India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by Sanja » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 12:03:39


prakmel

What do you say to this comments from pak cricketers who said gandulys
selection will be detrimental for India.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakvind/content/story/230985.html

Ganguly's selection detrimental - former Pakistan players
Daily News


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.

> "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.

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by prakmel2.. » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:51:58

Quote:

> prakmel

> What do you say to this comments from pak cricketers who said gandulys
> selection will be detrimental for India.

Hi Sanjay,

Thanks for your email.

What the Pakistanis are saying sounds quite logical. Before I
elaborate, I think it would be helpful if one looked at the whole
picture.

The official reason given for dropping Ganguly from the T3 squad
despite good partnerships in both innings in T2 was the supposed
intention to go for youth and that he should not have to carry drinks.

We should also not forget that Dravid greatly praised Ganguly's innings
at the end of T2. Now either it is was one of the greatest acts of
duplicity by a captain or Rahul honestly didn't have a clue what was
planned by the selectors. If the former, then may God help Indian
cricket. If the latter, it also is worrying that selectors can do
something so drastic without discussing with the captain. Seeing he is
new, I may be able to stretch credibility that Rahul honestly didn't
know anything but I refuse to believe that the selectors would dare do
such a thing without Greg's knowledge, or IMHO his advice or perhaps
insistence.  If Greg really didn't know anything, the least honourable
thing he could have done would be to threaten to resign.

Never heard of a youth policy before being suddenly decided before the
last Test in a series and shows how naive they are if they thought that
it would be accepted by any thinking person. This is because Ganguly
was the man in possession of  a MO place and he performed more than
adequately in T2. And then they replace a MO by an opening bat who
doesn't get to play. Not only that, they refuse to recall  Sourav even
when Dravid is sick. Either they honestly feel Kaif is a better MO ( in
which case my opinion of them goes even lower) or they were somehow
hoping he would succeed so that Sourav would not be included for
Pakistan.

Of course one test later, everything is turned upside down and the
youth policy is thrown away. What happened? Are they really abandoning
the youth policy? If so, why? Were they forced to change course because
people protested at their daftness? Unless they can make up a logical
explanation, one will have to draw the obvious conclusion.

As for the drinks, presuming the selectors + Greg were consistent,
Sourav will play in Pakistan or that carrying drinks is no problem in
Pakistan - but is in India. If the latter, an explanation would help.
If the former, it would be helpful to get more intelligent selectors.

Of course the more probable theory is that Greg's attempts to remove
Sourav have not succeeded due to the public outcry. I don't know how
Greg will proceed. The ball is very much in his court. If he is a
professional, he will attempt to help Sourav and India but his attitude
up to now would not indicate so. If he also thought a bit, he would
realise that Sourav is the only real mediumpacer among the non-regular
bowlers and this would be even more useful in Pakistan if they prepare
faster pitches.

Any player dropped is under pressure. However If you try to drop a
player without a valid cricketing reason, clearly you put the player
under very great pressure. Seeing the earlier controversy in Zimbabwe,
it would seem this is the game plan so let's see if they remain so
short-sighted.

Going back to the article, I certainly don't know how the Pakistani
players genuinely feel if Sourav plays. Maybe they hope he does and it
causes friction in the dressing room (mind you, this is an unknown but
would depend on the attitude of the 11 Indian players + the coach who
are all supposed to be professional). Or maybe it is a PR attempt such
that Sourav does not play because they think he will be an obstacle to
them.

However,it is not critical what the Pakistani  thinktank thinks or does
in this regard but rather what the Indian one does. The indication up
to now has unfortunately not been encouraging but I would not yet give
up hope.

Once again Sanjay, thanks for writing to me and look forward to your
views. It is quite possible for different people to have different
opinions - but they should normally be based upon the facts as known.

Prakash

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by Sanja » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:41:39


Quote:


>> prakmel

>> What do you say to this comments from pak cricketers who said gandulys
>> selection will be detrimental for India.

> Hi Sanjay,
> What the Pakistanis are saying sounds quite logical. Before I
> elaborate, I think it would be helpful if one looked at the whole
> picture.

> The official reason given for dropping Ganguly from the T3 squad
> despite good partnerships in both innings in T2 was the supposed
> intention to go for youth and that he should not have to carry drinks.

> We should also not forget that Dravid greatly praised Ganguly's innings
> at the end of T2. Now either it is was one of the greatest acts of
> duplicity by a captain or Rahul honestly didn't have a clue what was
> planned by the selectors.

I dont think Dravid said gangulys innings were great. He probably said they
were good.

Quote:
>If the former, then may God help Indian
> cricket. If the latter, it also is worrying that selectors can do
> something so drastic without discussing with the captain. Seeing he is
> new, I may be able to stretch credibility that Rahul honestly didn't
> know anything but I refuse to believe that the selectors would dare do
> such a thing without Greg's knowledge, or IMHO his advice or perhaps
> insistence.  If Greg really didn't know anything, the least honourable
> thing he could have done would be to threaten to resign.

Why should Greg threaten to resign ? He cannot blackmail the Indian
selectors too often.

Quote:
> Never heard of a youth policy before being suddenly decided before the
> last Test in a series and shows how naive they are if they thought that
> it would be accepted by any thinking person. This is because Ganguly
> was the man in possession of  a MO place and he performed more than
> adequately in T2. And then they replace a MO by an opening bat who
> doesn't get to play. Not only that, they refuse to recall  Sourav even
> when Dravid is sick. Either they honestly feel Kaif is a better MO ( in
> which case my opinion of them goes even lower) or they were somehow
> hoping he would succeed so that Sourav would not be included for
> Pakistan.

I do not support Chappell pimping for the over rated Kaif and Gambhir. But I
also think Chappell cannot stand ganduly anymore because of the politics
ganduly played in Zimbabwe and SL. Here is what Chappell said about ganguly.

(Everything he does is designed to maximise his chances of success and is
usually detrimental to someone else's chances...This team has been made to
be fearful and distrusting by the rumour-mongering and deceit that is Sourav's
modus operandi of divide and rule. )

Remeber how ganguly lied to Laxman that Chappell didnt want him in the test
team.

Quote:
> Of course one test later, everything is turned upside down and the
> youth policy is thrown away. What happened? Are they really abandoning
> the youth policy? If so, why? Were they forced to change course because
> people protested at their daftness? Unless they can make up a logical
> explanation, one will have to draw the obvious conclusion.

It has nothing to do with people protests. Pawar singlehandedly forced the
selectors to pick ganguly because of pressure from bengali politicians in
the UPA govt.

Quote:
> As for the drinks, presuming the selectors + Greg were consistent,
> Sourav will play in Pakistan or that carrying drinks is no problem in
> Pakistan - but is in India. If the latter, an explanation would help.
> If the former, it would be helpful to get more intelligent selectors.

As I said earlier, Pawar did not leave the choice for selectors.

Quote:
> Of course the more probable theory is that Greg's attempts to remove
> Sourav have not succeeded due to the public outcry. I don't know how
> Greg will proceed. The ball is very much in his court. If he is a
> professional, he will attempt to help Sourav and India but his attitude
> up to now would not indicate so. If he also thought a bit, he would
> realise that Sourav is the only real mediumpacer among the non-regular
> bowlers and this would be even more useful in Pakistan if they prepare
> faster pitches.

ganguly bowled 19 overs against pakistan in tests and picked no wickets so
far. It is doubtful if he will be of any use as a medium pacer since he
didnt bowl that much in test matches in the recent past.

Quote:
> Any player dropped is under pressure. However If you try to drop a
> player without a valid cricketing reason, clearly you put the player
> under very great pressure. Seeing the earlier controversy in Zimbabwe,
> it would seem this is the game plan so let's see if they remain so
> short-sighted.

But you can apply the same logic you mentioned below that ganguly is a
professional with 10 yrs experience and so he should be able to handle the
pressure like a true professional.

Quote:
> Going back to the article, I certainly don't know how the Pakistani
> players genuinely feel if Sourav plays. Maybe they hope he does and it
> causes friction in the dressing room (mind you, this is an unknown but
> would depend on the attitude of the 11 Indian players + the coach who
> are all supposed to be professional). Or maybe it is a PR attempt such
> that Sourav does not play because they think he will be an obstacle to
> them.

This theory and logic can also be applied to Moins comments.

Quote:
> However,it is not critical what the Pakistani  thinktank thinks or does
> in this regard but rather what the Indian one does.

> Prakash

But you posted Moins comments and questioned if anybody is listening.

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by prakmel2.. » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:04:27

Quote:




> >> prakmel

> >> What do you say to this comments from pak cricketers who said gandulys
> >> selection will be detrimental for India.

> > Hi Sanjay,

> > What the Pakistanis are saying sounds quite logical. Before I
> > elaborate, I think it would be helpful if one looked at the whole
> > picture.

> > The official reason given for dropping Ganguly from the T3 squad
> > despite good partnerships in both innings in T2 was the supposed
> > intention to go for youth and that he should not have to carry drinks.

> > We should also not forget that Dravid greatly praised Ganguly's innings
> > at the end of T2. Now either it is was one of the greatest acts of
> > duplicity by a captain or Rahul honestly didn't have a clue what was
> > planned by the selectors.

> I dont think Dravid said gangulys innings were great. He probably said they
> were good.

I was going from memory having seen the interview on TV. Having looked
up Cricinfo, I note the following article:

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/indvsl/content/story/229537.html

The last paragraph I quote:

----------------------------------
Funnily enough, just moments before Shah made the announcement, Dravid
had addressed the press, and praised Ganguly's batting in the Test,
soon after attending the selection meeting, along with Greg Chappell,
the coach. "He played very well in both innings," said Dravid. "I'm
sure he'll be disappointed that he did not go on and make a bigger
score." The selection meeting was a short one, lasting approximately 20
minutes.

----------------------------

So you will note that Dravid praised Ganguly's batting. And the meeting
lasted 20 minutes.
So either you have to believe that 5 selectors independently came to
this major conclusion in 20 minutes - and this includes deciding on the
15 players - or that they were so instructed. And Dravid did not have a
clue -or was acting.

Quote:

> >If the former, then may God help Indian
> > cricket. If the latter, it also is worrying that selectors can do
> > something so drastic without discussing with the captain. Seeing he is
> > new, I may be able to stretch credibility that Rahul honestly didn't
> > know anything but I refuse to believe that the selectors would dare do
> > such a thing without Greg's knowledge, or IMHO his advice or perhaps
> > insistence.  If Greg really didn't know anything, the least honourable
> > thing he could have done would be to threaten to resign.

> Why should Greg threaten to resign ? He cannot blackmail the Indian
> selectors too often.

I am saying that Greg should threaten to resign if this major decision
was made without his prior approval - and I cannot any imagine any
coach worth his salt not saying so. The very least would be to strongly
protest -and that is presuming you believe that the new set of
selectors have decided independently to do this major shift. I do not
think that the selectors acted independently.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> > Never heard of a youth policy before being suddenly decided before the
> > last Test in a series and shows how naive they are if they thought that
> > it would be accepted by any thinking person. This is because Ganguly
> > was the man in possession of  a MO place and he performed more than
> > adequately in T2. And then they replace a MO by an opening bat who
> > doesn't get to play. Not only that, they refuse to recall  Sourav even
> > when Dravid is sick. Either they honestly feel Kaif is a better MO ( in
> > which case my opinion of them goes even lower) or they were somehow
> > hoping he would succeed so that Sourav would not be included for
> > Pakistan.

> I do not support Chappell pimping for the over rated Kaif and Gambhir. But I
> also think Chappell cannot stand ganduly anymore because of the politics
> ganduly played in Zimbabwe and SL. Here is what Chappell said about ganguly.

> (Everything he does is designed to maximise his chances of success and is
> usually detrimental to someone else's chances...This team has been made to
> be fearful and distrusting by the rumour-mongering and deceit that is Sourav's
> modus operandi of divide and rule. )

For a new coach to say this about a captain is unbelievable - even if
true. Could you provide the article which states this para?

IIRC, both Sourav and Greg  also said subsequently they would work
together

Quote:

> Remeber how ganguly lied to Laxman that Chappell didnt want him in the test
> team.

Did Laxman say this openly or is it a second-hand report? Any relevant
article would be helpful.

Quote:

> > Of course one test later, everything is turned upside down and the
> > youth policy is thrown away. What happened? Are they really abandoning
> > the youth policy? If so, why? Were they forced to change course because
> > people protested at their daftness? Unless they can make up a logical
> > explanation, one will have to draw the obvious conclusion.

> It has nothing to do with people protests. Pawar singlehandedly forced the
> selectors to pick ganguly because of pressure from bengali politicians in
> the UPA govt.

Pawar also said publicly IIRC that he was shocked at the Ganguly axing.
So it would be quite a thing if Pawar forced the selectors to drop
Ganguly and then publicly stated he was shocked. This would be even
more  worrying - and unbelievable

If you believe that Pawar is the person making all the decisions, that
is your call. If that were true, then the selectors should resign
because they have no say and are made to look as fools.

Quote:

> > As for the drinks, presuming the selectors + Greg were consistent,
> > Sourav will play in Pakistan or that carrying drinks is no problem in
> > Pakistan - but is in India. If the latter, an explanation would help.
> > If the former, it would be helpful to get more intelligent selectors.

> As I said earlier, Pawar did not leave the choice for selectors.

And are you supposedly also saying that Pawar was the one who decided
on the youth policy and the carrying of drinks as the excuse for
dropping of Sourav?

Quote:

> > Of course the more probable theory is that Greg's attempts to remove
> > Sourav have not succeeded due to the public outcry. I don't know how
> > Greg will proceed. The ball is very much in his court. If he is a
> > professional, he will attempt to help Sourav and India but his attitude
> > up to now would not indicate so. If he also thought a bit, he would
> > realise that Sourav is the only real mediumpacer among the non-regular
> > bowlers and this would be even more useful in Pakistan if they prepare
> > faster pitches.>

> ganguly bowled 19 overs against pakistan in tests and picked no wickets so
> far. It is doubtful if he will be of any use as a medium pacer since he
> didnt bowl that much in test matches in the recent past.

It appears that Pakistan will have faster pitches than the ones used
before. There is no
other mediumpacer in the team and Sourav has had some good bowling
figures in the last few months in the domestics.

Quote:

> > Any player dropped is under pressure. However If you try to drop a
> > player without a valid cricketing reason, clearly you put the player
> > under very great pressure. Seeing the earlier controversy in Zimbabwe,
> > it would seem this is the game plan so let's see if they remain so
> > short-sighted.

> But you can apply the same logic you mentioned below that ganguly is a
> professional with 10 yrs experience and so he should be able to handle the
> pressure like a true professional.

Perhaps you can inform which other cricket professional has had to deal
with this kind of unfair dropping. Not only from the XI but from the XV
despite being praised by the captain for two good partnerships.

Quote:

> > Going back to the article, I certainly don't know how the Pakistani
> > players genuinely feel if Sourav plays. Maybe they hope he does and it
> > causes friction in the dressing room (mind you, this is an unknown but
> > would depend on the attitude of the 11 Indian players + the coach who
> > are all supposed to be professional). Or maybe it is a PR attempt such
> > that Sourav does not play because they think he will be an obstacle to
> > them.

> This theory and logic can also be applied to Moins comments.

Sure it is and they are not contradicting each other. Both articles say
that it has resulted from the way that Sourav has been handled. Which
is why I wrote that it depends upon the Indian thinktank. They are the
ones who dropped Ganguly without a valid reason such that many seasoned
cricketers voiced their objection. If they include a player in the team
and do not try to maximise but instead minimise his chances of success,
something is wrong in the thinking.

Quote:

> > However,it is not critical what the Pakistani  thinktank thinks or does
> > in this regard but rather what the Indian one does.

> > Prakash

> But you posted Moins comments and questioned if anybody is listening.

Correct. Because the ball is in the Indian thinktank half. They are the
ones who started this whole sorry affair and they are the ones who have
to deal with it.

Prakash

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by R. Bharat Ra » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:02:06


Quote:



>> > Cheers,

>> > Prakash
.

>> 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.

Prakash,

Do yourself a favor.  Don't embarass yourself any further.  Do you seriously
think Mike H and I "staged" this? You have a major case of hubris if you
think
that you, or rsc for that matter, are important enough for us to plan this
out?

If you even remotely the veteran of rsc that you claim to be (with your "you
are well known for"..) you would know that MikeH very much marches to
his own drummer -- and wouldn't stage-manage anything like this...

But that wouldn't have been worthwhile for me to follow up to this excuse
for a newsgroup post, but for the following..

Quote:
> 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.

I am hoping that by "email" you actually mean "post".  I have not sent you
email.  I find it hard to believe that in this day an age, anyone -- even an
internet newbie -- does not know the difference between an email and a
newsgroup post.

Here's a clue.  An email is a PRIVATE communication sent from one email
address
to another (or many others).  A newsgroup post is a PUBLIC communication
posted on an (electronic) bulletin board.  Normally, I wouldn't bother
responding
to this, but I want to categorically state that I have never sent you email.

And, again -- if you had more than a few weeks experience on rsc, you would
know that the above stuff -- posting under your own email address, and
writing
a post parodying someone else's style of writing and then signing the post
with
their name is a well-established tradition on rsc.    And if you jumped in
having
just discovered the internet 3 weeks ago, are you really so clueless to
think that
I was actually trying to forge a post in your name?  Or Mike H was?

We posted (not emailed -- I would appreciate it, if you would understand the
ABC's of netiquette before posting in future) -- we posted under our own
names,
so nobody with a modicum of intelligence (present company excepted) would
even think it was you that was posting.  There was no attempt at subterfuge,
simply a parody of your inimitable posting style..

Quote:
> 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.

Again, I did not send you email.  Fun is fun -- but either you are a fool
who doesn't know the difference between email and posts, or a liar, or
someone has emailed you privately pretending to be me.  If it is the
last (which I doubt), then I didn't email you.  PERIOD.

Quote:

> 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 :-)

Before you accuse others of being dishonest, how about retracting the
two blatant lies in your post (not email).  The first lie being that I sent
you email?  The second that I impersonated you in some way, which is
a serious accusation. I have not done either of these things.  My only
communications with you have been on rsc via posts that I posted using
my own email handle.

Ignorance of netiquette is no excuse.  Read the newsgroup faq, watch
how others post, and then post..  Wish it was compulsory for newbies
to read these before posting...

"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes.
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>

"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1>

Quote:
> The real Prakash

> (not the imposter Bharat who posted above)

You really really are deficient in internet IQ, if you think my post or
Holman's post was an attempt at "impersonation".  We USED OUR OWN
EMAIL HANDLES -- do you understand the difference?

On the other hand, why am I expecting someone who knows not the
difference between public and private communication to understand
anything about the internet.

Fun is fun, but don't go around making baseless accusations.

Bharat

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by prakmel2.. » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:20:31

Quote:





> >> > Cheers,

> >> > Prakash
> .

> >> 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.

> Prakash,

> Do yourself a favor.  Don't embarass yourself any further.  Do you seriously
> think Mike H and I "staged" this? You have a major case of hubris if you
> think
> that you, or rsc for that matter, are important enough for us to plan this
> out?

Don't pretend Bharat. Both of you independently thought of the same
idea of signing in my name on the same day. You kid not. Are you really
so naive? Add another lie to your collection.

Quote:

> If you even remotely the veteran of rsc that you claim to be (with your "you
> are well known for"..)

I never claimed I was a veteran so don't try to put your words in my
mouth. If you have thinking difficulties, that's your problem.

Don't just write "you are well known for" in quotes. Write the full
context because I don't know what you are claiming. IF YOU DON'T GIVE A
FEW OF THE EXACT LINKS of these quoted words ( hope you have figured
out what a quote means), you will once again be guilty of trying to
making up facts.

Quote:
>you would know that MikeH very much marches to
> his own drummer -- and wouldn't stage-manage anything like this...

Why should I know? I don't know Mike as intimately as you definitely do
so I don't have a clue what you are speaking about.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> But that wouldn't have been worthwhile for me to follow up to this excuse
> for a newsgroup post, but for the following..

> > 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.

> I am hoping that by "email" you actually mean "post".  I have not sent you
> email.  I find it hard to believe that in this day an age, anyone -- even an
> internet newbie -- does not know the difference between an email and a
> newsgroup post.

Yes, I mean post. Apology for having got you so e***d with your first
success at finding a mistake. Hope you have a party to celebrate.

Quote:

> Here's a clue.  An email is a PRIVATE communication sent from one email
> address
> to another (or many others).  A newsgroup post is a PUBLIC communication
> posted on an (electronic) bulletin board.  Normally, I wouldn't bother
> responding
> to this, but I want to categorically state that I have never sent you email.

Much obliged.
.

Quote:

> And, again -- if you had more than a few weeks experience on rsc, you would
> know that the above stuff -- posting under your own email address, and
> writing
> a post parodying someone else's style of writing and then signing the post
> with
> their name is a well-established tradition on rsc.    And if you jumped in
> having
> just discovered the internet 3 weeks ago, are you really so clueless to
> think that
> I was actually trying to forge a post in your name?  Or Mike H was?

Yes. Both were in a joint plan. Plain and simple.

Quote:

> We posted (not emailed -- I would appreciate it, if you would understand the
> ABC's of netiquette before posting in future) -- we posted under our own
> names,

Don't play with words - or in your language - twist facts. You signed
in my name.

Quote:
> so nobody with a modicum of intelligence (present company excepted)

Good you apologise for yourself.

Quote:
>would
> even think it was you that was posting.  There was no attempt at subterfuge,

ROFL. Hope you believe it.

Quote:
> simply a parody of your inimitable posting style..

Do you know what the word parody means? Do you know what the word
inimitable means? My dear friend, you are just confusing yourself by
using these contradictory words. Stick to simple words you actually
understand. As you seemed to possess a dictionary last time, why don't
you list the meanings of both words so that even you may understand. No
objection to you repeating it thrice to make sure you follow

Quote:

> > 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.

> Again, I did not send you email.  Fun is fun -- but either you are a fool
> who doesn't know the difference between email and posts, or a liar, or
> someone has emailed you privately pretending to be me.  If it is the
> last (which I doubt), then I didn't email you.  PERIOD.

If you had more logic, you would know it is a typo. In fact you do but
pretend otherwise. Earlier in the post you have written and I quote:

"I am hoping that by "email" you actually mean "post".

And now he lies he doesn't know - or hopes. You really are a confused
person - but that is quite normal for a person who lies.

But that would be too much to expect honesty from somebody so e***d
at having actually found something to mitigate having being found out
cheating. Hope you are fully e***d.

Quote:

> > 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 :-)

> Before you accuse others of being dishonest, how about retracting the
> two blatant lies in your post (not email).  The first lie being that I sent
> you email?

No, you did not send an email. Happy since you were hoping it was this
explanation.

Quote:
> The second that I impersonated you in some way, which is
> a serious accusation.

You did. You definitely impersonated me 'in some way' - and it is a
serious accusation since you say so.

Quote:
>I have not done either of these things.

You have impersonated - and been caught.

Quote:
>My only
> communications with you have been on rsc via posts that I posted using
> my own email handle.

And signed with my name. Always being deliberately incomplete to hide
the evidence.

Quote:

> Ignorance of netiquette is no excuse.  Read the newsgroup faq, watch
> how others post, and then post..  Wish it was compulsory for newbies
> to read these before posting...

Make up your confused mind - is it veteran or newbie? But I almost
forgot it is your normal style to buy red and black simultaneously in
roulette - and '0' and '00' as pointed out by you.

Quote:

> "Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes.
> <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>

> "Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al
> <URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1>

> > The real Prakash

> > (not the imposter Bharat who posted above)

> You really really are deficient in internet IQ, if you think my post or
> Holman's post was an attempt at "impersonation".  We USED OUR OWN
> EMAIL HANDLES -- do you understand the difference?

Yes, but b you signed in my name - do you understand the difference?

Quote:
> On the other hand, why am I expecting someone who knows not the
> difference between public and private communication to understand
> anything about the internet.

> Fun is fun, but don't go around making baseless accusations.

There are no baseless accusations. You have twisted facts in various
postings in recent days. These have been listed out and you have been
caught cheating. If you claim you don't know, I will list them out for
your pleasure again. Agree to reply if you claim that you haven't been
caught.

You have now also signed a post in my name. As stated, I wrongly wrote
'emails' instead of 'posts' and you yourself stated that you hoped it
meant posts.

 Now that has been cleared up, explain all your lies where you twisted
facts in your recent POSTS. You can start with your claim of ''until
Dravid fell ill, all the hoo-haa was
about Ganguly not being in the XI." I even asked you whether it was a
typo and you ignored my comment.

Or just run away happy at having caught a typo - and not apologise.

And remember, GIVE A FEW INSTANCES where I have used the exact words
quoted by you of "you are well known for". Or you will look even a more
childish liar who makes up things but gets truly thrilled at catching
typos, the meanings of which you yourself have guessed.

Prakash

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by dp » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:36:06

<snip>

Quote:
> Fun is fun, but don't go around making baseless accusations.

I think he is just pulling your leg.

dp

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by dp » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:47:22

<snip>

Quote:
> >would
> > even think it was you that was posting.  There was no attempt at subterfuge,

> ROFL. Hope you believe it.

So do you really think there was an attempt at subterfuge? They both
posted with their email id's and names in the header. Only place your
name appeared was in the body of the text. Don't you think most people
would know that it was Bharat and Mike posting and just signing off as
Prakash? Would anyone actually mistake those posts as really written by
you [which is what subterfuge would imply]?

dp

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by R. Bharat Ra » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 23:50:23


Quote:

> <snip>
>> Fun is fun, but don't go around making baseless accusations.

> I think he is just pulling your leg.

I think he really thinks I was impersonating him.

The guy has an IQ of a turnip.  No point even talking with him.

<Place left for another mindless rant>

Bharat

 
 
 

India should be ready for a big Pakistani surprise

Post by R. Bharat Ra » Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:00:09


Quote:

> <snip>
>> >would
>> > even think it was you that was posting.  There was no attempt at
>> > subterfuge,

>> ROFL. Hope you believe it.

> So do you really think there was an attempt at subterfuge? They both
> posted with their email id's and names in the header. Only place your
> name appeared was in the body of the text. Don't you think most people
> would know that it was Bharat and Mike posting and just signing off as
> Prakash? Would anyone actually mistake those posts as really written by
> you [which is what subterfuge would imply]?

Shhhh dp -- why ruin his self image.  Some people's lives are so unimportant
that they actually think their internet persona is worth something.  Not
only
to themselves, but that two other people would elaborately plan something
together.  Not only that, they assume everyone is as brain-cell deprived as
they are, and upon seeing a posting with the name "Prakash" would never
bother to check the attributions or the posting, and would attribute it to
the
"real Prakash."

And the entire world can tell him that there was no attempt at subterfuge
(if
he knows what the word means), but he won't believe it.  So don't bother
wasting your breath -- or bits and bytes in this case.  The bozo doesn't
know
the first thing about the internet, so trying to explain headers, let alone
internet
posting traditions, is a waste of time.  In this case, the horse will not
learn
how to sing, no matter how hard you try...

I'd strongly wager "Prakash" is a first year undergrad or grad student, who
just "discovered" the internet.  Sitting behind his keyboard he paints
elaborate
fantastical pictures of himself as a grand emperor, of whom everyone
thinks about, whereas the truth is that he is a wet behind the ears, nose
leaking, pimple scratching adolescent, for whom this is a vicarious escape
from his daily life.  So don't disturb his fantasies...

Bharat [now waiting for the "I was only kidding" posts from Prakash]