2007 ICC Cricket World Cup Final

Originally posted by W.G. Originally posted by 143no This really is a pointless argument, feeding a few sore losers and an internet **** stirer, people not included in the last 2 groups have no issue with it. Sidney, good to see you have quickly returned to your normal debating style.

Edited by Lioness - 06 May 2007 at 8:40am

Originally posted by Lioness Originally posted by Roscoe You lot say that if the situation was reversed, Australian papers would be calling Sri Lanka cheats. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.   YOU LOT?????  What's that supposed to mean???  And did you not read what I said about opinions or can't you read.  It is only my opinion, not a fact.   by the way I am Australian..............................................

I say "you lot" because it's always the same people banging on about Australian cheating and hypocracy, both on this forum and in the broader cricketing community. Invariably it is Asians with their penchant for conspiracy theories and a handful of others who are always desperate to try and put one over Australia. And no, I didn't read what you said about opinions. In any case, if you present your opinion, you should also be able to present the facts on which it is based. All opinions are not equal, some are far better supported by the facts than others.

Originally posted by Roscoe I say "you lot" because it's always the same people banging on about Australian cheating and hypocracy, both on this forum and in the broader cricketing community. Invariably it is Asians with their penchant for conspiracy theories and a handful of others who are always desperate to try and put one over Australia. And no, I didn't read what you said about opinions. In any case, if you present your opinion, you should also be able to present the facts on which it is based. All opinions are not equal, some are far better supported by the facts than others.

Hang on a minute Roscoe - nowhere have I accused anyone of cheating and I resent that presumption on your part.  My point was singularly about the hypocrisy evidenced through the response to the allegation of cheating.  My point being that, had roles been reversed, Australians would be the first to decry the use of an artificial batting aid.

I find the racial overtones in your post particularly unwelcome, but typical.  I am not Asian, yet I am able to see the broader picture - do you consider me an Asian sympathiser?  Pathetic point, poorly made and you should retract it.

I can support this with the facts, the facts that whenever others work within the laws to afford an advantage Australians always feel slighted.


Edited by W.G. - 06 May 2007 at 8:55am

Roscoe- This is the definition of opinion

I didn't ask for a lesson W.G. Perhaps you could keep those kind of comments to yourself as those stupid comments are heading back to your old self who ran away with your tail between your legs.

Exactly lioness, wich highlites the pointlesness of this argument, go look up tall poppy syndrome.

Originally posted by Roscoe You need a link to prove to you that the force applied by a squash ball under compression is next to nothing?

No, I was merely indicating that your point was unsubstantiated.

Originally posted by Roscoe That it transferred force was obviously your implication when you said it was like putting a spring in your glove, right after saying it couldn't be there to help his grip.

No, you introduced the transference of force, my point was that other mechanical devices could be used to address the issue of grip, as a spring would.  Can you just confirm to me that you see a spring as unacceptable and explain why?

Originally posted by 143no Exactly lioness, wich highlites the pointlesness of this argument, go look up tall poppy syndrome.

Edited by Lioness - 06 May 2007 at 9:08am

Originally posted by Lioness Originally posted by 143no Exactly lioness, wich highlites the pointlesness of this argument, go look up tall poppy syndrome.   Tall poppy syndrome : the tendency to criticize successful people Funny I should find this is in an Australian slang dictionary.

Most often used by those who presume they have a higher economic, social or political position than their detractors - so its use tells us more about the user, I would venture.

I agree.

Originally posted by tonks007 Attacking? You are here only to stir the pot mate nothing else. P.S, Dont tell me what i need, and if you think that i am using inappropriate languge, then look the other way or go back to whatever hole or whatever it was you were hiding under.

I sincerely apologise if my correction offended you, that was not intended.  I simply wanted to point out that you had devalued the point you were trying to make in a Chrith Eubank style by using a long word inappropriately - though it was quite funny.

Typical rubbish W.G.

Originally posted by W.G. No, you introduced the transference of force, my point was that other mechanical devices could be used to address the issue of grip, as a spring would.  Can you just confirm to me that you see a spring as unacceptable and explain why?

I don't see any difference between a squash ball, a little metal spring, a chunk of steak, a section of padding or anything else you could fix to the underside of your glove. There's no law that I'm aware of that regulates what constitutes a batting glove.

Maybe this is one for the Mythbusters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Roscoe I don't see any difference between a squash ball, a little metal spring, a chunk of steak, a section of padding or anything else you could fix to the underside of your glove. There's no law that I'm aware of that regulates what constitutes a batting glove.

In that we are agreed, but then this was never a discussion of the laws, something else you have presumed.