Re: An American View of Cricket (longish)

In rec.sport.baseball Richard R. Hershberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Mere semantic gamesmanship, of the particularly silly sort which gives
> semantic gamemanship a silly name. 

Har.  If you say so it must be true.

> If you want to define "better team" that way I really don't give
> a rat's ass.  But to use your little definition in a
> converstation where everyone else is using the commonly
> understood definition is obstuse, and to insist that it is the
> One True Definition is parochial.

The commonly used definition?  What other definition is there to
use but that the team that wins has bested its opponent?  Are you
suggesting that calling the team that is bested the best is the
commonly used definition?  If so, the commonly used definition is
muddy at best and inherently contradictory at worst.

But why don't you call us some more names?  That will surely
advance the debate.

G'nite Wanda,

cordially, as always,

rm