2019 World Cup draw released

Discussion in 'Cricket' started by undertaker, Apr 30, 2018.

  1. undertaker

    undertaker First Grade

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    8,945
    Likes Received:
    501
    [​IMG]

    So, Australia's draw:


    v Afghanistan at Bristol, June 1 (D/N)

    v West Indies at Trent Bridge, June 6

    v India at The Oval, June 9

    v Pakistan at Taunton, June 12

    v Sri Lanka at The Oval, June 15

    v Bangladesh at Trent Bridge, June 20

    v England at Lord's, June 25

    v New Zealand at Lord's, June 29 (D/N)

    v South Africa at Old Trafford, July 6 (D/N)
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2018
    TheParraboy likes this.
  2. undertaker

    undertaker First Grade

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    8,945
    Likes Received:
    501
    As I've said in another thread, not happy about the fact this and the 2023 World Cups are only going to be 10 teams.

    This was purely a case of the ICC bowing down to Star Sports demand for a 10 team World Cup, thus ensuring India got a guaranteed 9 games and hence more ad revenue. The 2015 World Cup was initially going to be reduced from 14 to 10 teams, but luckily enough outcry from the associate nations kept it at 14. TV networks trying to dick around with the schedule, sounds familiar to what NRL fans have endured from Channel 9. There has been chopping and changing of the tournament format ever since India and Pakistan got eliminated during the group stage of the 2007 World Cup. Have to wait until 2027 when the current 2015-23 tv rights deal is finished.

    Anyways to the draw:

    - 7 day/night matches

    A joke that the ICC made grounds such as Headingley install floodlights so they could be eligible to host day/night matches for the tournament, and they don't get any in the end. Should've just had all games as day matches as it can get chilly during June, especially in the north of England.

    - With a full round-robin tournament, semi finals should've been scrapped with the top 2 making the final at Lord's.

    - Unless the ICC uses the white Dukes ball or pitches have a bit of grass put on them, bowlers will be on a hiding to nothing and team batting first will score 300+ more than 50% of the time.

    - Based on their current form, Australia will have a challenge on their hands to make the finals (for the first time since the 1992 World Cup, which was also a round-robin format)
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2018
    TheParraboy likes this.
  3. TheParraboy

    TheParraboy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    42,091
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    We pick the right squad we will go alright

    Be interesting if Smith and Warner will be there, they will by pass our aussie summer and probably wont have much ODI prior the WC.

    Hopefully by then guys like Finch, Short, Head and Lynn are killing in the side so probably no need for them
     
  4. undertaker

    undertaker First Grade

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    8,945
    Likes Received:
    501
    I'm not sure if Smith/Warner will be in the WC squad, given they will be restricted to grade cricket. I think the WC squad will be announced before their 12 month suspensions are over.

    Also another factor is form. If Australia does perform well in the ODI series vs South Africa and India, I wouldn't be surprised to see both excluded from the squad. If they get crushed, they'll both be rushed back in.
     
    TheParraboy and ANTiLAG like this.
  5. ANTiLAG

    ANTiLAG First Grade

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,854
    Likes Received:
    332

    Hey Undertaker, I'm Antilag and I'm not the most popular guy on this forum. And chances are I am about to add you to the list of people not fond of me.

    But stuff it.

    Star Sport India to blame? Oh c'mon. Get your facts straight. Every world cup match involving India is broadcast on free to air tv in India by Government order. As to are the finals I think. With or without India. So the only interest Star Sport India has to limit the number of teams is to increase the number of quality games not involving India to attract a wider audience. This is the same goal of every broadcaster in the business. Because, surprise oh surprise, it is what most viewers, like me, or Indian Star Sport subscribers want. Demand and supply. I don't want to watch Ireland and Scotland get repeatedly thrashed. I don't care if Kenya managed a few surprise wins in the past neither. Where are they now? I really do not want to watch UAE play Ireland. And I do not care how many balls Glen Maxwell scored his double hundred in playing against either. And while Irelands wins over England were amusing, they were never in contention to win a World Cup.

    Star Sports India is controlled by Uncle Rupert. An Australian. Yes - he is the one making the most money out of the typical Indian obsession with cricket. He got in early, being the highly intelligent man that he is, so really it is an Australian individual, or family, that you should be upset with.

    All broadcasters want is people watching. Watching ads or paying subscription fees. By limiting the teams, they have cut the slack. Who missed out who is any good? Zimbabwe. That is it. And they hosted the series that saw WI and Afghanistan qualify. Lets face it, they had a damn good chance at it.

    So blame Uncle Rupert, blame the global viewers, but do not make out like if there wasn't a buck more to be made for the ICC to give to the poor non Big 3 (NZ, SA, WI, Afg, SL, Pak, Ban, Ire, Zim) and anyone outside Aus, Eng and Ind, that it wouldn't have taken it. This is solely a decision about what brings in the most revenue, and speaking as a Non Big 3 fan in NZ, we need the funds. All non big 3 countries desperately need the funds.

    Blaming the Indian Pay tv audience viewing habits is a challenge on market economics. I hope you realise this for your future arguments.

    The BCCI has many faults. But lets not blame pay Indian tv subscribers who do the most ultimately to fund funding cricket globally. Including nations not at the World Cup. NZ, SA, WI, SL, anyone not Australian, English or Indian, we need that ICC cheque and we need India to tour for that Star Sports India rupee.

    Now unless you want CA to make up the shortfall, why complain? The primary purpose of ICC events is to fund cricket globally.

    It is a revenue generating exercise. And in NZ, SA, SL WI, ZIM, IRE, AFG, Ban, et al - we need the funds to try and compete with the Big 3 better.

    Call me selfish. Call me Anti-Celtic. But I will not spend my money on Pay tv, which is the only way to watch cricket in NZ, to watch Scotland play Ireland. I'd rather pay for Wrestlemania. And I much prefer cricket. And my name is like John Smith in Glasgow.

    Blaming Star Sports India is myopic. Rupert wants money. He will give the Indian subscribers what they want. And to insult them for paying for games they don't want? That's like insulting someone for not giving to charity. Which is what these cricket boards were ultimately set up as.

    So what is the greater good? And is the lesser good that ultimately prevailed worth jeering at? And is it national issue, when all Australian Pay TV subscribers had to do was bid more to have 14 teams?

    It is high time the Anglo world worked with the Indian pay tv audience, and got used to the market. Instead of blaming it for everything wrong with cricket today. Pakinstan cricket fans, well that is a different kettle of fish to be resolved.

    The BCCI is not without fault in World Cricket issues. But the Indian Pay TV subscriber, how on earth can you blame them? They still earn less than the average Pay TV subscirber in Australia. And Rupert has more control than any one of them.

    Star Sports India rant over.

    7 day/night games only? Doesn't that favour tv audiences in Austrlalia? Isn't the first half of a day game pretty good for you tv audience in the evening? Or would you prefer sneaking on to cricinfo at start of work the next day to find out the winner not having seen a single ball bowled unless you turned on the tv briefly while you ate your Wheet Bix?

    Again -this is for for the global tv audience.

    England has used the white kookaburra for some time, and Australian bowlers are hardling swinging the Duke like Anderson, Boult and Philander or Rabada. It favours Australian the pace bowlers. And certainly favours Australian batsmen who have not conqured Duke ball swing in England since the 2001 Ashes. Lest we forget.

    Every World Cup has had semi finals - why change now? NZ would love a do over and play England in the 1992 WC final at Melbourne. But Pakistan beat us fairly and Inzaman Ul Haq squarely in the semi final in 1992.

    And finally - a higher quality round round helps ensures that the best four teams from pool play make the semi finals. And not Kenya. The 92 Australian side underperformed. They lost 4 from 8. That is hardly a reason to hate the format. Try winning more pool games, in which every contestant faces the same opposition, instead of an easy pool wherein a difficult pool England misses out due to losing one game to Ireland.

    If NZ isn't in the top 4 after playing all other 9 teams once. So be it. Win five games or perish. A side only has to beat Ban, Afg, and WI plus 2 of the rest to qualify. With SL, India, and Pak in the rest, even if losing to Eng, Aus and SA, those seem like good odds. it is 40% of the contenders! You can be damn sure there will be intense scrutiny over runs rates for the fourth position. And those are always fun to add a dynamic to games within games.

    5 out of 9 to qualify? If Australia only win 4 out of 9 and miss qualifying cos too many Asian teams beat them in England - are you really upset with the format? Or your team?

    I think the format is great. And I still ain't that interested in watching SL Afg (batting anyway) WI or Ban play all the neutrals. Unexpected upsets excluded. So really, it is a 4/6 shootout as regards the bookies.

    NZ, SA, Aus, Eng, Pak, Ind are the favourites to make the semis.

    Surely as an Australian fan, you feel confident beating at least 2 of those teams in 5 games? And if not, does your team deserve to make the finals?
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2018
  6. ANTiLAG

    ANTiLAG First Grade

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,854
    Likes Received:
    332
    Agreed.
     
  7. Twizzle

    Twizzle Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    131,438
    Likes Received:
    2,564
    gonna be a big call on Smith and Warner, our 2 best batsmen
     
  8. vvvrulz

    vvvrulz Coach

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,328
    Likes Received:
    894
    Your constant minnow bashing is justified for the likes of UAE, but short sighted for the likes of present day Zimbabwe and Ireland.

    Your notion of 'competitive big teams' is a misnomer, many big fish get repeatedly humped in every World Cup in completely one-sided contests. The West Indies for example have not been a threat since 1996, and even in that edition they lost to Kenya - do we start excluding them too? The entire 2007 cup was absolutely full of no-contests, most quarter finalists in both 2011 and 2015 got dicked; you can't just assume that creating an exclusive big boys club will change any of that.

    Including teams in the Ireland and Zimbabwe bracket won't make a difference to the number of thrashings, and they will in fact enhance the overall experience. You say Ireland were never in contention for 2017 cup, well neither were England, the Windies, Bangladesh and to a lesser degree Pakistan. That was always a 3-4 horse race and it generally always is, 2007 was a one horse race.

    Your double hundreds argument also makes no sense, as all ODI doubles to date have been against 'top' sides bar Zimbabwe.

    You have to persist with expansion to get a FIFA World Cup, be grateful cricket has a nice middle ground between that and Rugby WCs.
     
  9. ANTiLAG

    ANTiLAG First Grade

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,854
    Likes Received:
    332

    I am not a minnow basher. I have thoroughly enjoyed the rise of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and before them Sri Lanka. And all three of these teams will be at the World Cup. Because they qualified. And Zimbabwe had their chance by hosting the qualifiers to qualify. They missed out. And the West Indies were forced due to ranking below Bangladesh to go to the qualifying tournament and make the final to qualify. And they did. The West Indies also missed the last Champions Trophy. So the ICC is prepared to leave them out of events if they do not improve by winning their entry.

    I'm sorry you have as much faith in teams outside the 3 to 4 horse race, Aus, SA, Eng and Ind perhaps, (and if not, why not) that you think NZ, Pak, SL, and Bang will get thrashed as much Zimbabwe or Ireland would have. But I beg to differ. A top 10 means there are less weaker teams than a top 12. So less weaker teams to get thrashed. I agree that big teams regularly thrash each other, and sometimes suffer a dip in form, but their winning record overall indicates how often this happens. No result is absolutely guaranteed. That is the drama of live sport. But the teams are ranked on their recent record for the past 4 years, which in May drops to 3 years. The higher the ranking, typically the less a team loses, and in the rare cases where not, the more highly ranked teams they've beaten for greater points.

    Unlike Zimbabwe and Ireland, NZ is a regular semifinalist at World Cups, finalist at the last. Pakistan and Sri Lanka have won one. Pakistan just won the ICC Champions Trophy last year when not expected to do well. And Bangladesh gave NZ a nice little paddling at the Champions Trophy last year. NZ sent a B team to Ireland before the tournament, and thrashed Ireland. Bangladesh beat them too. NZ lost a game to Bangladesh.

    Yes 2007 was one horce race, as would 1983 had been if Kapil Dev hadn't taken a great catch, or 1996 have been if Aravinda didn't score a great hundred.

    Lol. And Maxwell has never hit an ODI double hundred. But you observe Zimbabwe as an exception, so it made enough sense to you. Even if you called WI a top side to make it.

    Okay, I genuinely do not understand what you're trying to say here. I get that you're comparing three world cups, that all have qualifiers, and teams miss out on. You're trying to say cricket is in a middle ground that I should be grateful for, but I do not understand why I have to persist with expansion to get FIFA World Cup? What are you trying to say here? All these touranments have qualifiers and teams that miss out.

    I am grateful that the ICC World Cup significantly funds NZC. SA cric, Pak Cric, SL Cric, Bang Cric, WI cric, Afg cric, and even Zim Cric and and Ire Cric. Because these associations need the money to compete with the big 3. The ICC events significantly help bankroll every one in cricket outside the Aus, Inda and Eng. There are now 12 test teams, 18 t20i teams, so cricket is growing. And weren't there like 10 teams at the qualifying tournament playing ODI's outside of the top 8? A top 8 and 2 qualifiers, that is fair enough to see Afg qualify. If Zim and Ire get strong in the future, expand it. But if they stagnate and continue to get thrashed at home, why have them at a world cup?

    I am happy for the ICC to make the decision based on broadcast revenue. Test cricket needs it. Cricket Boards need it. And I think that cricket world cup will be a better spectacle with more high quality games, than dividing the teams into two pools, and not having the the top 4 ranked teams only playing 1 game each against themselves until the quarter finals (or semi finals if things goto form like you suggest that they so often do). Now they play 3 games each before the semi finals. And then play again. So even if your 4 team theory is right, you now get more games between the top 4. More high quality cricket.

    But hey - continue to complain about how you wanted to watch Zimbabwe or Ireland play and how I and the rest of of the tv viewing audience that don't should pay for your luxury.
    Most cricket fans don't. The market matters. Cricket fans all over the world are the source of revenue for the ICC. As a Pay TV subscriber, I'm happy for them to receive funding from the ICC, and invest that they may be better in the future.

    WCgamesmatter? WhereisKenyanow? Below Afg, Scotland, Ireland, UAE, Netherlands, Nepal, (these are all ODI nations) PNG, Hong Kong, (just lost ODI status) , Canada, Namibia, and after losing 0-5 in the Feb ICC Affiliate tournament, they are now in Division 3 set to play Oman, Singapore, and the USA.

    The World Cup broadcast sales fund these ICC Associate and Affiliate tournaments. The money is needed. Cricketing nations are provided a pathway to rise within the ICC and progress the quality of their opposition. And maybe we see the rise of someone else to being the next SL, Bang, Afg or even better. But hey - call me a minnow basher.

    Either way, Star Sports India and the rest of the global broadcasters aint to blame to paying the ICC more for a tournament with mobre games between then top 4, 8 or even 10 teams that its viewers are more keen on watching and paying to watch, be it subscription fees or even advertisements than a split division would have with 12 teams or more. It is supply and demand of the tv market.

    And I don't blame the ICC for taking the money. The game of cricket globally needs the money. This is how the ICC earns its revenue. To significantly fund all cricketing countries outside Aus, Eng, and Ind (who still take proceeds). Be they strong like SA, medium like NZ, or minnows like Afg, Nepal, Oman, and test nations Ireland and Zimbabwe, well they'll get a nice cheque depsite not playing.

    Zimbabwe players may have missed out on the World Cup, but their board got $94,000,000.00.
    Not bad for not playing. That will buy a few sets of stumps. The Associates got $240,000,000.00 of which Ireland will cash in from (with Afg). Zimbabwe and Ireland have both been well looked after by the ICC in my opinion with funding and test status.

    Now if you're unhappy with the fiscal realities of the ICC world - and looking for someone to blame for the TV market mattering so much that the ICC gives sway to what the tv market wants - the BCCI took $405m, EWCB took $139m, and the rest of the test nations took 128m. This is an 8 year cycle, not annual.

    https://www.livemint.com/Sports/Jcv...illion-revenue-from-ICC-England-next-at-.html

    This is after things like the U19 World Cups (although this might be getting to profitability levels in the future as its popularity and broadcasting grows) and Associate/Affiliate tournament expenses are met by the ICC. After it trains cricket leaders in 104 countries. $5.4m in Associate grants this year alone. And $75m into European Asssociates in the last 10 years. https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/638104

    So you really think that me encouraging this expenditure is short sighted and minnow bashing at the expense of Zimbabwe not playing at a World Cup? Global cricket, outside the Big 3, desperately need the money.
    I want minnows playing and getting better. But I have less inclination as a tv viewer to pay to watch, let alone watch for free, non top 10 teams play until they have; but I have no issue with them getting some proceeds from the top cricket that I will happily pay to watch provided by the ICC so that they do get better. And I am happy that this also significantly helps the non Big 3 teams be more competitive and have more funding.

    You however, either want global cricket to have less money to let weak teams play in a World Cup that they missed out on qualifying for by calling contrary opinion as being short sighted, and want to tell Pay tv viewers or even free to air with commercials viewers what cricket they should want to watch else call them minnow bashers.

    Look on the bright side, Afg is there, and they have a game against all the top nations to produce an upset, and with R Khan, Mujeeb, Nabi and Shezhad, they may just do more than one.
    But they earned their place by beating Ireland, Zimbabwe, and the West Indies for that matter. And they already have global cricket stars that I want to watch.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  10. vvvrulz

    vvvrulz Coach

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,328
    Likes Received:
    894
    You know, I'm sure somewhere in that incoherent babble you're almost making a valid point or two.

    But you're making your usual mistakes of drowning it in random unrelated facts, crazy tangents, twisting the original point as you see fit, and your flavour-of-the-month crusades (currently it's your obsession with India's piggy bank).

    Less is more mate.
     
    Storm13 and Timbo like this.
  11. ANTiLAG

    ANTiLAG First Grade

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,854
    Likes Received:
    332
    But I suspect you read my reply post and understood it well enough. Have the sufficeint detalis left you no wriggle room? Is this why you now think it sage just to insult and patronise me in changing the subject to me instead of discussing the ICC World Cup; more or less, mate?

    I mean if you want to stay on topic that you were so keen to join in on and enthusistically call me short sighted and minnow bashing, I'm more than happy to oblige you here. But if you just want to discuss me, you'll have to wine and dine me.

    It seemed to me that you formed an opinion from a position of ignorance. I thought you would be much better off learning about the ICC structure and how cricket financially operates, before determining what is short sighted, and what is not. I put the main points in bold for you. The rest is there just in case you wanted to argue against it. But if you don't understand that ranked and qualified top 10 participation will narrow the margins between team's abilities more than a top 12 or 14, perhaps you just like being illogical (unless you were to claim that the rankings and qualifiers are wholly inaccurate). Ditto for one pool of the top 10 producing more games between top ten ranked nations, than two pools with 12 or 14 teams. I mean this really is simple math. The global tv audience gets it. They'll even pay more money or sit through advertisements to watch it. But hey - call it a misnomer, and talk about the 2007 World Cup only having one team in it to win it. Like that even matters.

    The Cricket World Cup is the single biggest revenue generator of the ICC. And that money is needed for cricket globally to grow and maintain. And if the ICC doesn't maximise its revenue generation from these events, that is being short sighted for all cricket nations outside of England, India and Australia. Every single cricket board elsewhere, whether their teams participates in the World Cup or not, desperately needs this (and more) money so as to remain or get competitive. And to decrease this funding, is the worst type of minnow bashing. Because minnows are not just Zimbabwe or Ireland struggling on the cricket field right now, its not just Afghanistan creating a fledgling infrastructure. South African Cricket, for example, is a financial minnow. Just how many South African player 'retirements' to go play in England, (Abbott, M Morkel, Wiese, Roussow) does it take for you to understand this? Joffra Archer would rather do a 7 year stand down so as to play in and for England than play for the West Indies. This really isn't ideal for international cricket. If the ICC does not maximise its revenue, this is the worst minnow bashing there is. Because it just increases the significance of the financial gap between Australia, England and India from the rest of the entire cricketing world including known minnows like Zimbabwe, Ireland, but the financial minnows too like Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka and New Zealand and stalls further international growth into developing further strong cricketing nations. But Ireland and Zimbabwe still get paid by the ICC despite not playing in the World Cup. So they have a better chance at developing and retaining some better cricketers in their nation than they would with less money. And while their players may miss out on the World Cup matches this time, they have more money now for funding more games at home or even touring so as to be prepare for the next World Cup, or even spend on test cricket if they so wish.

    It isn't like Kenya's World Cup participation served them much good as they now have lost odi status and ranked down below 20. Nor East Africa. Nor Netherlands. Nor Bermuda. Nor Canada. Who have all found themselves now ranked below the UAE despite playing in World Cups before them. I think Zimbabwean and Irish cricket can survive better missing a world cup but with a nice big cheque than participating and having less money. And I'm sure that the rest of the cricketing world outside England, Australia and India needs the extra money too.

    Anyway this post of yours above, is just full of weak and pathetic ad hominem. And I still don't understand your comment about the Fifa World Cup?

    Was that:
    a) incoherent babble?
    b) drowing in an unrelated fact?
    c) a crazy tangent?
    d) twisting the original point?
    e) some crusade of yours?
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2018
  12. JJ

    JJ Referee

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    24,355
    Likes Received:
    1,453
  13. vvvrulz

    vvvrulz Coach

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,328
    Likes Received:
    894
    Er... no.

    Honestly I felt your post was cumbersome to read and I outlined the problems with it.
    Just my opinion, you don't have to agree.
    Your opinion, as mine, are not facts.

    And I'm not playing post ping-pong for hours explaining why. It's done.
     
  14. ANTiLAG

    ANTiLAG First Grade

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,854
    Likes Received:
    332
    So this is two reply posts from you now, and yet you still you offer nothing at all on the topic of the ICC World Cup that you were initially so keen to enthusiastically jump in on and call me short sighted and a minnow basher.

    Is this common behaviour for you?
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2018
  15. vvvrulz

    vvvrulz Coach

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,328
    Likes Received:
    894
    Nothing else to offer that's worth talking about; made my point and so did you.
     
  16. ANTiLAG

    ANTiLAG First Grade

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,854
    Likes Received:
    332
    You didn't make a point. You simply made an assertion that Ireland and Zimbabwe missing the World Cup was short sighted.

    You did not explain why with good reason - which if you had, would be a point.

    Read your post again, perhaps you forgot to say why. But there's nothing in there saying why not having Ireland or Zimbabwe at the World Cup is shortsighted. Just a further assertion that they would enhance the "overall experience" - for whom - I have no idea. But presumably not the global tv audience that hasn't demanded it? And how will Ireland and Zimbabwe enhance this experience over the current listed format?

    And I still have no idea what you were trying to say about the Fifa World Cup - nor what it has to do with the Cricket World Cup?

    I would appreciate it if you're going to call me short sighted on my view or Ireland and Zimbabwe missing the Cup and a minnow basher, that instead of saying you're entitled to a differing opinion to mine, that you actually reason your opinion out. By all means even throw in some facts if you like. Make your point.

    Persuade me it is better for cricket globally with less money everywhere including Ireland and Zimbabwe, and less top ten games in the World Cup, but having Ireland and Zimbabwe in the World Cup as the weakest teams with two pools (and not the stronger Afghanistan and West Indies in one where all nations are scheduled to play each other at least once).

    At the last World Cup, finalist Australia never got to play South Africa, and finalist NZ never got to play India or Pakistan, these non Antipodean-nations played Ireland and Zimbabwe instead. How and for who does this enhance the World Cup experience for? And is it worth the lost profits?

    Or would you add 21 more pool games to the existing 45 and feature Ireland and Zimbabwe into one pool? And drag the tournament out longer? Is this worth the lost profits?
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2018
  17. Bazal

    Bazal Post Whore

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    57,426
    Likes Received:
    8,182
    Can we have a specific thread that we move all AntiLag's shit into please @Twizzle ?

    FFS...
     
  18. ANTiLAG

    ANTiLAG First Grade

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,854
    Likes Received:
    332
    You may as well just ask him to ban me then.

    What are you, some wimp who can't handle reasoned disagreement? Are you too sensitive and too delicate a flower so as to debate your own point of view? Where are you from - China?

    I don't always agree with you or many more posters here. Suck it up. Asking for personal moderation and exception sounds pathetic and weak to me. But I am not used to your one party rule in China.

    Bazal - I don't agree with nor persuaded by everything you say.

    Now if you're offended by that - that is your problem. Not mine. And I don't care if your grandfather was Mao Tse Tung.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2018
  19. Bazal

    Bazal Post Whore

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    57,426
    Likes Received:
    8,182
    If you call the walls of tripe you write reasoned disagreement then you've got bigger issues than I thought lol

    You simply post enough complete shit that people give up, and then claim victory
     
  20. ANTiLAG

    ANTiLAG First Grade

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    7,854
    Likes Received:
    332
    Oh another post solely dedicated to insulting me. How cute.

    Bazal - I don't always agree with you, nor persuaded by you. Deal with it without going on the ad hominem offensive posting like you're sending tanks into Tienanmen Square.

    You're not in China now.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2018

Share This Page