Re: My Saddest Post Over?

In message <1189857288.761781.206660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Fred <longhop2005@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On 15 Sep, 06:17, Robert Henderson <phi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>> And of course mine were not just 44 names but names
>>chosen for excellence and excellence in declining order. RH

> Ah, well, that's a different claim. But one that quite a few
>regulars could surely match, starting with [but not confined to] all
>who have contributed to this thread, esp if they're given the same
>latitude that you had.

Your evidence for this? Don't forget I did this in ten minutes with no
reference to books or the internet. RH

Well, that's all very nice and everything, but what's the point?

This thread started with John musing over a best Surrey XI of players
with surnames beginning with B. Andy replied to John's comment that
his initial question might have been a bit "sad" by saying it was no
sadder than any other time wasting best XI selection, Andy went on to
speculate on an alltime best Surrey XI, but thought it was too easy to
pick a top XI and even a top XXII, thinking that only when you get to
a 3rd XI that one might start to have problems. You - Robert - then
listed 4 XIs and pointed out that it had only taken 10 mins work. You
then amended your post, realising that you had forgotten some players
you'd like to select. Andy pointed out that it was unfortunate that
you had bragged that it was easy to select your four XIs and that it
only took 10 mins, since it seemed that in your rush you had made some
errors, the implication being that perhaps it wasn't as
straightforward as you had sought to demonstrate and that his initial
proposal - that while picking a first and second XI might be easy, by
the time you have to pick a 3rd XI it becomes more tricky - was
perhaps sounder than you had credited it.

At this point the thread began to descend to childish levels with
puerile insults and you choosing to misunderstand Andy's posts so you
could make some cheap quips. You also began to quibble over
irrelevant details in his posts, seemingly in an attempt to generate a
cacophony of waffle to, perhaps, occlude the fact that you'd been made
to look a little foolish.

Now the conversation has shifted again slightly - you seem to be
claiming that it is a significant achievement for you to have been
able to come up with your 44 names in balanced sides without using
reference books or the internet. But surely if this is any
achievement of note then Andy's original point - the very one that you
sought to disprove with your initial response - holds true?

I can't get away from the feeling that perhaps you're more interested
in showing off and trying to underline quite how much cricket history
you know rather than actually contributing constructively to a
discussion. It's often as if you can't resist nitpicking whatever
Andy says, regardless of context - I think your personal antipathies
might be clouding your judgement.

It's curious. You're clearly very happy to respond to posts,
sometimes with pre-prepared rants on your pet topics, sometimes with
deliberately antagonistic comments that you know will generate
conversations in which you can air your favourite views again and
sometimes with glib insults, but in doing so I think you often lose
site of the whole arc of a conversation. For someone who seems to
pride himself on being a bit of an essayist at times, it's curious
that you fall into the trap of simply disagreeing with the last thing
that one of your perceived opponents says even if it creates ugly
internal inconsistencies in your own posting record. Wouldn't it be
better, and more interesting, to try and build a coherent argument
rather than wasting time scoring points and quibbling over details?

This thread is such a perfect case in point - the actual issue under
discussion is utterly pointless, you seem to be being contrary for the
sake of it, regardless of logic.


Prolixity red alert! Prolixity red alert! RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My Saddest Post Over?
    ... reference to books or the internet. ... sadder than any other time wasting best XI selection, Andy went on to ... puerile insults and you choosing to misunderstand Andy's posts so you ... you know rather than actually contributing constructively to a ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: My Saddest Post Over?
    ... reference to books or the internet. ... sadder than any other time wasting best XI selection, Andy went on to ... you know rather than actually contributing constructively to a ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: OT:Just to Cheer your Weekend
    ... antagonistic Internet geek, ... politics do not affect everyday living. ... Ludwig pretty much posts in a vacuum. ... Ah yes, the on-line persona. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Flood relief efforts--unfair criticism?
    ... Just read the internet blog The Huffington Post. ... > showing how difficult it is to transport supplies in a flooded area ... 30,000 national guard troops from posts nationwide. ... Would have the evacuation been necessary? ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: OT: Lets stop this "beating around the bush" bullshit.
    ... I guess that's a good sign, assuming most posts aren't just spreading urban legends. ... Newsgroups served their purpose of forming global communities of posters with a common interest, but now that function seems to be better served by blogs. ... _is_ the internet, so if something isn't on a website it doesn't get ... I guess live chat is good for cybersex role-playing, ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)