse, but not the other?
>
> # > Taken at face value, I wouldn't consider "F@^k you!" to be personal abuse.
> # > There wasn't any name-calling (for instance, "curry-munching bastard").
> #
> # at face value, I'd say the incident is a pretty fair example of abuse.
>
> Except that you don't actually know what Slater said to Dravid - you've
> only speculated that "it looks remarkably correct".
>
Someone posted it here as what was said.
If you watch the replay, that looks like what was said.
There is no sound, but you can take an educated guess by reading the lips.
>
> # Perhaps something else occured. Perhaps, as Moby says ..'when it is
> # entirely possible that Dravid had called him a cheat and he was
> # vehemenantly denying it.' So in the light of what we do actually know,
> # lets speculate and blame Dravid.....
>
> Who said I was blaming anyone?
>
OK, it was Moby, who was the one who initially took me to task. But both you & he are doing the
speculating.
You claim I'm speculating by putting together what I saw and what someone else posted as what was said.
you are speculating that perhaps Slater was simply telling Dravid it was a fair catch.
Based on what evidence?
Moby is speculating that perhaps Dravid abused Slater.
again, based on what evidence.
I'm not making out the evidence I have is 100% correct, but I think it's a bit more substantial than
what you're suggesting
>
> # > # > # > <snip>
> # > # > # >
> # > # > # > > No Moby, you name a few instances.
> # > # > # > > You accuse me of hypocrisy and 'being completely
> # > # > # > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.' I asked you for some examples.
> # > # > # > > You provide them.
> # > # > # >
> # > # > # > Ajit Agarkar. Send off of Michael Slater in the *1st* innings.
> # > # > #
> # > # > # what did he say?
> # > # > # Perhaps Slater was the one doingthe abuse in this instance?
> # > # >
> # > # > Slater didn't open his mouth. Agarkar was the one doing all of the
> # > # > talking.
> # > #
> # > # then he should've gotten the same punishment as Slater.
> # >
> # > Exactly.
> #
> # which was a slap on the wrist.
>
> Was he actually oficially warned though?
I think he was
>
>
> # > I do think that Slater should have been at least fined (and/or suspended)
> # > simply for the manner of his remonstration with the umpire alone.
> # > Confrontations between players CAN be tolerated (up to a point, of
> # > course), but spitting the dummy at the umpire is totally unacceptable.
> #
> # agreed
>
> Finally we agree on something! :-)
>
good
well, I read that that is indeed what they were fined for.
If there was more to it, then it wasn't what got into the reports I read.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but you're saying you know one thing for a fact (sledging).
Going on what you've said before, isn't it possible that Srinath was merely passing the time of day?
>
>
> # > # > I'm not condoning Australian players carrying on like pork chops whenever
> # > # > something goes against them (I personally don't carry on like that when it
> # > # > happens to me on the field). However, I'm not stupid enough to say that
> # > # > Australians are the only guilty parties in this respect.
> # > #
> # > # Hey, that's all fine and dandy.
> # > # But I'm not stupid enough to say it either.
> # > # Moby has made up a nice little story that people like yourself get hooked by.
> # > # I say Australia are the worst offenders, certainly at present.
> # >
> # > Would this be, perhaps, due to the fact that Australia are the
> # > most-covered team in the media?
> #
> # That MAY be part of it.
>
> :-)
>
?
>
> # > # I guess I get a bit peeved with the riders of posters who begin 'I'm
> # > # not condoning what xxxxx did, but perhaps it's understandable.....'
> # > # and then go on to give some weird excuse, which on this group leaves
> # > # me with the impression that whatever has happened has always been
> # > # quite defensible.
> # > #
> # > # Perhaps a small proportion of the incidents have been blown out of
> # > # proportion/due to some media baet up, whatever. But there are so many
> # > # of them, I can't believe that all of them didn't actually occur, which
> # > # is what I'm so often accused of ie making it up
> # >
> # > Increased (and closer!) media coverage is only showing us what has been
> # > happening since the 70's. The only way we hear about incidents from the
> # > 70's is from the players' own anecdotes, because back then they weren't
> # > being monitored by stump-cams, pitch microphones, etc.
> #
> # I find that a bit simplistic
>
> Would you say that this is correct though?
>
> --
>
> remove "antispam." to reply.
In part, yes
P
Nathan Dunn
"Paul Caren" <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3AA8163B...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Anthony Swann wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Paul Caren wrote:
> >
> > # Anthony Swann wrote:
> > #
> > # > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul Caren wrote:
> > # > [snip]
> > #
> > # Something along the lines of
> > # S: I'm not f###ing cheating you here, I caught it
> > # D: what would you do in my position?
> > # S: F##k you
> > # D: and you too
> > #
> > # Watch the tape, it looks remarkably correct.
> > # If the above is correct, do you consider that abuse?
> >
> > I suppose it varies from person to person.
> >
> > For instance, if someone told me "F@^k you!", I wouldn't be overly
> > concerned by it. However, Matt (for instance) considers it personal
abuse
> > when someone takes him to task for saying that Gilchrist is the world's
> > best ever keeper.
> >
>
> OK, I'll come straight out.
> I consider the term 'F**k you' to be abuse.
> What sort of comments would you consider to be abuse?
For once I agree with you Paul.
Cheers,
Nathan.
Prakash Melwani
> I did see Slater *appearing* to shout at Dravid and he did *appear* to
mouth
> obscenities. And someone posted what was said (don't know where they got
it
> from)
Being the person who posted the 'comments', I got it from a news article
which stated that this had been transcribed by a staff member of the station
providing the TV coverage.
> and it did *appear* to correspond with what they posted.
Paul, I agree it seems to be fairly accurate.
> Your claim as to what Dravid *might* have said is based on absolutely
nothing
> at all.
>
> P
Cheers
Prakash
Moby
> news:3AB18813...@hotmail.com...
> > I did see Slater *appearing* to shout at Dravid and he did *appear* to
> mouth
> > obscenities. And someone posted what was said (don't know where they got
> it
> > from)
> > and it did *appear* to correspond with what they posted.
> > Your claim as to what Dravid *might* have said is based on absolutely
> nothing
> > at all.
Yes, funny that. We didn't see what Dravid said at all. Do you find that
if an ostrich hides his head in the sand he becomes nearly invisible?
What is completely and absolutely true is that we do not have any idea
what Dravid said. Yet without one side of the conversation (without even
knowing if he said anything or not) you can conclusively prove that it was
Slater, and Slater alone who was the protagonist in this issue.
Because you didn't see Dravid doing anything, this instantly amounts to
conclusive proof that he didn't do anything?
Moby.
Faen Cotton
Moby wrote:
> Yes, funny that. We didn't see what Dravid said at all. Do you find that
> if an ostrich hides his head in the sand he becomes nearly invisible?
>
> What is completely and absolutely true is that we do not have any idea
> what Dravid said. Yet without one side of the conversation (without even
> knowing if he said anything or not) you can conclusively prove that it was
> Slater, and Slater alone who was the protagonist in this issue.
>
> Because you didn't see Dravid doing anything, this instantly amounts to
> conclusive proof that he didn't do anything?
>
> Moby.
> The revolution is dead. Long live the revolution.
To be fair to Paul,
just two posts ago he wrote:
'I'm not making out the evidence I have is 100% correct, but I think it's a bit
more substantial than
what you're suggesting'
so I'm suprised you claim what you do
Be Lucky
Faen
Prakash Melwani
"Moby" <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.30.010317...@student.uq.edu.au...
Moby,
From what you write, I presume you have not read the original full
conversation.
For you info, I had previously posted the following:
Slater: "Do you think I'm f***ing going to cheat you on this?" Dravid: "Put
yourself in my shoes. What would you do?" Slater: "F*** you" Dravid: "You
too"
Perhaps you can elaborate further your views.
Cheers
Prakash
Anthony Swann
# Anthony Swann wrote:
#
# > On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Paul Caren wrote:
# > [snip]
# > # OK, I'll come straight out.
# > # I consider the term 'F**k you' to be abuse.
# > # What sort of comments would you consider to be abuse?
# >
# > If someone has a go at someone else's parentage, race, whatever, then I
# > consider that to be abuse. Simply telling someone "F@^k you!" isn't doing
# > any of that, so I don't consider it to be abuse.
# >
# > I've had it said to me a few times on the cricket field, and I just ignore
# > it.
#
# so you'd ignore one type of abuse, but not the other?
Like I've said - I don't consider a simple "F@^k you!" or "F@^k off!" to
be abuse. And any abuse that was directed at me I would either ignore or
laugh at. After all, they're the one wasting their breath with their
carrying on.
# > # > Taken at face value, I wouldn't consider "F@^k you!" to be personal abuse.
# > # > There wasn't any name-calling (for instance, "curry-munching bastard").
# > #
# > # at face value, I'd say the incident is a pretty fair example of abuse.
# >
# > Except that you don't actually know what Slater said to Dravid - you've
# > only speculated that "it looks remarkably correct".
#
# Someone posted it here as what was said.
# If you watch the replay, that looks like what was said.
# There is no sound, but you can take an educated guess by reading the lips.
Again, like I've said, I don't consider a simple "F@^k you!" to be abuse.
# > # Perhaps something else occured. Perhaps, as Moby says ..'when it is
# > # entirely possible that Dravid had called him a cheat and he was
# > # vehemenantly denying it.' So in the light of what we do actually know,
# > # lets speculate and blame Dravid.....
# >
# > Who said I was blaming anyone?
#
# OK, it was Moby, who was the one who initially took me to task. But
# both you & he are doing the speculating. You claim I'm speculating by
# putting together what I saw and what someone else posted as what was
# said.
#
# you are speculating that perhaps Slater was simply telling Dravid it
# was a fair catch. Based on what evidence?
I don't think so. I don't know what was said, and haven't attempted to
guess at what he did say. I've merely been commenting on other people's
guesses, and whether I consider them to be abusive, or just abrasive.
# Moby is speculating that perhaps Dravid abused Slater. again, based on
# what evidence.
Moby's a big lad - he can speak for himself. :-)
# I'm not making out the evidence I have is 100% correct, but I think
# it's a bit more substantial than what you're suggesting
What have I suggested? It's been a week since I've been able to check
this newsgroup, and to tell you the truth, I've almost completely lost
track of this thread. However, I don't recall actually making any guesses
as to what was said - more like commenting on other people's guesses.
# > # > # > # > <snip>
# > # > # > # >
# > # > # > # > > No Moby, you name a few instances.
# > # > # > # > > You accuse me of hypocrisy and 'being completely
# > # > # > # > > willing to accept such behaviour from other teams.' I asked you for some examples.
# > # > # > # > > You provide them.
# > # > # > # >
# > # > # > # > Ajit Agarkar. Send off of Michael Slater in the *1st* innings.
# > # > # > #
# > # > # > # what did he say?
# > # > # > # Perhaps Slater was the one doingthe abuse in this instance?
# > # > # >
# > # > # > Slater didn't open his mouth. Agarkar was the one doing all of the
# > # > # > talking.
# > # > #
# > # > # then he should've gotten the same punishment as Slater.
# > # >
# > # > Exactly.
# > #
# > # which was a slap on the wrist.
# >
# > Was he actually oficially warned though?
#
# I think he was
Well, he has been now, anyway! :-)
# > # > # > For crying out loud. Moby provides you with an example (one of many, I
# > # > # > might add), and you're still arguing the point that Australian players are
# > # > # > the only ones "abusing" other players.
# > # > #
# > # > # Where have I ever said that?
# > # > # Moby accuses me of it, however it isn't true.
# > # > # I'm accusing Australians of doing it more often.
# > # > # There IS a difference.
# > # > # And as for examples, he conveniently sidesteps my requests.....
# > # >
# > # > Are you sure of "Australians ... doing it more often"? What about all of
# > # > the incidents that occur in matches that Australia isn't involved in (like
# > # > the current England vs Sri Lanka series, where I hear tempers have been
# > # > frayed quite a bit).
# > #
# > # OK, I don't watch EVERY Test in the world, but my view is that Aus are
# > # more involved than anyone else.
# > #
# > # From what I've seen of E v SL, Hick was fined for shaking his head as
# > # he left the field after a dubious decision and 4 SL players were fined
# > # for excessive appealing. If you equate this with abusing the umpire
# > # and perhaps abusing another player, well, we are miles apart.
# >
# > I would imagine, during the "excessive appealing", that some words would
# > have been exchanged between the SL fielders and the English batsmen - I
# > may be only speculating, but I find it very hard to believe that the SL
# > fieldsmen ONLY appealed excessively.
#
# well, I read that that is indeed what they were fined for.
# If there was more to it, then it wasn't what got into the reports I read.
Fair enough.
# > # > # > # > > Perhaps they will next week, in which case I shall.
# > # > # > # > > And what did Srinath do?
# > # > # > # >
# > # > # > # > "Sledging" Ponting during last Aus tour. Not that I found anything wrong
# > # > # > # > with it, but then I'm not the one complaining vociferously every time an
# > # > # > # > Australian says something mean to a batsman.
# > # > # > #
# > # > # > # Oh come on
# > # > # >
# > # > # > No, you cut the bullshit.
# > # > #
# > # > # Moby is calling me a hypocrite because I didn't recently castigate
# > # > # Srinath for sledging Ponting 18 months ago. and anyway, what did
# > # > # Srinath say? Perhaps he wasn't resorting to abuse. Do you know what
# > # > # was actually said?
# > # >
# > # > From memory, Srinath told Ponting something like "Can't you hit the ball?"
# > # > - I may be wrong, of course, but it seems that he was having a go at
# > # > Ponting's ability to play the bouncer. Similar to McGrath (for instance)
# > # > saying to a batsman who has just played and missed "You lucky bastard" -
# > # > in other words, having a go at the batsman's (lack of) ability.
# > #
# > # so you consider 'Can you hit the ball?' to be abuse, but 'F**k you' is
# > # ok? And you are able to accept that the report of what Srinath said as
# > # correct, yet you question the validity of reports of what Slater said.
# >
# > Hang on just a moment. I never said that I was correct. In fact, read it
# > again: I said "I may be wrong". I was speculating, but without actually
# > knowing what was said, I wasn't the one jumping to the conclusion that
# > Srinath "abused" Ponting - I only said that he "sledged" Ponting. I
# > consider "abuse" and "sledging" to be quite different.
#
# Perhaps I misunderstand, but you're saying you know one thing for a
# fact (sledging). Going on what you've said before, isn't it possible
# that Srinath was merely passing the time of day?
Given that Srinath was less than happy when he had words with Ponting, I
would hardly believe that he was simply saying "How d'you do?" :-)
In that way, yes I believe that sledging was going on (both ways, mind
you), but not necessarily abuse.
# > # > # > I'm not condoning Australian players carrying on like pork chops whenever
# > # > # > something goes against them (I personally don't carry on like that when it
# > # > # > happens to me on the field). However, I'm not stupid enough to say that
# > # > # > Australians are the only guilty parties in this respect.
# > # > #
# > # > # Hey, that's all fine and dandy.
# > # > # But I'm not stupid enough to say it either.
# > # > # Moby has made up a nice little story that people like yourself get hooked by.
# > # > # I say Australia are the worst offenders, certainly at present.
# > # >
# > # > Would this be, perhaps, due to the fact that Australia are the
# > # > most-covered team in the media?
# > #
# > # That MAY be part of it.
# >
# > :-)
#
# ?
A tacit acknowledgement of your agreement with my point.
# > # > # I guess I get a bit peeved with the riders of posters who begin 'I'm
# > # > # not condoning what xxxxx did, but perhaps it's understandable.....'
# > # > # and then go on to give some weird excuse, which on this group leaves
# > # > # me with the impression that whatever has happened has always been
# > # > # quite defensible.
# > # > #
# > # > # Perhaps a small proportion of the incidents have been blown out of
# > # > # proportion/due to some media baet up, whatever. But there are so many
# > # > # of them, I can't believe that all of them didn't actually occur, which
# > # > # is what I'm so often accused of ie making it up
# > # >
# > # > Increased (and closer!) media coverage is only showing us what has been
# > # > happening since the 70's. The only way we hear about incidents from the
# > # > 70's is from the players' own anecdotes, because back then they weren't
# > # > being monitored by stump-cams, pitch microphones, etc.
# > #
# > # I find that a bit simplistic
# >
# > Would you say that this is correct though?
#
# In part, yes
Which part don't you agree with then?
Ant.
Moby
> # Moby is speculating that perhaps Dravid abused Slater. again, based on
> # what evidence.
None, which is the same level of evidence you have. The difference
is that I'm not trying to prove anything other than we don't know what
exactly happened.
Moby.
Paul Caren
Anthony Swann wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Paul Caren wrote:
>
> # Anthony Swann wrote:
> #
> # > On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Paul Caren wrote:
> # > [snip]
> # > # OK, I'll come straight out.
> # > # I consider the term 'F**k you' to be abuse.
> # > # What sort of comments would you consider to be abuse?
> # >
> # > If someone has a go at someone else's parentage, race, whatever, then I
> # > consider that to be abuse. Simply telling someone "F@^k you!" isn't doing
> # > any of that, so I don't consider it to be abuse.
> # >
> # > I've had it said to me a few times on the cricket field, and I just ignore
> # > it.
> #
> # so you'd ignore one type of abuse, but not the other?
>
> Like I've said - I don't consider a simple "F@^k you!" or "F@^k off!" to
> be abuse. And any abuse that was directed at me I would either ignore or
> laugh at. After all, they're the one wasting their breath with their
> carrying on.
>
that is up to you.
I think a lot of others would see it differently
>
> # > # > Taken at face value, I wouldn't consider "F@^k you!" to be personal abuse.
> # > # > There wasn't any name-calling (for instance, "curry-munching bastard").
> # > #
> # > # at face value, I'd say the incident is a pretty fair example of abuse.
> # >
> # > Except that you don't actually know what Slater said to Dravid - you've
> # > only speculated that "it looks remarkably correct".
> #
> # Someone posted it here as what was said.
> # If you watch the replay, that looks like what was said.
> # There is no sound, but you can take an educated guess by reading the lips.
>
> Again, like I've said, I don't consider a simple "F@^k you!" to be abuse.
well I do
>
>
> # > # Perhaps something else occured. Perhaps, as Moby says ..'when it is
> # > # entirely possible that Dravid had called him a cheat and he was
> # > # vehemenantly denying it.' So in the light of what we do actually know,
> # > # lets speculate and blame Dravid.....
> # >
> # > Who said I was blaming anyone?
> #
> # OK, it was Moby, who was the one who initially took me to task. But
> # both you & he are doing the speculating. You claim I'm speculating by
> # putting together what I saw and what someone else posted as what was
> # said.
> #
> # you are speculating that perhaps Slater was simply telling Dravid it
> # was a fair catch. Based on what evidence?
>
> I don't think so. I don't know what was said, and haven't attempted to
> guess at what he did say. I've merely been commenting on other people's
> guesses, and whether I consider them to be abusive, or just abrasive.
>
OK, I commented on what someone else said was said and what I saw on the teev.
>
> # Moby is speculating that perhaps Dravid abused Slater. again, based on
> # what evidence.
>
> Moby's a big lad - he can speak for himself. :-)
he already has
>
>
> # I'm not making out the evidence I have is 100% correct, but I think
> # it's a bit more substantial than what you're suggesting
>
> What have I suggested? It's been a week since I've been able to check
> this newsgroup, and to tell you the truth, I've almost completely lost
> track of this thread. However, I don't recall actually making any guesses
> as to what was said - more like commenting on other people's guesses.
>
perhaps it wasn't you. But it was suggested that in fact Dravid was in fact the one dishing out the
abuse.
As I said before, based on what?
And the incident with the umpire. What happpened there? Did the umpire abuse Slater too?
yes
sort of like Slater & Dravid, eh?
>
>
> In that way, yes I believe that sledging was going on (both ways, mind
> you), but not necessarily abuse.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what you consider to be abuse
>
>
> # > # > # > I'm not condoning Australian players carrying on like pork chops whenever
> # > # > # > something goes against them (I personally don't carry on like that when it
> # > # > # > happens to me on the field). However, I'm not stupid enough to say that
> # > # > # > Australians are the only guilty parties in this respect.
> # > # > #
> # > # > # Hey, that's all fine and dandy.
> # > # > # But I'm not stupid enough to say it either.
> # > # > # Moby has made up a nice little story that people like yourself get hooked by.
> # > # > # I say Australia are the worst offenders, certainly at present.
> # > # >
> # > # > Would this be, perhaps, due to the fact that Australia are the
> # > # > most-covered team in the media?
> # > #
> # > # That MAY be part of it.
> # >
> # > :-)
> #
> # ?
>
> A tacit acknowledgement of your agreement with my point.
>
In this part of the world they are the most covered team.
Probably not in India or England, for example
I'm not saying it never happened before, I'm sure it did.
I think it happens more now, plus we can often get a view on it oursleves, rather than sometimes getting
the biased opinion of, perhaps, a sore loser.
P
Paul Caren
Moby wrote:
Not exactly true Moby.
We don't know what exactly happened, but if you can speculate, so can I,
right?
I did see Slater *appearing* to shout at Dravid and he did *appear* to mouth
obscenities. And someone posted what was said (don't know where they got it
from) and it did *appear* to correspond with what they posted.
Your claim as to what Dravid *might* have said is based on absolutely nothing
at all.
P
Moby
> To be fair to Paul,
Why? I haven't noticed him be fair to too many others.
> just two posts ago he wrote:
>
> 'I'm not making out the evidence I have is 100% correct, but I think
> it's a bit
> more substantial than
> what you're suggesting'
>
> so I'm suprised you claim what you do
Why? I'm not claiming anything beyond "we can't claim anything because we
don't know everything that happened." Paul may well be less than 100%
sure, but his attitude suggests that it's not much less than 100% and he's
not going to let the fact that substantial evidence is missing bother him.
I'm not the one suggesting that anything happened: only that we can't be
sure *what* happened.
Moby
>
> "Moby" <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.4.30.010317...@student.uq.edu.au...
> > > "Paul Caren" <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3AB18813...@hotmail.com...
> > > > I did see Slater *appearing* to shout at Dravid and he did *appear* to
> > > mouth
> > > > obscenities. And someone posted what was said (don't know where they
> got
> > > it
> > > > from)
> >
> > > > and it did *appear* to correspond with what they posted.
> > > > Your claim as to what Dravid *might* have said is based on absolutely
> > > nothing
> > > > at all.
> >
> > Yes, funny that. We didn't see what Dravid said at all. Do you find that
> > if an ostrich hides his head in the sand he becomes nearly invisible?
> >
> > What is completely and absolutely true is that we do not have any idea
> > what Dravid said. Yet without one side of the conversation (without even
> > knowing if he said anything or not) you can conclusively prove that it was
> > Slater, and Slater alone who was the protagonist in this issue.
> >
> > Because you didn't see Dravid doing anything, this instantly amounts to
> > conclusive proof that he didn't do anything?
> Moby,
>
> From what you write, I presume you have not read the original full
> conversation.
>
> For you info, I had previously posted the following:
>
> Slater: "Do you think I'm f***ing going to cheat you on this?" Dravid: "Put
> yourself in my shoes. What would you do?" Slater: "F*** you" Dravid: "You
> too"
>
> Perhaps you can elaborate further your views.
I'll tell you what, if you can get me one of those amazing cameras that
reads the lips of the player with his back to it, I'll buy it.
I do not doubt and won't argue that what has been re-produced is very
close to what Slater said. I don't doubt that he swore at Dravid, but
the rest of it certainly is not the diction of 1) A 30yo cricket player
from Australia in 2001 or even 2) The diction of anyone angry enough to
be swearing.
My opinion of the integrity of the person who made up Dravid's side rests
in it's appropriate place underneath saw-dust in the small room out the
back of the house.
Unless you want to tell me that both players were kind enough to turn to
face the camera when it was their turn to speak.
Moby.
Who the hell actually talks in full, gramatically correct sentences?
Paul Caren
Moby wrote:
> > "Paul Caren" <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3AB18813...@hotmail.com...
> > > I did see Slater *appearing* to shout at Dravid and he did *appear* to
> > mouth
> > > obscenities. And someone posted what was said (don't know where they got
> > it
> > > from)
>
> > > and it did *appear* to correspond with what they posted.
> > > Your claim as to what Dravid *might* have said is based on absolutely
> > nothing
> > > at all.
>
> Yes, funny that. We didn't see what Dravid said at all. Do you find that
> if an ostrich hides his head in the sand he becomes nearly invisible?
>
You do jest Moby?
So who do you propose to blame next? Perhaps Tendulkar?
I mean, we didn't see him say anything, but it doesn't mean he didn't, does it?
>
> What is completely and absolutely true is that we do not have any idea
> what Dravid said. Yet without one side of the conversation (without even
> knowing if he said anything or not) you can conclusively prove that it was
> Slater, and Slater alone who was the protagonist in this issue.
>
Complete rubbish, and demonstrably so. Prakesh posted a transcript of what was
said. It may not be completely correct, but it refutes your ridiculous claim
that we have no idea what Dravid said.
>
> Because you didn't see Dravid doing anything, this instantly amounts to
> conclusive proof that he didn't do anything?
>
Why do you think I said I didn't have 100% proof of what went on?
In order to claim I had 100% accuracy on what went on?
Get real and stop making up such unsustainable stories.
>
> Moby.
> The revolution is dead. Long live the revolution.
P
Paul Caren
Moby wrote:
[snip]
I'll tell you what, if you can get me one of those amazing cameras that
> reads the lips of the player with his back to it, I'll buy it.
>
I rather doubt it.
You obviously haven't seen the incident, you get a view of both of them, face on.
But I rather don't expect you to admit to any mistake.
>
> I do not doubt and won't argue that what has been re-produced is very
> close to what Slater said. I don't doubt that he swore at Dravid, but
> the rest of it certainly is not the diction of 1) A 30yo cricket player
> from Australia in 2001 or even 2) The diction of anyone angry enough to
> be swearing.
Moby, there'd still be fairies at the bottom of your garden, right?
>
>
> My opinion of the integrity of the person who made up Dravid's side rests
> in it's appropriate place underneath saw-dust in the small room out the
> back of the house.
>
Why is this?
You know who it was, do you?
>
> Unless you want to tell me that both players were kind enough to turn to
> face the camera when it was their turn to speak.
>
> Moby.
> Who the hell actually talks in full, gramatically correct sentences?
OK Moby,
firstly you made out that I had no idea what went on (but somehow you did).
I maintained that I knew what I saw and it corresponded to what someone posted as a
transcript.
Prakesh has reposted the transcript and now you're disputing that.
Basically, your premise is that nothing can be proved, it can be only disproved.
What does strike me as rather pathetic is that the likes of you & Hamish & David
Blake have given me an awful lot of abuse over this Slater incident and made up
lots of little stories about me.
Do I take it that you guys are supportive of Slater's actions?
What is it that I said that you found so obnoxious?
Hamish called me a pig and intimated that I made things up and never admitted that
I was wrong and repeatedly insulted people.
Can you point out to me where I made things up, refused to admit I was wrong or
insulted you?
In fact (I'm not saying you insulted me) it would seem to me that you are guilty of
making things up and refusing to admit that you are wrong.
And then I get ridiculous posters like Darcy saying I'm a moronic poster, which of
course isn't an insult, even though he posts those ridiculous assertions that 'that
sort of thing would never happen in Australia' just before it actually does.
P
Paul Caren
Moby wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Faen Cotton submitted to the Inquisition's torture and...:
>
> > To be fair to Paul,
>
> Why? I haven't noticed him be fair to too many others.
Really?
Care to provide some proof?
>
>
> > just two posts ago he wrote:
> >
> > 'I'm not making out the evidence I have is 100% correct, but I think
> > it's a bit
> > more substantial than
> > what you're suggesting'
> >
> > so I'm suprised you claim what you do
>
> Why? I'm not claiming anything beyond "we can't claim anything because we
> don't know everything that happened."
As is the case in virtually any incident , cricket or otherwise.
> Paul may well be less than 100%
> sure, but his attitude suggests that it's not much less than 100% and he's
> not going to let the fact that substantial evidence is missing bother him.
>
what evidence is missing Moby?
If you have some, let's hear it.
And no, I said I wasn't claiming 100% proof because I don't have it.
And I also didn't ever claim it was close to 100%.
>
> I'm not the one suggesting that anything happened: only that we can't be
> sure *what* happened.
>
I'm suggesting something did happen.
To suggest that nothing happened seems to me the classic case of the ostrich with
its head in the sand
>
> Moby.
> The revolution is dead. Long live the revolution.
P