Yoda-esque Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 I cannot answer that question because it is too hypothetical and frankly I have no experience of "not being an Indian" to be able to answer that. However, if you believe that there are only Indians who believe that Sachin = greatest then you are mistaken. Now I am not go around picking non-Indians who believe so just to present in front of you. Also, if I turn around and ask you the question. Supposing you weren't brought up to believe that Bradman was the greatest ever, would you have reasons to believe that he is the greatest ever. Remember you never even seen the man play so that bit of self-witnessing is also not there for you to gauge his greatness. More importantly, you are sidetracking the main question. Does it make people less intelligent if they believe Sachin = greatest? Do all of us have no intelligible reasons to believe whatever we believe? Answer this and please do not evade it. You are wasting your time.The man is a master of circumlocular logic.
zen Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 I cannot answer that question because it is too hypothetical and frankly I have no experience of "not being an Indian" to be able to answer that. However, if you believe that there are only Indians who believe that Sachin = greatest then you are mistaken. Now I am not go around picking non-Indians who believe so just to present in front of you. Also, if I turn around and ask you the question. Supposing you weren't brought up to believe that Bradman was the greatest ever, would you have reasons to believe that he is the greatest ever. Remember you never even seen the man play so that bit of self-witnessing is also not there for you to gauge his greatness. More importantly, you are sidetracking the main question. Does it make people less intelligent if they believe Sachin = greatest? Do all of us have no intelligible reasons to believe whatever we believe? Answer this and please do not evade it. I will keep it simple, if the arguments presented to show that Sachin is the greatest can also show for e.g. that Rameez > Hammond, I have reasons to doubt the intelligence of those using such arguments I haven't been brought up to believe that Bradman is the greatest. In fact, I have been brought in an enviornment where I have been told that: * Sachin is such a player that if he makes up his mind to get a 100, he will get a 100. * Sachin was the lone warrior for half of his career. * Sachin is the perfect batsman. All batsmen, including his Indian counterparts, are not that great. * Sachin is the national pride (So if you speak against him, it's like hurting the national pride or even speaking against India) * And so on .... And more often than not (even subconciously), it becames natural to defend Sachin. When Dravid was in the form of his life, I have been guilty of running him down because something inside me couldn't come to terms with Dravid being better than Sachin. And to till this day, I feel bad about writing against one of the great test players of our time, i.e. Dravid There is no denying that Sachin is one of the ATGs. The debate (if we can call it that for the purpose of discussion) mainly is how do we rank these ATGs. IMO, Most of the ATGs are of the same level as far as skills go. When playing at their peak, they are all capable of providing similar output. If you take the output, there is no one like Bradman. An avg of 100 over 50 tests, interuptted by war, when no one else could. (you are a good statistian so you can what the avg of other great batsman of his era is), tell something. On top of that, he has some amazing records like scoring 300 runs in a day. To me, he is someone in the league of his own. This has been acknowledged by sports writers comparing the outputs. In non-cricket playing cricket, I won't be surprised if cricket was discussed to discuss Bradman's achievements. I have written posts, giving examples of Lindbergh, cars in 1930s vs 2000s, proposed that if a model shows x to be greater than y, then it should also show a > b.... but in the end, all that is presented to show Sachin is the greatest are arguments that could easily show Raja>Hammond. Based on the existing model (avg over a period of time), Bradman is at the top. Because it is so difficult to dislodge him based on the exisiting model, parameters that can even show Raja>Hammond are put forward. This to some extent show the bias and fanatasim. Combinng all the factors listed above, I have reasons to feel that the group that I am discussing with is like what I described :P
Sachinism Posted November 22, 2011 Author Posted November 22, 2011 Keep Sachin away from this thread :hitler:
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 I will keep it simple' date=' if the arguments presented to show that Sachin is the greatest can also show for e.g. that Rameez > Hammond, I have reasons to doubt the intelligence of those using such arguments[/quote']Can you do that with my project? If you can then forget you, I will consider myself a serious case of under-developed intelligence. I don't care what your arguments or debates with others are. You have generalized all Sachin = greatest opinion holders as unintelligent people. Now if you think you can use my project to show Rameez > Hammond then please prove it and I will come to you in all humility for lessons in logic development and understanding things in life. So please take the time and answer the question straight and to me...remember you are talking about my ability to think with any modicum of intelligence I don't believe that. Here are the reasons why - a. I think you are older than me (> 34) so you obviously have seen more cricket and are aware of great cricketers of yesteryear b. It wasn't until you were older than 12 that Sachin made his debut (I was 12 in 1989) and Sachin did not even become a "contemporary great" until around 1996. So your thing about brought up to believe Sachin is this and that is all false placed. You weren't brought up to believe that...you found people changing their opinions and forming these beliefs c. I have seen your posts here and I am more than sure that you are very much aware of cricket in the 80s and 70s and I suspect you have even watched cricket during that time. So again, I dont think you have been brought up to believe that Sachin = greatest. You witnessed that theory forming when you were already an adult. d. I believe you were brought up (like me and many other ICFñÓs) to believe that Bradman was greatest. In fact I got to know of Bradman during 1987 before Reliance Cup when they showed the Bodlyine series on DD. I was 10 then. My dad told me "Bradman is the greatest batsman ever". I had that opinion until about the mid 2000s when I started opening my min to Lara and Sachin in the pantheon of equal virtuosos. And although my own analysis shows Bradman is a virtuoso alongside Sachin, I am very much aware that I have no "personal witness" reason to believe Bradman is in the same class of Sachin and Lara. Again, please show that my project can show Rameez > Hammond. Alternatively, take back the blanket allegations you have made on all of us here of being unintelligent people just coz we believe Sachin = Buddha. At some point you need to own up to this Rett...you might not like some people (just put them in your ignore list so you will not get provoked by them) but going around painting everyone as unintelligent, nincompoops is not done.
zen Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Can you do that with my project? If you can then forget you, I will consider myself a serious case of under-developed intelligence. I don't care what your arguments or debates with others are. You have generalized all Sachin = greatest opinion holders as unintelligent people. Now if you think you can use my project to show Rameez > Hammond then please prove it and I will come to you in all humility for lessons in logic development and understanding things in life. Well, I have already given my feedback on your project when you posted as Nirvanam. Any reasons to believe why my opinion should change? So please take the time and answer the question straight and to me...remember you are talking about my ability to think with any modicum of intelligence I don't believe that. Here are the reasons why - a. I think you are older than me (> 34) so you obviously have seen more cricket and are aware of great cricketers of yesteryear b. It wasn't until you were older than 12 that Sachin made his debut (I was 12 in 1989) and Sachin did not even become a "contemporary great" until around 1996. So your thing about brought up to believe Sachin is this and that is all false placed. You weren't brought up to believe that...you found people changing their opinions and forming these beliefs c. I have seen your posts here and I am more than sure that you are very much aware of cricket in the 80s and 70s and I suspect you have even watched cricket during that time. So again, I dont think you have been brought up to believe that Sachin = greatest. You witnessed that theory forming when you were already an adult. d. I believe you were brought up (like me and many other ICFñÓs) to believe that Bradman was greatest. In fact I got to know of Bradman during 1987 before Reliance Cup when they showed the Bodlyine series on DD. I was 10 then. My dad told me "Bradman is the greatest batsman ever". I had that opinion until about the mid 2000s when I started opening my min to Lara and Sachin in the pantheon of equal virtuosos. And although my own analysis shows Bradman is a virtuoso alongside Sachin, I am very much aware that I have no "personal witness" reason to believe Bradman is in the same class of Sachin and Lara. So now you have a theory on how I was brought up! (As far as I remember, I didn't even give a damn about Bradman) .... I remember last time you though I was some poster on some other forum who probably used to give you a hard time, now I am supposed to have watched cricket in 70s and 80s. :giggle: Let's cut such crap Again, please show that my project can show Rameez > Hammond. Alternatively, take back the blanket allegations you have made on all of us here of being unintelligent people just coz we believe Sachin = Buddha. At some point you need to own up to this Rett...you might not like some people (just put them in your ignore list so you will not get provoked by them) but going around painting everyone as unintelligent, nincompoops is not done. Already provided feebbak on your project, which was probably done to undermine the avg of 100. The entire need to do such studies is motivated to show 50>100 responses in "blue"
Yoda-esque Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Loooking at the posts above,did anybody realize that the OP is a self-fulfilling prophecy ? :giggle:
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Rett says - Well, I have already given my feedback on your project when you posted as Nirvanam. Any reasons to believe why my opinion should change? Didn't you understand my question? Here's what I said - Now if you think you can use my project to show Rameez > Hammond then please prove it and I will come to you in all humility for lessons in logic development and understanding things in life. Secondly, I had the update project which was a much more organized and systematically done project which included feedback from Bradman = greatest believers as well. Agar aap ne izzat se mere original sawaal (do you think I am unintelligent just coz I believe Sachin = greatest?) ka jawaab diya toh teek hai otherwise it's fine with me, I'll ensure not to engage you in a conversation again. By the way I believe you are "Call Center" from rsc until I know better or worse. I may be wrong but that's a risk I am willing to take.
zen Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Didn't you understand my question? Here's what I said - Secondly, I had the update project which was a much more organized and systematically done project which included feedback from Bradman = greatest believers as well. Agar aap ne izzat se mere original sawaal (do you think I am unintelligent just coz I believe Sachin = greatest?) ka jawaab diya toh teek hai otherwise it's fine with me, I'll ensure not to engage you in a conversation again. By the way I believe you are "Call Center" from rsc until I know better or worse. I may be wrong but that's a risk I am willing to take. A few questions of my own: * Why do I have to subject myself to the torture of going through your study? I did glance at it again and couldn't motivate myself to read it. Just to give you an example, you have some bowler faced index where by you measured performance against some bowlers. The bowlers were supposed to be ranked based on some rankings (may be ICC) and how often they dismissed you counted as how skilfull you are (if I am not wrong). But if you take games involving Warne and McGrath for example (both playing), it gives a different picture even though they may not have dismissed a batsman. * If you think you are intelligent, why do you need approval from me? * As for the bolded part, I am NOT 'call center' and don't even know what 'rsc' is. But you are willing to take that risk to assume that then be my guest .... This should give you an insight about your level more than my feedback here is the thread you started to show Bradman numbers don't show that he is superior (click on the underlined part) And I already wrote this: "I have written posts, giving examples of Lindbergh, cars in 1930s vs 2000s, proposed that if a model shows x to be greater than y, then it should also show a > b.... but in the end, all that is presented to show Sachin is the greatest are arguments that could easily show Raja>Hammond. Based on the existing model (avg over a period of time), Bradman is at the top. Because it is so difficult to dislodge him based on the exisiting model, parameters (and that can even show Raja>Hammond (or meaningless studies) are put forward. This to some extent show the bias and fanatasim. " Added the part in "blue" to the original comment
Recommended Posts