David Warner walking off pitch
Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:48 pm
How funny was that? From all accounts, the biggest sledger in international cricket has a cry because of some mild sledging.
Wayne Kerr wrote:talking to yourself, again ........
Wayne Kerr wrote:talking to yourself, again ........
Bomber wrote:Maybe Warner should have instead seen a shrink like half the ex-england team did years back.
Trott, Swann & KP - all mental.God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Maybe Warner should have instead seen a shrink like half the ex-england team did years back.
Can you name three of them?
1/3 - see me after class.Bomber wrote:Trott, Swann & KP - all mental.God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:Maybe Warner should have instead seen a shrink like half the ex-england team did years back.
Can you name three of them?
Bomber wrote:So there were even more that lost their minds - like I said, half the team.
I did - you didn't believe me.God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:So there were even more that lost their minds - like I said, half the team.
Can you name 3 of them?
No, I can't.Bomber wrote:I did - you didn't believe me.God is an Englishman wrote:Bomber wrote:So there were even more that lost their minds - like I said, half the team.
Can you name 3 of them?
Can you?
Would it have been better to name one who has and 2 who hadn't?Bomber wrote:See me after class
Yes - beats nothing at all.God is an Englishman wrote:Would it have been better to name one who has and 2 who hadn't?Bomber wrote:See me after class
1/3 is a fail.Bomber wrote:Yes - beats nothing at all.God is an Englishman wrote:Would it have been better to name one who has and 2 who hadn't?Bomber wrote:See me after class
You do realise getting a zero or failing to answer is a fail in most tests.
Plus unless you personally know and regularly liaise with the "other two" how would you know for sure they haven't? Many won't openly advertise the fact.
How are you going to name 0.5 of a person? You need to round up to 6.Bomber wrote:Sorry, but another fail. What is half of eleven? PS - hint - it's "not at least six".
Plus: 1/3 > 0/3 (even though I got 3/3)
You only think two are incorrect, meaning you aren't likely to know much more on the matter.God is an Englishman wrote:How are you going to name 0.5 of a person? You need to round up to 6.Bomber wrote:Sorry, but another fail. What is half of eleven? PS - hint - it's "not at least six".
Plus: 1/3 > 0/3 (even though I got 3/3)
You didn't get 3, you named 3 but two were incorrect. I suggest we get some back up to of those names or you admit you exaggerated and got called out on it.
Bomber wrote:You only think two are incorrect, meaning you aren't likely to know much more on the matter.God is an Englishman wrote:How are you going to name 0.5 of a person? You need to round up to 6.Bomber wrote:Sorry, but another fail. What is half of eleven? PS - hint - it's "not at least six".
Plus: 1/3 > 0/3 (even though I got 3/3)
You didn't get 3, you named 3 but two were incorrect. I suggest we get some back up to of those names or you admit you exaggerated and got called out on it.
And if you are going to say "at least" then you need to round down, not up.
Splitting hairs after being proved wrong....Bomber wrote:To GIAE : No, 6 is more than half, so using "at least" you are referring to the minimum, therefore the lesser sum. Had you said "up to six" you would have scored a tick.
As for proof, I don't have any, just word of people in the know, and given I doubt you can provide proof to the contrary, it's your word against mine and therefore you'll have to deal with it, accept it or just agree to disagree.
*KP still is a nutter - you only have to hear his commentary to know that he needs ongoing mental therapy.
Proved wrong? How so, Perry Mason?Old Redback wrote:Splitting hairs after being proved wrong....Bomber wrote:To GIAE : No, 6 is more than half, so using "at least" you are referring to the minimum, therefore the lesser sum. Had you said "up to six" you would have scored a tick.
As for proof, I don't have any, just word of people in the know, and given I doubt you can provide proof to the contrary, it's your word against mine and therefore you'll have to deal with it, accept it or just agree to disagree.
*KP still is a nutter - you only have to hear his commentary to know that he needs ongoing mental therapy.
Quite simple - you claimed half, named three and two were wrong.Bomber wrote:Proved wrong? How so, Perry Mason?Old Redback wrote:Splitting hairs after being proved wrong....Bomber wrote:To GIAE : No, 6 is more than half, so using "at least" you are referring to the minimum, therefore the lesser sum. Had you said "up to six" you would have scored a tick.
As for proof, I don't have any, just word of people in the know, and given I doubt you can provide proof to the contrary, it's your word against mine and therefore you'll have to deal with it, accept it or just agree to disagree.
*KP still is a nutter - you only have to hear his commentary to know that he needs ongoing mental therapy.
To be half the team, what is the least number you could have given. 5.5, that number is not possible, so it has to be 6. Had I said up to 6, then you could have named one person.Bomber wrote:To GIAE : No, 6 is more than half, so using "at least" you are referring to the minimum, therefore the lesser sum. Had you said "up to six" you would have scored a tick.
As for proof, I don't have any, just word of people in the know, and given I doubt you can provide proof to the contrary, it's your word against mine and therefore you'll have to deal with it, accept it or just agree to disagree.
*KP still is a nutter - you only have to hear his commentary to know that he needs ongoing mental therapy.