Why Isn't Mark Butcher in the ODI side?

[Rik]

I have never stated my opinion of Giles as a bowler in this thread - if I had you'd surely by now have produced the post.

I've produced so many posts that you've had to resort to denying they exist or banging on about me not finding any when I've just shown them to you.

I have said that in certain conditions he is very good, but that is nothing about what I think of him as a bowler, merely repeating something that is obvious from figures.

There you go again, but this time you say he is very good. I bet you'll end up denying that you said this just like all the others.

Since I've never stated my opinion on him, how on Earth have I changed an argument when the argument doesn't even exist.

"I have said that in certain conditions he is very good" ring any bells? You just said? Now surely, if that wasn't your opinion then you wouldn't have started by saying "I have said" since that means you are saying it. And unless the world has gone crazy, that constitutes to stating your opinion.

Yet again you are showing incredible hypocracy by accusing me of twisting words.

Yes, how dare me for disagreeing with you. So I must be branded a hypocrite! Obviously I must be wrong! Sorry, that just adds to the list of pathetic, baseless insulting comebacks you have littered this thread with.

Every time I ask you to show where I've said the accused words, you cannot show me, but can point to something which I've repeatedly told you is nothing like what you're saying.

Interisting, you deny it yet again, wow you really must have convinced yourself this time! I keep bringing out the words, you deny they exist. As for repeatedly telling me, your arguement has changed so many times, it doesn't make sense any more.

AFAIC, I'm not stopping low or digging a hole since the fact is I have never said what you say I have said.

Despite all the times I've dug up posts of you saying exactly what you are denying you said. You are stooping low because every time I bring up proof, you deny you ever said it, ignore it or change your arguement to suit your needs.

 

[Rik]

No, it shows that I made a distinct specification which is based on one particular part of the game - therefore that is relevant to my argument - that you choose to decide that it doesn't come into it is irrelevant because I have used it as an example of one aspect of the game, therefore, it does come into that specific aspect of the argument.



If conditions are right, players can perform well, irrespective of how well they perform at other times - that ias the case I was showing, and it says nothing about his ability in any other conditions, and hence nothing about my views of him as a player.

Yes, of course, change your arguement again. If you say someone is very good in the right conditions, they must be a good bowler. The "it's not my view" claim I have already broken down and you've not even managed to come close to explaining it, so I'll wait untill you do.

 

[Rik]

I'd just like to thank Marc for not only boosting my flagging post count but also giving me the best night of comedy for a while. You sir could argue black was white, although I'm pretty sure from how far you've gone in this one, you would argue that there was no black or white in the 1st place even though if you had stated black was your favorite colour a few minutes before. You sir are one of a kind. I'll leave the moderaters to this. There is no point in arguing with a person who cannot accept they might be wrong. Just as there is no point in arguing with someone who blatently changes their arguement to suit their needs, denying they said things they have just been shown they did, in fact say. Anyone want to clean this mess up?

 

[Swervy]

Yet again...

Where do people get the idea that conditions are so great for spinners in the West Indies? The West Indian batsmen aren't exactly notorious for their mastery of spin bowling, yet Shane Warne averages 39.64 here. He's taken just 17 wickets in 7 matches. MacGill also averages over 30. The pitches may be slow, but that doesn't mean their spin friendly.

absolutely...a slow pitch is no good for a spinner even if it turns square

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

IMO Butcher will never be selected in the ODI side as England are heading towards younger players.

 

[marc71178]

I've produced so many posts that you've had to resort to denying they exist or banging on about me not finding any when

Talking about one aspect of a player's performance being good is NOT and has never been commenting on the rest of his game.

I have NEVER expressed an opinion on Giles as an overall player in this thread, and never will.

You keep reproducing a flawed argument based on the above, and then accusing me of changing an argument thats never existed.

I've just shown them to you.Yes, how dare me for disagreeing with you. So I must be branded a hypocrite!

No, it is not by disagreeing, it is by twisting what I have said, and then accusing me of twisting words.

On previous occasions you have made personal attacks on me for disagreeing with others when I am but one of a few who are disagreeing. That's hypocracy of the highest order, and perhaps you'd to better to learn the meaning of the word if you don't think it is.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, of course, change your arguement again. If you say someone is very good in the right conditions, they must be a good bowler.

No it must not - I have deliberately only commented on one part of his game, and deliberately never commented on the rest of his game.

This "argument" that I allegedly keep changing has never even existed.

The "it's not my view" claim I have already broken down and you've not even managed to come close to explaining it, so I'll wait untill you do.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I have said Giles is a good bowler or Giles is a bad bowler, because I never have, I have only stated that I think some people put him down as being worse than he actually is, and illustrated that with one example of his performance.

 

[marc71178]

You sir could argue black was white, although I'm pretty sure from how far you've gone in this one, you would argue that there was no black or white in the 1st place even though if you had stated black was your favorite colour a few minutes before.

How many times have I asked you to show me where I've posted this so-called "argument"?

How many times have you failed to show me, because it doesn't exist?

Everything you have said about me on here could be thrown straight back at you, but like the bully you are, you'd run off to the moderators.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yet again...

Where do people get the idea that conditions are so great for spinners in the West Indies? The West Indian batsmen aren't exactly notorious for their mastery of spin bowling, yet Shane Warne averages 39.64 here. He's taken just 17 wickets in 7 matches. MacGill also averages over 30. The pitches may be slow, but that doesn't mean their spin friendly.

Warne's average is rubbish there because he had one VERY bad series, because it was very recently after his shoulder went haywire.

MacGill's average is rubbish because he is.

 

[Langeveldt]

Anyone want to clean this mess up?

I was just wondering why neither of you can say to yourself "Im confident in the fact that I am right, so I don't need to argue it out all the time..." and leave it at that....

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Warne's average is rubbish there because he had one VERY bad series, because it was very recently after his shoulder went haywire.

MacGill's average is rubbish because he is.

A couple of things...

True re: Warne, but I stick by my point as I haven't seen spinners creating wickets in the Caribbean anytime recently. The last to truly do so was probably Ramnarine, although MacGill wasn't too bad.

Re: MacGill, England would love to have him in the team. Whilst he may not be as good as Shane Warne, he's certainly not rubbish. MacGill turns it sharply and isn't the most accurate, but not many wristspinners are and he's far more dangerous than most when he gets it together.

 

[Rik]

How many times have I asked you to show me where I've posted this so-called "argument"?

How many times have you failed to show me, because it doesn't exist?

Everything you have said about me on here could be thrown straight back at you, but like the bully you are, you'd run off to the moderators.

Denying the proof again. Marc, read back over the last few pages, I've consistantly brought up the proof, it does exist, it's just you refuse to admit it. Every time I've brought it up you have ignored it. I don't need to prove it to you, it's obvious to anyone who reads this thread.

Bully...oh dear dear dear. Bully, seriously, me, a bully? So I suppose you are Richard's best friend in comparison? I'm no bully, I just notice that you have huge inconsistancies in your arguement and commented on them, you kept changing your mind, you kept blowing it up further and further so I suppose that makes you the bully. Those inconsistancies will never be adressed since you refuse to accept the existance of anything I have posted that might affect your arguement.

 

[Rik]

How many times have I asked you to show me where I've posted this so-called "argument"?

How many times have you failed to show me, because it doesn't exist?

Well, since you've gone the whole hog and decided that denying that your posts exist wasn't enough, you now decide to deny the arguement existed. So here it is, in full, with every one of your twists and turns. Go on then Ignore This

Hang on, you've just said he's not very good, then said in the right conditions he's a world beater...anyone else find this amusing? [/B]

No, that's not what I said at all.

All I said was I haven't ever claimed him to be good, but that he isn't as bad as others say (using the conditions as a reason why)

Look, of course it was what you said, you posted it for gawd's sake! You said that you didn't think Giles was very good yet in the right conditions he's a World Beater...do you want me to quote your post again just to prove you did? Really? Ok I will then:



Now, again I'll ask you, how does that work? Are you going to deny you posted that? Are you going to tell me that saying a bowler isn't very good then following that up with "And given the right conditions, he is up there with the best in the World" doesn't create a quite hillarious contradiction? Of course, you could just be saying you didn't mean what you posted, but then, if that's the case, why did you say it in the 1st place?

Just carry on and twist whatever is posted all you like, but I have never said he is either good or bad - I did post that I have never claimed him to be good, but that doesn't mean I don't think that, just that I've never said it, which is what is being levelled at me.

If conditions are right he is a very good bowler, when they are not he isn't as effective, but still bowls to the plan set out for him.

And it gets better! I'm supposed to be twisting what you've said...right...so explain to me one thing, how can I twist what you've said by quoting it and not modifying it one jot? That would mean the only person twisting what you were saying, would be you...

Point to me where I have, in this thread, said Giles is good or Giles is bad then.

You won't be able to because I haven't.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that "And given the right conditions, he is up there with the best in the World" means that he's got to be good in your eyes. "The best in the world" usually means the subject in question must be good, or it wouldn't be anywhere near the best, especially not the best in the World! But if it suits your agrument I'm sure you will allow that meaning to slip, because, of course, the "best in the world" like Murali and Warne, arn't very good at all are they? There are huge inconsistancies in what you say, and the longer it goes on it just keeps getting more and more jumbled. Already in this arguement you have stated that you don't think Giles is very good yet you post something stating that he must be. Every time I come back to this, you've changed your mind, you post something then claim I've got it wrong because you've just changed your mind again. Doesn't stop me from finding it quite hillarious though.

No, it means that when conditions suit him, he's a good bowler - says absolutely nothing about when conditions don't suit him, but by all means think that if it makes you feel better





Yes, but where have I claimed him to be anything like that? I haven't, merely said that when conditions do suit, he is up there alongside them, which he has shown on more than the odd occasion in Asia (compare his Asian figures with those of Warne for example)




No, nowhere on here have I posted my opinion on him specifically, you've decided to twist what I say to have a personal go at me...




As I've just said, how can I change my mind if I've never stated it in the first place?

I challenged you to:



And you were unable to - because I haven't.

Interisting that you chose to start a post claiming that you never said Giles was a good bowler with:



You state: "And you were unable to - because I haven't." Well, well, missed dancing classes lately? Your twisting is getting sloppy.

Yes I did, but that is not saying anything about what I think of Giles as a bowler.




Go on then, show me where I have said either Giles is good or Giles is bad...

You won't be able to, because I haven't...

Here:



Conditions don't come into it. If you say someone's up there with the best the world, it means you feel they are up there with the best in the world. The best in the world in Giles' field are Murali and Warne. Therefor you would be saying Murali and Warne are poor, or that Giles is good. You can't be up there with the best in the world if you are poor, that is why your arguement makes as much sense as Monty Python's Hungarian Phrase Book.

Seeing as I specified that, I would think I'm the one to judge whether something comes into it or not.

Do I need to ask a third time or are you accepting that I've never expressed my opinion on Giles as a player?

Lessons in how to twist a post round:

Deny what you said was true, keep repeating that the other person can't prove that you said something you have just admitted you said.

What more proof do you need? You just said he's good, you started a post off saying as much. Have your really stooped so low that you are willing to argue, twist your arguement, then argue that you never changed that arguement in the 1st place? Because that is exactly what you've done. And what makes it even better is you've done it so obviously everyone can see it. Of course, I have no problem with you arguing your case further, since so far all you've managed to do is dig a hole for yourself, and to be fair, that hole is getting pretty big. Get out while you still can.

Digging Digging Deeper...

To be fair Marc, your arguement is so twisted and makes so little sense, it's not beyond most to wonder if you are even telling the truth about your name, let alone your views.

The added comment: "Seeing as I specified that, I would think I'm the one to judge whether something comes into it or not." Just shows your need to be in charge and also contains your only support in this arguement, without it, you would surely lose. Unfortunately for you, conditions don't matter, if you say a bowler is as good as the "best in the world" in suitable conditions, then they must be good, since when has a poor player been as good as the "best in the world"?

I have never stated my opinion of Giles as a bowler in this thread - if I had you'd surely by now have produced the post.

I have said that in certain conditions he is very good, but that is nothing about what I think of him as a bowler, merely repeating something that is obvious from figures.

Since I've never stated my opinion on him, how on Earth have I changed an argument when the argument doesn't even exist.

Yet again you are showing incredible hypocracy by accusing me of twisting words.

Every time I ask you to show where I've said the accused words, you cannot show me, but can point to something which I've repeatedly told you is nothing like what you're saying.

AFAIC, I'm not stopping low or digging a hole since the fact is I have never said what you say I have said.

No, it shows that I made a distinct specification which is based on one particular part of the game - therefore that is relevant to my argument - that you choose to decide that it doesn't come into it is irrelevant because I have used it as an example of one aspect of the game, therefore, it does come into that specific aspect of the argument.



If conditions are right, players can perform well, irrespective of how well they perform at other times - that ias the case I was showing, and it says nothing about his ability in any other conditions, and hence nothing about my views of him as a player.

 

[Rik]

And the rest of it:

I've produced so many posts that you've had to resort to denying they exist or banging on about me not finding any when I've just shown them to you.



There you go again, but this time you say he is very good. I bet you'll end up denying that you said this just like all the others.

"I have said that in certain conditions he is very good" ring any bells? You just said? Now surely, if that wasn't your opinion then you wouldn't have started by saying "I have said" since that means you are saying it. And unless the world has gone crazy, that constitutes to stating your opinion.



Yes, how dare me for disagreeing with you. So I must be branded a hypocrite! Obviously I must be wrong! Sorry, that just adds to the list of pathetic, baseless insulting comebacks you have littered this thread with.



Interisting, you deny it yet again, wow you really must have convinced yourself this time! I keep bringing out the words, you deny they exist. As for repeatedly telling me, your arguement has changed so many times, it doesn't make sense any more.



Despite all the times I've dug up posts of you saying exactly what you are denying you said. You are stooping low because every time I bring up proof, you deny you ever said it, ignore it or change your arguement to suit your needs.

Yes, of course, change your arguement again. If you say someone is very good in the right conditions, they must be a good bowler. The "it's not my view" claim I have already broken down and you've not even managed to come close to explaining it, so I'll wait untill you do.

 

[Rik]

That's hypocracy of the highest order, and perhaps you'd to better to learn the meaning of the word if you don't think it is.

The insult of the week!

In fact a Hypocrite is a person given to Hypocrisy. Not the meaning you were looking for. If you knew the meaning of the word "Hypocrite" you would realise the word you are looking for is "Hypocrisy" since a "Hypocrite" is mearly a person who shows "Hypocrisy."

 

[Langeveldt]

Well, since you've gone the whole hog and decided that denying that your posts exist wasn't enough, you now decide to deny the arguement existed. So here it is, in full, with every one of your twists and turns. Go on then Ignore This

Can you guys not just talk on MSN???

 

[marc71178]

Denying the proof again. Marc, read back over the last few pages, I've consistantly brought up the proof, it does exist, it's just you refuse to admit it.

That is me saying that in one aspect of his game he's done well - there is no mention of my opinion of him as a bowler overall - it doesn't exist, no matter how many times you say it.

Bully...oh dear dear dear. Bully, seriously, me, a bully?

Yes, one who's quite happy to give out abuse, but cannot take anything in return.

 

[marc71178]

The insult of the week!

In fact a Hypocrite is a person given to Hypocrisy. Not the meaning you were looking for. If you knew the meaning of the word "Hypocrite" you would realise the word you are looking for is "Hypocrisy" since a "Hypocrite" is mearly a person who shows "Hypocrisy."

So what are you exhibiting by personally singling out and attacking one person for a "vendetta" then?

If the cap fits.

 

[marc71178]

Well, since you've gone the whole hog and decided that denying that your posts exist wasn't enough, you now decide to deny the arguement existed.

Yes well done, you've shown that at no point have I said what my opinion of Giles as a bowler is - you've only showed what I've said about him in helpful conditions.

I congratulate you on showing exactly what I've been saying - I've never denied the postings that I've actually made, only what you're accusing me of saying - and since you're then accusing me of changing something I've not actually posted, I'm denying that as well.

 

[Neil Pickup]

"To believe is to know you believe, and to know you believe is not to believe."

Jean Paul Sartre.

Google "Existentialism" for more.