Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Nines wrote:
Your're a real blast . You cannot agree to a simple statement like " cricket has benefited from the involvment of Australian Football ."
You've had plenty of time . There's been plenty of input but you still can't bring yourself to agree with this simple statement without your pride adding some condition .
I was reading the reports on here of the games in the US. I know they are a year or so old but it is interesting that Aussie Rules was piggy backing on purpose constructed cricket grounds over there.
Nines wrote:
You've had plenty of time . There's been plenty of input but you still can't bring yourself to agree with this simple statement without your pride adding some condition .
I was reading the reports on here of the games in the US. I know they are a year or so old but it is interesting that Aussie Rules was piggy backing on purpose constructed cricket grounds over there.
Egan wrote:Nines go fetch an ethiopian for the weagles...
Stop wasting your time on this ludicrous argument.
It's not an argument .
Cricket has benefited from the involvement of Australian Football .
You simply cannot bring yourself to say so .
That relationship has changed over the years ,but cricket has benefited(by some degree) from Australian Football (at some time) .
That is without question .
I have no problem is saying that Australian Football has benefited from the association with cricket . Absolutely ,especially the further we go back in history .There are still great partnerships at lower levels today .
And also that's not exclude other sports that have had relationships with cricket .
Nines wrote:
That relationship has changed over the years ,but cricket has benefited(by some degree) from Australian Football (at some time) .
That is without question .
I have no problem is saying that Australian Football has benefited from the association with cricket . Absolutely ,especially the further we go back in history .There are still great partnerships at lower levels today .
And also that's not exclude other sports that have had relationships with cricket .
If you actually read my posts above, I said exactly that. Cricket and Australian Rules football have benefited from each other. They can also exist by themselves and profit, etc Adelaide Oval and WACA.
I have said Australian Rules Football has benefited from cricket, just as much as Australian Rules Football has benefited cricket.
You criticised me for altering my view and now you admit that cricket has been influential for Australian Rules Football.
A waste of a thread Nines, you have backed yourself into a corner to now agree with my point of view.
I have no problem is saying that Australian Football has benefited from the association with cricket . Absolutely ,especially the further we go back in history .There are still great partnerships at lower levels today .
And also that's not exclude other sports that have had relationships with cricket .
I agree, I said all of this before in this thread. Suggesting that Australia Rules has benefited by cricket allowing them to play on their venues, despite their precious surface being ruined.
I also said that Cricket can exist without Australian Rules Football.
Just as Australian Rules Football can exist without Cricket.
I also said that Cricket has benefited by Australian Rules Football just as much as Australian Rules Football has benefited by Cricket.
I don't understand why my opinion is so important though...
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.
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 .
