RE:Very Articulate
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 04:08 AM Permalink
What is so great in that? Can you eloborate. Will you accept if I say something derogatory using your community name? It is a stupid article except that it whips up frenzy.
If many people admire then this guy would really think himself great. And when outside someone bursts the bubble, he won't be able to take it and he will be like emperor with no clothes. Then he comes back and vomits more and the vicious cycle goes on and on.
RE:Very Articulate
by Deep Indian on Jan 09, 2008 04:15 AM Permalink
What is so not great in this article. He has been very logical and articulate. He gone to great lengths in explaining why BCCI though being 50 times richer isn't pulling off the plug but only calling a spade a spade and that there are no evidences to prove that Harbhajan is not guilty at all. Besides television replays also prove the level of credibility that a captain of the most powerful cricketing nation carries. Need it be more clear unless logic is not your strong point.Or may be you are an outsider and does not feel good enough to standby India.
RE:RE:Very Articulate
by Amit Reddy on Jan 09, 2008 05:05 AM Permalink
Onlooker...shut the hell up. Instead of standing by your team..you say "I am setting the standards high for India". You choose to believe what the Aussies said about Bhajji and not him. There is a witness..Sachin Tendulkar for Bhajji, and you choose not even to believe him, while you probably choose to believe Ricky Ponting. I dont doubt your patriotism, but I do doubt your brains.
RE:Very Articulate
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 06:16 AM Permalink
Amit, why Sachin is not saying "Bhajji didn't use the Monkey word in Sydney Test." This one statement from Sachin is good enough to clear Bhajji of the charges but I know Sachin wouldn't say it.
RE:RE:Very Articulate
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 04:50 AM Permalink
What outsider? Ridiculous. Are you saying south africans were not patriotic when they implicated Cronje?
RE:Very Articulate
by Onlooker on Jan 09, 2008 04:48 AM Permalink
There are word against word cases and verdicts. You don't need conclusive proof. The prosecution had the witnesses necessary for evidence. What the defense should do is poke holes in prosecution's witnesses by cross examinationing and making them contradict thereby creating reasonable doubt. It appears that the defense didn't do a good job. Also it looks like Harbhajan didn't assert himself properly and clearly. Moreover, he didn't have a credible witness in Sachin when Sachin said things like he didn't hear Bhajji say such things etc which only proves that he is not a witness.
