Jump to content

Tibarn

Members L2
  • Content count

    2,383
  • Runs

    95,210 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    49d 16h 46m 32s

Everything posted by Tibarn

  1. INDIA vs AUSTRALIA | 4th ODI | Bengaluru | Sep 28 2017

    Misfielding continues
  2. INDIA vs AUSTRALIA | 4th ODI | Bengaluru | Sep 28 2017

    3rd wicket for Yadav
  3. England name Test squad for Ashes tour

    All eyes are on Jimmy Anderson this series. Similar to how the last time the Ashes happened in Australia, a poor performance can retire some of the older English players. He has a bowling average of 38 and a bowling strike rate of 70 there. If he has a bad series there, there may be pressure to axe him.
  4. Saw this on another forum... https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/floor-hasnt-fallen-through-dont-go-by-feel-economic-data-call-for-measured-rather-than-precipitate-action/
  5. I think it's safe to say that Dhoni is keeper until 2019, barring a ridiculous drop in form. Pant seems to be sidelined at least until after 2019. I don't think Pant will get much experience unless Dhoni is rested against weaker teams. What are the chances that he plays as a pure batsman?
  6. ICC New rules from Sep 28th

    I would like to see the ICC consider allowing teams to play specialist fielders, maybe 1 or 2 at most though. I can't believe the BCCI hasn't pushed for a return to the single new ball in ODIs...
  7. Some Gujjus say snake instead of snack, so if one says "I would like to eat some snacks." It sounds like "I would like to eat some snakes."
  8. Look at this toyger meowing I called it, didn't I ? Not a single reference He also still can't show a single time he refuted me with evidence, and he won't man-up and take the challenge so that one of us is completely removed from the forum. Come on Gappu, this is your chance to get me axed. Put on your big boy pants and let's do this!!! This guy thinks saying the opposite of what another person says is sufficient to prove them wrong. This is the standard of refutation for this guy Our circus freak of an uncle: Atheism is true and Jesus isn't God. Ordinary Christian Fellow: No it's not and yes Jesus is God ^He thinks that is a refutation (and this guy has the nerve to think all religious people are stupid). How much brain power could you possibly have if you think the above works as a refutation of something? Wiki-chor then says "You can't prove a negative, kiddo" https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf Steven Hales is a Professor of Philosophy at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania. Literally you can prove a negative. Logic is a conspiracy to this clown. Someone who fancies themselves as a rationalist, doesn't know basic rules of logic. The part is red nails this guy perfectly. He is so insecure about his own beliefs that he confuses them with facts. Text-book fundamentalist.
  9. Reserve / Backup players available for Team India

    Yeah, I didn't watch much of the last IPL expect some of the early season/and then the playoffs, so I don't remember seeing Siraj. Well then hopefully they give him more chances at the death in the future.
  10. Reserve / Backup players available for Team India

    I know Thampi is good, but I haven't seen Siraj. I meant more that I think we need to rotate whatever bowlers we identify into our international squad. They will need the experience against international class batsmen. How has Siraj done in List A A tours in terms of bowling yorkers?
  11. The middle class needs something. The new diesel/petrol policy is squeezing them.
  12. Reserve / Backup players available for Team India

    We need to develop another bowler or 2 for LOIs who can bowl yorkers consistently, in case Bumrah/Bhuvi get injured. I guess Pandey can be included in the Test squad as a middle order back up instead of Rohit, if we want to drop him.
  13. Thanks to South Park, we all know Gingers are children of the devil. Ben Stokes only confirms this. Look at those soulless eyes, kissed by fire this one is...
  14. http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2017/09/24/hindu-refugees-blame-rohingya-militants-for-attacking-them-in-myanmar
  15. Hardik Pandya, the complete cricketer.

    I think he is also working on his cross-seam delivery as well.
  16. Hardik Pandya, the complete cricketer.

    I want to see him develop some yorkers. He should take tips from Bumrah/Bhuvi. I like how he uses his bouncer already, and it is effective, so adding a good yorker would give us an additional death bowling option.
  17. Reopening the debate on best chasers in ODIs

    It would be helpful to see performance in a team's successful chase vs in a team's unsuccessful chase. That would help show how crucial that player was to wins. I would also want to see that filtered for opposition strength.
  18. Phat gaye kya? Everyone knew that you would run away. I asked for any instance of you refuting me. You couldn't even provide 1 time you refuted me What's even more hilarious is that you claimed to have refuted someone while saying there can't be data http://www.dictionary.com/browse/refute To refute You simultaneously say that one can't provide data on morality yet claim to have disproven something. Prove that data can't exist on morals and ethics. Just because you're to dumb to research things, doesn't make it that other people can't. That is patently untrue. What does one expect from you. Here is some right here Here's some more on morality Conservatism, authoritarianism, religiosity, anti-social behavior, openness to experience, etc all can be researched and have data provided. Here is some more [Hatemi et al 2010], Everything from opinions on Gay rights, immigration, pacifism, and censorship, to views on death penalty, all moral issues are measurable. Analysis This guy thinks both psychology and genetics are conspiracies. Of course, this is the same guy who thought that WebMD was a reputable source of information and has been caught even lying about his identity depending on who he's talking to. Take the bet ? Now let's further delve into this "special" mind. First this genius says this fail #1 Then this genius says this fails #2 and #3 Next our guy says this: fail #4 This clown continues with this fail #5 The journey continues here fail he thinks I stated that atheists are excluded from being nationalists. fail #7 Now watch this guy respond with 0 references.
  19. India's Fertility rate state by state

    Seriously how deranged are you? It looks like you took that other post, where I pointed out how you have a weird pathological obsession with all my posts, to heart. Seriously, it's getting kind of creepy uncle ... Being obsessed with an anonymous poster on an internet forum is probably a sign of mental illness. My post By definition replacement level, ie a 2.1 TFR, means that It literally means that a population neither increases nor decreases, yet you make a post that directly replies to my original post that says Seriously, how can one function in society being this stupid. This uncle has next level poor reading comprehension skills... Legendary paragraph. This uncle is even essentially says that I didn't shift goalposts because I decided that India was overpopulated and thus needs less population. Pro-tip uncle, if you're going to use a word like "rational" as a buzzword, it would benefit you if you actually provide evidence that India is either overpopulated or underpopulated. Otherwise the rational thing to do would be to support a replacement level TFR until it is proven 1 way or another. You implied it, when you said less than replacement population is negative for said states having it. Once again, our mentally challenged uncle thinks supporting replacement level TFR of 2.1 leads to population increase. This specimen, ladies and gentleman, tries to pass off as a functional adult.
  20. I wrote a whole response and then come to this gem. You've just given me enough material to troll you endlessly Let's focus on this in red. Who are you kidding? All that false bravado impresses no-one. Show me one instance where you provided data or a scientific reference that refuted anything I said. Just 1. Or better yet, If you're really so confident in yourself, you can man up and take this bet: I bet I can provide more instances of me refuting things you have claimed with data and scientific references than you can provide instances of you refuting me with data/scientific references. Whoever loses leaves ICF permanently. What say you Ghanta? Soiled yourself yet or are you going to man up and take the bet? (We can both do ICF and the mods/admins a favor by removing one of us from the forum permanently). It also benefits both of us as the other will be gone forever. I'm willing, are you?
  21. Your playing 11 changes for ODI-4 at B'lore

    I have a pretty strange one for the batting lineup. I want to see Rahul, Pandey, Pandya, and Jadhav all in the same XI, since the series is already won. It would be good to see Rahul and Kohli open, with Pandey, Pandya, and Jadhav coming in after in some order. This would maximize the amount of overs the untested players would play. For the bowlers, get Shami in for Bhuvi. We need to see how his death bowling is coming. Let Umesh stay on the bench as he seemed tired after the test season. Include Axar to see if he has any pop down the order. Kohli Rahul Pandey Pandya Jadhav Dhoni Axar Kuldeep Chahal Shami Bumrah
  22. That's solely your opinion. Not all societies view the individual as the basis of society. Some societies favor collectivism, groupism, tribalism, or other variants. Some societies favor individualism. Some societies will exterminate their own populations. Your imposing views that a society should be centered around individual interests is based on your own beliefs. I didn't mention India, so that is a strawman. India may have signed it and it may remove itself from it later. That's none of your business as you aren't Indian. What's funny is that the idea that all humans have value is in itself a religious view. Just like beliefs in blank-slate, this too is derived from religion/are quasi-religious. The idea of human rights is derived from the concept of natural law, which is law that is derived either from gods/Transcendence or Nature. These rights are considered inalienable. In nature, nothing has inherent value separate from the ecosystem itself. All humans can go extinct tomorrow and nature will move on. In all of human history it is pretty clear that humans themselves have a violent nature and little regard for other human life. This is true even in the recent history of signatories of the HRC. Communists, who are rabidly anti-religious and atheist by policy, have regularly erased millions of human lives, the lives of their own people and people outside of their political borders. Similar things have happened under religious governments, secular governments, democratic governments, dictatorships, etc. Groups only decide who qualifies for humane treatment and who is expendable. That you think life has value solely based on everyone being human is not based on anything objective (you probably also support abortions which is taking a human life). Where is the evidence that any life has value, let alone human life? Where is the evidence that the value of an elephant is greater than that of an ant? Humans are just animals, just like any other animals. Humans aren't magic creatures, no matter how much you want to believe so. One human on one side of the planet doesn't have inherent value to another human on another side of the planet. I would like to see anything objective that says otherwise. Too bad you're too foolish to see your own cognitive dissonance whining about religon while promoting religious concepts like the value of human life. Prove that unequal rights imply superiority. Oh wait, that is more sophistry by you. Someone can pass a law that only left-handed people can wear red shoes , that only right-handed people can wear blue shoes, but all people can wear shoes of any other color besides those two. Those are unequal rights. Which one is superior: those who are given exclusive access to red shoes or those to blue shoes? Inequality only means inequality. Only someone of your "intellect" could think that something being unequal implies superiority-inferiority. Prove that inequality is bad. That's an assumption. Also, show me where I said people should have unequal rights based on biological sex, along with the numerous other things you accused me of claiming, or do you admit you were lying? It's not my job to teach someone who believes the Earth is flat that it is in fact spherical... If you want to believe that loyalty to a state, say Gujarat, over a country say India, is nationalism, that is your prerogative. You can try whatever mental gymnastics that you want to convince yourself of the same. If you put a state's interests above India's interests, you are not a nationalist. Considering you support the English colonizing India, thereby supporting the destruction of the Indian economy, looting of the country, killing of millions, I don't think there is much need to lend credence to what you consider nationalism means. Lol at 12/100k people and 32/100k people being a small difference. Where did I say people routinely go on rampage? You need to work on your reading comprehension and quit peddling strawmen. Re-read what I actually wrote (or don't) You claimed that people in Gujarat barge into kitchens on some (undocumented) personal anecdote based on a sample size of n=1. I can give (n=1) an example of people being arrested in West Bengal for criticism of the state government. I can give (n = 1 )an example of people being arrested for criticizing Mohammed in West Bengal. I can give (n =1) an example of how certain people aren't allowed religious freedom in West Bengal. I can give (n = 1) an example of accusations of booth capturing in West Bengal during elections. If you use n = 1 to paint an entire state, one that you have no experience in, then I can similarly use a sample size of 1 to paint an entire state. These are the "rigorous" standards you yourself provided. By the standards you push, of (n = 1): Gujarat: No Freedom to eat Fish in a private kitchen West Bengal: No freedom to criticize religion No freedom of religion No freedom of speech (criticizing the state government) No freedom to vote (booth capturing and murder based on political lines) Some "freedom" The graph is property of Rohit Ticku and is based off of INSCR data of political violence incidents from 1955 to 2005. Excerpt If you want to ignore the data, feel free, it wouldn't be the first time... On a janitors salary? Wrong, silly rage-boy. There are only two views of Indian nationalism. I didn't say anyone has to follow either one. I only pointed out that you don't fall under either category. 1) India as a nation-state created post 1947. By this standard, which is the standard most self-declared Secular nationalists, ie the INC, prescribe to, one has to actually be a legal citizen of India. Since you are a citizen of Canada, and India does not allow dual citizenship, you are not legally Indian. No amount of squirming can change that, worm. In this sense anyone with an Indian citizenship can be Indian. (I didn't say Muslims, Jews, etc aren't Indian or can't be nationalist. Another strawman). Anyone without an Indian citizenship, whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Atheist, etc isn't Indian, so long as they don't have citizenship. 2) "Nationalist" (notice the quotation marks around nationalist which I also used earlier because the BJP uses this definition) This is BJP's Civilizational nationalism where Dharmic people + Indian citizens are part of the civilization. Neither national party's definition excludes Christians etc. You don't fall under either, 1) You don't have Indian citizenship, a necessary condition to be Indian under the constitution. 2) You don't have Indian citizenship and you don't identify with Hindu/Dharmic civilization. (For example, you self claim you are an Atheist and not a Hindu. You purposefully desire to distance yourself from Hindu society. You are too uneducated on Hinduism to even know that there are schools of Hinduism that are also Atheist/Agnostic). You need to work on your reading comprehension skills: Here is the sequence of events 1) Gollum makes a post comparing two states, Gujarat and Bengal in terms of government 2) You respond his post saying that you believe that Bengal has more personal freedom because X,Y,Z 3) I laugh at your post, pointing out examples of how Bengal has worse personal freedom in key areas and that there is greater lawlessness in the state of Bengal (in case you don't realize, violence is often used to restrict freedoms like the right to vote). No mention was made of Bengalis as a group of people. The criticism was solely of the state and how it is run. See my post below 4) You proceed to call Gujaratis genocidal: what you posted is verbatim below You specifically state Gujaratis are genocidal(see red) and imply that Bengalis are non-violent. 5) I responded with this post saying that I'm not interested in ethnic issues of Gujarati vs Bengali(red). I proceed to criticize you as a poster and the law and order situation in Bengal. There is still no mention of Bengalis being A,B,C. Again, the only person who attacked an ethnicity in this thread is you. You lost what little mental balance you had the moment I pointed out numerous ways that Bengal was worse on the freedom front, using the same low standards that you used. You made a claim slurring Gujaratis as a group of people as genocidal. I made no generalized claim on Bengalis as people, just the government in charge there and the state of law and order. Squirm however much you want. I have never said Hindus or Hinduism are superior to other people. Nice, another strawman. Enjoy what's below
  23. The bowling is weaker without Starc there, but their batting is basically their best right now, with Finch back. They are missing a replacement for Watson IMO.
  24. Pandey looks so weird batting sometimes...

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×