Its interesting how the complaints against umpires have gone away now that India have won
Dave -Turner
have won.
subi...@notmail.com
> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> have won.
ok, ausland got some bad decisions against them, as did the indians.
no overwhelming advantage to either team, unlike in sydney.
yeskay
> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> have won.
Another Aussie whinger. You got 16 in a row. Bask in that.
We have got a paltry one.
Jason Gillespie
"Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> have won.
>
>
>
No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
get dumped by your wives and you live the rest of your
pathetic lonely lives loving dogs and cats.
Dave -Turner
keep posting ....
Dave -Turner
Australia winning 16 test matches in a row. There was plenty of cheers for
India winning 1 test match against Australia but I don't think anybody even
raised an eyebrow when Australia equaled the Australian-set record of 16
test match wins in a row. We have a name for that here in Oz -- Tall Poppy
Syndrome.
great...@fastmail.fm
> have won.
Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
Tex
"Jason Gillespie" <JasonGillespi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmsr33$rv7$1...@aioe.org...
>
> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
>> have won.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
> get dumped by your wives
So, tell us about the practice of bride-burning in India :)
HVS
> It's also interesting how nobody in this newsgroup has even
> commented on Australia winning 16 test matches in a row.
Because the 16th win was soiled by poor sportsmanship and uneven
breaks against the losing team.
The got their 16-streak win -- but everyone knew it was a hollow
victory.
Dave -Turner
HVS
> Yeah I'm sure they just strung 16 wins together by chance.
Read your post: you were whinging about the lack of acclaim for the
*16th* win. Now it's suddenly about "the other 15"?
The answer stands.
ben.g...@hotmail.com
Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
this had been a reverse situation, we would've been assaulted with an
avalanche of idiotic posts, much like we were after the SCG test.
Regards,
Ben.
gupta...@comcast.net
> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> have won.
What this test has shown that if Australians play without sledging,
intimidation, cheating and lying, other teams can BEAT them!!!
R
Southpaw
> On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> > > have won.
>
> > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
> > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.
-Samarth.
Reverse Swing
"Southpaw" <arb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4e89917-443a-46cf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
> > > India
> > > have won.
>
> > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
> > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
[SP] To be fair, we should also count Dravid LBW in I1 not given against
Johnson's yorker in India's favour. 3-2 to India I'd say. It was still
pretty much evens-stevens.
Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.
[SP] Or Englishmen whingeing about 1984-85 Bombay Test. I watched the
whole game on TV and don't recall any Bucknor-class decision.
SP [ Where did >>>'s go? ]
bhandava
> Ahhh yes, "Jason Gillespie" - India's finest example of a troll. Please,
> keep posting ....
>
>
An American posing as an Indian with an Australian name.
bhandava
bhandava
Copy and paste troll. I reduce your mark, you fail at trolling.
bhandava
Southpaw
<NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "Southpaw" <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a4e89917-443a-46cf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
> > > > India
> > > > have won.
>
> > > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
> > > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> > > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> > Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
>
> Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
> LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
> decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
>
> [SP] To be fair, we should also count Dravid LBW in I1 not given against
> Johnson's yorker in India's favour. 3-2 to India I'd say. It was still
> pretty much evens-stevens.
Dhoni's LBW in I1 was high and went in Aus' favor. But I think SRT was
also reprieved on 49 in I1, which was in India's favor. So maybe 4-3
to India. Either way, I agree it was even-stevens, unlike in Sydney
where it was not even close to balanced.
The important point I mentioned in another thread is that, in general,
LBWs are qualitatively harder than caught-behinds or stumpings or
caught-at-slip decisions. Getting a few LBWs wrong per game is par for
the course. Getting 3 caught-behinds wrong and not consulting the 3rd
umpire a few times all in the same match is terrible umpiring.
-Samarth.
>
> Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
> about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.
>
> [SP] Or Englishmen whingeing about 1984-85 Bombay Test. I watched the
> whole game on TV and don't recall any Bucknor-class decision.
>
> SP [ Where did >>>'s go? ]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fish Womper
<gupta...@comcast.net> wrote:
India- repeat after me-
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
I must learn to be gracious in victory
>
>R
>
>
Sanjiv Karmarkar
part of his punishment:
Very nice, you have been a good boy and have completed your
punishment. Low lets see if it actually works for you.
SK
Fish Womper
<s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 19, 3:51=A0pm, x...@x.x (Fish Womper) wrote on the blackboard as
>part of his punishment:
>
>
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>> =A0I must learn to be gracious in victory
>
>Very nice, you have been a good boy and have completed your
>punishment. Low lets see if it actually works for you.
>
>SK
If only there had been cut and paste 45 years ago.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
>
> If only there had been cut and paste 45 years ago.
That, I have to admit, was quite funny!
I gather you're over 50 then? I gotta show more respect for the
elderly from now on :-)
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Fish Womper
<s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 19, 4:12=A0pm, x...@x.x (Fish Womper) wrote:
>>
>> If only there had been cut and paste 45 years ago.
>
>That, I have to admit, was quite funny!
>
>I gather you're over 50 then?
Barely.
fish
Fran
Yes, it does. They had no business celebrating number 16.
Fran
Fran
It still doesn't explain why we don't use the technology to get closer
to 100% right and no obvious incorrect decisions.
Fran
Fish Womper
wrote:
>On Jan 20, 7:36=A0am, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 10:38=A0am, "Reverse Swing"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>> > "Southpaw" <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:a4e89917-443a-46cf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now tha=
>t
>> > > > > India
>> > > > > have won.
>>
>> > > > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied=
>
>> > > > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
>> > > > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
>> > > > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
>> > > > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
>> > > > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>>
>> > > Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
>>
>> > Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
>> > LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
>> > decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
>>
>> > [SP] To be fair, we should also count Dravid LBW in I1 not given against=
>
>> > Johnson's yorker in India's favour. =A03-2 to India I'd say. =A0 It was =
>still
>> > pretty much evens-stevens.
>>
>> Dhoni's LBW in I1 was high and went in Aus' favor. But I think SRT was
>> also reprieved on 49 in I1, which was in India's favor. So maybe 4-3
>> to India. Either way, I agree it was even-stevens, unlike in Sydney
>> where it was not even close to balanced.
>>
>> The important point I mentioned in another thread is that, in general,
>> LBWs are qualitatively harder than caught-behinds or stumpings or
>> caught-at-slip decisions. Getting a few LBWs wrong per game is par for
>> the course. Getting 3 caught-behinds wrong and not consulting the 3rd
>> umpire a few times all in the same match is terrible umpiring.
>>
>
>
>It still doesn't explain why we don't use the technology to get closer
>to 100% right and no obvious incorrect decisions.
>
>Fran
Because the current 80-85 overs a day would be reduced to 70-75.
Because it would devalue the status and call into question the
integrity of on field umpires.
Because a further gulf would exist between international cricket and
lower forms of the game.
Because contentious decisions and accusations of cheating would still
be made no matter what technology is used.
In other words it would create more problems than it solves.
Hope this helps.
fish
dechucka
<great...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:14fc569f-c57e-449a...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
No and even if Aus got a few dud decision ( more than India in this test )
you won't see the ACB threatening to stop the tour and have umpires stood
down
dechucka
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8100ff2a-0614-4b76...@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
What technology would you use?
Fran
Southpaw
<snip>
> It still doesn't explain why we don't use the technology to get closer
> to 100% right and no obvious incorrect decisions.
Hey you're preaching to the choir. I'm all for technology being used
to aid umpires wherever and whenever possible.
-Samarth.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> No and even if Aus got a few dud decision ( more than India in this test )
> you won't see the ACB threatening to stop the tour and have umpires stood
> down
If what transpired at Perth would have happened to any other team, the
hue and cry would have been much more deafening; I bet you guys would
be clamoring to get that test annulled.
I'm not sure if you are in complete denial or it's impossible for you
to imagine being in those shoes.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
dechucka
"Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f626d63-643e-4231...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 19, 6:10 pm, "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
> No and even if Aus got a few dud decision ( more than India in this test )
> you won't see the ACB threatening to stop the tour and have umpires stood
> down
-If what transpired at Perth would have happened to any other team, the
-hue and cry would have been much more deafening; I bet you guys would
-be clamoring to get that test annulled.
No we wouldn't.
By the way what transpired at Perth,
-I'm not sure if you are in complete denial or it's impossible for you
-to imagine being in those shoes.
Australia in many sports have cracked it for crook decisions but so what?
R. Shakey
> I'm not sure if you are in complete denial or it's impossible for you
> to imagine being in those shoes.
No, we've already been there. Venkat used to fuck us over every single
time we visit India before the neutral umpire rule came in. We just
managed to accept that our team simply didn't bat and bowl as well as
they should, got better and went back and won the next time.
R. Shakey
> >> LBWs are qualitatively harder than caught-behinds or stumpings or
> >> caught-at-slip decisions. Getting a few LBWs wrong per game is par for
> >> the course. Getting 3 caught-behinds wrong and not consulting the 3rd
> >> umpire a few times all in the same match is terrible umpiring.
So what's the point? Oh, the umpiring wasn't that great. What a great
point.
> >It still doesn't explain why we don't use the technology to get closer
> >to 100% right and no obvious incorrect decisions.
>
Fran, your constructive approach is so positive for this group. Keep
posting.
> Because the current 80-85 overs a day would be reduced to 70-75.
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. If there's just one
challenge per day, which is realistic, the game would lose up to three
minutes and only one over of play. Four or five challenges would end
up being about three overs. Nowhere near ten.
> Because it would devalue the status and call into question the
> integrity of on field umpires.
Is the feelings of our umpires or the game of cricket more important?
Some umpires obviously need some perspective when it comes to their
contribution to the game, anyway. Why is it that Steve Bucknor didn't
simply say... 'everyone - i had a fucking shocker. i'm going to have a
short holiday and hopefully come back fresh'?? It's because umpires
see themselves as more important than the game sometimes.
> Because a further gulf would exist between international cricket and
> lower forms of the game.
If that detracts from club cricket I can't see how.
> Because contentious decisions and accusations of cheating would still
> be made no matter what technology is used.
Status quo stays.
> In other words it would create more problems than it solves.
In other words, you're afraid of change.
prakmel
Of course you forgot to mention that the 3rd Umpire also contributed
to the cause by
presumably pressing the wrong button and giving Symonds not out for a
stumping
which even the Aussie commentators said was out.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
If your team actually did not bowl and bat as well (as you say above),
then what's the big deal if you accept that?
We lost to you fair and square at Melbourne, and several times before,
and Indian posters have said so openly on this forum. What transpired
at Sidney was simply preposterous; it was unforgivable. All real
cricket fans - including several Australians on this forum - have said
so openly. Unfortunately - but not unexpectedly - that does not
include you two.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> "Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_karmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2f626d63-643e-4231...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 6:10 pm, "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No and even if Aus got a few dud decision ( more than India in this test )
> > you won't see the ACB threatening to stop the tour and have umpires stood
> > down
>
> -If what transpired at Perth would have happened to any other team, the
> -hue and cry would have been much more deafening; I bet you guys would
> -be clamoring to get that test annulled.
>
> No we wouldn't.
Yes you would. :-)
> Australia in many sports have cracked it for crook decisions but so what?
Sorry, I don't follow AFL or RL But the penalty kick at the World cup
comes to mind. Now imagine that times 7.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
prakmel
> It's also interesting how nobody in this newsgroup has even commented on
> Australia winning 16 test matches in a row. There was plenty of cheers for
> India winning 1 test match against Australia but I don't think anybody even
> raised an eyebrow when Australia equaled the Australian-set record of 16
> test match wins in a row. We have a name for that here in Oz -- Tall Poppy
> Syndrome.
Are you the same person who started this thread?
If so, why do you switch the question when you feel like it? To
elaborate, the thread
was titled about equalling the record 16 wins and you now mention
winning 16 matches
in a row. Hopefully even you see the difference.
Furthermore, even you may be aware that a sizeable portion of even
your countrymen have
voiced their displeasure at the way the '16 win' was contrived. If
not, please keep up.
HTH
Jughead
> Yeah I'm sure they just strung 16 wins together by chance.
How does it matter if someone acknowledges those 16 wins are not?.
With or without acknowledgments it was a brilliant streak...Tell me
how many people were actually surprised that they got that streak. You
can multiply the number many times over to see that many people
surprised by this one Indian win at Perth......That I guess has a lot
to do with with euphoria in India currently. We are a good test team,
but the Aussies are the best and it feels great to beat the best test
side
-Aravind
Obtusenet
> SP [ Where did >>>'s go? ]- Hide quoted text -
>
If you are using google groups click the "More Options" and then
"Reply"
">>>" will appear.
dechucka
On Jan 19, 6:37 pm, "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
> "Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_karmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2f626d63-643e-4231...@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 6:10 pm, "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No and even if Aus got a few dud decision ( more than India in this
> > test )
> > you won't see the ACB threatening to stop the tour and have umpires
> > stood
> > down
>
> -If what transpired at Perth would have happened to any other team, the
> -hue and cry would have been much more deafening; I bet you guys would
> -be clamoring to get that test annulled.
>
> No we wouldn't.
Yes you would. :-)
Of course
> Australia in many sports have cracked it for crook decisions but so what?
Sorry, I don't follow AFL or RL But the penalty kick at the World cup
comes to mind. Now imagine that times 7.
So fucking what they are all games.
dechucka
I am one of the Aussie fans who said that India copped the worst of it in
Sydney but so what. Aus copped the worst of it in Perth but Hey shit happens
R. Shakey
> If your team actually did not bowl and bat as well (as you say above),
> then what's the big deal if you accept that?
There isn't a big deal at all - umpires have bad games and umpires are
influenced by home crowds (such is life). The similarities between
that situation and this, and the difference in responses, was in
itself the point that you missed.
> We lost to you fair and square at Melbourne, and several times before,
> and Indian posters have said so openly on this forum. What transpired
> at Sidney was simply preposterous; it was unforgivable. All real
> cricket fans - including several Australians on this forum - have said
> so openly. Unfortunately - but not unexpectedly - that does not
> include you two.
Preposterous, yes. Some of the decisions were absolutely ridiculous -
Bucknor shouldn't have been there in the first place. Unforgivable? If
someone did something that you feel they need to be forgived for, you
didn't exactly point it out. Still haven't seen any Indians refer to
Sharma standing his ground after he was caught at slip, but in the
context of the game that was easily forgivable. Reality is that it's
an emotional game, people make mistakes and learn from them. Kumble
appealed for an LBW yesterday after it hit the bat.. if he's good
enough to see how that contradicts with his moral high ground stance
in Sydney, that's forgivable too.
Ravi
> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> have won.
So do you think that the Sydney test was not incorrectly influenced by
Bucknor/Benson?
Jason Gillespie
"Tex" <trop...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:47920e68$0$26179$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Jason Gillespie" <JasonGillespi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fmsr33$rv7$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
>> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
>>> India have won.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> get dumped by your wives
>
> So, tell us about the practice of bride-burning in India :)
>
Indians have a lot to learn from the Scott Petersons and the
Drew Petersons in killing their wives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312023,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309688,00.html
Tex
>
> "Tex" <trop...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47920e68$0$26179$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Jason Gillespie" <JasonGillespi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fmsr33$rv7$1...@aioe.org...
>>>
>>> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
>>> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
>>>> India have won.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
>>> get dumped by your wives
>>
>> So, tell us about the practice of bride-burning in India :)
>>
>
>
> Indians have a lot to learn from the Scott Petersons and the
> Drew Petersons in killing their wives.
Nah, they already burn them.
BTW, I notice you prefer to live in the US over India :)
bcl...@mailinator.com
Aussies complaining about Venkat is funny - he gifted the '96 WC
finals berth to Aussies with his horrendous umpiring againt WI in the
semis. He kept gifting wckets to Warne, turning an easy WI win into a
thrilling Aussie victory (thanks in no small part to the collapsos
also). He fell in love with Warne's flipper that day and couldn't deny
him anything.
Rajagopal
Enzo
<JasonGillespie123Purget...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
>
> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> > have won.
>
> No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
> pathetic lonely lives loving dogs and cats.
There is nothing pathetic about loving/living with dogs and
yes, there is a lot to be said in favor of seeing the last
of the spouse.
Enzo [ Jason Gillespie? ]
bhandava
>
> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
>> India have won.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
> get dumped by your wives and you live the rest of your
> pathetic lonely lives loving dogs and cats.
>
>
I know! This wouldn't happen if people had less control over their lives
and parents got to choose the wife instead.
R. Shakey
> Aussies complaining about Venkat is funny - he gifted the '96 WC
> finals berth to Aussies with his horrendous umpiring againt WI in the
> semis. He kept gifting wckets to Warne, turning an easy WI win into a
> thrilling Aussie victory (thanks in no small part to the collapsos
> also). He fell in love with Warne's flipper that day and couldn't deny
> him anything.
Resentment of SK Warne's superiority is my best guess as to how you
could say something like that.
I knew they were plumb, but your reminder made me want to watch the
last moments of this game again.
Adams was absolutely plumb, playing across the line and hit in front
of middle stump on the full. If you weren't aware, when the ball hits
the batter on the full umpires are instructed to assume that it will
go straight on, so Venkat simply couldn't not give it out. More out
than George Michael.
Neither were questions ever raised about the LBW that Bishop got. Hit
in front of middle stump on the shin, no stride forward, evidently
hitting leg-stump. Another clear dismissal. Both out, without a shadow
of a doubt.
Reverse Swing
news:15a58f3b-4aa7-46ca...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I am using MS OE.
SP
Jason Gillespie
"Tex" <trop...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
Doesnt matter Tex. I can fly anywhere you live and
fuck your wife and mom while you guzzle beer, eat hot
dogs, fart and watch baseball/football.
Indians have a lot to learn from the Scott Petersons and the
Drew Petersons in killing their wives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
Jason Gillespie
"bhandava" <bhandava_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmtm2k$qas$2...@aioe.org...
> Dave -Turner wrote:
>> Ahhh yes, "Jason Gillespie" - India's finest example of a troll.
>> Please, keep posting ....
>>
>>
>
> An American posing as an Indian with an Australian name.
>
>
> bhandava
bhandava,
I can tell you have 300 IQ like your mafia member Rodney Ulyate,
Diggler, Jack, Kim and hundred other UserIds you mafia members
post with on rsc.
Simply brilliant. You made me feel so inferior and imbecile. LOL
Jason Gillespie
bhandava,
Yep in my country USA, 99% of people choose their wife on thier
own and 65% of them end up in divorce and then dysfucntaional lives
loving cats and dogs.
These third world Indian idiots and curry munchers should learn
from us superior americans how to choose their wives on their
own.
As always you are genius and an intellectual with 300 IQ just like
your fellow genius and intellectual Rodney Ulyate who is SHIT
SCARED to file a police complaint against that imbecile
"Husband of All FBI n NSA agents" who put a $10,000
bounty on his head.
Jason Gillespie
"R. Shakey" <dnarm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:697ce0e2-3c18-45b3...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Aussies complaining about Venkat is funny - he gifted the '96 WC
>> finals berth to Aussies with his horrendous umpiring againt WI in the
>> semis. He kept gifting wckets to Warne, turning an easy WI win into a
>> thrilling Aussie victory (thanks in no small part to the collapsos
>> also). He fell in love with Warne's flipper that day and couldn't deny
>> him anything.
>
> Resentment of SK Warne's superiority is my best guess as to how you
> could say something like that.
Brilliant psychoanalysis from R Shakey aka Rodney Ulyate.
Your culture breeds naturally gifted and talented geniuses like you.
Is Oil the secret sauce ?
Roflmao
bhandava
>
> Yep in my country USA, 99% of people choose their wife on thier
> own and 65% of them end up in divorce and then dysfucntaional lives
> loving cats and dogs.
Of course, 99.79% of your statistics are made up, 87% of people realise
this. Keep being a slave though, go against natural selection and get
your family to sell their home and buy you a wife. It won't end up in
divorce, she'll top herself if she has a shred of dignity. LMAO
> These third world Indian idiots and curry munchers should learn
> from us superior americans.
If you insist, crazy yankee slave.
bhandava
bcl...@mailinator.com
> > Aussies complaining about Venkat is funny - he gifted the '96 WC
> > finals berth to Aussies with his horrendous umpiring againt WI in the
> > semis. He kept gifting wckets to Warne, turning an easy WI win into a
> > thrilling Aussie victory (thanks in no small part to the collapsos
> > also). He fell in love with Warne's flipper that day and couldn't deny
> > him anything.
>
> Resentment of SK Warne's superiority is my best guess as to how you
> could say something like that.
It is possible that the hardcore WI fan in me is being a sore loser.
Possible. I don't think so, but you could argue that.
But honestly, there is no resentment of Warne in me. Along with a fit
early Waqar and Lara anytime, Warne's bowling was what I wanted to see
most since the early 90's.
Rajagopal
bhandava
>
> bhandava,
>
> I can tell you have 300 IQ like your mafia member Rodney Ulyate,
> Diggler, Jack, Kim and hundred other UserIds you mafia members
> post with on rsc.
>
> Simply brilliant. You made me feel so inferior and imbecile.
>
Handy hint: "imbecilic" is the adjective you're searching for.
Your obvious illiteracy speaks for itself, maybe take an English course.
I'm not surprised you feel inferior.
bhandava
alvey
snip valiant attempt.
This is rsc. Truth is rarely convincing.
alvey
Jason Gillespie
"Enzo" <s_deb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c06ed82-804a-44e7...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 19, 7:40 am, "Jason Gillespie"
<JasonGillespie123Purget...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote in message
>
> news:13p3r41...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
> > India
> > have won.
>
> No wonder majority of you dysfucntional whingers and whiners
> get dumped by your wives and you live the rest of your
> pathetic lonely lives loving dogs and cats.
>>There is nothing pathetic about loving/living with dogs and
>>yes,
There is everything pathetic about loving dogs and cats out of
your loneliness caused by your dysfuncational life.
Jason Gillespie
Lord bhandava,
My English is bad as yours.
Lets take English course together mate.
You are running away like a pussy. I will teach you how to be brave
after you suck my dick like Monica Lewinsky.
Husband of All FBI n NSA agents challenged you.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/5d90a8473e4fc400
eusebius
> On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
> > > > have won.
>
> > > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> > > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> > Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
>
> Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
> LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
> decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
>
> Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
> about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.
>
> -Samarth.
>
>
>
> > this had been a reverse situation, we would've been assaulted with an
> > avalanche of idiotic posts, much like we were after the SCG test.
>
> > Regards,
> > Ben
There actually were Australians at the time who were arguing against
whinging about the umpiring, if you'll recall. Even though the
umpiring probably made a material difference to the result of Ts 2 and
3. At least 2. But some were of the view that it was the rotten
batting by Australia in I2 that determined the result, rather than
rotten umpiring by SK Bansal. Forward 6 years, and there really is no
comparison.
eusebius
<NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "Southpaw" <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a4e89917-443a-46cf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that
> > > > India
> > > > have won.
>
> > > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
> > > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> > > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> > Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
>
> Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
> LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
> decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
>
> Johnson's yorker in India's favour. 3-2 to India I'd say. It was still
> pretty much evens-stevens.
>
> Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
> about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.
>
> whole game on TV and don't recall any Bucknor-class decision.
Was your crib placed in the living room?
>
> SP [ Where did >>>'s go? ]
They've gone where all the flowers went.
eusebius
Yeah, Venkat had no drawn daggers for the Australians. Nor did any
Indian umpire that I can recall. Not that Indian umpires have an
outstanding rep for competence. Venkat was probably the best of them,
and that says something. Bansal was probably the Aussies bete noire.
But the last wicket by Matthews which secured the famous tie in Madras
in 86, was an umpiring error in Oz's favour.
eusebius
<NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "Obtusenet" <ltuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
OE seems to be having difficulties at the moment, no joke. Try getting
a better newsreader. Do you not even have a google account? If nobody
else has, I will.
eusebius
Warne was not completely useless against India in Oz. In India, of
course, it was a different story. Interesting also that despite his
early success against them, his 'coming of age' if you like (although
one could argue that really took place in Lanka), and the Windies
reputed ineptitude vs bowling of his kind, his record v WI isn't all
that marveilleuse either.
Fran
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:46:12 -0800 (PST), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 20, 7:36=A0am, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 19, 10:38=A0am, "Reverse Swing"
>
> >> <NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >> > "Southpaw" <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:a4e89917-443a-46cf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > > On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> >t
> >> > > > > India
> >> > > > > have won.
>
> >> > > > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied=
>
> >> > > > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> >> > > > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> >> > > > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> >> > > > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> >> > > > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> >> > > Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
>
> >> > Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
> >> > LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
> >> > decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
>
>
> >> > Johnson's yorker in India's favour. =A03-2 to India I'd say. =A0 It was =
> >still
> >> > pretty much evens-stevens.
>
> >> Dhoni's LBW in I1 was high and went in Aus' favor. But I think SRT was
> >> also reprieved on 49 in I1, which was in India's favor. So maybe 4-3
> >> to India. Either way, I agree it was even-stevens, unlike in Sydney
> >> where it was not even close to balanced.
>
> >> The important point I mentioned in another thread is that, in general,
> >> LBWs are qualitatively harder than caught-behinds or stumpings or
> >> caught-at-slip decisions. Getting a few LBWs wrong per game is par for
> >> the course. Getting 3 caught-behinds wrong and not consulting the 3rd
> >> umpire a few times all in the same match is terrible umpiring.
>
> >It still doesn't explain why we don't use the technology to get closer
> >to 100% right and no obvious incorrect decisions.
>
> >Fran
>
> Because the current 80-85 overs a day would be reduced to 70-75.
>
I don't see that that would happen at all. But even if it did, so
what? People go to see 6 or so hours of cricket entertainment, which
might include up to 20 minutes in a whole day of replays to ensure
that the right decision was made. Big deal. Bad decisions hurt the
entertainment a lot more than 30-60 seconds working out if someone has
nicked one or been hit outside the line or whatever.
> Because it would devalue the status and call into question the
> integrity of on field umpires.
>
I don't suppose that happened in Sydney.
> Because a further gulf would exist between international cricket
and
> lower forms of the game.
>
Why is that a problem? There's always been a huge gap between elite
level sport and what gets played by the punters.
> Because contentious decisions and accusations of cheating would still
> be made no matter what technology is used.
>
That's a wave of the hand, not a proof. Let's see.
> In other words it would create more problems than it solves.
>
You haven't made out a case. The sensitivities of umpires are not
being protected now. Right now, the perception that some umpires are
either absolutely intimidated by Australia or corrupt or stupid is
very great.
How can that be good?
> Hope this helps.
It's a forlorn hope.
Fran
Fran
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8100ff2a-0614-4b76...@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 20, 7:36 am, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 19, 10:38 am, "Reverse Swing"
>
> > <NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> > > "Southpaw" <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:a4e89917-443a-46cf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jan 19, 9:27 am, ben.gus...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now
> > > > > > India
> > > > > > have won.
>
> > > > > Why is that surprising? For India wins are scarce. If they're denied
> > > > > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > > > > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > > > > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > > > > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> > > > Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
>
> > > Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
> > > LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
> > > decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
>
> > > [SP] To be fair, we should also count Dravid LBW in I1 not given against
> > > pretty much evens-stevens.
>
> > Dhoni's LBW in I1 was high and went in Aus' favor. But I think SRT was
> > also reprieved on 49 in I1, which was in India's favor. So maybe 4-3
> > to India. Either way, I agree it was even-stevens, unlike in Sydney
> > where it was not even close to balanced.
>
> > The important point I mentioned in another thread is that, in general,
> > LBWs are qualitatively harder than caught-behinds or stumpings or
> > caught-at-slip decisions. Getting a few LBWs wrong per game is par for
> > the course. Getting 3 caught-behinds wrong and not consulting the 3rd
> > umpire a few times all in the same match is terrible umpiring.
>
> It still doesn't explain why we don't use the technology to get closer
> to 100% right and no obvious incorrect decisions.
>
>
Hot spot, HE (calibrated so that the very marginal ones were given not
out or adjudicated by an umpire), obviously the umpire on the field
could ask for clarification on decisive facts (was there an inside
edge, off the arm guard, pitched outside leg, too high etc) and
adjudicate himself.
Fran
Obtusenet
<NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "Obtusenet" <ltuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I thought it was fairly easy to set it up in MS OE. I used it before.
In OE 6, go to Tools, Options, Send Tab and look for the News Sending
Format - Plain Text Settings.
Reverse Swing
[SP] It's set-up correctly, but is erratic. >>>'s are showing up in some
replies but not in all.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>> Because the current 80-85 overs a day would be reduced to 70-75.
>>
>
>I don't see that that would happen at all. But even if it did, so
>what? People go to see 6 or so hours of cricket entertainment, which
>might include up to 20 minutes in a whole day of replays to ensure
>that the right decision was made. Big deal. Bad decisions hurt the
>entertainment a lot more than 30-60 seconds working out if someone has
>nicked one or been hit outside the line or whatever.
The only people who can see the "bad" decision are those watching on
TV. Those who have gone to the ground for their entertainment sit
around looking at a screen saying "Umpire decision", waiting for
minutes at a time while the third ump does his thing, and once the
decision is made, that's it. They don't spend the rest of the day
watching the same replay over and over while they post their bilious
accusations of bias to rsc. For the live spectator, decisions hurt the
entertainment when they have to be waited for endlessly; which way
they actually go is immaterial except in so far as they decide whether
or not someone's excruciatingly dull/fantastically entertaining
innings is over or not.
Some day, it would be nice if the armchair cretins spared a thought
for those who get off their arses and go and support cricket in
person. But I suppose that would require them being able to think,
which the evidence suggests is way beyond their capacity.
Cheers,
Mike
--
bhandava
>
>>> Simply brilliant. You made me feel so inferior and imbecile.
>>>
>>
>> Handy hint: "imbecilic" is the adjective you're searching for.
>>
>> Your obvious illiteracy speaks for itself, maybe take an English
>> course. I'm not surprised you feel inferior.
>>
>> bhandava
>
>
> Lord bhandava,
>
> My English is bad as yours.
>
> Lets take English course together mate.
>
Yes, you is heap smart.
More gud post by you givin was. Keep at up!
bhandava
Obtusenet
<NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "Obtusenet" <ltuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e1f10c67-8b4a-425c...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 20, 1:00 am, "Reverse Swing"
>
> <NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> > "Obtusenet" <ltuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:15a58f3b-4aa7-46ca...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 19, 12:38 pm, "Reverse Swing" >
>
> > > SP [ Where did >>>'s go? ]- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > If you are using google groups click the "More Options" and then
> > > "Reply"
> > > ">>>" will appear.
>
> > I am using MS OE.
>
> > SP
>
> I thought it was fairly easy to set it up in MS OE. I used it before.
> In OE 6, go to Tools, Options, Send Tab and look for the News Sending
> Format - Plain Text Settings.
>
> [SP] It's set-up correctly, but is erratic. >>>'s are showing up in some
> replies but not in all.
Oh ok. You will have to wait for the next MS OE Update in that case.
Southpaw
Whinge. QED.
-Samarth.
> 3. At least 2. But some were of the view that it was the rotten
> batting by Australia in I2 that determined the result, rather than
> rotten umpiring by SK Bansal. Forward 6 years, and there really is no
> comparison.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fran
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:05:24 -0800 (PST), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >> Because the current 80-85 overs a day would be reduced to 70-75.
>
> >I don't see that that would happen at all. But even if it did, so
> >what? People go to see 6 or so hours of cricket entertainment, which
> >might include up to 20 minutes in a whole day of replays to ensure
> >that the right decision was made. Big deal. Bad decisions hurt the
> >entertainment a lot more than 30-60 seconds working out if someone has
> >nicked one or been hit outside the line or whatever.
>
> The only people who can see the "bad" decision are those watching on
> TV.
Yes, the people at the ground don't see the bad decisions -- but they
do get to experience their results. Imagine if you will, some batsman
providing high quality entertainment who gets sawn off by some
palpably wrong decision -- for some reason the name Sachin Tendulkar
elbows its way to the front of my mind, but in recent times,
Sangakkara and Symonds would be candidates. Don't you think that as
they leave the arena, the entertainment will be diminished by
something more than the ennui that attends having the opportunity to
take another bite of your pie and comment on the weather?
> Those who have gone to the ground for their entertainment sit
> around looking at a screen saying "Umpire decision", waiting for
> minutes at a time while the third ump does his thing, and once the
> decision is made, that's it. They don't spend the rest of the day
> watching the same replay over and over while they post their bilious
> accusations of bias to rsc. For the live spectator, decisions hurt the
> entertainment when they have to be waited for endlessly;
What tosh! A one minute delay is not 'endless' -- if it were, we
should all be immortals. People wait in queues for more than a minute
to see great bowlers bowl, great fielders field and great batsmen bat.
They wait more than a minute when some guy asks for ner inners or a
new bat. They wait more than a collective minute watching sight
screens moved. Waiting a minute to ensure that the bowler or the
batsman's work is suitably dealt with so that the contours of the play
reflect the laws of the game and the distribution of advantages
contemplated therein is time well spent, and perhaps an occasion to
reflect on where the game is headed.
Some pleasurable experiences are heightened by anticipation you know.
> which way
> they actually go is immaterial except in so far as they decide whether
> or not someone's excruciatingly dull/fantastically entertaining
> innings is over or not.
>
You call the main interest an 'exception'. Astonishing!
> Some day, it would be nice if the armchair cretins spared a thought
> for those who get off their arses and go and support cricket in
> person.
As it just so happens, the 'armchair cretins' you lambast orm the
majority of the cricket-watching public. Most of the game's revenue --
the stuff underpinning the entertainement's quality -- derives from
them.
They have at least as much of a stake as those attending IRL.
> But I suppose that would require them being able to think,
> which the evidence suggests is way beyond their capacity.
>
Who flicked the switch on your back to pompous arrogant git before you
posted?
Fran
R. Shakey
> >what? People go to see 6 or so hours of cricket entertainment, which
> >might include up to 20 minutes in a whole day of replays to ensure
> >that the right decision was made. Big deal. Bad decisions hurt the
> >entertainment a lot more than 30-60 seconds working out if someone has
> >nicked one or been hit outside the line or whatever.
>
> The only people who can see the "bad" decision are those watching on
> TV.
Complete rubbish. I was at Bellerive when Sangakarra was given out,
and everyone knew it wasn't out. It sucked camel's nuts, mate. It
really did.
Likewise, every single person watching closely would have known
Symonds was out in Sydney.
> For the live spectator, decisions hurt the
> entertainment when they have to be waited for endlessly; which way
> they actually go is immaterial except in so far as they decide whether
> or not someone's excruciatingly dull/fantastically entertaining
> innings is over or not.
Were you high when you wrote this? Usually you make good sense.
Whether or not someone's innings is over can be bloody important to
everyone involved in the game, so it's amusing you write the outcome
is 'immaterial' aside from that crucial aspect. This alone is
important enough for reasons that don't need to be explained, but I
will anyway - we've got a test series between arguably the world's two
best teams (not until SA manages a whimper against Aus can they claim
to be #2) and we should be going to the last test with the series up
for grabs. Instead, India are playing for pride when they should still
be playing for the trophy. It's not right
eusebius
> On Jan 20, 3:03 am, eusebius <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
> > > about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.
>
> > > -Samarth.
>
> > > > this had been a reverse situation, we would've been assaulted with an
> > > > avalanche of idiotic posts, much like we were after the SCG test.
>
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Ben
>
> > There actually were Australians at the time who were arguing against
> > whinging about the umpiring, if you'll recall. Even though the
> > umpiring probably made a material difference to the result of Ts 2 and
>
> Whinge. QED.
>
> -Samarth.
4.5
And I saw your other thread. You've trolled better in the past.
Southpaw
> On Jan 21, 2:18 am, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 3:03 am, eusebius <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip
>
> > > > Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
> > > > about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.
>
> > > > -Samarth.
>
> > > > > this had been a reverse situation, we would've been assaulted with an
> > > > > avalanche of idiotic posts, much like we were after the SCG test.
>
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Ben
>
> > > There actually were Australians at the time who were arguing against
> > > whinging about the umpiring, if you'll recall. Even though the
> > > umpiring probably made a material difference to the result of Ts 2 and
>
> > Whinge. QED.
>
> > -Samarth.
>
> 4.5
>
> And I saw your other thread. You've trolled better in the past.
I only troll as well as Australia plays. :-(
-Samarth.
Tex
"Jason Gillespie" <JasonGillespi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmuu11$lfd$1...@aioe.org...
>
> "Tex" <trop...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4792cc6a$0$30016$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "Jason Gillespie" <JasonGillespi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fmud2r$52u$1...@aioe.org...
>>>
>>> "Tex" <trop...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47920e68$0$26179$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Jason Gillespie" <JasonGillespi...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:fmsr33$rv7$1...@aioe.org...
>>>>>> India have won.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> get dumped by your wives
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Indians have a lot to learn from the Scott Petersons and the
>>> Drew Petersons in killing their wives.
>>
>> Nah, they already burn them.
>>
>> BTW, I notice you prefer to live in the US over India :)
>>
>
>
>
> Doesnt matter Tex.
Yes it does: it shows you acknowledge American superiority over India
> I can fly anywhere you live and
> fuck your wife and mom while you guzzle beer, eat hot
> dogs, fart and watch baseball/football.
I don't watch "baseball/football", just watch Australia be the world's best
cricket team
> Indians have a lot to learn from the Scott Petersons
Too bad he doesn't play cricket. Mwahaha
eusebius
> On Jan 20, 5:20 pm,eusebius<eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 2:18 am, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > > > Australians on RSC are otherwise no saints. They continue to complain
> > > > > about umpiring in India 2001, or even as far back as the 1980s.
>
> > > > > -Samarth.
>
> > > > > > this had been a reverse situation, we would've been assaulted with an
> > > > > > avalanche of idiotic posts, much like we were after the SCG test.
>
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Ben
>
> > > > There actually were Australians at the time who were arguing against
> > > > whinging about the umpiring, if you'll recall. Even though the
> > > > umpiring probably made a material difference to the result of Ts 2 and
>
> > > Whinge. QED.
>
> > > -Samarth.
>
> > 4.5
>
> > And I saw your other thread. You've trolled better in the past.
>
> I only troll as well as Australia plays. :-(
>
> -Samarth.
You thought that would sting, didn't you?
You must have been king of trolls in the past. What nom-de-guerre did
you adopt?
Southpaw
<snip>
> You thought that would sting, didn't you?
People actually think before posting on RSC?? I just randomly throw
stuff out here.
> You must have been king of trolls in the past. What nom-de-guerre did
> you adopt?
Huh? Why would anyone give out their nom-de-guerre? Isn't anonymity
the whole point of the nom-de-guerre? My name does sound a bit like
"Sampath" though, so I could be him. Which would be in keeping with
what I wrote above.
-Samarth.
shineything
But Mike is.
R. Shakey
> > > For the live spectator, decisions hurt the
> > > entertainment when they have to be waited for endlessly; which way
> > > they actually go is immaterial except in so far as they decide whether
> > > or not someone's excruciatingly dull/fantastically entertaining
> > > innings is over or not.
>
> > Were you high when you wrote this? Usually you make good sense.
> > Whether or not someone's innings is over can be bloody important to
> > everyone involved in the game, so it's amusing you write the outcome
> > is 'immaterial' aside from that crucial aspect. This alone is
> > important enough for reasons that don't need to be explained, but I
> > will anyway - we've got a test series between arguably the world's two
> > best teams (not until SA manages a whimper against Aus can they claim
> > to be #2) and we should be going to the last test with the series up
> > for grabs. Instead, India are playing for pride when they should still
> > be playing for the trophy. It's not right
>
> But Mike is.
Because he is?
Oh! Now i get it! You don't need reason, it just 'is'? That makes so
much more sense
Spaceman Spiff
[snip]
>
> Warne was not completely useless against India in Oz.
not completely, but still useless.
ignoring his debut series, he still averaged almost 42 vs india in oz at a
sr over 95.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
Lenin Maran
news:fmvi7q$nsk$1...@aioe.org...
>
> [SP] It's set-up correctly, but is erratic. >>>'s are showing up in some
> replies but not in all.
Maybe it is his way of not getting replies to his posts.
Samarth's coach screaming at him " Make the batsman play"
dechucka
"prakmel" <prakm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:980fbf14-2bde-4e10...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 20, 4:36 am, Southpaw <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 19, 10:38 am, "Reverse Swing"
>
>
>
>
>
> <NOSPAMswinging.yor...@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> > "Southpaw" <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:a4e89917-443a-46cf...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jan 20, 1:14 am, greatlor...@fastmail.fm wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 19, 7:26 am, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > > > that
> > > > > India
> > > > > have won.
>
> > > > one by factors not cricket, it is bound to raise a hue and a cry.
> > > > Anyone can afford to be magnanimous when winning. Let's see what
> > > > Australia do when they aren't. Will they bring laws against reverse
> > > > swing? Against number of bouncers in an over? Will they blame
> > > > suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere?
>
> > > Isn't that the point? Most Australians have barely uttered a word. If
>
> > Probably because the umpiring evened out, unlike at Sydney. Tendulkar
> > LBW in I1 and Ponting on the 4th morning not given. Balanced by poor
> > decisions to Hussey and Symonds.
>
> > Johnson's yorker in India's favour. 3-2 to India I'd say. It was still
> > pretty much evens-stevens.
>
> Dhoni's LBW in I1 was high and went in Aus' favor. But I think SRT was
> also reprieved on 49 in I1, which was in India's favor. So maybe 4-3
> to India. Either way, I agree it was even-stevens, unlike in Sydney
> where it was not even close to balanced.
>
> The important point I mentioned in another thread is that, in general,
> LBWs are qualitatively harder than caught-behinds or stumpings or
> caught-at-slip decisions. Getting a few LBWs wrong per game is par for
> the course. Getting 3 caught-behinds wrong and not consulting the 3rd
> umpire a few times all in the same match is terrible umpiring.
Of course you forgot to mention that the 3rd Umpire also contributed
to the cause by
presumably pressing the wrong button and giving Symonds not out for a
stumping
which even the Aussie commentators said was out.
what revivisioist crap
dechucka
"Ravi" <kra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e45b2ad-247b-4d43...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 5:26 pm, "Dave -Turner" <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> Even posters like "Jason Gillespie" have calmed down a bit now that India
>> have won.
>
> Bucknor/Benson?
Yep Aus should have won by more
:-)
eusebius
wrote:
India was the one team that psyched him out. I still feel that his
presence in T2 would have been more useful than Tait, but that isn't
saying much. At least Warne (and Hogg) could bat. I have to admit that
SKW's record v India is a big blot on his record, no doubt. SRT (and
even NSS) had the wood over him. Perhaps his 1st test left its scars.
Also most of the Indian top 6 have been damn fine players of spin
during the last 17 years and more. Exactly why Warne performed worse
than Nick Cook or Greg Matthews in India has to remain a bit of a
mystery.
eusebius
> On Jan 21, 3:49 am,eusebius<eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You thought that would sting, didn't you?
>
> People actually think before posting on RSC?? I just randomly throw
> stuff out here.
>
That would explain a lot :-)
No, sometimes you seem to have used a bit of forethought.
> > You must have been king of trolls in the past. What nom-de-guerre did
> > you adopt?
>
> Huh? Why would anyone give out their nom-de-guerre? Isn't anonymity
> the whole point of the nom-de-guerre? My name does sound a bit like
> "Sampath" though, so I could be him. Which would be in keeping with
> what I wrote above.
>
> -Samarth.
I suppose my noms-des-guerres are pretty easy to spot to the trained
eye.
Troll all you like, but I doubt that even you could descend down that
particular cesspit. In fact I doubt whether you could even get close.
Even I barely succeed.
alvey
>
> Of course you forgot to mention that the 3rd Umpire also contributed
> to the cause by
> presumably pressing the wrong button and giving Symonds not out for a
> stumping
> which even the Aussie commentators said was out.
Ahh Prakash, you've done it again.
Note to rsc: From this day on Prakash must abide by the opinions of the
Nein comms.
alvey
kenh...@hotmail.com
> "Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_karmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7c332b0d-1eee-4389...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 6:40 pm, "R. Shakey" <dnarmstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm not sure if you are in complete denial or it's impossible for you
> > > to imagine being in those shoes.
>
> > No, we've already been there. Venkat used to fuck us over every single
> > time we visit India before the neutral umpire rule came in. We just
> > managed to accept that our team simply didn't bat and bowl as well as
> > they should, got better and went back and won the next time.
>
> If your team actually did not bowl and bat as well (as you say above),
> then what's the big deal if you accept that?
>
> We lost to you fair and square at Melbourne, and several times before,
> and Indian posters have said so openly on this forum. What transpired
> at Sidney was simply preposterous; it was unforgivable. All real
> cricket fans - including several Australians on this forum - have said
> so openly. Unfortunately - but not unexpectedly - that does not
> include you two.
>
> I am one of the Aussie fans who said that India copped the worst of it in
> Sydney but so what. Aus copped the worst of it in Perth but Hey shit happens
I guess that's part of the problem.
There were very few marginal decisions in Perth, and those that were
given went in Australias favour.
Yet we get this revisionist crap about how Australia were dudded by
the umpiring.
They got beat fair and square.
The sooner you learn to stop whinging and accept you got outplayed,
the better for all concerned
Higgs
shineything
Because what he said is 100% correct. Whereas what you're asserting
is, sadly, 100% bollocks.
>
> Oh! Now i get it! You don't need reason, it just 'is'? That makes so
> much more sense
Statements of the obvious require no additional elucidation.
dechucka
<kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:21e626ba-c3e9-4916...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 20, 1:07 pm, "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote:
> "Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_karmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7c332b0d-1eee-4389...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 6:40 pm, "R. Shakey" <dnarmstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm not sure if you are in complete denial or it's impossible for you
> > > to imagine being in those shoes.
>
> > No, we've already been there. Venkat used to fuck us over every single
> > time we visit India before the neutral umpire rule came in. We just
> > managed to accept that our team simply didn't bat and bowl as well as
> > they should, got better and went back and won the next time.
>
> If your team actually did not bowl and bat as well (as you say above),
> then what's the big deal if you accept that?
>
> We lost to you fair and square at Melbourne, and several times before,
> and Indian posters have said so openly on this forum. What transpired
> at Sidney was simply preposterous; it was unforgivable. All real
> cricket fans - including several Australians on this forum - have said
> so openly. Unfortunately - but not unexpectedly - that does not
> include you two.
>
> I am one of the Aussie fans who said that India copped the worst of it in
> Sydney but so what. Aus copped the worst of it in Perth but Hey shit
> happens
-I guess that's part of the problem.
-There were very few marginal decisions in Perth, and those that were
given went in Australias favour.
Huggies it would help if you watched the game
-Yet we get this revisionist crap about how Australia were dudded by
the umpiring.
Who said that, shit happens
-They got beat fair and square.
Just like India in Sydney, like I said shit happens
-The sooner you learn to stop whinging and accept you got outplayed,
the better for all concerned
I totally accept the result, the same happens to the team you support
doesn't it Huggies? You do support a team don't you?
Calvin
> There were very few marginal decisions in Perth,
Bollocks. There wewre lots of dubious LBW decisions.
> and those that were
> given went in Australias favour.
Source?
--
cheers,
calvin
dechucka
"Calvin" <cal...@phlegm.com> wrote in message
news:op.t5ek3...@1ls2-2c084.staff.ad.bond.edu.au...
Huggies fertile imagination
R. Shakey
Dear oh dear... you probably didn't even read the original post.
Jason Gillespie
"bhandava" <bhandava_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fmvk2f$ui6$1...@aioe.org...
Lord bhandava,
You are running away like a pussy. I will teach you how to be brave
after you suck my dick like Monica Lewinsky.
Husband of All FBI n NSA agents challenged you.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/5d90a8473e4fc400
Jason Gillespie
"Tex" <trop...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
Doesnt matter Tex. I can fly anywhere you live and
fuck your wife and mom while you guzzle beer, eat hot
dogs, fart and watch baseball/football.
Indians have a lot to learn from the Scott Petersons and the
Drew Petersons in killing their wives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
Jason Gillespie
> Jason Gillespie wrote:
>>
>> Yep in my country USA, 99% of people choose their wife on thier
>> own and 65% of them end up in divorce and then dysfucntaional lives
>> loving cats and dogs.
>
> Of course, 99.79% of your statistics are made up, 87% of people realise
> this. Keep being a slave though, go against natural selection and get your
> family to sell their home and buy you a wife. It won't end up in divorce,
> she'll top herself if she has a shred of dignity. LMAO
>
>> These third world Indian idiots and curry munchers should learn
>> from us superior americans.
>
> If you insist, crazy yankee slave.
>
>
> bhandava
bhandava,
Yep in my country USA, 99% of people choose their wife on thier
own and 65% of them end up in divorce and then dysfucntaional lives
loving cats and dogs.
These third world Indian idiots and curry munchers should learn
from us superior americans how to choose their wives on their
own.
As always you are genius and an intellectual with 300 IQ just like
your fellow genius and intellectual Rodney Ulyate who is SHIT
SCARED to file a police complaint against that imbecile
"Husband of All FBI n NSA agents" who put a $10,000
bounty on his head.
No cameras and shut up while I am putting
<JasonGillespie123Purget...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "bhandava" <bhandava_removet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fmv0tc$tv0$1...@aioe.org...
>
>
>
> > Jason Gillespie wrote:
>
> >> bhandava,
>
> >> I can tell you have 300 IQ like your mafia member Rodney Ulyate,
> >> Diggler, Jack, Kim and hundred other UserIds you mafia members
> >> post with on rsc.
>
> >> Simply brilliant. You made me feel so inferior and imbecile.
>
> > Handy hint: "imbecilic" is the adjective you're searching for.
>
> > Your obvious illiteracy speaks for itself, maybe take an English course.
> > I'm not surprised you feel inferior.
>
> > bhandava
>
> Lord bhandava,
>
> My English is bad as yours.
>
> Lets take English course together mate.
>
> after you suck my dick like Monica Lewinsky.
>
> Husband of All FBI n NSA agents challenged you.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/5d90a8473e4fc400
oh nothing ... just wanted everyone to have a chance to see the
posting.
Jason Gillespie
"No cameras and shut up while I am putting" <fastpi...@aol.com> wrote in
message
news:61ba4bf0-360e-4804...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
You must be another brave man that runs away like a pussy when
it has to fight an opponent on a level playing field with the
same weapons.
Hey that personality trait is in your genes and blood since Lord Jesus
was born. LMAO.
By the way, your iimbecile friend "Husband of All FBI n NSA agents"
put a $10,000 bounty on Rodney Ulyate and bhandava and they are
fucking scared to to file a police complaint or meet him in person to
settle the issue once and for all who is the REAL MAN.
Husband of All FBI n NSA agents challenged your buddy bhandava.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/5d90a8473e4fc400