On 10/11/2022 12:25, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 11/10/2022 3:42 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 20:56:01 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Our club committee meeting was this evening.
>>> Four Indians, two Pakistanis, Five locals.
>>> There was a bit of chatter about a big match that is happening on
>>> Sunday.
>>> Nobody mentioned England until someone (me) mentioned that India have
>>> a match to win first before Sunday.
>>> I reckon a fart would have went down better.
>>> Seriously they so much want a final with India and Pakistan they
>>> forgot about England
>>
>> Something of an omission there, then. India haven't been hammered that
>> badly in a long time.
>
> India was hammered by Pak just last year in T20 worldcup in Dubai.

"that badly". Pakistan had 13 balls to spare; England had 24.

In terms of balls remaining (33), India's defeat to NZ the following
week was bigger, but NZ lost 2 wickets.

Anyway, a year (and 17 days) is a long time in India T20s; they played
44 of them between the Pakistan match and the England one; that's
getting on for one a week!

--
David North

On 11/11/2022 8:04 PM, David North wrote:
> On 10/11/2022 12:25, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 11/10/2022 3:42 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 20:56:01 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our club committee meeting was this evening.
>>>> Four Indians, two Pakistanis, Five locals.
>>>> There was a bit of chatter about a big match that is happening on
>>>> Sunday.
>>>> Nobody mentioned England until someone (me) mentioned that India have
>>>> a match to win first before Sunday.
>>>> I reckon a fart would have went down better.
>>>> Seriously they so much want a final with India and Pakistan they
>>>> forgot about England
>>>
>>> Something of an omission there, then. India haven't been hammered that
>>> badly in a long time.
>>
>> India was hammered by Pak just last year in T20 worldcup in Dubai.
>
> "that badly". Pakistan had 13 balls to spare; England had 24.

Both Pak and Eng beat India by 10 wickets.

You know the FACT that wins and losses are defined/described by wickets
and runs, NOT balls.

Nobody remembers which team beat which team by how many balls.

>
> In terms of balls remaining (33), India's defeat to NZ the following
> week was bigger, but NZ lost 2 wickets.
>
> Anyway, a year (and 17 days) is a long time in India T20s; they played
> 44 of them between the Pakistan match and the England one; that's
> getting on for one a week!
>

One year is NOT a long time.

On 11/10/2022 11:24 AM, max.it wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:12:05 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2022 12:56 PM, max.it wrote:
>>>
>>> Our club committee meeting was this evening.
>>> Four Indians, two Pakistanis, Five locals.
>>> There was a bit of chatter about a big match that is happening on
>>> Sunday.
>>> Nobody mentioned England until someone (me) mentioned that India have
>>> a match to win first before Sunday.
>>> I reckon a fart would have went down better.
>>> Seriously they so much want a final with India and Pakistan they
>>> forgot about England
>>> We don't have any English or Australian members.
>>>
>>> max.it
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is NOTHING WRONG in your club committee Indians and Pakis
>> "WISHING" an Ind-Pak final, though I DIDN'T for the reasons I stated two
>> days ago.
>>
>> I already said I would rather India LOSE to England than advancing to
>> the finals and LOSING to the Paki pigs.
>>
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/uk.sport.cricket/c/Xfui8C3Zi3Q/m/MJKVBwfnAQAJ
>
>
> It's a big event for these guys. Although most have lived here for 20
> years they are all still far from home and they got together to watch
> the Asia cup match.
>
> We leave our baggage at the gate. If we didn't we wouldn't have a
> cricket club. We have only excluded 4 players ever.
> One Pakistani for being a shit and he would have been a shit
> regardless of where he was from.
> A Brazilian, a decent bowler, but a total sticky fingered rogue.
> Two local lads basically excluded themselves after making racist
> comments.
>
> max.it

Because of the traditional rivalry and being ENEMIES, usually Indians
and Pakis prefer India-Pak matches to derive pleasure and satisfy
themselves emotionally.

I hope non-India/Pak fans understand it has nothing to do with
overlooking England or any other team.

It's because of the HISTORY of India and Pak.

Paki pigs feel better beating India who they PERCEIVE as INFERIOR
Kaffirs and Infidels.

India feels better beating a TERRORIST NATION Pak which kills Indians
with their pathological religious hatred for Hindus.

On 11/11/2022 5:40 AM, max.it wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 03:14:20 -0800, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2022 3:05 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 5:54:54 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2022 9:28 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 2:55:27 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/10/2022 4:37 AM, HVS wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10 Nov 2022, Mike Holmans wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 20:56:01 +0000, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Our club committee meeting was this evening.
>>>>>>>>> Four Indians, two Pakistanis, Five locals.
>>>>>>>>> There was a bit of chatter about a big match that is happening on
>>>>>>>>> Sunday.
>>>>>>>>> Nobody mentioned England until someone (me) mentioned that India
>>>>>>>>> have a match to win first before Sunday.
>>>>>>>>> I reckon a fart would have went down better.
>>>>>>>>> Seriously they so much want a final with India and Pakistan they
>>>>>>>>> forgot about England
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something of an omission there, then. India haven't been hammered
>>>>>>>> that badly in a long time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed; it was one for the annals of "being comprehensively
>>>>>>> steamrollered". Very satisfying to watch.
>>>>>> No REAL cricket fan would have enjoyed that BORING one sided game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The subcontinental patient has just told the most ridiculous lie, doctor...."
>>>>> RH
>>>> The Doctor said that I am NOT a western white like you to LIE.
>>>
>>> "Indeed, nurse. Ah, look how he has attempted another ludicrous lie... ..." RH
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The Doctor said I am NOT a Western White to LIE and I am very lucky NOT
>> to be born as a Western white.
>>
>>
>> He also said if I am born as a western white who DON'T have a single
>> respectable character trait, I would have HATED myself.
>>
>>
>
> Ditch Henderson into your BoZo bin. That way he'll be left posting to
> himself in his own little padded cell.
>

I don't like to kill file anybody.

I kind of enjoy beating the shit out of him and putting him in his place
because everybody else on uksc lets him get away scot-free with RACISM
and pure LIES.

> He likes your attention. Take it away and suffocate the louse quietly
> and he'll squirm and foam and froth and the only time you will see his
> bullshit again is when he finds someone else to beg for attention.
>
> You know his Mother had to tie a bone around his neck just to get the
> dog to play with him?
>
> max.it

Yup, RH doesn't have ANY life outside uksc.

His mother must have regretted for NOT swallowing instead too.

On 12/11/2022 07:29, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 8:04 PM, David North wrote:
>> On 10/11/2022 12:25, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2022 3:42 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 20:56:01 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Our club committee meeting was this evening.
>>>>> Four Indians, two Pakistanis, Five locals.
>>>>> There was a bit of chatter about a big match that is happening on
>>>>> Sunday.
>>>>> Nobody mentioned England until someone (me) mentioned that India have
>>>>> a match to win first before Sunday.
>>>>> I reckon a fart would have went down better.
>>>>> Seriously they so much want a final with India and Pakistan they
>>>>> forgot about England
>>>>
>>>> Something of an omission there, then. India haven't been hammered that
>>>> badly in a long time.
>>>
>>> India was hammered by Pak just last year in T20 worldcup in Dubai.
>>
>> "that badly". Pakistan had 13 balls to spare; England had 24.
>
>
>
> Both Pak and Eng beat India by 10 wickets.
>
> You know the FACT that wins and losses are defined/described by wickets
> and runs, NOT balls.

In limited overs cricket, they are often (depending on the source)
described in terms of both wickets and balls, e.g. "England won by 10
wickets (with 24 balls remaining)".

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-men-s-t20-world-cup-2022-23-1298134/england-vs-india-2nd-semi-final-1298178/full-scorecard

> Nobody remembers which team beat which team by how many balls.

So you will remember that India beat Pakistan by 4 wickets, not that
they did so off the last ball? Personally, I only remembered the latter;
I couldn't have told you how many wickets were left without looking it up.

A few days ago, you wrote "India BARELY won against Pak", but if the
balls remaining don't matter, it was fairly comfortable.

--
David North

On 11/15/2022 11:21 PM, David North wrote:
> On 12/11/2022 07:29, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 11/11/2022 8:04 PM, David North wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2022 12:25, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2022 3:42 AM, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 20:56:01 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our club committee meeting was this evening.
>>>>>> Four Indians, two Pakistanis, Five locals.
>>>>>> There was a bit of chatter about a big match that is happening on
>>>>>> Sunday.
>>>>>> Nobody mentioned England until someone (me) mentioned that India have
>>>>>> a match to win first before Sunday.
>>>>>> I reckon a fart would have went down better.
>>>>>> Seriously they so much want a final with India and Pakistan they
>>>>>> forgot about England
>>>>>
>>>>> Something of an omission there, then. India haven't been hammered that
>>>>> badly in a long time.
>>>>
>>>> India was hammered by Pak just last year in T20 worldcup in Dubai.
>>>
>>> "that badly". Pakistan had 13 balls to spare; England had 24.
>>
>>
>>
>> Both Pak and Eng beat India by 10 wickets.
>>
>> You know the FACT that wins and losses are defined/described by
>> wickets and runs, NOT balls.
>
> In limited overs cricket, they are often (depending on the source)
> described in terms of both wickets and balls, e.g. "England won by 10
> wickets (with 24 balls remaining)".
>
> https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-men-s-t20-world-cup-2022-23-1298134/england-vs-india-2nd-semi-final-1298178/full-scorecard
>

You know it, I know it and ALL fans know that it is NOT A STANDARD
PRACTICE since the game of cricket's invention to describe wins by balls
and in fact nobody cares or remembers whether Team A beat Team B by 20
balls or 30 balls.

It is in IRRELEVANT STATISTIC.

>> Nobody remembers which team beat which team by how many balls.
>
> So you will remember that India beat Pakistan by 4 wickets, not that
> they did so off the last ball? Personally, I only remembered the latter;
> I couldn't have told you how many wickets were left without looking it up.

Wins and losses have been described in terms of runs and wickets since
cricket's invention as a game.

Since it is a very close game which went down to the wire, I and all
cricket fans WILL remember that India WON of the last ball.

If it is NOT a close game, nobody will remember how many balls India
beat Pak with.

You are another proof, westerners are VERY POOR in "HOW TO THINK".

>
> A few days ago, you wrote "India BARELY won against Pak", but if the
> balls remaining don't matter, it was fairly comfortable.
>

People remember VERY CLOSE games decided in the last two or three balls
because they are VERY THRILLING.

People DON'T REMEMBER one sided games whether the winning team WINS by
20 balls or 25 balls cuz it is a BORING useless statistic.

It's FAIRLY OBVIOUS and common-sensical to even other cricket fans from
US, Aus, SA, NZ here.

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:54:35 PM UTC-8, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:

> You are another proof, westerners are VERY POOR in "HOW TO THINK".

and you are a racist lunatic