Any updates on NZ's tour of Oz later this year?

[BackFootPunch]

Yes, two or three times, maybe more. Minor grammatical changes and improvements, though. The gist remained the same in the post throughout.

I'm quite comfortable with my own level of intelligence and do not seek relative comparisons with CW users such as yourself thanks all the same.

It's just the gist of your posts, mate. They always seem so (unnecessarily) combative. Frequently drawing conclusions about the ability of other posters and implying they're deficient in one way or another. That quip about me being intimidated, which you've now apparently removed, just reeks of taking yourself way too seriously. Relax. What on earth would anyone have to be intimidated about? This is a forum for discussion, not a gym or locker room.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

It's just the gist of your posts, mate. They always seem so (unnecessarily) combative.

You prefer a softer tone? Good for you. I like arguments made in strong (but not inaccurate unless hyperbole), clear terms without flowery overtones. Construct and deconstruct syllogisms without emotion. Its very rare you will see me swearing at a user when analysing their posts.

Frequently drawing conclusions about the ability of other posters and implying they're deficient in one way or another.

Not the poster, their posts. I am not sure if you were being serious in your post given the simplicity of a difference between red ball and white ball cricket or whether you were merely being a sycophant to PEWS. You can be quite able and a sycophant.

That quip about me being intimidated, which you've now apparently removed, just reeks of taking yourself way too seriously. Relax. What on earth would anyone have to be intimidated about? This is a forum for discussion, not a gym or locker room.

You cry that you feel that other posters and your ability is being scrutinized and revealed as deficient as posters by me. If the posters premises and logic that forms its syllogisms does not hold, then any deficiency in the argument or inconsistencies with subsequent follow-on arguments is merely elucidated for all to see. Whether it is an error of facts to make the premises, or of logic for the conclusion. That is how debate works. Grammatical expression mistakes are unfortunate. I well know.

 

[BackFootPunch]

You prefer a softer tone? Good for you. I like arguments made in strong (but not inaccurate unless hyperbole), clear terms without flowery overtones. Construct and deconstruct syllogisms without emotion. Its very rare you will see me swearing in a post, however.

Not the poster, their posts. I am not sure if you were being serious in your post given the simplicity of a difference between red ball and white ball cricket or whether you were merely being a sycophant to PEWS. You can be quite able and a sycophant.



There is no apparently about it. Also, you cry that you feel that other posters and your ability is being scrutinized and revealed as deficient as posters by me. If the posters premises and logic that forms its syllogisms does not hold, then any deficiency in the argument or inconsistencies with subsequent follow-on arguments is merely elucidated for all to see. Whether it is an error of facts to make the premises, or of logic for the conclusion. That is how debate works. Grammatical expression mistakes are unfortunate. I well know.

If you like to do things without emotion then what exactly do you get from debating here? You can't win at CricketWeb, despite what GIMH might have us think. There's nothing, really, to be gained by pulling apart people's posts word-by-word. Surely sport, at its best, evokes an emotional reaction in those who watch it? Why, then, would you discuss it without emotion?

Secondly, if there are deficiencies or inconsistencies in someone's posts, aren't the posts themselves doing a perfectly reasonable job of elucidating any issues with the content? Sure, it might be necessary to clarify certain things, but we're all quite capable of picking a poor post from a good one. To go back to the post of mine that you felt was sycophantic - I was merely noting that, while I had made the same point previously, I felt PEWS had made it more clearly than I did (probably because I didn't go back and edit my post four times). My post was poorer than his in terms of execution, which we saw as you completely missed one of the main thrusts of my argument. That's on me really, I'll work on making things clearer.

 

[Athlai]

You prefer a softer tone? Good for you. I like arguments made in strong (but not inaccurate unless hyperbole), clear terms without flowery overtones. Construct and deconstruct syllogisms without emotion. Its very rare you will see me swearing at a user when analysing their posts.

Not the poster, their posts. I am not sure if you were being serious in your post given the simplicity of a difference between red ball and white ball cricket or whether you were merely being a sycophant to PEWS. You can be quite able and a sycophant.



You cry that you feel that other posters and your ability is being scrutinized and revealed as deficient as posters by me. If the posters premises and logic that forms its syllogisms does not hold, then any deficiency in the argument or inconsistencies with subsequent follow-on arguments is merely elucidated for all to see. Whether it is an error of facts to make the premises, or of logic for the conclusion. That is how debate works. Grammatical expression mistakes are unfortunate. I well know.

This is a very poor attitude to be bringing to Cricket Web and is completely against the grain of the greater forum. I would advise pulling your head in and engaging in conversations with other members in a manner that creates a better forum experience both for yourself and other members. If you want to maintain such a blockheaded and bullish attitude then you should strongly consider jogging on.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

This is a very poor attitude to be bringing to Cricket Web and is completely against the grain of the greater forum. I would advise pulling your head in and engaging in conversations with other members in a manner that creates a better forum experience both for yourself and other members. If you want to maintain such a blockheaded and bullish attitude then you should strongly consider jogging on.

Not sure if serious.

I have far greater faith in CW than you that debate can be had where premises are tested for truth and accuracy, theories questioned, and that conclusions can have their logic assessed and consistency is measured in follow on arguments. I certainly don't think its a poor attitude ever in a forum of all "places".

I don't think 'debaters' need to pull their heads in and not engage in conversation of debate.

I believe that debate of new and old ideas and topics can and does make a better forum experience than everyone agreeing with the first poster on a topic, just because they were first, without any independent thought or analysis of what forms that first poster's view point. And for what its worth, I posted the view on Craig first. So anyone challenging my premises or logic, has a poor attitude by the above reckoning, which I find it a ridiculous thought to suggest or entertain. I have no qualms whatsoever about someone's attitude in objectively disagreeing with me but given the choice, I prefer they do it with a good argument and often I will test whether it is a robust and solid argument, and where the key differences of opinion are.

I think that many posters on CW are not always 'blockheaded' and quite capable of intellect.

 

[NZTailender]

There's debate, and there's debate.

 

[Athlai]

If the majority of the people having a discussion with you are getting rubbed the wrong way then you should definitely work towards changing the tone of your discussion.

Once again, it is not what you are saying, it is the manner in which you say it.

No one is going to get upset if you have a different opinion.

 

[Dan]

Just quietly, I think BFP knows a ****load more about spin bowling than you are giving him credit for, Grumpy.

At times it can be useful to actually engage, listen and potentially learn rather than bullishly decide that anything that isn't your current opinion must be completely wrong.

The whole "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and forum posting is srs business" thing gets very tiresome, very quickly.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Just quietly, I think BFP knows a ****load more about spin bowling than you are giving him credit for, Grumpy.

At times it can be useful to actually engage, listen and potentially learn rather than bullishly decide that anything that isn't your current opinion must be completely wrong.

The whole "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot and forum posting is srs business" thing gets very tiresome, very quickly.

Ha. Please read above and then think about what you just posted.

 

[Flem274*]

Poos and wee wees

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Poos and wee wees

Indeed.

 

[cnerd123]

CG wins the award for 'member that most lives up to their username'.

 

[Hurricane]

You remind of us of another poster who wouldn't listen to feedback unless it came from the moderators.
I think your points are fine by the way grumpy. I don't think anyone enjoys being called a sycophant. As the term is an insult. If you try to dress it up as anything else than you are a fibber.
Anyway I have no skin in this fight so probably have said too much already.

 

[Dan]

You remind of us of another poster who wouldn't listen to feedback unless it came from the moderators.
I think your points are fine by the way grumpy. I don't think anyone enjoys being called a sycophant. As the term is an insult. If you try to dress it up as anything else than you are a fibber.
Anyway I have no skin in this fight so probably have said too much already.

Umm, what?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

You remind of us of another poster who wouldn't listen to feedback unless it came from the moderators.
I think your points are fine by the way grumpy. I don't think anyone enjoys being called a sycophant. As the term is an insult. If you try to dress it up as anything else than you are a fibber.
Anyway I have no skin in this fight so probably have said too much already.

So you reckon he was serious? The term certainly has negative connotations that I am well aware of.

I also do not care for Argumentum ad populum. Which you may have observed by now Hurricane.

 

[Athlai]

I suspect Argumentum ad blockheadum may apply more in this particular instance.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I suspect Argumentum ad blockheadum may apply more in this particular instance.

Athlai, you have hurt my feelings. I am far too thin skinned to deal with this stuff at the moment. I am finding being a cricket web user a very emotional experience right now. Please don't be offended if I take a while to reply to your post. I am thinking about reporting your post to the moderators. I am deeply offended.

 

[cnerd123]

Athlai, you have hurt my feelings. I am far too thin skinned to deal with this stuff at the moment. I am finding being a cricket web user a very emotional experience right now. Please don't be offended if I take a while to reply to your post. I am thinking about reporting your post to the moderators. I am deeply offended.

No one's feelings are hurt by your tone. You aren't that important. People are just annoyed by your tone and don't feel like replying to you.

Keep it up and slowly but surely, each member here will add you to their ignore list. And then you won't have anyone to talk to.

 

[Athlai]

While CW may not mean much crack to you, there are plenty of forum members who spend a disproportionate amount of their lives contributing to this microcosm of a society. I'd guess I've spent literally months of my life on these pages and talking to these people. While a website where you discuss cricket with strangers on the internet should not be important to a person, it clearly is and I know I'm not the only one.

This is a community, not quite friends, but probably more than acquaintances. So if you want to ignore the community and be an ass, don't be surprised when we give you **** for it.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

No one's feelings are hurt by your tone. You aren't that important. People are just annoyed by your tone and don't feel like replying to you.

Keep it up and slowly but surely, each member here will add you to their ignore list. And then you won't have anyone to talk to.

Thanks for speaking on behalf of the "people" and giving the feedback *****. *****, just to be sure, by all means continue replying and interjecting to me, but please don't ever speak on my behalf.