Printable View
ippadi ellAm solluveengannu therinju dhaan, proportional representation edhirpArkkak koodaadhu-nu ezhudhi irukkEn.Quote:
Originally Posted by wizzy
naan ezhudhuradhai padikkiradhE illaiyaakkum? :huh:
veLLaikaaran indhiyakku viLayAdak koodaadhuyyA. Rules-na, rules- dhaan.
Shakib thambiyai kooptukkunga-nnu sonnA, adhai oru poruttAvE madhikka mAttEngreengaLE.
seri even remotely so :-)..Indian Kabaddi team which competed in Asian/Saf games is effectively Punjab/Haryana state team adhukkaga avungla boycot pannuvingla..that that sport that that men no..ellae vida pidiya Badrinath types kabaddi attathula serthukitta thaen support pannuvingala :lol:
Sellaadhu. "I am being illogical but that's due to my prejudice"-nu sollittu unga natural immigration theorya sollunga. OththukkaROm. Evrything's fine in your logic except the muyal-30kaal insistence that qualification criteria(legal and icc laws) cannot be sufficient for a player to play for a country - it is not an Indian team, btw. We all call it the bcci team, don't we? Idhu oru glorified club cricket dhaan - idhula edhukku sociology, zoologylaam kondu varinga? I can't see any other reason than to defend the position that you have taken and inability to accept that it is clearly illogical. Reminder again: a player plays for Ireland and England within the same month. Idhukku ninga badhil sollave illai - very natural, aint it?
Plum ,
P_R may ban you, paathu kavanam :lol:
I take it you feel lousy about Robin Singh, that bogus Indian from Trinidad, playing for TN/India? More questions: e nick Sajid Mahmood, Ajmal Shahzad, Adil Rashid etc from England? Owais Shah? Ravi Bopara? Heck, these nay not be England hopefuls but I guess we can especially do with Shahzad, thank u. Any day not worse than Ishant etc. Do we have your permission?
Of course. But there has always been 'opportunity' here. In SA that was not the case. Hence they are trying something. Again - I am not saying their method is perfect - but one can see the justification.Quote:
Originally Posted by wizzy
Very natural....avingaLukku. England-Ireland ellAm same to same to same, nu pallAyiram thadavai sollittEn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Ah Robin! paththu naaL dham katti pEsunadhula idhu dhaan first uruppadiyAna point. Rules padi enakku 'odd'A thONiyirukkaNum. Of course he came here as a kid, naturalized etc. By the same logic I would be fine with all the SAsians you mention- to a large extent I am fine with seeing then naturalized.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Then if one-generation is okay, how about multiple generations---Sewnarines, Ragoonaths - there I say nevaire.
Closest approximation to - foreigner India-la viLayAda koodaadhuyyA.
Here again I should qualify - there are the rarest of rare cases foreigners who happen to be in India. Like kids who grow up here. I hope you don't think I am for preventing them from playing cricket in India.
Exclusively hiring from outside 'for' cricket when we can't/don't do that for any other field (Kingfisher aeroplane pilot??) is odd to me. You are saying why can't cricket-led immigration happen. I don't see it as 'true' immigration. People coming here, not making it their home and doing it for - as wizzy says - 'mercenary' reasons. Whereas a KP or a Trott could be like any other Londoner.
idhukku mEla solradhukku edhuvumE illai. I think we perfectly understand each other's PoV.
No, you clearly are refusing to acknowledge a valid point. Ia m not going to leave you just like that - first be honest - then we can call truces.
Why are you misrepresenting? My point is against your arbitrary definition of "natural" immigration. It exists nowhere but your mind - not even the ingenious Englishmen who fruit-eating-seed-throwers in such obfuscation have thought of your (admittedly) pre-emptive strike. Your adamancy in the face of logic is commendably English. You keep protesting that I call you Englishman of India - well, you have every quality to be called an Englishman. So, even if you protest that you are supporting Test Cricket not British monarchy, you have exhibited sufficient mule-headed fancy (il)logic with arbitary definitions of concepts to suit your current position.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Evne the stand that you keep flaunting as "munnamEyE sollittEn" is cleraly a well-thought out pre-emptive defence - which is a very English trait.
You shouldnt feel insulted to be called as one with English attributes, should you?
What kind of idiotic argument is this? If an Englishman has to qualify for India, he has to stay in India 183 days for 4 consecutive years. That's what the ICC requires - ofcourse, they'll relax it for themselves but surely when they see reverse-brain=drain, they'll uphold this law to the word - which means if an Englishman qualifies per ICC requirements for India, he'd have soaked India in him sufficiently. That should be enough, Ofcourse, except in your mind - which is just your personal idiosyncracy. I have my own idiosyncrasies - atleast, i dont argue that those idiosyncratic beliefs are "national character" or "natural trait".Quote:
Exclusively hiring from outside 'for' cricket when we can't/don't do that for any other field (Kingfisher aeroplane pilot??) is odd to me. You are saying why can't cricket-led immigration happen. I don't see it as 'true' immigration. People coming here, not making it their home and doing it for - as wizzy says - 'mercenary' reasons. Whereas a KP or a Trott could be like any other Londoner.
Mark Tully is an odd case working in India - before and after him, no British journalist has made India his home. Per your logic, he should never have been allowed to stay on in India and make India his home.
Basically, if you think even one-inch deep, your position is untenable
Reviving the Dr Vijay analogy, I dont like Vijay movies, I wish a flop for him every time he releases a movie but if a DMK government resorted to unfair means to prevent release of his movie, my sympthies would be with him. I wouldnt crow and celebrtate that releasing a Vijay movie was prevented evne if by unfair means.
That is how it should be - infact, I believe you are also fair enough in that manner. It is just that you are resorting to vidhandavaadham in this issue and are unwilling to back off.
(Bertie Wooster: "We may be biased but we are fair".)