Taking a punt

[GIMH]

This attitude is another big hold-back. As I say, any semi-competent bowler could've taken that sort of figures yesterday. You should reserve praise for those that deserve it.

Anderson never managed those figures. I'm a huge Jimmeh fan, I think you would class him as semi-competent, but he got hit around a little bit.

If Onions had come in and got hit around at 6 an over for 0 wickets you'd criticise him (rightfully), if he does well he should be praised. I'm not seriously sugegsting just yet that he is going to be the next big thing in pace bowling, but deserves credit for his performance so far. How this is a hold-back is beyond me.

I do only praise those who deserve it, and so far Onions does.

 

[Uppercut]

Dicko in refusal-to-admit-being-wrong shocker.

 

[grecian]

How is this not trolling now?



What exactly have you learnt, then? It isn't cricket or humilty that's for sure.

& Where are they then, these others you're trying to "educate"? No-one's stepped forward, funnily enough...

You're just a troll caught up in a pissing contest and it shouldn't be tolerated.

Amen......

 

[Richard]

How is this not trolling now?

What exactly have you learnt, then? It isn't cricket or humilty that's for sure.

& Where are they then, these others you're trying to "educate"? No-one's stepped forward, funnily enough...

You're just a troll caught up in a pissing contest and it shouldn't be tolerated.

Actually the one who should not be tolerated is you and your constant "you're a troll" (as mentioned, a meaningless and uselessly vague term) claptrap. In case you haven't noticed, I am actually a staff writer on this site, which tends to suggest a few people who actually matter might just think a bit more of me than you do. In essence, you're simply attacking the integrity of the site with your ineducated (yes, ineducated, not uneducated, so don't start that again) comments directed at me. So you're in a very poor position indeed to pass judgement on what "shouldn't be tolerated".

And FTR, yes, I have learnt plenty about cricket in my lengthy time posting on these forums. I know all I need to know about humility and have done for donkey's years, so I've unsurprisingly learnt nothing there.

 

[Richard]

Amen......

Earlyish contender for most predictable post of year. Does grecian ever post on CC other than to agree with someone who's posted a clueless attack on me any more?

 

[GIMH]

He's been in the tour thread a lot tbh

 

[Richard]

Dicko in refusal-to-admit-being-wrong shocker.

What, I said Onions had no chance of taking a big haul this match did I?

If I'd known just how bad WI were mostly going to be I'd barely have ruled-out my own chances of getting a wicket or four in this match if I'd been gifted the chance to play.

 

[Richard]

He's been in the tour thread a lot tbh

Should probably read "outside tour threads" - he does occasionally make a vaguely constructable post in those.

 

[Richard]

Anderson never managed those figures. I'm a huge Jimmeh fan, I think you would class him as semi-competent, but he got hit around a little bit.

If Onions had come in and got hit around at 6 an over for 0 wickets you'd criticise him (rightfully), if he does well he should be praised. I'm not seriously sugegsting just yet that he is going to be the next big thing in pace bowling, but deserves credit for his performance so far. How this is a hold-back is beyond me.

I do only praise those who deserve it, and so far Onions does.

As I say - in my view, Onions bowled utterly unremarkably. I don't think his bowling was worthy of any more praise than anyone who manages to get the ball from one end of the pitch to the other with an upright-ish seam. I don't think he deserves credit for doing anything other than bowling OK. There's no way he bowled especially well this game.

 

[zaremba]

I know all I need to know about humility

Poetry.


(ps genuinely not having a go at Richard here, just a wonderful wonderful piece of probably unintentional irony)

 

[Jamee999]

I'm ****ing amazing at modesty.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Actually the one who should not be tolerated is you and your constant "you're a troll" (as mentioned, a meaningless and uselessly vague term) claptrap. In case you haven't noticed, I am actually a staff writer on this site, which tends to suggest a few people who actually matter might just think a bit more of me than you do. In essence, you're simply attacking the integrity of the site with your ineducated (yes, ineducated, not uneducated, so don't start that again) comments directed at me. So you're in a very poor position indeed to pass judgement on what "shouldn't be tolerated".

And FTR, yes, I have learnt plenty about cricket in my lengthy time posting on these forums. I know all I need to know about humility and have done for donkey's years, so I've unsurprisingly learnt nothing there.

Well actually "troll" isn't a meaningless and uselessly vague term insofar as CW is concerned, because James very kindly provids us with a definition in the forum rules, a fact of which you, as a staff writer, should probably be aware:

"where you constantly make digs at a member who doesn't appreciate it with the hope of annoying them and/or getting a negative reaction out of them."

You constantly repeating the same tired old nonsense is certainly annoying me &, I'd be so bold as to venture, others too. You might not care, in fact you're on record as saying you don't, but as you aren't adding anything new or constructive to the discussion, one fails to see what else it could be.

& I won't correct your malaprops, my dear Dogberry, fear not. However I'm sure anyone with a cursory knowledge of English will appreciate the rather delicious irony in you decrying my education with non-words.

 

[zaremba]

What does ineducated mean?

 

[BoyBrumby]

What does ineducated mean?

Dicko alone knows. The neologism is, I suspect, his own work.

He'll probably say it "feels more natural" than using the commonly received "uneducated".

 

[GIMH]

Richard and Brumby's feud must be ended in the way that all good feuds are ended, one feels

 

[Jamee999]

Richard and Brumby's feud must be ended in the way that all good feuds are ended, one feels

A game of gay chicken?

 

[Richard]

Well actually "troll" isn't a meaningless and uselessly vague term insofar as CW is concerned, because James very kindly provids us with a definition in the forum rules, a fact of which you, as a staff writer, should probably be aware:

"where you constantly make digs at a member who doesn't appreciate it with the hope of annoying them and/or getting a negative reaction out of them."

The fact that it's explained ("baiting") tells everything about precisely how vague and meaningless it truly is.

You constantly repeating the same tired old nonsense is certainly annoying me &, I'd be so bold as to venture, others too. You might not care, in fact you're on record as saying you don't, but as you aren't adding anything new or constructive to the discussion, one fails to see what else it could be.

Well if I actually was repeating tired old nonsense, then all would be well and good. The fact that I'm not, however, rather renders all else pretty meaningless.

So, thus, it'd be wise to stop accusing me of doing such.

 

[Richard]

What does ineducated mean?

It sounds, to my (you might say ineducated) ears, far better than "uneducated".

 

[GIMH]

One thing I don't understand Richard is the way you decide to change the English language because of not liking it. Things like saying ineducated, changing the spelling of chalk, I don't get it. It doesn't bother me per se, just don't really understand it. I mean, I've always been dismayed that though, cough and plough are all pronounced differently, but you just have to grin and bear it

 

[Richard]

Meh. I CBA with obeying silly rules that I have absolutely no need to obey if I think I can do better by not obeying said, TBH.

Clearly, there are times to and times not to. I think I may even have used "a long chalk" in an English exam at some point, and if I was ever, in such a thing, to be talking (or rather writing) about those who had no clue I'd use "uneducated" rather than "ineducated".