11-27-2007, 10:03 PM
Dear Kamran,
Debate is over, so don't worry. Your point sounds valid that an aggregately consented conclusion shouldn't always be the target. Rightly said it is at most occasions not possible to arrive to such conclusion. A second approach may be that in all such discussions when it becomes certain that things are being prolonged reasonlessly should give their conclusions and then get aside. I mean its a bit better that an attempt to conclude the things is better than living them totally open. That is what I guess has been done here before this post.
Now without any intentions to prolong things further just some clarifications. The question you asked about WWE i.e. "Do you mean it is explicitly disclosed or announced to viewers in advance at WWE that which player will win the game? Do you think so?" I suppose should have been asked much earlier. I think then we prolonged things without properly understanding each otherâs views. My answer is we watch movies do we know what's gonna be the end? No we don't. Though its very much known that the end has been directed and doesn't base on any future uncertainty. This I think should not be the case in live sports (provided they are not fixed). In WWE its never none to viewers that who is gonna win as movie viewers are don't know the end. However, in case of WWE unlike cricket and other sports viewers no that the end has been predecided and doesn't rest on how the match proceeds. I guess you'll agree on this point. So this was the difference I intended to highlight 3 or 4 times in this thread. I rephrase my answer WWE majority of viewers know that the result is pre planned and they are watching a show. Cricket At least the management tries to portray it as a genuine game. So my theory remains as it is that it is not possible for any sport to continue if a substantial part of it is pre planned. If it is the case it has to become a stage show like WWE. So, according to me the example of WWE here supports my point instead of yours. Your point according to me I repeat is as WWE, a preplanned show is successful to attract so many viewers then any other pre planned sport also. I think after above clarification this comment completely loose weight.
Pakistan has played lesser cricket in 2004 and 2005. But Kamran it never means that it proves a bit of what you said. Pakistan still played more than some other test playing nations. And there were years in recent past where Australia and India played lesser cricket. I don't know how only on the basis of playing some less cricket such things can be assumed. I have told that decisive factors are the sponsorship and security issues.
Infact in the beginning by agreeing to the point that some matches might be fixed I justified your's and astute's point for not watching cricket.
If match fixing is not the case then we should show some more moral courage to accept the defeats of our team.
Debate is over, so don't worry. Your point sounds valid that an aggregately consented conclusion shouldn't always be the target. Rightly said it is at most occasions not possible to arrive to such conclusion. A second approach may be that in all such discussions when it becomes certain that things are being prolonged reasonlessly should give their conclusions and then get aside. I mean its a bit better that an attempt to conclude the things is better than living them totally open. That is what I guess has been done here before this post.
Now without any intentions to prolong things further just some clarifications. The question you asked about WWE i.e. "Do you mean it is explicitly disclosed or announced to viewers in advance at WWE that which player will win the game? Do you think so?" I suppose should have been asked much earlier. I think then we prolonged things without properly understanding each otherâs views. My answer is we watch movies do we know what's gonna be the end? No we don't. Though its very much known that the end has been directed and doesn't base on any future uncertainty. This I think should not be the case in live sports (provided they are not fixed). In WWE its never none to viewers that who is gonna win as movie viewers are don't know the end. However, in case of WWE unlike cricket and other sports viewers no that the end has been predecided and doesn't rest on how the match proceeds. I guess you'll agree on this point. So this was the difference I intended to highlight 3 or 4 times in this thread. I rephrase my answer WWE majority of viewers know that the result is pre planned and they are watching a show. Cricket At least the management tries to portray it as a genuine game. So my theory remains as it is that it is not possible for any sport to continue if a substantial part of it is pre planned. If it is the case it has to become a stage show like WWE. So, according to me the example of WWE here supports my point instead of yours. Your point according to me I repeat is as WWE, a preplanned show is successful to attract so many viewers then any other pre planned sport also. I think after above clarification this comment completely loose weight.
Pakistan has played lesser cricket in 2004 and 2005. But Kamran it never means that it proves a bit of what you said. Pakistan still played more than some other test playing nations. And there were years in recent past where Australia and India played lesser cricket. I don't know how only on the basis of playing some less cricket such things can be assumed. I have told that decisive factors are the sponsorship and security issues.
Infact in the beginning by agreeing to the point that some matches might be fixed I justified your's and astute's point for not watching cricket.
If match fixing is not the case then we should show some more moral courage to accept the defeats of our team.
