King_Ponting
International Regular
wow u seem to get into a lot of arguments C_C
Says the person who jumped on people for daring to say Tendulkar was out of form and twisted their words completely to put in his signature.Pratyush said:And some people did give reasons this - Tendulkar vs Australia and others for Tendulkar's selection in another thread Marc is speaking about. Just that people arent willing to accept others can have alternate view points.
Oh yes I saw that one coming. Refuse see some one else's point and then start labelling people and and refuse to accept earlier made remarks calling them twisted.marc71178 said:Says the person who jumped on people for daring to say Tendulkar was out of form and twisted their words completely to put in his signature.
Let me get this clear. Several people have said Tendulkar is past his best. You have not said Tendulkar is past his best. So you feel it should not be quoted in your signature. Why do I clearly remember you saying/endorsing that view point then?marc71178 said:So I'm the one who completely twisted words that several people have said and put them in my signature then?
No but you did jump on me in threads, just because you dont have a similar view as mine.marc71178 said:So I'm the one who completely twisted words that several people have said and put them in my signature then?
Put what you like in your signature.Pratyush said:Let me get this clear. Several people have said Tendulkar is past his best. You have not said Tendulkar is past his best. So you feel it should not be quoted in your signature. Why do I clearly remember you saying/endorsing that view point then?
Still I am not going to sift through all your posts to find your quote. If you feel, and mention speciically, I will remove it from my signature. Otherwise, no.
Okay you didnt say/endorse the view Tendulkar is past his best?marc71178 said:Put what you like in your signature.
However if you choose to misrepresent what people have said then the only person it relfects badly on is you.
Oh you didnt oppose the ignature for 6 months or so and now expect me to sift through your 35000 or so posts as you suddenly feel some thing? A joke indeed.marc71178 said:If you can show me where I've supposedly said it for you to quote it (or Deja Moo for that matter) then I'll suggest you're making things up.
Advanced search rocks.marc71178 said:If you can show me where I've supposedly said it for you to quote it (or Deja Moo for that matter) then I'll suggest you're making things up.
No, I've objected to it right from the start, but if it makes you happy to completely misquote what people have said then that's up to you.Pratyush said:Oh you didnt oppose the ignature for 6 months or so and now expect me to sift through your 35000 or so posts as you suddenly feel some thing? A joke indeed.
Why, because you can cut one post out of the entire discussion and make it look bad?Pratyush said:
I suggest you post the entire discussion, because IIRC you were the one who brought the whole thing up about him being past it - I have never said it.Pratyush said:Now what should I suggest regarding you debating on some thing before and then backtracking, you only decide.![]()
Wow so if you oppose some thing which I brought up, does not mean you have a stance on it, just because I brought it up (not implying who brought it up).marc71178 said:I suggest you post the entire discussion, because IIRC you were the one who brought the whole thing up about him being past it - I have never said it.
It looked clearly that you agreed to it. And I never found you raising objection over it for the past six months regarding my signature.marc71178 said:No, the link is not clear - it is one isolated post where I haven't actually said anything that you've quoted me as saying.
I did pass comment at the time about it being wrong as I never said it.
No, it is not very clear.Pratyush said:http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=430611&postcount=3172
Its is very clear.
You say it is exactly why the argumentis valid
Endorsing the view thus.