Re: My Saddest Post Over?

In message <1189867700.780506.176530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Fred <longhop2005@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On 15 Sep, 13:12, Robert Henderson <phi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In message <1189857288.761781.206...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Fred
<longhop2...@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

Case in point - you'd rather pick on the irrelevant detail of my post
being lengthy than on the greater issues of the thread.

Prolixity is the product of a want of intellect Fred. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
.