Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[ruchir]

http://specials.rediff.com/cricket/2007/jan/10slide1.htm

[LosingNow]

Ruchir:
I swear to god..I read it and was waiting for someone to post the link..and I knew it would be you

BTW, it is a good post!

[caught and bowled]

I read the part II earlier today. I thought it was very well written.

[ruchir]

Ruchir:
I swear to god..I read it and was waiting for someone to post the link..and I knew it would be you

BTW, it is a good post!

Good, that I satisfied your expectations. 

[LosingNow]

Ruchir:
I swear to god..I read it and was waiting for someone to post the link..and I knew it would be you

BTW, it is a good post!

Good, that I satisfied your expectations. 

It is more like now everyone is understanding one another in this close-knit DG.

[Libran]

"An apology of sorts could be made, perhaps, by claiming that the bowlers didn't bowl the right lines, or there were misfields, or whatever - but what explanation, what excuse, can there be for session two, day four, Test three?"

The same genius going by the name of Prem Panicker came down hard on a similar statement of mine in his DG when India lost the final to NZ in Zimbabwe...

I had posted "What can a captain do, if his bolwers let him down?" and he went blah,blah,blah, about how we find excuses and that it is a captain's responsibility etc.,

Surprising that I find quite a few self -proclaimed intelligent people actually retracting and contradicting  a lot of  things they have said in the past....Selective amnesia or balance restored 

[kban1]

Surprising that I find quite a few self -proclaimed intelligent people actually retracting and contradicting  a lot of  things they have said in the past....Selective amnesia or balance restored   

Nope, it is called conviction borne out of convenience

[jaat69]

"Dravid's strength, perhaps, is that he is a coach's captain - and up front, let's discount hysterical media reports that suggest he is under Greg Chappell's thumb, or foot, or whatever body part.

Captains have to work in tandem with coaches; that is what coaches are there for, and the best captains have invariably been the ones that have established great working relationships with the coach du jour (think Border-Simpson; Ponting-Buchanan; Woolmer-Cronje.) "

Wow!..what a defense of Dravid!~ .....now Pee-pee is creating new theories to save his favorite captain!
The problem with this guy is that he thinks too high of himself....and underestimates his readers.........and refuses to come down to earth even when he is totally exposed..........Happy living in a fool's paradise!

[flute202020]

ah the hate filled abuse of PP simply because he did not support that someone is simply amazing. Even balanced members like Ravi & Kban join in. stick to the point raised guys..not who wrote those points. How many million times have you guys made this point about PP, about how he is selective, vindictive etc. etc. Rest of us got it already, yes PP is devil and PP is demon and he is worst thing that happened to SG, enuf?. Please stop this hate mongering and get into discussion of rankings which is what this post is about.

I agree with PP's rankings especially relating to SRT, VVS & RD. This trio has let us down at crucial moments and hence we are deprived of a famous series victory abroad.

[kban1]

ah the hate filled abuse of PP simply because he did not support that someone is simply amazing. Even balanced members like Ravi & Kban join in. stick to the point raised guys..not who wrote those points. How many million times have you guys made this point about PP, about how he is selective, vindictive etc. etc. Rest of us got it already, yes PP is devil and PP is demon and he is worst thing that happened to SG, enuf?. Please stop this hate mongering and get into discussion of rankings which is what this post is about.

I agree with PP's rankings especially relating to SRT, VVS & RD. This trio has let us down at crucial moments and hence we are deprived of a famous series victory abroad.

I believe ravi stuck to the point -he pointed out PP's double standards in judging 2 different captains. After all thats what he wrote right --what can RD do if the bolwers dont bowl in the right areas ? -- a logic turned on its head when he was commenting on someone else.

And speaking for myself, my comment referred to a highlighted portion of ravi's comment. It was not aimed at PP, but at a group of people, many on the DG, who have done volte face, trotted out excuses, and rehashed arguments similar to the ones they scoffed at earlier -- thereby proving their so called convictions are nothing but excuses of convenience, also known as double standards.

Aside from the fact that you choose to paint everyone with the same brush based on your comprehension (an inaccurate one at that as far as my comments are concerned), this posturing about hate mongering does not sit well now given that your voice was rather muted for the better part of 15 months when similar hate mongering was rampant on this DG -- with one difference though, the object of such was a different individual.

As I have said elsewhere, a principle is worth holding onto if one can live by it even at times when it least suits the person, not when it is most convenient to propound about such stuff. Because the former makes for a principled stand, the latter makes for a conviction of convenience, whereby application is situation and subject specific.

[ruchir]

You guys seriously think PP is trying to defend RD??

PP says:

Yet, the poor scores in South Africa are not the reason the tour ranks as a failure for Dravid: that assessment is based on his performance at the helm of the team.

Can this be called a defence of RD?



PP says:

Captains have to work in tandem with coaches; that is what coaches are there for, and the best captains have invariably been the ones that have established great working relationships with the coach du jour (think Border-Simpson; Ponting-Buchanan; Woolmer-Cronje.)

What new theory is he creating here, pray explain?? Didn't SG had an excellent working relationship with JW that resulted in our team coming out with some good results? So what's wrong in saying that RD has a good relationship with GC?? Just because SG did not have a good realtionship with GC, does it mean that any one who has a good one with him is to be considered trash, or looked at with suspicion??



PP says:

From that point on, it is all up to the captain; it is he who has to react to the changes in tempo of the game; who has to think on his feet and come up with alternate strategies; who has to have a feel for the game, ball by ball, over by over; to spot the moment when his team has the sliver of an opportunity, and to drive it home ruthlessly.

In this respect, on this tour, Dravid wasn't quite all there. He preferred to play it by the book, and it cost the team: on day two at Kingsmead, for instance, when South Africa, already badly battered at the Wanderers, had slumped to 257/8 at the end of day one, but was allowed to recover to 328.

Clearly PP is putting all the onus of the game on captain and saying that RD failed as a captain. Does it look like PP is defending him?? Even to an idiot it will not look like that. I am surprised that many learned members of this DG are saying that PP is finding ways of defending RD's failure in SA.



PP says:

An apology of sorts could be made, perhaps, by claiming that the bowlers didn't bowl the right lines, or there were misfields, or whatever - but what explanation, what excuse, can there be for session two, day four, Test three?

By making this statement, PP is actually pulling the rug from under RD's feet by not leaving him with this excuse of his failure. He is acutally discount using bowlers as an excuse, and is putting the blame squarely on RD. If guys here can't see this in his statement, then all that says is that guys here are looking to twist every statement of PP into making it sound like it is Pro RD and anit SG.



PP says:

Dravid the batsman will have his ups and downs - and in his case, it is usually more ups than downs; it is for his captaincy, for his inability to recognize the moment and to seize it with both hands, that he needs to be judged on this tour; and on that score, history will judge him a failure.

You still think PP is defending RD. If the answer is yes, then you guys are mentally blind.

[undercover]

I am happy that PP had made those comments about RD’s captaincy … It reminds me of something old …

It’s about 6-7 years back (?) RD was struggling… to come to terms with his one day batting and even in the test matches he was going slow and often criticized by PP in his columns that his batting let the team down.etc…etc.   

PP even called him once Squirrel. …but somehow that name got caught on with RD. I still remember his expression when someone in the crowd at the KSCA practice grounds called squirrel man….that hurt RD.   In a way that changed his batting and now we know what he is capable off.

The point is …RD is a nice guy no doubt , but he has to win matches for us and for that to happen …who knows better?

[flute202020]

ah the hate filled abuse of PP simply because he did not support that someone is simply amazing. Even balanced members like Ravi & Kban join in. stick to the point raised guys..not who wrote those points. How many million times have you guys made this point about PP, about how he is selective, vindictive etc. etc. Rest of us got it already, yes PP is devil and PP is demon and he is worst thing that happened to SG, enuf?. Please stop this hate mongering and get into discussion of rankings which is what this post is about.

I agree with PP's rankings especially relating to SRT, VVS & RD. This trio has let us down at crucial moments and hence we are deprived of a famous series victory abroad.

I believe ravi stuck to the point -he pointed out PP's double standards in judging 2 different captains. After all thats what he wrote right --what can RD do if the bolwers dont bowl in the right areas ? -- a logic turned on its head when he was commenting on someone else.

And speaking for myself, my comment referred to a highlighted portion of ravi's comment. It was not aimed at PP, but at a group of people, many on the DG, who have done volte face, trotted out excuses, and rehashed arguments similar to the ones they scoffed at earlier -- thereby proving their so called convictions are nothing but excuses of convenience, also known as double standards.

Aside from the fact that you choose to paint everyone with the same brush based on your comprehension (an inaccurate one at that as far as my comments are concerned), this posturing about hate mongering does not sit well now given that your voice was rather muted for the better part of 15 months when similar hate mongering was rampant on this DG -- with one difference though, the object of such was a different individual.

As I have said elsewhere, a principle is worth holding onto if one can live by it even at times when it least suits the person, not when it is most convenient to propound about such stuff. Because the former makes for a principled stand, the latter makes for a conviction of convenience, whereby application is situation and subject specific.

Kbanji, you got it wrong at several levels. See below

1. Nope, if you read again, Ravi was making that statement about PP and he included PP in the portion you bolded. By extension, your comment applies to PP too, hence my comment.

2. Assume for a second that my conviction is one of convenience. How does that justify the current response? or rather, are you trying to justify this hate mongering that happens everytime anything from people who are "not liked by some" is posted on this DG. I think, we post articles or links to discuss the points raised , not to discuss the motives of the people who raise a point. Unless, we agree to discuss the topic raised and detest from going into motives, it is impossible to discuss any issue. Unfortunately, you repeatedly support this and everytime, there is a post from DP or PP or anyone who did not previously mentioned his love for SG, gangulians jump on it, destroy the credibility of the source and you come in, make a comment in support and leave(leaving enuf room to add disclaimer later). This is really getting to me.

3. Now, to your assumption. Do you remember? I asked the same question to you too earlier? I asked, why do I not see your response in other instances when GC was abused based on race,nationality etc. Your response was (something to this effect)that you choose not to respond to such things and that you need not respond to everything and that you assume there is no use responding to such things etc. So, this type of explanation is applicable only to you, and rest of us are guilty of "conviction of convenience"? My dear friend, when I see something and do not agree with it, I say so. I been doing that pretty consistently and without relation to SG or GC. If you have time, look thru my past posts and you will know. You cannot use "no response" as agreeing with it. Also, consider the fact that, after 15 months, it kinda gets to everyone, initially, you might choose to ignore some things..after some days it really starts irritating and annoying.

4. About you 15 months of hate mongering about another individual: nope, that is a real stretch. In the last 6 months, its been the other way round. SG is rarely pulled down on this DG and GC,PP,KM & DP are relentlessly abused. Abusing them is one problem, but doing it consistently in all the threads relating to them or from them is simply not conducive to discussion. Just go thru every thread ever started based on a PP or DP column, all we get is hate mongering and abuse and no discussion. Why is that so? are the gangulians so white and fair and PP & DP are ever so biased that they are incapable of making a single good point on cricket? is cricketing insight gangulians patented right that nobody else has  it? As I said, we get it, we get it already. PP & DP are DEMONS, we also get the fact that you all don't like their bias, already. NOW, can we please discuss the points raised in the original post, which is categorizing RD & SRT as failures?

sorry to say this, but this is simply ridiculous, the fact that I have to type such a long reply to justify my original frustation. First, PP gets attacked for making someinnocuous comment. I mention that and how anything of PP invariably goes into hate mongering. Next, my own convictions are called into question and we go in circles. Very well. Gangulians perfected the art , anyone who disagrees, attack their credibility and then the original issue is diverted for good.

[kban1]

Flute saab:

1. Nope, if you read again, Ravi was making that statement about PP and he included PP in the portion you bolded. By extension, your comment applies to PP too, hence my comment.

I think I clarified what I meant, your interpretation of the issue notwithstanding. My point was jumping to conclusions and labeling other people as hate mongers when the same standard has not been uniformly applied in the past is faulty application of a principle.

3. Now, to your assumption. Do you remember? I asked the same question to you too earlier? I asked, why do I not see your response in other instances when GC was abused based on race,nationality etc. Your response was (something to this effect)that you choose not to respond to such things and that you need not respond to everything and that you assume there is no use responding to such things etc. So, this type of explanation is applicable only to you, and rest of us are guilty of "conviction of convenience"? My dear friend, when I see something and do not agree with it, I say so. I been doing that pretty consistently and without relation to SG or GC. If you have time, look thru my past posts and you will know. You cannot use "no response" as agreeing with it. Also, consider the fact that, after 15 months, it kinda gets to everyone, initially, you might choose to ignore some things..after some days it really starts irritating and annoying.

As far as my argument about refraining from commenting about issues where people accuse or abuse GC, I stand by it -- my stand is simple, when there is personal abuse involved, it is not necessary for me to step in and condemn it (as a poster, not speaking as a mod). There are attacks I do not agree with and instead of muck raking, I refrain from comments.

In this regard though, my standard remains consistent -- by the same token, I do not step into the mud when hate mongering is rampant against SG. I do not go in there trying to lecture others.

Now do realize that I draw a clear line between muck raking and arguing an issue -- I am willing to debate a valid point, an allegation, but I do not indulge in validating the practice of hate mongering --i choose to refrain from posting on such issues

I hope you see the difference here. And for the record, you accused me of hate mongering, I didn't accuse you of anything.

2. Assume for a second that my conviction is one of convenience. How does that justify the current response? or rather, are you trying to justify this hate mongering that happens everytime anything from people who are "not liked by some" is posted on this DG. I think, we post articles or links to discuss the points raised , not to discuss the motives of the people who raise a point. Unless, we agree to discuss the topic raised and detest from going into motives, it is impossible to discuss any issue. Unfortunately, you repeatedly support this and everytime, there is a post from DP or PP or anyone who did not previously mentioned his love for SG, gangulians jump on it, destroy the credibility of the source and you come in, make a comment in support and leave(leaving enuf room to add disclaimer later). This is really getting to me.

I am sorry, but people are judged by comments that they make.

PP / DP has made enough comments that were unfounded in the past. in different ways, they have  used different yardsticks to pass judgment --therefore, pointing out inconsistencies in logic and judgment is par for the course.

It is not about destroying a person's credibility, it is about calling into question the person's objectivity.

And that in itself is a favor to them, IMO, considering that they didnt think twice about destroying other people's credibility through poor reporting, fully leveraging their readership and reach, and spewing out items that have scarcely any evidentiary backing to them.

Not to mention the fact that both of these individuals have scarcely been respectful to other journalists.

The very issue -- destroying credibility -- that you are accusing was first employed on Sightscreen by -- guess, who ? Yes PP when he first discredited LP Sahi as SG's mouthpiece (which anyone familiar with Calcutta will tell you is about as far fetched a point as one could conjure) and then discredited Jha of Cricketnext with all sorts of attacks about his wife's money, spouse financed website, etc etc.

And some of us sat in bewilderment as a group of cricket fans drawn to a blog started by their favorite writer lapped this up this in eager merriment as part of the commandments passed on a mound in front of a burning bush. And even today, eons after the original insidious insinuations, there are members of this DG who stick to those commandments  -- indoctrinated by something they read from someone so trusted that they somehow lose the ability to use their own faculties in making judgments much like an overgrown child so used to suckling mom's teats for so long that even when weaned off it, they are unable to use their own faculties to find food.

Although I did not find any attempt to deprive PP of his credibility on this thread, if you are concerned about such efforts in other threads (and I am not saying that doesn't happen), while bemoaning this tendency on the part of some to discredit the source, it might help to remember that what is happening now has happned before as well ...

.. Much before PP and others were questioned, they questioned others. Much before some publications were questioned, other publications were questioned, and much before the current episodes of attacking the source to destroy credibility, there were others --the difference is another side was doing it then.

Now, the hens have come home to roost.

So my plea to you would be condemn both (vocally or silently) or hold your peace.

Now that said, your comment was how do we discuss an issue that a person is making. Well, here is my question -- who stopped you from discussing ? As far as I can see the 2 comments that you picked out here ravi's and mine are totally irrelevant to the hate mongering point you made, because ravi contrasted PP's comment with something PP had told ravi earlier and my comment (as I have explained before) had nothing to do with PP (there is a reason a particular portion was bolded and not the entire comment, so the transitive meaning that you are trying to imply should not hold -- or at the very least, it wasn't the intention)

Yes, I did point out to you that raining down on one group for their hate mongering while being silent when the other side was guilty of the same points to a principle selectively applied. Even though you may not have intended it, thats how it sounds

4. About you 15 months of hate mongering about another individual: nope, that is a real stretch. In the last 6 months, its been the other way round. SG is rarely pulled down on this DG and GC,PP,KM & DP are relentlessly abused. Abusing them is one problem, but doing it consistently in all the threads relating to them or from them is simply not conducive to discussion. Just go thru every thread ever started based on a PP or DP column, all we get is hate mongering and abuse and no discussion. Why is that so? are the gangulians so white and fair and PP & DP are ever so biased that they are incapable of making a single good point on cricket? is cricketing insight gangulians patented right that nobody else has  it? As I said, we get it, we get it already. PP & DP are DEMONS, we also get the fact that you all don't like their bias, already. NOW, can we please discuss the points raised in the original post, which is categorizing RD & SRT as failures?

Well, disagree with you regarding the time frame. The only thing I can say is that the intensity of the vitriol against SG may have gone down a notch or so in the recent past. But given the overdose of poison in the first few months, I am sure the reduced dosage works like arsenic all the same 

Yes, threads where PP and DP are mentioned do get attacked a bit, but then again when you consider all the ones attacked before them, often for no fault of their own, how can you begrudge some criticism, most of it justified to these luminaries.

The point is
--its happened before, I am surprised you have not noticed it.

sorry to say this, but this is simply ridiculous, the fact that I have to type such a long reply to justify my original frustation. First, PP gets attacked for making someinnocuous comment. I mention that and how anything of PP invariably goes into hate mongering. Next, my own convictions are called into question and we go in circles. Very well. Gangulians perfected the art , anyone who disagrees, attack their credibility and then the original issue is diverted for good.

This is an interesting take. A lengthy post (by your admission) peppered by the use of a stereotypical term (gangulians) throughout to protest against the "gangulians" so called practice of attacking people's credibility.

What exactly does the term gangulian signify ? Is that not a stereotype meant to diminish the credibility of the person you are debating with ? Has that not been definitively communicated to you in the past ?

As I said before, the practice you refer to has been initiated and indulged in by many, almost all not belonging to group: gangulian, yet you are irked when the practice hits closer to home !

I guess whats sauce for the goose must not be sauce for the *er 
 

[toney]

Ruchir,
good post showing how PP actually criticized RD's captaincy unlike what a few people continue to assume.

[flute202020]

Flute saab:

1. Nope, if you read again, Ravi was making that statement about PP and he included PP in the portion you bolded. By extension, your comment applies to PP too, hence my comment.

I think I clarified what I meant, your interpretation of the issue notwithstanding. My point was jumping to conclusions and labeling other people as hate mongers when the same standard has not been uniformly applied in the past is faulty application of a principle.

See the quote below. Considering Ravi's original post and without benefit of your clarification, it is only logical for me to assume that that your comment was also about PP. That is what I was trying to establish above.

And speaking for myself, my comment referred to a highlighted portion of ravi's comment. It was not aimed at PP, but at a group of people, many on the DG, who have done volte face, trotted out excuses, and rehashed arguments similar to the ones they scoffed at earlier

As far as my argument about refraining from commenting about issues where people accuse or abuse GC, I stand by it -- my stand is simple, when there is personal abuse involved, it is not necessary for me to step in and condemn it (as a poster, not speaking as a mod). There are attacks I do not agree with and instead of muck raking, I refrain from comments.

In this regard though, my standard remains consistent -- by the same token, I do not step into the mud when hate mongering is rampant against SG. I do not go in there trying to lecture others.

Now do realize that I draw a clear line between muck raking and arguing an issue -- I am willing to debate a valid point, an allegation, but I do not indulge in validating the practice of hate mongering --i choose to refrain from posting on such issues

I hope you see the difference here. And for the record, you accused me of hate mongering, I didn't accuse you of anything.

kbanji, what are you doing now?  In your numerous posts, you consistently refer to abuse heaped on SG, supporters of SG etc. I even remember a thread, where you were arguing vehemently how ONLY gangulians(explanation coming) were subjected to regional bias and how hurtful it is etc. Without your record of strong take against GC's abuse, your record is not consistent by any means.

As for hate mongering, I think it is safe to assume from your various posts that you have a strong dislike for PP & DP to the point of missing the topic under discussion and blame it on the impressions they formed on a section(you know which section, which in itself should explain a lot ) of the readers. Now, I am sure you would like not to call it hate or dislike, but after reading a lot of your posts about DP & PP, I get the impression that you a strong dislike for DP & PP and so do many gangulians.

kban1ji, again. for the record, you accused me of "conviction of convenience". on the other hand, I only accused you of being benign towards hate mongering when it suits. I guess it is one and same 

I am sorry, but people are judged by comments that they make.

exactly, it is not about people being judged by comments at all. PP is judged adnaseum already. Now PP is already judged, can't we move to the topic he raised and if his point is not logical, bring it out? why do this "judging by comment" exercize over and over and over?

PP / DP has made enough comments that were unfounded in the past. in different ways, they have  used different yardsticks to pass judgment --therefore, pointing out inconsistencies in logic and judgment is par for the course.

It is not about destroying a person's credibility, it is about calling into question the person's objectivity.

And that in itself is a favor to them, IMO, considering that they didnt think twice about destroying other people's credibility through poor reporting, fully leveraging their readership and reach, and spewing out items that have scarcely any evidentiary backing to them.

Not to mention the fact that both of these individuals have scarcely been respectful to other journalists.

The very issue -- destroying credibility -- that you are accusing was first employed on Sightscreen by -- guess, who ? Yes PP when he first discredited LP Sahi as SG's mouthpiece (which anyone familiar with Calcutta will tell you is about as far fetched a point as one could conjure) and then discredited Jha of Cricketnext with all sorts of attacks about his wife's money, spouse financed website, etc etc.

And some of us sat in bewilderment as a group of cricket fans drawn to a blog started by their favorite writer lapped this up this in eager merriment as part of the commandments passed on a mound in front of a burning bush. And even today, eons after the original insidious insinuations, there are members of this DG who stick to those commandments  -- indoctrinated by something they read from someone so trusted that they somehow lose the ability to use their own faculties in making judgments much like an overgrown child so used to suckling mom's teats for so long that even when weaned off it, they are unable to use their own faculties to find food.

Although I did not find any attempt to deprive PP of his credibility on this thread, if you are concerned about such efforts in other threads (and I am not saying that doesn't happen), while bemoaning this tendency on the part of some to discredit the source, it might help to remember that what is happening now has happned before as well ...

.. Much before PP and others were questioned, they questioned others. Much before some publications were questioned, other publications were questioned, and much before the current episodes of attacking the source to destroy credibility, there were others --the difference is another side was doing it then.

Now, the hens have come home to roost.

So, the crux of your argument seems to be that hate mongering has been done before, so you have no right to complain now, let people indulge in hate mongering as much as they want. is that it? what can I say except shabash 

So my plea to you would be condemn both (vocally or silently) or hold your peace.

Now that said, your comment was how do we discuss an issue that a person is making. Well, here is my question -- who stopped you from discussing ? As far as I can see the 2 comments that you picked out here ravi's and mine are totally irrelevant to the hate mongering point you made, because ravi contrasted PP's comment with something PP had told ravi earlier and my comment (as I have explained before) had nothing to do with PP (there is a reason a particular portion was bolded and not the entire comment, so the transitive meaning that you are trying to imply should not hold -- or at the very least, it wasn't the intention)

Yes, I did point out to you that raining down on one group for their hate mongering while being silent when the other side was guilty of the same points to a principle selectively applied. Even though you may not have intended it, thats how it sounds

it is not about who is stopping me from commenting. Do you remember our discussion about "banter"? if we have banter, who is stopping others from continuing the discussion? it is the same. I did not say anything so far, but if this seems to happen over and over and over and over. Just go open any thread which quotes a link from PP, it invariably ends and dies with ridicule of PP & abuse of PP (things like pee pee). This I think is not conducive to discussion. I am sure you intelligent enough to see that this type of response is not very conducive to discussion.

Well, disagree with you regarding the time frame. The only thing I can say is that the intensity of the vitriol against SG may have gone down a notch or so in the recent past. But given the overdose of poison in the first few months, I am sure the reduced dosage works like arsenic all the same 

Yes, threads where PP and DP are mentioned do get attacked a bit, but then again when you consider all the ones attacked before them, often for no fault of their own, how can you begrudge some criticism, most of it justified to these luminaries.

The point is
--its happened before, I am surprised you have not noticed it.

yes it happened before and may be you missed my responses then. Most of the time when I get irritated with ad naseum discussion of GC/SG, I refrain. but , when I get annoyed , I do let be known. like what I did here and like what I did in that other post about DP's bais and his different take on Zim century.

Kban, again, you are basically assuming that these persons deserve it and also extending it to say, that it happened before and so it is OK if it happens now. I don't think so. Its gotta stop for discussion sake. With your the hens have come home to roost, there is no end to it, we did be going in circles, blaming each other and discrediting everyone who brings a contrary point to the table. Remember, the hens have come home to roost can be said about SG abuse too. But, count on me, I will never justify such things with this logic.

This is an interesting take. A lengthy post (by your admission) peppered by the use of a stereotypical term (gangulians) throughout to protest against the "gangulians" so called practice of attacking people's credibility.

What exactly does the term gangulian signify ? Is that not a stereotype meant to diminish the credibility of the person you are debating with ? Has that not been definitively communicated to you in the past ?

As I said before, the practice you refer to has been initiated and indulged in by many, almost all not belonging to group: gangulian, yet you are irked when the practice hits closer to home !

I guess whats sauce for the goose must not be sauce for the *er 

kbanji, why are you nit picking on "gangulian"? remember, your long post about the balance of power in DG and how you categorized people into SG supporters and GC supporters? gangulian is only a space saver to indicate SG supporter. what is the difference? gangulian or SG supporter?

on the same note, did you not notice any usage of "chappals" lately? why did you not respond then? why was there no response to "pee pee"?  I know it is not fair to ask you to respond to everything, but your questioning of my consistency is also along the same lines.
 

[kban1]

flute saab

kbanji, what are you doing now?   In your numerous posts, you consistently refer to abuse heaped on SG, supporters of SG etc. I even remember a thread, where you were arguing vehemently how ONLY gangulians(explanation coming) were subjected to regional bias and how hurtful it is etc. Without your record of strong take against GC's abuse, your record is not consistent by any means.

Sorry, I disagree

Yes, I have complained about abuse heaped on SG and SG being made a villain of the piece. Not sure that is equivalent to the type of hatemongering that I was referring to –in my original post, I drew the demarcation line between debating a point and not getting involved in muck (muck = abuse, obsecenity, criticism, character assasination and demonizing without even a basic argument).

Second – I have never claimed that only SG fans were subjected to regional bias. But on one particular thread I did delve into the regional issue in depth and explained my distaste for that line of thinking –simply because by playing the regional card, the person making the comment completely undermines the credibility of the person making the argument (similar to the point you were protesting – destroy the source’s credibility by raising the parochial / regional / communal bogey and don’t debate the points). Also, in that particular thread, I was taking about my feelings wrt SG – a personal take, simply because some members had in the past had used this argument (paraphrased) – “kban biased in favor of Sg because kban is … a Bengali, from Bengal / from Calcutta”.

Third, I have refrained from getting in the muck irrespective of whether it is GC or Sg being discussed. I believe I have been consistent with that stand. As a mod, I have come across numerous over the line, over the top comments against Sg and GC which I have modified, split posts to remove, requested poster to rephrase. Again, my treatment has been consistent – actionable items are sanctioned, non actionable but poor references (sometimes aka hate mongering) items are left alone – I prefer to ignore and stay above that.

As for hate mongering, I think it is safe to assume from your various posts that you have a strong dislike for PP & DP to the point of missing the topic under discussion and blame it on the impressions they formed on a section(you know which section, which in itself should explain a lot  ) of the readers. Now, I am sure you would like not to call it hate or dislike, but after reading a lot of your posts about DP & PP, I get the impression that you a strong dislike for DP & PP and so do many gangulians.

No, I do not dislike PP. I came to this forum because I liked his writing. Having said that, I do not agree with quite a few things PP says or writes –I believe he has been factually incorrect on some occasions and sometimes presented biased views. I am within my rights to criticize them and I have –that however does not equate to dislike or hatred.

DP –I neither like or dislike him. I believe he writes eloquently and has good command over the language. On the flip side I believe his understanding of the game is limited or is obscured by his bias (yes I believe he is quite biased) and this in turn makes him a poor journalist.

And I read both of them. I criticize when the point deserves to be criticized, not based on whether either of them wrote the article. You show me where I have criticized them, and I shall provide you with a lucid explanation of the reasoning behind the criticism. It never is ad nauseum based on their name in the writer’s credit.

kban1ji, again. for the record, you accused me of "conviction of convenience". on the other hand, I only accused you of being benign towards hate mongering when it suits. I guess it is one and same

No, I am sorry if that’s how you interpreted it. Conviction of convenience was used in my response to ravi. In my exchange with you, I used that term to describe the nature of certain arguments that hold a principle dear based on the specifics of the situation and not others. After re reading my post, I realize how you might have interpreted that phrase to be directed towards you, but that was not the intention.

What I did however state clearly was the inconsistency of you taking one group to task for hate mongering while exonerating the other (in the past). In response you offered me an explanation, which I accepted and responded to in my last post by saying “Even though you may not have intended it, thats how it sounds”.

Hopefully that explains.

So, the crux of your argument seems to be that hate mongering has been done before, so you have no right to complain now, let people indulge in hate mongering as much as they want. is that it? what can I say except shabash   

No, the crux of my “hens have come home to roost” comment was there is a reason all this hate mongering is happening. There is a history behind it and the people who did it once upon a time are at the receiving end now.

That’s the reason which I provided. I did not justify it. There is a difference between the two. The reason I brought this up in my response was to tell you that nothing you or I do will make this stop because its now a part of a circle, and my advice, if you will, was to ignore it and move on –take the high ground because you arrived at the scene late, and asking whoever is doing it now or in the future will elicit the same question about inconsistency (a question which I believe has been resolved based on your response to me) that I originally raised, and thereby get you in the muck being thrown about.

it is not about who is stopping me from commenting. Do you remember our discussion about "banter"? if we have banter, who is stopping others from continuing the discussion? it is the same. I did not say anything so far, but if this seems to happen over and over and over and over. Just go open any thread which quotes a link from PP, it invariably ends and dies with ridicule of PP & abuse of PP (things like pee pee). This I think is not conducive to discussion. I am sure you intelligent enough to see that this type of response is not very conducive to discussion.

I completely agree, and yes, I remember the banter discussion. But do realize that just like banter, there is no enforceability –this thing will stop only if people stop voluntarily, not by either of us criticizing it – that was my opinion.

yes it happened before and may be you missed my responses then. Most of the time when I get irritated with ad naseum discussion of GC/SG, I refrain. but , when I get annoyed , I do let be known. like what I did here and like what I did in that other post about DP's bais and his different take on Zim century.

Kban, again, you are basically assuming that these persons deserve it and also extending it to say, that it happened before and so it is OK if it happens now. I don't think so. Its gotta stop for discussion sake. With your the hens have come home to roost, there is no end to it, we did be going in circles, blaming each other and discrediting everyone who brings a contrary point to the table. Remember, the hens have come home to roost can be said about SG abuse too. But, count on me, I will never justify such things with this logic.

Refer to my earlier comment on this issue please. Providing an explanation to show that these type of responses are part of a cycle quite a bit different from justifying or encouraging this behavior.

And I have not said either that anyone deserves this. Again, I draw a strong & clear line between criticism and hate mongering.

kbanji, why are you nit picking on "gangulian"? remember, your long post about the balance of power in DG and how you categorized people into SG supporters and GC supporters? gangulian is only a space saver to indicate SG supporter. what is the difference? gangulian or SG supporter?

My post about pro Sg and pro GC people was not on my accord –it was a response to people who were claiming a pro Sg bias on the DG. Right in the beginning, I started with the disclaimer that the categorization, IMO, was too simplistic and broad. With that in mind, I used the parameters suggested by others to draw up a list –fine details that have gotten lost with time.

The argument with gangulian stems from the entire thread devoted to enunciating characteristics (mostly unflattering) of this group which several people disagreed with simply because many Sg supporters did not embody these. To refer to these supporters as gangulians, meant (perception wise) that they were being characterized / stereotyped with the rather unflattering definition of the term.

on the same note, did you not notice any usage of "chappals" lately? why did you not respond then? why was there no response to "pee pee"?   I know it is not fair to ask you to respond to everything, but your questioning of my consistency is also along the same lines.

No, I have not noticed the recent usage of “chappals”, perhaps because I have not followed every thread in detail –I thought the usage was in the past. But again, I do not indulge ever in such usage just as I expect not to branded or referred to as gangulian.

From your earlier comment, I take it “pee pee” refers to PP, which I think is again a poor term to use. You will never find me using such terms.

Again my consistency is out there for all to see. I do not use such terms as “chappal” and “pee pee’, I do not indulge in hate mongering. You will be hard pressed to find any instance of me abusing anyone including the coach.

I do not try to get people to refrain from hate mongering abuse etc etc because I do not want to get into muck raking or even validate such comments, irrespective of whether they are aimed against GC or SG.

[flute202020]

flute saab

kbanji, what are you doing now?   In your numerous posts, you consistently refer to abuse heaped on SG, supporters of SG etc. I even remember a thread, where you were arguing vehemently how ONLY gangulians(explanation coming) were subjected to regional bias and how hurtful it is etc. Without your record of strong take against GC's abuse, your record is not consistent by any means.

Sorry, I disagree

Yes, I have complained about abuse heaped on SG and SG being made a villain of the piece. Not sure that is equivalent to the type of hatemongering that I was referring to –in my original post, I drew the demarcation line between debating a point and not getting involved in muck (muck = abuse, obsecenity, criticism, character assasination and demonizing without even a basic argument).

Second – I have never claimed that only SG fans were subjected to regional bias. But on one particular thread I did delve into the regional issue in depth and explained my distaste for that line of thinking –simply because by playing the regional card, the person making the comment completely undermines the credibility of the person making the argument (similar to the point you were protesting – destroy the source’s credibility by raising the parochial / regional / communal bogey and don’t debate the points). Also, in that particular thread, I was taking about my feelings wrt SG – a personal take, simply because some members had in the past had used this argument (paraphrased) – “kban biased in favor of Sg because kban is … a Bengali, from Bengal / from Calcutta”.

Third, I have refrained from getting in the muck irrespective of whether it is GC or Sg being discussed. I believe I have been consistent with that stand. As a mod, I have come across numerous over the line, over the top comments against Sg and GC which I have modified, split posts to remove, requested poster to rephrase. Again, my treatment has been consistent – actionable items are sanctioned, non actionable but poor references (sometimes aka hate mongering) items are left alone – I prefer to ignore and stay above that.

As for hate mongering, I think it is safe to assume from your various posts that you have a strong dislike for PP & DP to the point of missing the topic under discussion and blame it on the impressions they formed on a section(you know which section, which in itself should explain a lot  ) of the readers. Now, I am sure you would like not to call it hate or dislike, but after reading a lot of your posts about DP & PP, I get the impression that you a strong dislike for DP & PP and so do many gangulians.

No, I do not dislike PP. I came to this forum because I liked his writing. Having said that, I do not agree with quite a few things PP says or writes –I believe he has been factually incorrect on some occasions and sometimes presented biased views. I am within my rights to criticize them and I have –that however does not equate to dislike or hatred.

DP –I neither like or dislike him. I believe he writes eloquently and has good command over the language. On the flip side I believe his understanding of the game is limited or is obscured by his bias (yes I believe he is quite biased) and this in turn makes him a poor journalist.

And I read both of them. I criticize when the point deserves to be criticized, not based on whether either of them wrote the article. You show me where I have criticized them, and I shall provide you with a lucid explanation of the reasoning behind the criticism. It never is ad nauseum based on their name in the writer’s credit.

kban1ji, again. for the record, you accused me of "conviction of convenience". on the other hand, I only accused you of being benign towards hate mongering when it suits. I guess it is one and same

No, I am sorry if that’s how you interpreted it. Conviction of convenience was used in my response to ravi. In my exchange with you, I used that term to describe the nature of certain arguments that hold a principle dear based on the specifics of the situation and not others. After re reading my post, I realize how you might have interpreted that phrase to be directed towards you, but that was not the intention.

What I did however state clearly was the inconsistency of you taking one group to task for hate mongering while exonerating the other (in the past). In response you offered me an explanation, which I accepted and responded to in my last post by saying “Even though you may not have intended it, thats how it sounds”.

Hopefully that explains.

So, the crux of your argument seems to be that hate mongering has been done before, so you have no right to complain now, let people indulge in hate mongering as much as they want. is that it? what can I say except shabash   

No, the crux of my “hens have come home to roost” comment was there is a reason all this hate mongering is happening. There is a history behind it and the people who did it once upon a time are at the receiving end now.

That’s the reason which I provided. I did not justify it. There is a difference between the two. The reason I brought this up in my response was to tell you that nothing you or I do will make this stop because its now a part of a circle, and my advice, if you will, was to ignore it and move on –take the high ground because you arrived at the scene late, and asking whoever is doing it now or in the future will elicit the same question about inconsistency (a question which I believe has been resolved based on your response to me) that I originally raised, and thereby get you in the muck being thrown about.

it is not about who is stopping me from commenting. Do you remember our discussion about "banter"? if we have banter, who is stopping others from continuing the discussion? it is the same. I did not say anything so far, but if this seems to happen over and over and over and over. Just go open any thread which quotes a link from PP, it invariably ends and dies with ridicule of PP & abuse of PP (things like pee pee). This I think is not conducive to discussion. I am sure you intelligent enough to see that this type of response is not very conducive to discussion.

I completely agree, and yes, I remember the banter discussion. But do realize that just like banter, there is no enforceability –this thing will stop only if people stop voluntarily, not by either of us criticizing it – that was my opinion.

yes it happened before and may be you missed my responses then. Most of the time when I get irritated with ad naseum discussion of GC/SG, I refrain. but , when I get annoyed , I do let be known. like what I did here and like what I did in that other post about DP's bais and his different take on Zim century.

Kban, again, you are basically assuming that these persons deserve it and also extending it to say, that it happened before and so it is OK if it happens now. I don't think so. Its gotta stop for discussion sake. With your the hens have come home to roost, there is no end to it, we did be going in circles, blaming each other and discrediting everyone who brings a contrary point to the table. Remember, the hens have come home to roost can be said about SG abuse too. But, count on me, I will never justify such things with this logic.

Refer to my earlier comment on this issue please. Providing an explanation to show that these type of responses are part of a cycle quite a bit different from justifying or encouraging this behavior.

And I have not said either that anyone deserves this. Again, I draw a strong & clear line between criticism and hate mongering.

kbanji, why are you nit picking on "gangulian"? remember, your long post about the balance of power in DG and how you categorized people into SG supporters and GC supporters? gangulian is only a space saver to indicate SG supporter. what is the difference? gangulian or SG supporter?

My post about pro Sg and pro GC people was not on my accord –it was a response to people who were claiming a pro Sg bias on the DG. Right in the beginning, I started with the disclaimer that the categorization, IMO, was too simplistic and broad. With that in mind, I used the parameters suggested by others to draw up a list –fine details that have gotten lost with time.

The argument with gangulian stems from the entire thread devoted to enunciating characteristics (mostly unflattering) of this group which several people disagreed with simply because many Sg supporters did not embody these. To refer to these supporters as gangulians, meant (perception wise) that they were being characterized / stereotyped with the rather unflattering definition of the term.

on the same note, did you not notice any usage of "chappals" lately? why did you not respond then? why was there no response to "pee pee"?   I know it is not fair to ask you to respond to everything, but your questioning of my consistency is also along the same lines.

No, I have not noticed the recent usage of “chappals”, perhaps because I have not followed every thread in detail –I thought the usage was in the past. But again, I do not indulge ever in such usage just as I expect not to branded or referred to as gangulian.

From your earlier comment, I take it “pee pee” refers to PP, which I think is again a poor term to use. You will never find me using such terms.

Again my consistency is out there for all to see. I do not use such terms as “chappal” and “pee pee’, I do not indulge in hate mongering. You will be hard pressed to find any instance of me abusing anyone including the coach.

I do not try to get people to refrain from hate mongering abuse etc etc because I do not want to get into muck raking or even validate such comments, irrespective of whether they are aimed against GC or SG.

kbanji, ab main kya kahoon. Aaap Balram hain, impartial and never take part or lecture when things get ugly.
Hum Sri Krishna hain, I am partial to dharma, I comment and make my displeasure known when I think it is ugly. and I do it consistently.

[kban1]

Kishenji:

kbanji, ab main kya kahoon. Aaap Balram hain, impartial and never take part or lecture when things get ugly.
Hum Sri Krishna hain, I am partial to dharma, I comment and make my displeasure known when I think it is ugly. and I do it consistently.

That is one of the funniest comments I have read in a long long time. Kudos to you for humor laced usage of the religious metaphor that aptly describes this little exchange. 

But one question -- and please consult ruchir before you respond -- is it Balram or Pitamah ? 

[ruchir]

I would prefer Pitamah, but if FLUTE wants to use Balram then.......... okay, let him use it.

[undercover]

Flute saab:

1. Nope, if you read again, Ravi was making that statement about PP and he included PP in the portion you bolded. By extension, your comment applies to PP too, hence my comment.

I think I clarified what I meant, your interpretation of the issue notwithstanding. My point was jumping to conclusions and labeling other people as hate mongers when the same standard has not been uniformly applied in the past is faulty application of a principle.

3. Now, to your assumption. Do you remember? I asked the same question to you too earlier? I asked, why do I not see your response in other instances when GC was abused based on race,nationality etc. Your response was (something to this effect)that you choose not to respond to such things and that you need not respond to everything and that you assume there is no use responding to such things etc. So, this type of explanation is applicable only to you, and rest of us are guilty of "conviction of convenience"? My dear friend, when I see something and do not agree with it, I say so. I been doing that pretty consistently and without relation to SG or GC. If you have time, look thru my past posts and you will know. You cannot use "no response" as agreeing with it. Also, consider the fact that, after 15 months, it kinda gets to everyone, initially, you might choose to ignore some things..after some days it really starts irritating and annoying.

As far as my argument about refraining from commenting about issues where people accuse or abuse GC, I stand by it -- my stand is simple, when there is personal abuse involved, it is not necessary for me to step in and condemn it (as a poster, not speaking as a mod). There are attacks I do not agree with and instead of muck raking, I refrain from comments.

In this regard though, my standard remains consistent -- by the same token, I do not step into the mud when hate mongering is rampant against SG. I do not go in there trying to lecture others.

Now do realize that I draw a clear line between muck raking and arguing an issue -- I am willing to debate a valid point, an allegation, but I do not indulge in validating the practice of hate mongering --i choose to refrain from posting on such issues

I hope you see the difference here. And for the record, you accused me of hate mongering, I didn't accuse you of anything.

2. Assume for a second that my conviction is one of convenience. How does that justify the current response? or rather, are you trying to justify this hate mongering that happens everytime anything from people who are "not liked by some" is posted on this DG. I think, we post articles or links to discuss the points raised , not to discuss the motives of the people who raise a point. Unless, we agree to discuss the topic raised and detest from going into motives, it is impossible to discuss any issue. Unfortunately, you repeatedly support this and everytime, there is a post from DP or PP or anyone who did not previously mentioned his love for SG, gangulians jump on it, destroy the credibility of the source and you come in, make a comment in support and leave(leaving enuf room to add disclaimer later). This is really getting to me.

I am sorry, but people are judged by comments that they make.

PP / DP has made enough comments that were unfounded in the past. in different ways, they have  used different yardsticks to pass judgment --therefore, pointing out inconsistencies in logic and judgment is par for the course.

It is not about destroying a person's credibility, it is about calling into question the person's objectivity.

And that in itself is a favor to them, IMO, considering that they didnt think twice about destroying other people's credibility through poor reporting, fully leveraging their readership and reach, and spewing out items that have scarcely any evidentiary backing to them.

Not to mention the fact that both of these individuals have scarcely been respectful to other journalists.

The very issue -- destroying credibility -- that you are accusing was first employed on Sightscreen by -- guess, who ? Yes PP when he first discredited LP Sahi as SG's mouthpiece (which anyone familiar with Calcutta will tell you is about as far fetched a point as one could conjure) and then discredited Jha of Cricketnext with all sorts of attacks about his wife's money, spouse financed website, etc etc.

And some of us sat in bewilderment as a group of cricket fans drawn to a blog started by their favorite writer lapped this up this in eager merriment as part of the commandments passed on a mound in front of a burning bush. And even today, eons after the original insidious insinuations, there are members of this DG who stick to those commandments  -- indoctrinated by something they read from someone so trusted that they somehow lose the ability to use their own faculties in making judgments much like an overgrown child so used to suckling mom's teats for so long that even when weaned off it, they are unable to use their own faculties to find food.

Although I did not find any attempt to deprive PP of his credibility on this thread, if you are concerned about such efforts in other threads (and I am not saying that doesn't happen), while bemoaning this tendency on the part of some to discredit the source, it might help to remember that what is happening now has happned before as well ...

.. Much before PP and others were questioned, they questioned others. Much before some publications were questioned, other publications were questioned, and much before the current episodes of attacking the source to destroy credibility, there were others --the difference is another side was doing it then.

Now, the hens have come home to roost.

So my plea to you would be condemn both (vocally or silently) or hold your peace.

Now that said, your comment was how do we discuss an issue that a person is making. Well, here is my question -- who stopped you from discussing ? As far as I can see the 2 comments that you picked out here ravi's and mine are totally irrelevant to the hate mongering point you made, because ravi contrasted PP's comment with something PP had told ravi earlier and my comment (as I have explained before) had nothing to do with PP (there is a reason a particular portion was bolded and not the entire comment, so the transitive meaning that you are trying to imply should not hold -- or at the very least, it wasn't the intention)

Yes, I did point out to you that raining down on one group for their hate mongering while being silent when the other side was guilty of the same points to a principle selectively applied. Even though you may not have intended it, thats how it sounds

4. About you 15 months of hate mongering about another individual: nope, that is a real stretch. In the last 6 months, its been the other way round. SG is rarely pulled down on this DG and GC,PP,KM & DP are relentlessly abused. Abusing them is one problem, but doing it consistently in all the threads relating to them or from them is simply not conducive to discussion. Just go thru every thread ever started based on a PP or DP column, all we get is hate mongering and abuse and no discussion. Why is that so? are the gangulians so white and fair and PP & DP are ever so biased that they are incapable of making a single good point on cricket? is cricketing insight gangulians patented right that nobody else has  it? As I said, we get it, we get it already. PP & DP are DEMONS, we also get the fact that you all don't like their bias, already. NOW, can we please discuss the points raised in the original post, which is categorizing RD & SRT as failures?

Well, disagree with you regarding the time frame. The only thing I can say is that the intensity of the vitriol against SG may have gone down a notch or so in the recent past. But given the overdose of poison in the first few months, I am sure the reduced dosage works like arsenic all the same 

Yes, threads where PP and DP are mentioned do get attacked a bit, but then again when you consider all the ones attacked before them, often for no fault of their own, how can you begrudge some criticism, most of it justified to these luminaries.

The point is
--its happened before, I am surprised you have not noticed it.

sorry to say this, but this is simply ridiculous, the fact that I have to type such a long reply to justify my original frustation. First, PP gets attacked for making someinnocuous comment. I mention that and how anything of PP invariably goes into hate mongering. Next, my own convictions are called into question and we go in circles. Very well. Gangulians perfected the art , anyone who disagrees, attack their credibility and then the original issue is diverted for good.

This is an interesting take. A lengthy post (by your admission) peppered by the use of a stereotypical term (gangulians) throughout to protest against the "gangulians" so called practice of attacking people's credibility.

What exactly does the term gangulian signify ? Is that not a stereotype meant to diminish the credibility of the person you are debating with ? Has that not been definitively communicated to you in the past ?

As I said before, the practice you refer to has been initiated and indulged in by many, almost all not belonging to group: gangulian, yet you are irked when the practice hits closer to home !

I guess whats sauce for the goose must not be sauce for the *er 
 

Who could that be 

[flute202020]

I would prefer Pitamah, but if FLUTE wants to use Balram then.......... okay, let him use it.

so, kban is now official Thau(big bro)?