Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
I came to read the forum this evening (UK Time) and there was no inane drivel or petty squabbling.......................then I realised someone hadn't posted all day..................
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Richard's domination of threads and wanting to have the last word
- Thread starter Pratters
- Start date
- Status
Dick Rockett
International Vice-Captain
Richard used to annoy the hell out of me until I realised I was just being a prick and provoking him. Since then I've gotten on with him fine - his style doesn't bother me at all.
If there are ever pointless, cyclical arguments involving Richard it's generally because one of a small group of idiotic long term members have been goading him.
Rich FTW
If there are ever pointless, cyclical arguments involving Richard it's generally because one of a small group of idiotic long term members have been goading him.
Rich FTW
Fiery
Banned
Yeah, Richard's a good guy. With the quantity and frequency of his posts there are bound to be some contentious ones or ones that he hasn't had time to think through properly. Although he annoys me at times and I've been quick to let him know, I've always found him to be a pleasant chap.Richard used to annoy the hell out of me until I realised I was just being a prick and provoking him. Since then I've gotten on with him fine - his style doesn't bother me at all.
If there are ever pointless, cyclical arguments involving Richard it's generally because one of a small group of idiotic long term members have been goading him.
Rich FTW
(Not sure you need to label people "idiotic long term members" for disagreeing with him though
)
Last edited:
Dick Rockett
International Vice-Captain
They're not idiotic for disagreeing with him, they're idiotic for baiting him.Not sure you need to label people "idiotic long term members" for disagreeing with him though
Fiery
Banned
I haven't been around for a while either but don't know of any long-term members who do that deliberately. I, for one, get in the odd "debate" with him but haven't seen anyone deliberately bait him...I could be wrong
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
I'm not really a regular other than the odd few weeks here and there and whatever anyone thinks about Richard is of no consequence to me. I didn't mean to make it appear as though I found it annoying, I've given up reading most of it, it was just noticable that there wasn't the usual multipage, multiquote dross to ignore................and that was because Richard hadn't posted.
Fiery
Banned
Well there is
but fair enough...you don't have to read it
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Baiting him is useless imo. He's smart enough to know he's being baited.
Fiery
Banned
So you never bait him?
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Not to my knowledge. I ignore him in CC unless I need him to find something out for me and just call him a **** elsewhere.
Fiery
Banned
)
Last edited:
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Worked fairly well for me.I'll try that
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
16toS is back.Richard used to annoy the hell out of me until I realised I was just being a prick and provoking him. Since then I've gotten on with him fine - his style doesn't bother me at all.
If there are ever pointless, cyclical arguments involving Richard it's generally because one of a small group of idiotic long term members have been goading him.
Rich FTW
ANOTHER one learns that leaving this place is not far nigh impossible.
Dick Rockett
International Vice-Captain
*sigh* Sad but true.16toS is back.
ANOTHER one learns that leaving this place is not far nigh impossible.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
I've never knowingly baited Richard in CC (I have made a few jokes at his expense regarding his unhealthy obsession with Graeme Smith tho), but I don't think I'm shattering anyone's illusions when I say his manner of debating frequently gets on my ****.
His insistence on having the last word is childish, but easy enough to ignore; one just stops replying. What does infuriate me tho is that he apparently thinks this means he'd proved his point, when generally all he's done is repeat the same argument with added adverbs and weasel-words ("anyone who thinks differently is clearly a blithering ****", my paraphrase).
It's good for the forum to have someone who's a bit "out-there" in his thinking, but his unvarying belief in his own opinions and refusal to countenance that he might be wrong on occasions severely undermines him as a poster.
IMHO, obv.
His insistence on having the last word is childish, but easy enough to ignore; one just stops replying. What does infuriate me tho is that he apparently thinks this means he'd proved his point, when generally all he's done is repeat the same argument with added adverbs and weasel-words ("anyone who thinks differently is clearly a blithering ****", my paraphrase).
It's good for the forum to have someone who's a bit "out-there" in his thinking, but his unvarying belief in his own opinions and refusal to countenance that he might be wrong on occasions severely undermines him as a poster.
IMHO, obv.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What does infuriate me is when people say something, get proven (IMHO, obv
) conclusively wrong, have a bit of a "yes it is" "no it isn't" then stop, then 5 months later go back to saying the same thing as if nothing had happened.If you stop debating, for mine, you concede to some degree.
It also infurates me when people perport that I "refuse to countenance that I might be wrong on occasions". Maybe I refuse to countenance that I was wrong where others might, but that's just because others tend to say different things to what I do; some believe that because (for instance... obv) they said Michael Clarke was a poor fielder in 2004 that that somehow means they're wrong when he's a good fielder in 2007.
Which it doesn't, at all, to my mind.Most people tend to say things with far more of a hint of perminance than I do. What's even more infuriating is when people say "well when other people say 'he's rubbish' they mean 'he'll always be rubbish' so therefore you must also do so", when the reality is I've done nothing of the sort - it's just that's the easiest thing to argue against. As someone nearby once said - it's often much nicer to argue against what you'd like someone to have said rather than what they have.
Dick Rockett
International Vice-Captain
Nah. It's actually a skill to know when to walk away from an argument that is cyclical. It has more to do with maintaining a benevolent mood than conceding a point. It's just less stressful to walk away sometimes.
I can understand that. Just yesterday I was reading a thread where you admitted being wrong. It's a shame I can't remember which one it was...
BoyBrumby
Englishman
That's just BS tho, isn't it? Two points: a debate isn't a pissing contest where the one who keeps going the longest wins & your manner of "debate" (the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other poster said, usually presented as fact with evidence that doesn't support your contention) isn't conducive to the other fellow continuing.What does infuriate me is when people say something, get proven (IMHO, obv
If you stop debating, for mine, you concede to some degree.
So basically you do refuse to contenance that you're wrong &, conversely, refuse to contenance that anyone who holds a different opinion might be right? Ideal starting points for a reasonable debate, for mine.It also infurates me when people perport that I "refuse to countenance that I might be wrong on occasions". Maybe I refuse to countenance that I was wrong where others might, but that's just because others tend to say different things to what I do; some believe that because (for instance... obv) they said Michael Clarke was a poor fielder in 2004 that that somehow means they're wrong when he's a good fielder in 2007.
Most people tend to say things with far more of a hint of perminance than I do. What's even more infuriating is when people say "well when other people say 'he's rubbish' they mean 'he'll always be rubbish' so therefore you must also do so", when the reality is I've done nothing of the sort - it's just that's the easiest thing to argue against. As someone nearby once said - it's often much nicer to argue against what you'd like someone to have said rather than what they have.
Langeveldt
Soutie
Don't have a problem with the guy to be honest, but how the hell does he manage to carry on posting when there are entire threads dedicated to having a go at him?
Fiery
Banned
Cloning
- Status