Discussion:
Is Anil for real?
(too old to reply)
Shripathi Kamath
2003-07-27 00:02:11 UTC
Permalink
The bloke is obviously a spoof writer and is published for his humour
content
He's doing the outrageous bit. The more outrageous he sounds, the more he
must fancy his chances to get people to visit his site in droves.

At one time he had ridiculed Agarkar. Now he signs off as Agarkar having
the best fast arm action or some such crapola.

Classic shock-jock techniques. I doubt he truly believes what he writes.
Then again...
--
Shripathi Kamath
Bob Dubery
2003-07-27 06:59:10 UTC
Permalink
The bloke is obviously a spoof writer and is published for his humour
content
The internet makes it too easy for people to masquerade as experts and
journalists, and human nature makes it easy for the masqueraders to be
regarded as experts and journalists.

This is the downside of an egalitarian, anarchic medium like the world wide
web. Search engines just tell us where articles that contain certain
combinations of characters can be found. They don't tell us that there's a
difference between, say, Anil and Mike Selvey or ....

... hang on a minute. There's hardly a cricketing journalist who DOESN'T get
rubbished on RSC. We trot out the quotes from whichever source suits us and
rubbish the sources that don't. Our pronouncements about any given report
actually have very little to do with the reputation of the author - though
if we can attack that it helps - and everything to do with our own
preconceptions.

Most of us use the media, and especially the web, as a drunk uses a
lamppost - for support, not for illumination. I see web sites run by people
who describe themselves as journalists that say things about South Africa
and it's government that are wildly inaccurate and sometimes outright
mendacious, but these reprots get seized on by disgruntled expats, neo-nazi
organisations and right wingers within SA because it suits their agenda and,
look here, they are writen by journalists. So we know it's not just idle
gossip.

And most of us are convinced that they know the absolute truth about [fill
in the subject] despite what Roebuck, Benaud, Cozier, CMJ, Brearley, Haigh
or most anybody else might have to say. We're entitled to our own opinion,
and besides it's not opinion, its FACT, but heaven help the poor journo who
dares to go against the tide of the know-it-alls on RSC.

Interesting... another thing that happens on the on-line world is that
instead of journalists exposing their own aukat they help us expose our own.
dechucka
2003-07-27 08:15:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
The bloke is obviously a spoof writer and is published for his humour
content
The internet makes it too easy for people to masquerade as experts and
journalists, and human nature makes it easy for the masqueraders to be
regarded as experts and journalists.
This is the downside of an egalitarian, anarchic medium like the world wide
web. Search engines just tell us where articles that contain certain
combinations of characters can be found. They don't tell us that there's a
difference between, say, Anil and Mike Selvey or ....
... hang on a minute. There's hardly a cricketing journalist who DOESN'T get
rubbished on RSC. We trot out the quotes from whichever source suits us and
rubbish the sources that don't. Our pronouncements about any given report
actually have very little to do with the reputation of the author - though
if we can attack that it helps - and everything to do with our own
preconceptions.
Most of us use the media, and especially the web, as a drunk uses a
lamppost - for support, not for illumination. I see web sites run by people
who describe themselves as journalists that say things about South Africa
and it's government that are wildly inaccurate and sometimes outright
mendacious, but these reprots get seized on by disgruntled expats, neo-nazi
organisations and right wingers within SA because it suits their agenda and,
look here, they are writen by journalists. So we know it's not just idle
gossip.
And most of us are convinced that they know the absolute truth about [fill
in the subject] despite what Roebuck, Benaud, Cozier, CMJ, Brearley, Haigh
or most anybody else might have to say. We're entitled to our own opinion,
and besides it's not opinion, its FACT, but heaven help the poor journo who
dares to go against the tide of the know-it-alls on RSC.
Interesting... another thing that happens on the on-line world is that
instead of journalists exposing their own aukat they help us expose our own.
you agree with Anal?
Bob Dubery
2003-07-27 08:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
you agree with Anal?
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the article in question. I offer no
opinion on that article at all, and it's not the point of my post.

What I'm saying is that people have their opinions and agendas and they
agree with what fits in with their world view and pooh pooh what doesn't,
and that the credentials of the author are neither here nor there. And I go
on to say that what we dismiss out of hand and what we blindly accept says
more about us than about the authors of the pices that are rubbished or, as
the case may be, lauded.
dechucka
2003-07-27 12:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
you agree with Anal?
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the article in question. I offer no
opinion on that article at all, and it's not the point of my post.
What I'm saying is that people have their opinions and agendas and they
agree with what fits in with their world view and pooh pooh what doesn't,
and that the credentials of the author are neither here nor there. And I go
on to say that what we dismiss out of hand and what we blindly accept says
more about us than about the authors of the pices that are rubbished or, as
the case may be, lauded.
so you are defending a person who writes crap articles which blatantly
distort the facts, fine! Goebbles is your hero I take it.
Bob Dubery
2003-07-27 12:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
so you are defending a person who writes crap articles which blatantly
distort the facts, fine! Goebbles is your hero I take it.
I will confess to both IF you can just point out the place where I've
defended Anil. Book, chapter and verse please.
dechucka
2003-07-28 00:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
so you are defending a person who writes crap articles which blatantly
distort the facts, fine! Goebbles is your hero I take it.
I will confess to both IF you can just point out the place where I've
defended Anil. Book, chapter and verse please.
read your previous post in this thread, there is a difference between ">What
I'm saying is that people have their opinions and agendas and they
Post by Bob Dubery
agree with what fits in with their world view and pooh pooh what doesn't,"
and writing crap that bares no resemblance to the truth
Bob Dubery
2003-07-28 09:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
so you are defending a person who writes crap articles which blatantly
distort the facts, fine! Goebbles is your hero I take it.
I will confess to both IF you can just point out the place where I've
defended Anil. Book, chapter and verse please.
read your previous post in this thread, there is a difference between ">What
I'm saying is that people have their opinions and agendas and they
Post by Bob Dubery
agree with what fits in with their world view and pooh pooh what doesn't,"
and writing crap that bares no resemblance to the truth
No. What I asked for was for you to point out where I defended Anil.
Given that I didn't even pass an opinion or any article by Anil (or,
for that matter, in any article by anybody at all) in the posting that
got your pee in a froth, I think you might have a hard time quoting
the incriminating passage. (hint: It's not there).

But, hey, I'm in a good mood. You can have two more chances. You could
even do some googling. I'm sure you're not the kind of person who
writes crap articles which blatantly distort the facts.
kenhiggs8
2003-07-29 06:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
so you are defending a person who writes crap articles which
blatantly
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
distort the facts, fine! Goebbles is your hero I take it.
I will confess to both IF you can just point out the place where I've
defended Anil. Book, chapter and verse please.
read your previous post in this thread, there is a difference between
">What
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
I'm saying is that people have their opinions and agendas and they
Post by Bob Dubery
agree with what fits in with their world view and pooh pooh what
doesn't,"
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
and writing crap that bares no resemblance to the truth
No. What I asked for was for you to point out where I defended Anil.
Given that I didn't even pass an opinion or any article by Anil (or,
for that matter, in any article by anybody at all) in the posting that
got your pee in a froth, I think you might have a hard time quoting
the incriminating passage. (hint: It's not there).
But, hey, I'm in a good mood. You can have two more chances. You could
even do some googling. I'm sure you're not the kind of person who
writes crap articles which blatantly distort the facts.
pisof chukky the adults r trying to talk cricket

higgsy
dechucka
2003-07-29 06:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenhiggs8
Post by dechucka
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
so you are defending a person who writes crap articles which
blatantly
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
distort the facts, fine! Goebbles is your hero I take it.
I will confess to both IF you can just point out the place where I've
defended Anil. Book, chapter and verse please.
read your previous post in this thread, there is a difference between
">What
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
I'm saying is that people have their opinions and agendas and they
Post by Bob Dubery
agree with what fits in with their world view and pooh pooh what
doesn't,"
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
and writing crap that bares no resemblance to the truth
No. What I asked for was for you to point out where I defended Anil.
Given that I didn't even pass an opinion or any article by Anil (or,
for that matter, in any article by anybody at all) in the posting that
got your pee in a froth, I think you might have a hard time quoting
the incriminating passage. (hint: It's not there).
But, hey, I'm in a good mood. You can have two more chances. You could
even do some googling. I'm sure you're not the kind of person who
writes crap articles which blatantly distort the facts.
pisof chukky the adults r trying to talk cricket
higgsy
Than WTF are you doing here Huggies, you should not be here for three
reasons, one you are not an adult, two this is a cricket ng and three the
toilets in the Holmes building need cleaning so back to work with you
kenhiggs8
2003-07-29 23:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by kenhiggs8
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
so you are defending a person who writes crap articles which
blatantly
Post by kenhiggs8
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
distort the facts, fine! Goebbles is your hero I take it.
I will confess to both IF you can just point out the place where
I've
Post by kenhiggs8
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
Post by Bob Dubery
defended Anil. Book, chapter and verse please.
read your previous post in this thread, there is a difference
between
">What
Post by kenhiggs8
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
I'm saying is that people have their opinions and agendas and they
Post by Bob Dubery
agree with what fits in with their world view and pooh pooh what
doesn't,"
Post by kenhiggs8
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
and writing crap that bares no resemblance to the truth
No. What I asked for was for you to point out where I defended Anil.
Given that I didn't even pass an opinion or any article by Anil (or,
for that matter, in any article by anybody at all) in the posting that
got your pee in a froth, I think you might have a hard time quoting
the incriminating passage. (hint: It's not there).
But, hey, I'm in a good mood. You can have two more chances. You could
even do some googling. I'm sure you're not the kind of person who
writes crap articles which blatantly distort the facts.
pisof chukky the adults r trying to talk cricket
higgsy
Than WTF are you doing here Huggies, you should not be here for three
reasons, one you are not an adult, two this is a cricket ng and three the
toilets in the Holmes building need cleaning so back to work with you
.
Andrew Dunford
2003-07-29 23:42:09 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by dechucka
Than WTF are you doing here Huggies, you should not be here for three
reasons, one you are not an adult, two this is a cricket ng and three the
toilets in the Holmes building need cleaning so back to work with you
.
Yes, ok, they look nice and clean now. Next you can wash the windows.

Andrew

Bob Dubery
2003-07-29 09:57:59 UTC
Permalink
so this passage has got nothing to do with Anil, Why than did you post it in
a thread about Anil ?
Because I read the original post, started thinking about it, and half
way through what I thought was the point I was going to make, it
struck me that in fact it doesn't matter who the author is and what
their reputation is because we either applaud or shout down articles
on the basis of wether or not they fit in with our preconceptions or
not.

Most of us, most of the time, use the media as a drunkard uses a lamp
post: for support, not for illumination.

I would not be surprised to see certain RSCers starting lauding Anil
to the heavens if he wrote that Murali chucks or that Asoka is a crap
umpire. OK... Anil putting forward either POV is about as likely as
Christmas coming in July, but my point is that our opinion about any
piece of reportage (or even reprotage) is based not on it's own
intrinsic virtues but on the ideas we already have in our head.

It's all part of growing up and being human. I blame it on too much
talking about getting laid.
dechucka
2003-07-29 11:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
so this passage has got nothing to do with Anil, Why than did you post it in
a thread about Anil ?
Because I read the original post, started thinking about it, and half
way through what I thought was the point I was going to make, it
struck me that in fact it doesn't matter who the author is and what
their reputation is because we either applaud or shout down articles
on the basis of wether or not they fit in with our preconceptions or
not.
fair comment but some articles are so outrageously biased and stupid that
surely they should be attacked
Post by Bob Dubery
Most of us, most of the time, use the media as a drunkard uses a lamp
post: for support, not for illumination.
totally agree
Post by Bob Dubery
I would not be surprised to see certain RSCers starting lauding Anil
to the heavens if he wrote that Murali chucks or that Asoka is a crap
umpire. OK... Anil putting forward either POV is about as likely as
Christmas coming in July, but my point is that our opinion about any
piece of reportage (or even reprotage) is based not on it's own
intrinsic virtues but on the ideas we already have in our head.
I disagree some articles are so intrinsically bad that they cannot be
supported from any side. If there was an Australian reporter who wrote
articles like Anil I would attack them just as much
Post by Bob Dubery
It's all part of growing up and being human. I blame it on too much
talking about getting laid.
Bob Dubery
2003-07-27 13:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
so you are defending a person who writes crap articles which blatantly
distort the facts, fine!
You're clearly mistaking me for somebody else. I never mentioned Alvey at
all.
Larry de Silva
2003-07-28 10:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
so you are defending a person who writes crap articles which blatantly
distort the facts, fine!
You're clearly mistaking me for somebody else. I never mentioned Alvey at
all.
:-))

Laz
kenhiggs8
2003-07-28 01:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
you agree with Anal?
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the article in question. I offer
no
Post by Bob Dubery
opinion on that article at all, and it's not the point of my post.
What I'm saying is that people have their opinions and agendas and they
agree with what fits in with their world view and pooh pooh what doesn't,
and that the credentials of the author are neither here nor there. And I
go
Post by Bob Dubery
on to say that what we dismiss out of hand and what we blindly accept says
more about us than about the authors of the pices that are rubbished or,
as
Post by Bob Dubery
the case may be, lauded.
so you are defending a person who writes crap articles which blatantly
distort the facts, fine! Goebbles is your hero I take it.
Wow chukky, that was a pretty fast move to Goodwins Law.

BTW, see the rugby at the weekend?

Higgsy
Andrew Dunford
2003-07-28 02:45:14 UTC
Permalink
"kenhiggs8" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

<snip>
Post by kenhiggs8
Wow chukky, that was a pretty fast move to Goodwins Law.
Not having heard of this one, I'm going to guess it was named after Murray
and goes something like "even if a batsman scores runs at Test level, he'll
never make any in the Pura Milk Cup".

<snip>

Andrew
Shripathi Kamath
2003-07-28 03:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Dunford
<snip>
Post by kenhiggs8
Wow chukky, that was a pretty fast move to Goodwins Law.
Not having heard of this one, I'm going to guess it was named after Murray
and goes something like "even if a batsman scores runs at Test level, he'll
never make any in the Pura Milk Cup".
ROTFLMAO
--
Shripathi Kamath

<snip>
kenhiggs8
2003-07-28 05:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Dunford
<snip>
Post by kenhiggs8
Wow chukky, that was a pretty fast move to Goodwins Law.
Not having heard of this one, I'm going to guess it was named after Murray
and goes something like "even if a batsman scores runs at Test level, he'll
never make any in the Pura Milk Cup".
<snip>
Andrew
Of course.
Pura Milk Cup it is.
After all, the inclusion of an extra 'o' is how we get from mo to moo

Higgsy,
suitably chastened
Mad Hamish
2003-07-27 13:50:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:58:11 +0200, "Bob Dubery"
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by dechucka
you agree with Anal?
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the article in question. I offer no
opinion on that article at all, and it's not the point of my post.
What I'm saying is that people have their opinions and agendas and they
agree with what fits in with their world view and pooh pooh what doesn't,
and you'll tell anybody who disagrees with you that...
Post by Bob Dubery
and that the credentials of the author are neither here nor there. And I go
on to say that what we dismiss out of hand and what we blindly accept says
more about us than about the authors of the pices that are rubbished or, as
the case may be, lauded.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
***@aardvark.net.au
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...