A surprising fact - Cambridge (and Episcopal Divinity School) admits morons like me

[Mr. Wicket]

Which university, g?

[h4te]

Which university' date=' g?[/quote'] from his vast knowledge of biblical references, i believe he goes to Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA.

[Guest Gunner]

from his vast knowledge of biblical references' date=' i believe he goes to Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA.[/quote'] H4te old chap, based on my recent discussions with the young lad I must concur. Old boy did I tell you that you look absolutely spiffing today?:winky:

[Mr. Wicket]

from his vast knowledge of biblical references' date=' i believe he goes to Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA.[/quote'] Maybe that is how he learnt Latin and all those other old languages he keeps telling us about.

[Guest Gunner]

Maybe that is how he learnt Latin and all those other old languages he keeps telling us about.

Are you implying that the young lad has spent his formative years at a priory?

[vvvslaxman]

Azar just give up your trollathon. You sound like you are 15 year old kid. Go home and do your home work.

[Mr. Wicket]

Never thought about that, Gunner. It seems to fit. I wonder if Azrimanga joined the choirboys there. Much fun with all the priests around?

[flamy]

from his vast knowledge of biblical references' date=' i believe he goes to Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA.[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[Guest Gunner]

for the record it was Cambridge in the UK ranked 2 in the world overall behind harvard and 1 for undergraduate teaching. And noI am not interested in statistical analysis' date=' I had the stats I wanted applied the filters needed and got the results.[/quote'] You must have me mistaken for someone else, I haven't mentioned anything about about statistics or cambridge. Perchance you didn't comprehend my post? :dontknow:

[Mr. Wicket]

Gunner, obviously he can't have gone to Cambridge in the UK. That is a fine institution and I don't believe they would accept anyone who doesn't know how to read and comprehend posts like that in plain English.

[flamy]

I think the chap studied in Latin America. Que pasa, marricone?!!! :beer:

[vvvslaxman]

I think the chap studied in Latin America. Que pasa' date=' [b']marricone?!!! :beer:

Ennio Morricone. I love his soundtracks. :winky:

[Guest Gunner]

bodyline was innovative at the time...learn a thing or two about historical philosophy the negative line was fine its not against the rules

Bodyline was hardly cricket old chap. I am sure someone must have mentioned that to you at Cambridge. Secondly what does philosophy historical or otherwise have to do with cricket?

pitch doctoring coming from an Indian is a joke.

In poor taste wouldn't you say. Personal attacks are rarely the decorum at a debate.

[Guest Gunner]

Never thought about that, Gunner. It seems to fit. I wonder if Azrimanga joined the choirboys there. Much fun with all the priests around?

Yes, quite possible. Priests and choirboys do have a special relationship in their quest for the almighty I hear.

[Guest Gunner]

Gunner' date=' obviously he can't have gone to Cambridge in the UK. That is a fine institution and I don't believe they would accept anyone who doesn't know how to read and comprehend posts like that in plain English.[/quote'] You reckon Cambridge MA? That might fit the bill.

[Guest Evil Mod Consortium]

Bodyline was hardly cricket old chap. I am sure someone must have mentioned that to you at Cambridge. Secondly what does philosophy historical or otherwise have to do with cricket?

Quite right old bean, Bodyline just wasn't cricket. And of course from a philosophical standpoint, I would hope that young Master Manka (our resident philosophical Master Baiter) here is familiar with John Rawls and concepts such as Rawlsian justice and the veil of ignorance (though it may mean he needs to step outside his own bubble of ignorance), which hardly support tactics such as Bodyline or make it seem fair or appropriate for the game.

[Guest Evil Mod Consortium]

naturally wicket you have evidence to support that statement...

I believe Mr. Wicket's evidence lies in your failure to comprehend the contents of Gunner's posts. Or for that matter, his previous warnings to you to cease your trolling habits before the Consortiumatti's patience is worn.

[Guest Evil Mod Consortium]

Historical philosophy insofar as what is our right to judge the opinion that went into bodyline to the reaction - with hindsight it was a bad thing - but undeniably Jardine came up with a clever tactic' date=' one which, had the outcome not been as bad as it was, might still to this day be in use.[/quote'] Hardly, old bean. Once the tactic got used against the English as well in county cricket and by the West Indian tourists a year or two later, the English realized just how dangerous the tactic was and abolished it. Not unlike the Rawlsian concept of justice, once you're on the receiving end, it's much easier to get a sense of just how bad or good something can be.

[Guest Gunner]

oh yes - let us trot out some oxbridge stereotypes;)

You must forgive me. I am hardly the beneficiary of a superior education such as yourself and wouldn't know what you are referring to.

Historical philosophy insofar as what is our right to judge the opinion that went into bodyline to the reaction - with hindsight it was a bad thing - but undeniably Jardine came up with a clever tactic' date=' one which, had the outcome not been as bad as it was, might still to this day be in use.[/quote'] Firstly, the purpose of prose should be to convey and not confound. Nevertheless I shall answer you. There is no reason to judge the opinion that went into the bodyline to the reaction as it was so eloquently explained by Jardine as "I am hear to win the ashes and not make friends. So I still don't follow the philosophy angle to your argument. The tactic was condemned and censured by the MCC which was the governing body for cricket rules at that point in time. Therefore youmust hardly be surprised when it it pointed out that bodyline was not cricket. The highest cricketing body at that time most definitely did not think so.

[Guest Gunner]

Quite right old bean' date=' Bodyline just wasn't cricket. And of course from a philosophical standpoint, I would hope that young Master Manka (our resident philosophical Master Baiter) here is familiar with John Rawls and concepts such as Rawlsian justice and the veil of ignorance (though it may mean he needs to step outside his own bubble of ignorance), which hardly support tactics such as Bodyline or make it seem fair or appropriate for the game.[/quote'] I am led to believe that the syllabus for philosophy this semester at Cambridge has not reached the Rawlsian justice old boy.