India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by prakmel2.. » Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:53:34


Extremely sensible views from Moin.

But are people listening?

Prakash
-------------------------------------------

http://www.htcricket.com/htcricket/14_1582778.htm

Former captain Moin Khan on Monday said the controversy surrounding
Sourav Ganguly's comeback could put him under undue pressure against
Pakistan who are better prepared to take on India this time around.

Moin said Pakistan were a "more mature and united" unit now under
Inzamam-ul Haq and the win against England had boosted their confidence
for the upcoming three-Test series against the arch-rivals.

In such a scenario, he said, it was imperative for the Indian
cricketers to stay focused on the game rather than bother about
off-field controversies.

"This is obviously not the right beginning of what is certainly a big
tour for the Indian cricket team. On such a huge tour, the players want
to be relaxed and like to be in the comfortable zone so that they can
concentrate and stay focused rather being left pondering if they had
been included in the side through the back door," said the 34-year-old
veteran of 69 Tests.

"This is certainly not good for Sourav and the Indian cricket team.
Sourav is an experienced campaigner and deserves respect. By
questioning his inclusion, the critics are putting him under pressure
for which the team might have to pay the price because if Sourav is in
the team, he has to be in the playing lineup than being on the
substitute bench," he said.

Ganguly made the headlines on his recall for the Pakistan tour after
being controversially left out of the Ahmedabad Test against Sri Lanka.

Ganguly was preferred over Mohammad Kaif because of his experience.
Moin said he had been involved in several duels with Ganguly and he had
found him a tough competitor.

"The Pakistan team has always respected Sourav because he is a tough
competitor. But if you keep pinching him, like any toughest campaigner,
Sourav will also crack and lose confidence."

"His morale and confidence is certainly down ever since the Zimbabwe
tour and if the debate on his selection lingers on, he will be a
shattered player even before he takes the field in Pakistan. I know
Kaif and his supporters would feel let down by the selectors, but
that's the name of the game."

Moin, who played four Tests and 49 one-dayers against India, also said
the Indians should be ready for a big Pakistan surprise.

"To begin with, this Pakistan team is not the one that lost early last
year. It is a more mature, experienced and united bunch of cricketers
being admirably led by Inzamam-ul-Haq from the front."

"Secondly, the home team has a reborn Shoaib Akhtar who played all the
matches against England and bowled the second most number of overs in
the Test series after Danish Kaneria."

"Thirdly, to beat a team like England who had come here after defeating
Australia for the first time in 18 years, has given this team the
confidence that was required. I have had an informal chat with a few
Pakistan boys and they just can't wait for the Test series to start,"
Moin said.

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by Sanja » Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:41:51

Moin is not an expert on Indian cricket politics.


Quote:
> Extremely sensible views from Moin.

> But are people listening?

> Prakash
> -------------------------------------------

> http://www.htcricket.com/htcricket/14_1582778.htm

> Former captain Moin Khan on Monday said the controversy surrounding
> Sourav Ganguly's comeback could put him under undue pressure against
> Pakistan who are better prepared to take on India this time around.

> Moin said Pakistan were a "more mature and united" unit now under
> Inzamam-ul Haq and the win against England had boosted their confidence
> for the upcoming three-Test series against the arch-rivals.

> In such a scenario, he said, it was imperative for the Indian
> cricketers to stay focused on the game rather than bother about
> off-field controversies.


 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by Jaye » Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:04:18

Quote:

> Extremely sensible views from Moin.

> But are people listening?

> Prakash
> -------------------------------------------

<snip>

> Moin, who played four Tests and 49 one-dayers against India, also said
> the Indians should be ready for a big Pakistan surprise.

> "To begin with, this Pakistan team is not the one that lost early last
> year. It is a more mature, experienced and united bunch of cricketers
> being admirably led by Inzamam-ul-Haq from the front."

What did they lose? They drew the test series and walloped India in the
ODIs.

Quote:

> "Secondly, the home team has a reborn Shoaib Akhtar who played all the
> matches against England and bowled the second most number of overs in
> the Test series after Danish Kaneria."

> "Thirdly, to beat a team like England who had come here after defeating
> Australia for the first time in 18 years, has given this team the
> confidence that was required. I have had an informal chat with a few
> Pakistan boys and they just can't wait for the Test series to start,"
> Moin said.

The Indians would be surprised only if they didn't have a full-scale
fight on their hands.

Regards,
Jayen

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by R. Bharat Ra » Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:27:03


Quote:
> Extremely sensible views from Moin.

> But are people listening?

> Prakash
> -------------------------------------------

> http://www.htcricket.com/htcricket/14_1582778.htm

> Former captain Moin Khan on Monday said the controversy surrounding
> Sourav Ganguly's comeback could put him under undue pressure against
> Pakistan who are better prepared to take on India this time around.

Great -- are you now pre-producing a ready-made excuse should Ganguly fail?

Playing under pressure for your place happens all the time.  If Ganguly has
gotten used to a secure spot by virtue of being captain, well guess what --  
that
ride is over.  He needs to perform to stay in the side...

Contrary to what you believe, I wish he does well.  But he needs to perform
BIG to stay in the team given his past failures -- as would anyone else who
was on the near-fringes of the team.  Its all about producing under
pressure.

And you do the man a dis-service if you suggest that he crumbles under
pressure.  His big ton in the first Test at Aus was critical to the draw,
and
made under quite some pressure.

Bharat

PS: And you do the man a dis-service if you somehow suggest that 39 and
40 are sterling knocks -- let him score a hundred, or a couple of big 50s,
and *THAT* is a worthwhile record.

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by prakmel2.. » Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:46:41

Quote:



> > Extremely sensible views from Moin.

> > But are people listening?

> > Prakash
> > -------------------------------------------

> > http://www.htcricket.com/htcricket/14_1582778.htm

> > Former captain Moin Khan on Monday said the controversy surrounding
> > Sourav Ganguly's comeback could put him under undue pressure against
> > Pakistan who are better prepared to take on India this time around.

> Great -- are you now pre-producing a ready-made excuse should Ganguly fail?

Unless there are some problems with your browser, all I wrote was:

"Extremely sensible views from Moin.

But are people listening?"

So how does this translate to your comment of 'pre-producing a
ready-made excuse should Ganguly fail'.

It would be very helpful if you actually stuck to facts. And to imagine
that you wrote in another thread of 'twisting facts'. Guess you think
everybody is the same as you.

Please also don't try to think for me. It would help if you just
thought for yourself and not think that you are so smart that you can
think for others.

Quote:

> Playing under pressure for your place happens all the time.  If Ganguly has
> gotten used to a secure spot by virtue of being captain, well guess what --
> that
> ride is over.  He needs to perform to stay in the side...

Needing to perform is for all players - not only for Ganguly. Strange
that you only mention him.

Quote:

> Contrary to what you believe, I wish he does well.

Again you seem to think you know what I believe. Frankly I have enough
things to do without wasting my time trying to guess let alone believe
that I know what you think

Quote:
> But he needs to perform
> BIG to stay in the team given his past failures -- as would anyone else who
> was on the near-fringes of the team.  Its all about producing under
> pressure.

Since again it is about 'he', who doesn't need to perform BIG according
to you? And how do you define BIG? And is there anybody else in the
squad who is 'on the near-fringes of the team' according to you?

Quote:

> And you do the man a dis-service if you suggest that he crumbles under
> pressure.

Fiction writing must be your strongest point Bharat. That's why you
have trouble sticking to facts. Pray tell me when I have suggested that
he crumbles under pressure.

Also who are the players in the team who are currently under the same
'pressure' as him?

Quote:
>His big ton in the first Test at Aus was critical to the draw,
> and
> made under quite some pressure.

It would be helpful if you re-read the article with a calm mind and
tried to understand what 'pressure' Moin is referring to. And if you do
succeed, tell me who else has had the same pressure in the past - or
the present?

Quote:

> Bharat

> PS: And you do the man a dis-service if you somehow suggest that 39 and
> 40 are sterling knocks -- let him score a hundred, or a couple of big 50s,
> and *THAT* is a worthwhile record.

Fortunately, it is possible to check from Google what you have written
and what I have written. So try doing a search and inform where I wrote
what you claim about 39 and 40 being 'sterling' knocks.  And while you
are searching, also note where I talked about 'a worthwhile record.'

If you cannot, then try learning to apologise instead of writing more
fiction.

BTW, are you by any chance hinting that 0 and 77 come in your category
of 'sterling' knocks?

And I take it that you saw the game and these knocks, some of which
hopefully would have been 'sterling' in your view.

Prakash

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by Abhiji » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 06:50:21

Quote:

> Extremely sensible views from Moin.

I thought he is just playing for Pakistan off the field before the
series as has become a tradition in modern day international cricket.

Quote:
> But are people listening?

There are more venomous critics at home, so no need to worry about what
a Paki is saying I suppose. I agree though Pak (read Inzy) has of late
got some extra strength by (example) dealing properly with the star
(Akhtar) and avoiding controversies.
 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by R. Bharat Ra » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:15:50


Quote:

>> > Please also don't try to think for me. It would help if you just
>> > thought for yourself and not think that you are so smart that you can
>> > think for others.

>> I didn't think for you?

> Don't you know yourself that you have to ask?

>>  I asked a question?

> You still don't know. A question mark implies you don't know.

>>  Did you miss the

>> "Are you" at the start of the sentence and the "?" at the end of the
>> sentence?
>> I didn't say you were "pre-producing an excuse" bud, I asked you a
>> question.

> Are you in the habit of asking daft questions?

Your ability for self-deception is unmatched.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>> >> And you do the man a dis-service if you suggest that he crumbles under
>> >> pressure.

>> > Fiction writing must be your strongest point Bharat. That's why you
>> > have trouble sticking to facts. Pray tell me when I have suggested that
>> > he crumbles under pressure.

>> Lets see -- you quote the following:

>>     "Former captain Moin Khan on Monday said the controversy surrounding
>>     Sourav Ganguly's comeback could put him under undue pressure against
>>     Pakistan who are better prepared to take on India this time around."

> Perhaps you should buy a dictionary and understand what the word quote
> means. I reproduced the whole article. If I had singled out a certain
> part, then I would be quoting

>> You heartily endorse the article

> Do you know what heartily means?

>>  -- so, are we supposed to believe that
>> after all
>> that, you don't agree with what the article says?  It goes on to say..

>>     "This is certainly not good for Sourav and the Indian cricket team.
>>     Sourav is an experienced campaigner and deserves respect. By
>>     questioning his inclusion, the critics are putting him under pressure
>>     for which the team might have to pay the price because if Sourav is
>> in
>>     the team, he has to be in the playing lineup than being on the
>>     substitute bench," he said.

>> All these suggest -- and you endorse them

> Do you know what endorse means?  Look it up.

I don't need to -- but clearly you do.  m-w.com defines it as:

2 : to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or
approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a may***candidate>

(unless you meant meaning one, as in "endorse a check" -- there is another
meaning you know -- the one above)

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>>-- that Ganguly will be under
>> "undue" pressure, and that if (when) he plays, his performance will
>> suffer
>>  as a result of the pressure, and so will the team.

>> Can't be plainer than that -- or are you suggesting that Moin did NOT
>> say that Ganguly's will be adversely influenced by the pressure he is
>> under?

> See Bharat, you are actually becoming smarter. With patience, there may
> be hope for you yet. If you stopped twisting facts and actually wrote
> that Moin was suggesting it instead of crediting me, you would become a
> lot more credible

>> Are you suggesting that by "extremely sensible views" you did not
>> endorse Moin's views?

> I told you to stick to facts and not tell me what I suggested. If you
> disagree with what Moin says, have the courage to say so. I presume
> even you will agree he knows a bit more about cricket than you since
> you seemed to look down upon Malhotra because he should only have been
> a reserve according to you. But still more accomplished than you.

>> Let me repeat -- Moin says "Ganguly will be under lots of pressure that
>> could affect his performance".  You say "Extremely sensible view, Moin".

> My dear friend , it is no use lying. Bharat, even if you have to lie, I
> would suggest you do it when you cannot be caught so openly. Either you
> are a complete liar, have problems with your eyesight, or don't
> understand English. Or all of these.

> I never wrote as you claim  "Extremely sensible view, Moin". And you
> have put it in quotes.  I wrote  "Extremely sensible views from Moin."
> for the whole article. Why are you naive to change from plural to
> singular and ascribe it to one sentence. Are you really so desperate?

Desparate is the man who resorts to semantics -- this is positively
Clintonesque
in its ability to nit-pick a minor minor point as a way out.  Sorry, by
extremely
sensible views, you meant "the points that I don't stick my foot in my mouth
about, by questioning a post later"?

Quote:

> Let me repeat since you clearly are having problems in understanding. I
> reproduced an article and gave my general comments on the article. You
> cannot pickup any particular sentence and say that my general remark
> applies to that sentence in particular.

A sentence -- it was half the thrust of the article.
You are right.  You are not a liar.

Thats right -- you are real man.  You endorse something and then say you
didn't.

Talk about courage -- at least have the guts to be honest.

Actually you are either a liar -- no even an accomplished liar, would say
"A" and "not A".  I'll do you the favor of believing that you actually
believe
the complete drivel you wrote above, in which case you are completely
delusional.

There are some people on rsc who border on lunacy -- but at least they
stay consistent with their views.  You twist everything -- including your
own statements.

Next time do yourself a favor -- don't endorse something you intend to
disavow a post or two later.

And yes, I know what "endorse" means.  You clearly don't.  Once again..

2 : to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or
approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a may***candidate>

Quote:

>> I say "Don't suggest Ganguly will be unduly affected by pressure."

>> And you ask -- where did you say it?

>> Well in the original article you quoted in full...

> I did not say it Bharat. If you go back to your own response and try to
> remain consistent, even you may understand since you attributed it to
> Moin

Yes, and you ENDORSED the article.  Let me say again:

2 : to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or
approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a may***candidate>

Lets see -- it was in public, you expressed support -- wow, guess what, you
"endorsed" the article.  You supported Moin's views.

English language meet Prakash
Prakash meet English.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>> > Also who are the players in the team who are currently under the same
>> > 'pressure' as him?

> Waiting!!!

>> >>His big ton in the first Test at Aus was critical to the draw,
>> >> and
>> >> made under quite some pressure.

>> > It would be helpful if you re-read the article with a calm mind and
>> > tried to understand what 'pressure' Moin is referring to. And if you do
>> > succeed, tell me who else has had the same pressure in the past - or
>> > the present?

>> Plenty of Indian players have gone through tons of similar pressure about
>> their slot in the team.  Laxman's career was over, and he hammered a
>> magnificent
>> 167 at Sydney -- what would have been his last Test innings if he didn't
>> produce.  And VVSL didn't have hordes of people agitating to make sure
>> he got more chances.

> Because he wasn't dropped from the XV unfairly. If you even had half an
> open mind, you would question why Ganguly had 'hordes of people
> agitating'. But you don't - because either you don't want toor are not
> capable of understanding.

>> And if you are talking ex-captains.

> Again don't think for me.

>> Azhar was all but dropped

> See. You actually know the difference but pretend otherwise. Ganguly
> was not 'all but dropped' but actually dropped. And dropped unfairly
> according to the 'hordes of people'.

> But they are all in India - and  you have proudly stated and I quote
> "Amazing -- no one in India seems to recognize the difference between
> "play in XI" and "selected as backup batsman".

> That's right folks. Bharat claims he know something that the billion
> odd people do not

So, you don't know something that billion-odd people don't know?
Unless you are a 5th standard student (which might explain a lot) --
say, just how old are you, anyway (out of curiousity)?

Prakash, when and if you ever achieve something technically, you know
like higher education or even post graduate -- guess what, you actually
will know a lot of things (admittedly in a narrow area) that a billion-odd
people will have no idea about.

Give it another 10 years, you may figure it out...

Just to explain, this is an ANALOGY -- you know, a concept you seem to
have a hard fact grasping in our previous discussions.  Something to show
that your general premise (possibly knowing something a billion people don't
is
somehow impossible) is completely flawed.

And let me introduce you to another linguistic concept, HYPERBOLE -- look
that up
and see if you can figure out that "Amazing -- no one in India seems to
recognize
the difference between play in XI" and "selected as backup batsman" --  
doesn't
actually mean "not a single person in India" literally.  After all, someone
in India
does grasp that fact -- notably the selectors, Dravid, Chappell, and
everyone
involved in the two decisions...

Quote:

>>-- ex-skipper, out in disgrace, having failed --
>> and hammered a brilliant ton at Calcutta against RSA to save the
>> follow-on
>> (this after having been knocked out the previous evening by a bouncer),
>> and then a match-winning century at Kanpur to clinch the series 2-1.

>> THAT is responding to pressure.

> And you still don't - or pretend not to because that would stop your
> imaginary theory - know what pressure Moin refers to. Perhaps you
> should ask somebody in India to explain.

I'm sorry -- who is mind-reading now?  Pressure is pressure of being
dropped from the Indian side -- but I'm guessing you have a private
line to Moin, for him to explain his ...

read more »

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by prakmel2.. » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:31:28

Quote:




> >> > Please also don't try to think for me. It would help if you just
> >> > thought for yourself and not think that you are so smart that you can
> >> > think for others.

> >> I didn't think for you?

> > Don't you know yourself that you have to ask?

Still thinking Bharat. Do you see the '?' in your question and mine?

Quote:

> >>  I asked a question?

> > You still don't know. A question mark implies you don't know.

Guess you don't.

Quote:

> >>  Did you miss the

> >> "Are you" at the start of the sentence and the "?" at the end of the
> >> sentence?
> >> I didn't say you were "pre-producing an excuse" bud, I asked you a
> >> question.

> > Are you in the habit of asking daft questions?

> Your ability for self-deception is unmatched.

What self-deception are you talking about? Don't use words unless you
understand them - and prove with facts.

Quote:

> >> >> And you do the man a dis-service if you suggest that he crumbles under
> >> >> pressure.

> >> > Fiction writing must be your strongest point Bharat. That's why you
> >> > have trouble sticking to facts. Pray tell me when I have suggested that
> >> > he crumbles under pressure.

> >> Lets see -- you quote the following:

> >>     "Former captain Moin Khan on Monday said the controversy surrounding
> >>     Sourav Ganguly's comeback could put him under undue pressure against
> >>     Pakistan who are better prepared to take on India this time around."

> > Perhaps you should buy a dictionary and understand what the word quote
> > means. I reproduced the whole article. If I had singled out a certain
> > part, then I would be quoting

Did you follow Bharat? There is a difference between reproducing an
article and quoting from it. It seems from your  previous comments that
you don't. Confirm if you understand the difference.

Quote:

> >> You heartily endorse the article

> > Do you know what heartily means?

Guess not.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >>  -- so, are we supposed to believe that
> >> after all
> >> that, you don't agree with what the article says?  It goes on to say..

> >>     "This is certainly not good for Sourav and the Indian cricket team.
> >>     Sourav is an experienced campaigner and deserves respect. By
> >>     questioning his inclusion, the critics are putting him under pressure
> >>     for which the team might have to pay the price because if Sourav is
> >> in
> >>     the team, he has to be in the playing lineup than being on the
> >>     substitute bench," he said.

> >> All these suggest -- and you endorse them

> > Do you know what endorse means?  Look it up.

> I don't need to -- but clearly you do.  m-w.com defines it as:

That's good Bharat. 1 out of 3 is not bad. Or may be your whole
hypothesis blows up if you add the other two words :-)

Quote:
> 2 : to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or
> approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a may***candidate>

> (unless you meant meaning one, as in "endorse a check" -- there is another
> meaning you know -- the one above)

I am impressed Bharat. Subtle but good.

Quote:

> >>-- that Ganguly will be under
> >> "undue" pressure, and that if (when) he plays, his performance will
> >> suffer
> >>  as a result of the pressure, and so will the team.

> >> Can't be plainer than that -- or are you suggesting that Moin did NOT
> >> say that Ganguly's will be adversely influenced by the pressure he is
> >> under?

> > See Bharat, you are actually becoming smarter. With patience, there may
> > be hope for you yet. If you stopped twisting facts and actually wrote
> > that Moin was suggesting it instead of crediting me, you would become a
> > lot more credible

Hey, don't be shy Bharat. Kindly explain the subtle difference by which
you decide that  Moin is credited with this and not me. Please confirm
whether it is because I did not 'endorse' it specifically.

Quote:

> >> Are you suggesting that by "extremely sensible views" you did not
> >> endorse Moin's views?

> > I told you to stick to facts and not tell me what I suggested. If you
> > disagree with what Moin says, have the courage to say so. I presume
> > even you will agree he knows a bit more about cricket than you since
> > you seemed to look down upon Malhotra because he should only have been
> > a reserve according to you. But still more accomplished than you.

And your response is .......

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >> Let me repeat -- Moin says "Ganguly will be under lots of pressure that
> >> could affect his performance".  You say "Extremely sensible view, Moin".

> > My dear friend , it is no use lying. Bharat, even if you have to lie, I
> > would suggest you do it when you cannot be caught so openly. Either you
> > are a complete liar, have problems with your eyesight, or don't
> > understand English. Or all of these.

> > I never wrote as you claim  "Extremely sensible view, Moin". And you
> > have put it in quotes.  I wrote  "Extremely sensible views from Moin."
> > for the whole article. Why are you naive to change from plural to
> > singular and ascribe it to one sentence. Are you really so desperate?

> Desparate is the man who resorts to semantics -- this is positively
> Clintonesque
> in its ability to nit-pick a minor minor point as a way out.  Sorry, by
> extremely
> sensible views, you meant "the points that I don't stick my foot in my mouth
> about, by questioning a post later"?

No, I don't. My dear friend, you keep trying to re-interpret perfectly
straight sentences. Why don't you stick to what you think? Despite
reminding you many times, you insist on trying to tell me what I mean.
Are you even more embarrassed of writing your views than I am of
reading them?

Do you know what the quote marks mean? And do you know why you twist
facts?

Quote:

> > Let me repeat since you clearly are having problems in understanding. I
> > reproduced an article and gave my general comments on the article. You
> > cannot pickup any particular sentence and say that my general remark
> > applies to that sentence in particular.

> A sentence -- it was half the thrust of the article.

According to you. Fair enough.

Quote:
> You are right.  You are not a liar.

Bharat, I guess you do sometimes fluke the truth.

Quote:

> Thats right -- you are real man.  You endorse something and then say you
> didn't.

Again stick to the facts - not your imagination.

Quote:

> Talk about courage -- at least have the guts to be honest.

ROFLMAO at the man who regularly twists facts and alters quotes.

Quote:

> Actually you are either a liar -- no even an accomplished liar, would say
> "A" and "not A".  I'll do you the favor of believing that you actually
> believe
> the complete drivel you wrote above, in which case you are completely
> delusional.

Coming from a guy who lies regularly, do you believe the imaginary
stuff you write? But then can I trust a liar?

Quote:
> There are some people on rsc who border on lunacy -- but at least they
> stay consistent with their views.

Are you including yourself in this group you seem to know?

Quote:
>You twist everything -- including your
> own statements.

Don't just make imaginary statements. Produce facts.

Quote:

> Next time do yourself a favor -- don't endorse something you intend to
> disavow a post or two later.

> And yes, I know what "endorse" means.  You clearly don't.  Once again..

> 2 : to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or
> approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a may***candidate>

Guess you have to remind yourself before you goof up again.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >> I say "Don't suggest Ganguly will be unduly affected by pressure."

> >> And you ask -- where did you say it?

> >> Well in the original article you quoted in full...

> > I did not say it Bharat. If you go back to your own response and try to
> > remain consistent, even you may understand since you attributed it to
> > Moin

> Yes, and you ENDORSED the article.  Let me say again:

> 2 : to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or
> approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a may***candidate>

Hope you can remember the meaning of this word since you have had to
repeat it thrice. But try looking up 'quote' and 'heartily' also. Is
that a deal?

Quote:

> Lets see -- it was in public, you expressed support -- wow, guess what, you
> "endorsed" the article.  You supported Moin's views.

Subtle. Is there any difference to you between 'endorse' and 'support'?

Quote:

> English language meet Prakash
> Prakash meet English.

We already know each other. Why don't you introduce yourself so that
you may actually learn something?

Quote:

> >> > Also who are the players in the team who are currently under the same
> >> > 'pressure' as him?

> > Waiting!!!

And the bashful Bharat refuses to answer - yet again.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >> >>His big ton in the first Test at Aus was critical to the draw,
> >> >> and
> >> >> made under quite some pressure.

> >> > It would be helpful if you re-read the article with a calm mind and
> >> > tried to understand what 'pressure' Moin is referring to. And if you do
> >> > succeed, tell me who else has had the same pressure in the past - or
> >> > the present?

> >> Plenty of Indian players have gone through tons of similar pressure about
> >> their slot in the team.  Laxman's career was over, and he hammered a
> >> magnificent
> >> 167 at Sydney -- what would have been his last Test innings if he didn't
> >> produce.  And VVSL didn't have hordes of people agitating to make sure
> >> he got more chances.

> > Because he wasn't dropped from the XV unfairly. If you even had half an
> > open mind, you would question why Ganguly had 'hordes of people
> > agitating'. But you don't - because either you don't want toor are not
> > capable of understanding.

Clearly you don't ...

read more »

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by R. Bharat Ra » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:02:13


m?

Quote:

>> > Waiting!!!

> And the bashful Bharat refuses to answer - yet again.

I'd love to try answering everything you write, but the issue is that even
with
these few points, you display an astounding ignorance of the English
language
and indulge in bare-faced attempts to provide revisionist history.

So why try to answer every point you (think you) make, when the few I
do answer provide limitless entertainment.  And you must be commended
for the chutzpah with which you distort everything you and I said, even
after you quote it in the text of the same post.

It is fun to watch you tie yourself in knots as you attempt to use logic,
and
then use bluster to bludgeon your way out of the web you've woven.  But
eventually I do tire of a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Bharat [or schoolchild as the case may be]

PS: I'd advice you to stick to either the rapier or the broadsword -- its
hard to
use both at the same time -- as you doubtless have found out with the
various
parts of your anatomy that you've inadvertantly chopped off.

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by prakmel2.. » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:01:40

Quote:



> m?

> >> > Waiting!!!

> > And the bashful Bharat refuses to answer - yet again.

> I'd love to try answering everything you write,

No you wouldn't. There he goes lying again. Habits die hard. And that
is why you snipped out all the evidence. But Google can show all your
lying in all its glory.

Quote:
> but the issue is that even
> with
> these few points, you display an astounding ignorance of the English
> language

Since your ignorance is clearly greater, no problem.

Quote:
> and indulge in bare-faced attempts to provide revisionist history.

Hey Bharat, you are getting confused again.You were talking about
history, not me. Remember you wrote about Hitler. I guess you don't
remember.  Perhaps you could elaborate where revisionist history was
written. By me, not you (I hope you understand) as you claim. Wrongly
again but I am sure that you can lie again.

Quote:

> So why try to answer every point you (think you) make,

Don't think for me Bharat. How many times you need to be told the same
thing? Why do you think you can dictatatorially think for others? Is
this how you work in your office?

Quote:
>  when the few I
> do answer provide limitless entertainment.

Hey Bharat, are you trying to apologise in a round-about way? Or are
you saying that you are a clown and one should laugh at your dumb
answers?

Quote:
> And you must be commended
> for the chutzpah

I am impressed with the Yiddish with which you display your effrontery

Quote:
> with which you distort everything you and I said, even
> after you quote it in the text of the same post.

Empty words Bharat. I have given you quotes of what you have written
but all you come up  with is your hot imaginative errors.

Quote:
> It is fun to watch you tie yourself in knots as you attempt to use logic,
> and
> then use bluster to bludgeon your way out of the web you've woven.  But
> eventually I do tire of a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Impressive. But you are talking of concepts alien to you such as
'logic' and 'wits'. Simply looking up dictionaries does not make you
witty or logical -but I guess it is a start all the same.

Quote:

> Bharat [or schoolchild as the case may be]

Well, good to see you finally admit that you are a schoolchild. Now I
get it when you were asking me about my age in your last post and
wondered if I was in the 5th standard.
Is that the class you are in BTW? Or even lower?

Quote:

> PS: I'd advice you to stick to either the rapier or the broadsword

If I need advice about swords, I can assure I  would not ask an
out-and-out liar. So don't waste your time giving advice about things
that a schoolchild like you would not know about.

-- its

Quote:
> hard to
> use both at the same time --

Fine - if you say so. But I guess you want to try and boast you know
more about other things than cricket so I understand.

Quote:
> as you doubtless have found out with the
> various
> parts of your anatomy that you've inadvertantly chopped off.

I did say you have a vivid imagination. But don't worry - it is better
to use it than lying for a fulltime job.

Prakash.

Good joke in your thread 'Great declaration'. You are surprised why
others think differently from you. Hey Bharat, welcome to the real
world.

And you state -and I quote, the meaning of which I hope you may have
begun to understand by now -

"At 0/0, I'd have said 70-25-5 (for Aus W-D-L).
At 60/3, I'd say Aus W-D-L == 88-10-2"

Do you really think people believe you? Any honest person would write
the first odds at the start of the innings and not wait till three key
wickets are down. But I guess it will take you a long time to become
honest. Never mind, keep plugging away and things may be better by the
time you reach 6th standard. I am guessing of course and would not like
to give the odds but probably more than exist now for a SA win.

Prakash

P.S.  On second thoughts,you should be congratulated on having the
courage to state the odds now instead of waiting for the 9th wicket to
fall. Shows hope for the future.

Do you think your odds for an Aussie win would ever equal the ones you
use for your roulette simultaneous betting of red and black? Think
about it and your probability theory of x and ascribing x and so on....

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by Mike Holman » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:07:58

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:15:50 GMT, "R. Bharat Rao"

forth:

Quote:
>English language meet Prakash
>Prakash meet English.

Aha! So in your fantasy-world, the English language has physical
reality and you can pretend to introduce me to it. Interesting. Not to
mention fascinating.

I can tell you that things are very different out here in the Lesser
Magellanic Cloud.

Cheers,

Prakash

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by R. Bharat Ra » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:40:01


Quote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:15:50 GMT, "R. Bharat Rao"

> forth:
>>English language meet Prakash
>>Prakash meet English.

> Aha! So in your fantasy-world, the English language has physical
> reality and you can pretend to introduce me to it. Interesting. Not to
> mention fascinating.

Now don't attempt to twist what I wrote.  Note I used the word "meets"
rather than "meet" which means a completely different thing altogether.
Go ask the 2.08 Million people in West Yorkshire County to explain
the difference between the two.

Or do you have a selective line to Moin Khan?  Malcolm Speed?  Gubby
Allen?  Milkha Singh?

I knew it, you don't -- liar, liar, pants on fire!!

Quote:
> I can tell you that things are very different out here in the Lesser
> Magellanic Cloud.

You wouldn't know a cloud from a cumulus formation.  Don't put
words in my mouth -- err. letters on my fingers -- err characters on
my computer.  Wait, I retain the right to pick any of the 3 later
depending on which one you challenge me on...

Quote:
> Cheers,

> Prakash

And you don't know that roulette has green and blue colors.  And
you are trying to quote the English language to me. BTW, when I
said "red and white", I was actually being quoted by my Id, so you
can't hold my Super-ego responsible for what my Id told my Ego.

I'm off to find another article to selectively quote from retroactively.

Prakash

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by prakmel2.. » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:35:55

Quote:



> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:15:50 GMT, "R. Bharat Rao"

> > forth:
> >>English language meet Prakash
> >>Prakash meet English.

> > Aha! So in your fantasy-world, the English language has physical
> > reality and you can pretend to introduce me to it. Interesting. Not to
> > mention fascinating.

> Now don't attempt to twist what I wrote.  Note I used the word "meets"
> rather than "meet" which means a completely different thing altogether.
> Go ask the 2.08 Million people in West Yorkshire County to explain
> the difference between the two.

> Or do you have a selective line to Moin Khan?  Malcolm Speed?  Gubby
> Allen?  Milkha Singh?

> I knew it, you don't -- liar, liar, pants on fire!!

> > I can tell you that things are very different out here in the Lesser
> > Magellanic Cloud.

> You wouldn't know a cloud from a cumulus formation.  Don't put
> words in my mouth -- err. letters on my fingers -- err characters on
> my computer.  Wait, I retain the right to pick any of the 3 later
> depending on which one you challenge me on...

> > Cheers,

> > Prakash

> And you don't know that roulette has green and blue colors.  And
> you are trying to quote the English language to me. BTW, when I
> said "red and white", I was actually being quoted by my Id, so you
> can't hold my Super-ego responsible for what my Id told my Ego.

> I'm off to find another article to selectively quote from retroactively.

> Prakash

ROFL Bharat. The 'staged' exchange of responses between the two of you
may ever so slightly threaten Laurel and Hardy in comedy content but
definitely in the size of participants. So don't give up hope yet.

You will however have to work harder on how to apologise when you are
caught out on facts. And how to try not to lie (I fully realise how
tough this must be for you)  - even when signing emails. I can well
understand how thoroughly embarrassed you feel by your recent emails to
me that you do not have the courage to write your your own name.
However, if you were even slightly more logical, even you MAY have
realised that your email address would give you away.

On the other hand, it may be that you thought using my name would
automatically improve the quality of your email. It is definitely
better than your normal but my dear friend, try to be more accurate,
honest and logical in what you write. You may well think it is a tough
call but don't give up hope. I can see that there is a will but you
will just have to try harder because practice makes - or hopefully may
make in your case - perfect.

Perhaps you will have the courage to be honest in your reply - if you
dare reply. But that would require massive courage.

So the real question is - Does Bharat have the courage to turn over a
new leaf and be honest? Time alone will tell whether you dare reply -
and whether you are honest, do not twist the facts and learn what is a
'quote'. If you do, I may even think of 'heartily endorsing' your views
- flawed as they presently are -  instead of Moin's :-)

The real Prakash

(not the imposter Bharat who posted above)