|
::-:: *Random * Talking * on * TA* ::-:: (pg. 2130)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RJT |
Lol, there was one of those kinds of ladies at the bank today trying to cash one of those "fake" checks you get in the mail where if you cash it you enter into some absurd loan agreement or subscribe to cat fancy or some damn thing - anyway, after the bank manager explained to her several times that she couldn't just cash the check, her reply was priceless:
| quote: | Originally posted by this crazy old lady at the branch of my bank that's in the middle of a really ghetto part of Milwaukee
These folks is filled with so much trickery these days! |
:stongue:
She then basically proceeded to let everyone in line know that this was not the first time this had happened, and she was tired of "such trickery." |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Oh lawdy, dem folks is jus' sooo full-a-tricks an traps an- an... whatnot!
:stongue: |
|
|
| RJT |
I had to remember exactly what she said, so I sent text messages to like 4 people just so I'd have a record of the incident.
It made my trip to the bank take an extra fifteen to twenty minutes, but it was worth it all. |
|
|
| bas |
We're whalers on the moon, WE CARRY A HARPOON!
lulz |
|
|
| mezzir |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
We're whalers on the moon, WE CARRY A HARPOON!
lulz |
, whats that from? |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by mezzir
, whats that from? |
(10:03:59 PM) Bassel: it's the episode where fry went to the moon for the first time
(10:04:09 PM) Bassel: and the animatronic whalers were singing lol
(10:04:11 PM) Jake: oh yea
(10:04:12 PM) Jake: lol
(10:04:12 PM) Bassel: we're whalers on the moon
(10:04:15 PM) Bassel: we carry a harpoon
(10:04:27 PM) Bassel: "turn the radio on" *click* "we're whalers on the moon" *click*
(10:05:00 PM) Jake: lulz
(10:05:06 PM) Bassel: best part "c'mon amy it's just like making love...you know, up, down, down, right, left, engage rotor"
(10:05:12 PM) Bassel: "i know how to make love :@"
(10:05:18 PM) Jake: god i love that show
(10:05:31 PM) Bassel: meet my robotic daughters
(10:05:39 PM) Bassel: lulu 7x
(10:05:43 PM) Bassel: anabelle xy13
(10:05:48 PM) Bassel: and the crushinator |
|
|
| Ian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
haha, grossssssssssssss.
Yet hot.
//that's my fetish, btw:
wanking in women's hats then excavating nearby small mammals to make temporary domiciles out of them. |
that's the best diet yet. I'm not hungry at all! |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
Mr Ian,
From an overseas perspective, whats your take on the 'issues' happening over here with the cricket tour? |
|
|
| Ian |
Mr Ben
I dunno. I read a very good article on it the other day though which is probably better worded than what i could do. I don't think Harbajhan said it though, from the aus perspective he's causing problems so it's got him out of the way, i honestly dunno if it was planned or not, but to quote the story i read
| quote: | Andrew Symonds turned in disgust and threw darts with his eyes at Steve Bucknor. Mahendra Singh Dhoni had not played a shot to Symonds' offspin and the bowler was furious even though the ball was heading over the stumps. After the umpiring perks Symonds received during the match he had nothing to complain about.
On the last ball before tea it was Ricky Ponting who could not understand why Bucknor did not agree with a similar appeal against Rahul Dravid. Ponting crouched down and muttered as if nothing ever went his team's way. In this Test, from the moment Ponting's legside edge on day one went unnoticed by Mark Benson, almost everything did.
Symonds was the most fortunate man in the game. Following his batting reprieves, he was at the centre of another crucial decision that went against India and led to them losing the match. Poor Dravid, who battled to 38, was providing a formidable obstacle when he pushed his pad forward to Symonds and hid his bat and gloves behind his front leg. A sound was heard, Adam Gilchrist caught the ball, the Australians yelled and India's comfortable position of 3 for 115 was soon to be 6 for 137.
Bucknor was swayed in a ruling that was as bad as his miss of Symonds in the first innings. Listening to the edges has obviously become more difficult, but soon a fine servant may actually hear the calls for his retirement. The decisions contributed to India losing the Test, but the visiting players shook the hands of both officials after the match. While they took their caps off and lined up, the Australians danced, jumped and whooped in a manner that would have reminded the Indians of their World Twenty20 celebrations.
The noise of Symonds' nick on 31 was so loud it could have carried to the shoppers in nearby Oxford Street. Bucknor's decision cost India 131 runs and he also refused to call for the third umpire during a close stumping when Symonds was 148. Two days later Anil Kumble missed a hat-trick when Bucknor judged a wrong'un to be going over the stumps when Symonds pushed forward. He went on to score another 61.
Most Australian players believe luck evens itself out over a career, but their long-sightedness is not shared by visiting teams. Bob Woolmer reckoned Australia received almost six times more line-ball decisions than Pakistan during the 2004-05 series, and while it sounded like an exaggeration, the benefit of the doubt favours the home team in Australia and around the world
Umpires must feel like frontline soldiers on the final days of the Tests. Fielders crowd round the batsmen and they are shouted at every couple of balls over fantasy and non-fiction. Every country has its ways of pushing the rules and one of Australia's traditional pet hates was the amount of appealing conducted by teams from the subcontinent.
Shane Warne helped alter that view and on the final day his former team-mates were expert at trying to influence the officials with shouts at all volumes. (Despite the consistent requests, none was as ridiculous as Kumble's plea for an lbw of Brad Hogg in the first innings when the ball was struck through cover for two.) Benson was so worn down late in the afternoon that he sent a run-out call to the third umpire even though the batsman was in by a metre.
"Both arguments are about telling the truth. Why should Clarke be trusted to rule on a potentially match-turning catch when he stayed at the crease on day four after edging a ball to first slip?"
In the same session he had to deal with Michael Clarke's low catch off Sourav Ganguly, who stood with hand on hip as he waited for a decision. Of course the Australians raced to the fielder and swamped him. They were certain it was out, but Benson wasn't sure. He looked to Bucknor at square leg and then walked down the pitch and asked Ponting what he thought. "He caught it," Ponting seemed to say and put his finger up. Benson did the same.
Fortunately for Ponting, who gained credibility for the decision by refusing to accept a low catch in the first innings, the replays did not show the ball falling short. Typically, they also could not clear all doubt from the take. Ponting's noble request for all teams to have an honesty system for these incidents has been rejected by the rest of the world - he had a small victory before this series when Kumble agreed the captains would have the final say on contentious catches - and they must have squirmed when they saw Ponting relaying the message to the umpire.
Australians see catching differently to appealing and walking. They say it's up to the umpire to decide on edges and lbws, but when it comes to knowing whether a ball has carried, the fielder is the best person to judge. What they miss is that both arguments are about telling the truth. Why should Clarke be trusted to rule on a potentially match-turning catch when he stayed at the crease on day four after edging a ball to first slip?
One of Gilchrist's finest traits is he walks whenever he gets an edge, and claims to appeal only if he's sure the batsman has got a nick. Apart from Dravid, Gilchrist was the best-positioned player to know what Symonds' delivery had touched. It was definitely not bat or glove. Gilchrist also did not see the puff of dust from the ball bouncing after Dhoni hit it into his leg before ricocheting back to the wicketkeeper, who appealed with his team-mates for a catch. It was an easy decision for Bruce Oxenford, the television umpire.
Under Steve Waugh the Australians devised a Spirit of Cricket document that they swear by. They insist they play the game "hard and fair" and are shocked whenever their outlook is challenged. After emotional days like this it is hard to sympathise with their complaints. |
btw. my dad knows the english umpire & says he's :p in the world cup he didn't have a clue what some laws were which even 2nd grade umpires like my dad (upto county 2nd XIs) know |
|
|
| idoru |
Woke up randomly at 3:30 this morning (3:43 now). It's snowing outside, quite a bit more than I figured it would after seeing the weather predictions. Sweeeeeet. 
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to face plant into my pillow. |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
I think thats the article by Peter English, but whatever yeah I've read that one too.
However, no cricketer (with the exception of Gilly) walks if they've put a nick behind. Not one. I watched Graham Smith in the recent test agianst the Windies absolutely belt the cover off the ball and stand and stare at the umpire, it was one of the biggest nicks in the history of the game. No player will walk, no Indian, no Aussie, no South African, no Englisher. Whether or not a player will walk is a non-issue.
However I still believe that if a fielder says "yes I'm sure i got my hands under the ball" in a catch we should believe them. That is the spirit of cricket, trust between gentlemen, but the Indians refuse to take Clarke's word. Lets not forget that video replays are usually house on adjucating catches, and the fielder's reputation is on the line in what they say because if they do get shown to be wrong they're going to look a real goose (after all they don't know what a replay will show when they make the call on the field). But the Indians then turn around and claim that the Aussies aren't playing by the spirit of cricket. Theres a lot of hypocrisy in what they are saying, and thats not the only example.
Another one
Spirit of cricket - the umpire's decision is respected. But the Indians are saying they won't continue with the tour if Harbajan is banned.
Indians saying the Aussie team is arrogant - well which of the teams is dictating to the ICC on how the game should be run?
They call us cry babies, yet what is occurring with Harbajan? They're crying that they'll take their bat and ball and go home.
They also claim that the Aussies can't take sledging back at them, but theres quite a fat line between sledging and racist remarks, and they'd be the first to jump up and down if one of ours made a racist comment to them.
Huge amounts of hypocrisy. What they are saying isn't necessarily incorrect, but its definitely the pot calling the kettle black.
Having said that,
the umpiring in both tests so far was woeful and I completely understand their frustrations with it, I'd be pretty annoyed too, in fact I am - remember there were several decisions against Australia too, and as a cricket purist first and foremost i don't want to see any side get disadvantaged through incompetent umpiring. And I completely support what the Indians are saying about the umpiring.
Bucknor's well past it, I think his performance at the World Cup Final proved that. I have no problems whatsoever with the Indians saying they hsould be replaced, indeed they should. Bucknor needs to go completely, a couple of years ago he was good but no more. Part of the problem is though that theres just not enough umps on the Elite panel, double the number of umpires, reduce their workload and the standards will increase dramatically.
Now, my analysis of the situation, it should never have gotten this far, I don't doubt that Harbajan did call Symonds a "monkey", but i seriously doubt there was malice/racism behind it. What it was was a ing stupid thing to say considering the crap that went on when we were over there in November with the entire crowds making monkey gestures and sounds at Symonds, and I do think that there was racism in that instance. What should have happened is at worst a suspended sentence for making a comment that could have been considered racist, but probably wasn't. Should Australia have complained? Well yes, if they think there was a racist remark made they should absolutely report it 100% of the time, just like anyone else would. Now you're from Europe so you should understand the implications of calling a black player a monkey, I understand it was a major major problem a few years back in Soccer, Spain if my memory serves me correctly.
What disgusts me is the Indian management say "no, there is no racism in India". Thats bull, and the sad thing is it will continue until they face up to it and try to sort it out. Thats what our board did a few years back, they realised there was a massive problem and they tried to stamp it out, and it has improved. Just because they are Indian doesn't mean theres not racism there. Sad truth.
by the way I'm not going to say that Australia's the victim here, we're just as responsible for the mess that has transpired. What should have happened is Ricky and Anil met and talked it out, or even Ricky sorted it out on field with Harbajan to find out if there was any malice in what he said. If there wasn't it shouldn't have been reported. An over-reaction on Australia's part. Whats more with no evidence apart from what Harby and Symonds said I don't think the ICC were in a position to suspend Harbajan.
btw, Harbajan has taken 7 wickets this series, 0, 3, 2, 2, so its not like he's been a destroyer.
So, both sides have been responsible for the mess we're in because the Indians aren't the innocent victims they are trying to claim, but the ICC have made yet another monumental blunder in their handling of this. Poor showing all round.
And in a return to usual programming, South Australia just got handed another schellacking, this time in 20/20. A few days ago they got beaten by 57 balls, tonight bowled out for 97. |
|
|
| Ian |
lol mate. i just got back from shopping.
There is racism in india yeah, but i dont think the team themselves are. they get on pretty well with the english, most of their problems are vs pakistan.
and SA suck :p luckily we have 3 months of Jayawardene as our overseas player next season. I am soooo looking forward to seeing a guy who i rate in the top 5 of current age batsmen with ponting, pietersen, sangakkara, tendulkar and Dravid |
|
|
|
|
