Australia v South Africa, 1st T20, Melbourne, Jan 11

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote: Anyone else think that Botha's not up to international standard?

Was looking for something else but came across this gem.

Bowling with a pure action I think he'd struggle to compete. I notice he doesn't get near the test team. Who cares about a few T20s and ODIs!

Well most would think that as you were talking about his T20 international form, you were the one who was caring.

It's hard to talk about him in a test forum when he's not up to playing at that level.

Translation:

Red " I have been caught out in a twattish comment so will obfuscate the issue as much as possible"

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote: Anyone else think that Botha's not up to international standard?

Was looking for something else but came across this gem.

Bowling with a pure action I think he'd struggle to compete. I notice he doesn't get near the test team. Who cares about a few T20s and ODIs!

Well most would think that as you were talking about his T20 international form, you were the one who was caring.

It's hard to talk about him in a test forum when he's not up to playing at that level.

Translation:

Red " I have been caught out in a twattish comment so will obfuscate the issue as much as possible"

One could say the same for you.

But we are talking about your comment. Still trying to confuse the issue?

taipan wrote:

Red wrote: Anyone else think that Botha's not up to international standard?

Was looking for something else but came across this gem.

Right Red. Here is your original comment about Botha. No mention of chucking whatsoever.

How are you going to get out of this one?

Bowling with a pure action I think he'd struggle to compete. I notice he doesn't get near the test team. Who cares about a few T20s and ODIs!

This is what as I said in response to you dragging up this thread as you've no doubt noticed. Implicit in those comments is a reference to the fact that he's probably chucking.

Also some time ago (it was during one of the Aussie ODIs), a few of us alluded to his action. I commented that the Aussie commentators are dressing their remarks up in euphemisms, i.e. interesting, curious action. At the time, I said while Murali is allowed to bowl I don't have an issue with him bowling either. But make no mistake, a few of us have been referring to his dubious action for some time.

Let's move on lads.

Red wrote:Bowling with a pure action I think he'd struggle to compete. I notice he doesn't get near the test team. Who cares about a few T20s and ODIs!

This is what as I said in response to you dragging up this thread as you've no doubt noticed. Implicit in those comments is a reference to the fact that he's probably chucking.

Also some time ago (it was during one of the Aussie ODIs), a few of us alluded to his action. I commented that the Aussie commentators are dressing their remarks up in euphemisms, i.e. interesting, curious action. At the time, I said while Murali is allowed to bowl I don't have an issue with him bowling either. But make no mistake, a few of us have been referring to his dubious action for some time.

Red wrote:Much to taipan's chagrin.

So where exactly did this come from?

PeterCS wrote:Let's move on lads.

Pete, were you the C4Ed?

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:Bowling with a pure action I think he'd struggle to compete. I notice he doesn't get near the test team. Who cares about a few T20s and ODIs!

This is what as I said in response to you dragging up this thread as you've no doubt noticed. Implicit in those comments is a reference to the fact that he's probably chucking.

Also some time ago (it was during one of the Aussie ODIs), a few of us alluded to his action. I commented that the Aussie commentators are dressing their remarks up in euphemisms, i.e. interesting, curious action. At the time, I said while Murali is allowed to bowl I don't have an issue with him bowling either. But make no mistake, a few of us have been referring to his dubious action for some time.

Red wrote:Much to taipan's chagrin.

So where exactly did this come from?

It was in response to your disappointment at criticism of Botha. So much so that you had to resurrect an old thread. And you're defensive about him, a couple of times in match threads during this series you've rather sarcastically made a point about his good bowling as a veiled reference to comments in this thread about his international worth.

I agree with Peter though, time to move on!

IF you read my original post you will see I said I ran across it by accident.

Lets move on cos you got caught out talking shite again.

BTW I have always had my doubts about his action so please try and find the "chagrin" I showed.

taipan wrote:IF you read my original post you will see I said I ran across it by accident.

Lets move on cos you got caught out talking shite again.

BTW I have always had my doubts about his action so please try and find the "chagrin" I showed.

Sorry, but it is not proven I was taken shite. It's all subjective. Even Embee who hates me, agreed with my comments re. Botha on this occasion.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:IF you read my original post you will see I said I ran across it by accident.

Lets move on cos you got caught out talking shite again.

BTW I have always had my doubts about his action so please try and find the "chagrin" I showed.

Sorry, but it is not proven I was taken shite. It's all subjective. Even Embee who hates me, agreed with my comments re. Botha on this occasion.

That's debateable.

I was talking about me showing chagrin FFS.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:IF you read my original post you will see I said I ran across it by accident.

Lets move on cos you got caught out talking shite again.

BTW I have always had my doubts about his action so please try and find the "chagrin" I showed.

Sorry, but it is not proven I was taken shite. It's all subjective. Even Embee who hates me, agreed with my comments re. Botha on this occasion.

That's debateable.

I was talking about me showing chagrin FFS.

Which was a comment I made in another thread.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:IF you read my original post you will see I said I ran across it by accident.

Lets move on cos you got caught out talking shite again.

BTW I have always had my doubts about his action so please try and find the "chagrin" I showed.

Sorry, but it is not proven I was taken shite. It's all subjective. Even Embee who hates me, agreed with my comments re. Botha on this occasion.

That's debateable.

I was talking about me showing chagrin FFS.

Which was a comment I made in another thread.

Yes, and your comment in the other thread was that I had showed chagrin before.

So either show me where or STFU.

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Let's move on lads.

Pete, were you the C4Ed?

Naw, I just dont' see the point in getting on a mission and dragging up a three-month old thread ...

You know Red. E Basta.

PeterCS wrote:

taipan wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Let's move on lads.

Pete, were you the C4Ed?

Naw, I just dont' see the point in getting on a mission and dragging up a three-month old thread ...
You know Red. E Basta.

PMSL. You really take the proverbial biscuit

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:IF you read my original post you will see I said I ran across it by accident.

Lets move on cos you got caught out talking shite again.

BTW I have always had my doubts about his action so please try and find the "chagrin" I showed.

Sorry, but it is not proven I was taken shite. It's all subjective. Even Embee who hates me, agreed with my comments re. Botha on this occasion.

That's debateable.

I was talking about me showing chagrin FFS.

Which was a comment I made in another thread.

Yes, and your comment in the other thread was that I had showed chagrin before.

So either show me where or STFU.

FFS, I said in another thread, that you would be chagrined about the citing of Botha, given how often you've praised him throughout the series. And especially how often you've made veiled, at times snide remarks about his effectiveness and dragged up an old thread to try to prove your point about how you hold him in high regard. I could have mentioned in the last couple of match theads that he's been a little bit expensive but I didn't. I don't know why you're on your high horse so much about my use of the word chagrin regarding the fact that you'll be disappointed about someone who you seem to see as a most valuable cog in the SA ODI line-up now having his whole career under threat.

Red wrote:Much to taipan's chagrin a couple of us have mentioned his chucking lately.

Past tense DBB. You implied I had been chagrinned in the past.

You been on the piss?

Demelza wrote:
PMSL. You really take the proverbial biscuit

Only your biscuit, sweets, and unintentionally IMO. Past grudges show that you are, in nature, a grudge-bearer.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:Much to taipan's chagrin a couple of us have mentioned his chucking lately.

Past tense DBB. You implied I had been chagrinned in the past.

You been on the piss?

No, I'm not, and you've been chagrinned a lot in the past on this board. Many times, in lots of threads.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Demelza wrote:
PMSL. You really take the proverbial biscuit

Only your biscuit, sweets, and unintentionally IMO. Past grudges show that you are, in nature, a grudge-bearer.

Sorry Danny, but you come on here for an hour a day and pass judgement on things you have no idea about. Since I dared to say that about the cleft palate, Peter has been having digs. Now read the forum properly before you make personal attacks on my rationale.

Man alive.

And I am the one who is childishly hypersensitive, dictatorial, etc etc?

This is Alice through the looking glass in wonderland with Humpty-Dumpty.

Well you were pretty overbearing going on and on about Dylan.

FWIW, I was shooting the breeze at first. "Don't criticise what you can't understand" was a jokey-ironic quoting of one of Dylan's most famous lnes from hsi protest-1960s mode. (Should I have used a smiley to signal a jokey irony?)

But I do thnk Dylan has done some good songs, amidst a lot of potboiling and a fair bit of dross.

His voice is - as I tried to say - a matter of opinion. But in my opinion, I think when he's on song, it works.

And the "case" I made was for some of his better songs.

The trouble is - to take the example of my brother - it's quite common for people to fix a hard-and-fast opinion on Dylan pretty quickly, on the basis of threeor four songs they like, or hate. Especially if they hear the affectedly whiney stuff, precursor to punk and glam rock posing.

Like many artists (and artistes), and maybe more than most, Dylan contradicts himself. But "contains multitudes". He changes like a chameleon. Some of it is weak or worse. But by no means all of it, I think.

And that was the serious side of what I was saying.

Anyway, enough of that.

Is it that time, everywhere, or something?