Re: An American View of Cricket (longish)

Randy Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 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.

Most people recognize that sometimes a better teams loses to a lesser
team.  Football has enshrined this with the "Any given Sunday..."
aphorism.  Most people recognize that the 1927 Yankees were a better
team than the 1927 Red Sox, regardless of which of them won their last
game together, or even of the record of their games against one
another.  No one other than you feels it necessary to re-evaluate the
comparative strength of two teams by the hour.
> 
> But why don't you call us some more names?  That will surely
> advance the debate.

I am guessing that you are referring to my observation that you are a
liar.  This is a simple statement of fact.  You consistently go out of
your way to be rude and condescending, as with this:
> 
> G'nite Wanda,

and then claim to be consistently cordial, as with this:
> 
> cordially, as always,
> 
> rm

Do you not realize that you are rude and condescending?  For all your
parochial idiosyncracies, I don't believe that you are that stupid. 
Hence my conclusion that you are a liar.  If you want to argue that
you really are that stupid then I will be willing to reconsider my
conclusion.

Richard R. Hershberger