You just proved my point yet again .
Not once did you unqualified agree "cricket has benefited from Australian Football" .
Because you simply cannot say it .
Prize to anyone who show otherwise .
Seven posts ago Egan said, "I have said Australian Rules Football has benefited from cricket
, just as much as Australian Rules Football has benefited cricket. "
The second part of the sentence doesn't wualify the opinion, it simply gives another opinion about the converse. That's as good as it is going to get.
It may wualify the statement but it certainly does qualify the statement .
How much does it qualify the statement -"just as much" .
Look I know that's as good as it going to get . Known it for a long time .
It's just selfish me seeing how many times Egan can blatantly not agree to a very simple statement .To all the unimpressed onlookers , I say all it would have taken is a simple "yes" . How hard's that ?
I don't know why he didn't say yes . There was nothing to lose by it .
No loss of faith . Plain historical fact .
I would like nothing better to have rational and interesting discussions on this board , but it's impossible with egan playing jis agenda games .