No, there are many who think Bradman played test cricket against amateur fat lazy villagers. That's why they think that 99.94 is not much of an achievement (they are wrong, obviously).
They used the actual cricketers' themselves, not the fans, because they were getting back at you through your obsession with those cricketers. They weren't targeting all the fans of those cricketers'. How do you not get that?
You're not disagreeing with me. I am saying you don't have to know a whole lot about cricket to think Bradman is the best. 99.94 is enough.
Good, we've established that. But you said I was making fun of the fans, not the cricketers themselves. So if they were getting back at me the same way I was getting at them - as you think I am - then they'd get back at me by mentioning the crazy overreaction of an Australian fan. They didn't. They used the cricketer themselves - much like I was doing - which shows you're wrong.They used the actual cricketers' themselves, not the fans, because they were getting back at you through your obsession with those cricketers. They weren't targeting all the fans of those cricketers'. How do you not get that?
Joe should become a psychiatrist tbh. He has correctly understood the thought process behind my postThey used the actual cricketers' themselves, not the fans, because they were getting back at you through your obsession with those cricketers. They weren't targeting all the fans of those cricketers'. How do you not get that?
That makes no sense. You're demanding an irrational equivalency when there needn't be one, for the sole reason that you targeted the fans (while initially strangely claiming that you were targeting the player), while they were targeting the person who targeted them. They didn't need to target all the fans of the players they named because they didn't want to lump them all with you. They've been very clear in who their target is, and their actions show that, while you've been flip-flopping between naming first the player, and then the fans, then again the player as your target, before finally trying to tie up the loose ends with an argument that makes about as much sense as Amir claiming that he bowled a no ball just so he could get time off away from the game.
That must explain why I've been partaking of the Tendulkar jokes from the time I did.Anyway, as I said you're biased so you won't see it
It makes total sense. By making fun of the exaggeration of how good Tendulkar is, that is clearly teasing Tendulkar. You kept saying the reaction is because I didn't insult Tendulkar himself but the fans. Yet the responses are self-evident - people are responding in kind. And what are they doing? They are using Australian cricketers in an attempt (a failed one) to bait me. If I said what you said I was doing, then they'd reply in kind and use the over-reaction of Australian fans, rather than target the cricketer themselves.
Whoosh, it was a joke about Joe talking about a self-fulfilling prophecy so I said he wouldn't see my point because he is biased - which is a self-fulfilling prophecy, since he obviously does not agree with me. You'd think the "
" and "" smileys were giveaways. Thought you were a bit sharper than that Spikeh...disappointed ****.Haha, sure it was.Another thing that will happen before Sachin's 100th hundred: Ikki will realize that a joke as a reaction to a joke is not ironical proof of over-reaction. Or will he?
Always thought multi-quotes were the funniest things around! I am laughing more at last 3 pages than I did at the rest of the posts tbh
By that logic, Benchy and Spikey keep over-reacting to each others' jokes
...or do they keep joking to each others' over-reactions?By that logic, Benchy and Spikey keep over-reacting to each others' jokes
The kind of logic where you suspend common sense - like Joe has done - sure. We both know those two boobs joke around with each other all the time, everywhere. I think we also know who the sensitive Tendulkar fans are here.By that logic, Benchy and Spikey keep over-reacting to each others' jokes
Yeah, should be a piece of cake against a Windies side that will be demoralised after the first Test.
