|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Confirmed by BBC Cricket section, Buttler in as replacement keeper: *Link*
Regarding the Stoke - Birmingham works:
With regard to selection of bowlers for the England squad, Anderson may shortly be banned from participating in matches as a result of that 'level three' disciplinary business from Trent Bridge, if the official verdict on it goes against him.
Possible disruptions to rail services in/out of Birmingham stations (known of as of the time and date of this post):
Saturday, 26th July
Sunday, 27th July
The actual Future Rail Engineering Works section of the National Rail Enquiries webpage can (at the time of this post) be found *here*.
Prior's stood down 'due to injury' now, anyway: *Link*
I’m not clear what Aston may or may not have said about travel, but supplementary to it, the Highways agency Road Projects map (information for motorways and A roads) at the time of this post can be found here: *Link*
(Second Test vs India, Day 5)
So much for Stokes. :(
Daniel Rust wrote:
Oh Alistair. Out for 10. Where did it all go wrong?
I don't suppose the regular changes of partners he's been expected to open with since Strauss has helped.
Balance got a decent score today. Shame about the rest of the top order batsmen.
Freehold DM wrote:
Umm, Harry Potter 8 (as far as the film franchise goes) has already been done - it was Deathly Hallows part 2. (They split the last book into two films).If these things go ahead (although I thought J.K. Rowling was busy ghost-writing detective fiction or something like that these days) they will be the ninth, tenth, and eleventh films.
2nd Test (Lords), India vs 'England', Day 1.
India doubled their score in the last two and a half hours for the loss of only two wickets.
England currently looking to me favourite to continue their non-winning streak.
Well the only person, who can explain to you one hundred percent authoritatively what was going through the mind of the staff member who locked the thread is the staff member who *did* lock the thread*. All anyone else can do is mindlessly speculate, which may not be entirely productive.* Unless of course, to wear a tin-foil hat for a moment, Paizo have developed a universal mind, shared by all Paizo staff members. Although actually, given that at least Vic and Erik are Doctor Who fans... And if they've seen Shada...
<shivers and pulls down tin-foil hat around ears a bit tighter>
If it's really bothering you, you could always give (politely) emailing the staff-member in question (via the Paizo Contact Us page) a go.
I vaguely recall it being mentioned in previous series that some of the Indian players were dubious about 'predictive' technology such as Hawkeye, but is it an all-or-nothing thing, with no option to have, say, the slow motion replays but not the Hawkeye?
I gather Prior may have got a dubious decision (edit: over his own wicket). Are there no reviews in this series because India don't like them?
Although I suppose if the ball travels more slowly, but over a shorter distance, you have fewer clues as to the trajectory...
I thought the ball was supposed to be going through more slowly, so if they're standing closer, they should still have the same time to react?
Well, I suppose that's one way to get a draw. Play on a pitch so flat and slow that even after your top order fold, as usual, your tenth wicket stand can break records left, right and centre and five complete days of play end up not being long enough to get a result.
Meh. India won toss, and England (men) heading for another thrashing, at Trent Bridge this time. India 259-4 at the close with one of the batsmen at the crease on well over a hundred, and the other having just reached 50. I can't see this England team getting anywhere close to India's eventual first innings total unless Plunkett bounces in tomorrow morning and blows India away or Robson and Moeen score big runs when England bat.
It seems to me a bit premature to be fund-raising if the licensing isn't (as of 7th July, 2014) nailed down yet. I have a feeling Necromancer said that they were going to get behind 4E, but the plans fell through in the end - mainly on account of holdups in dissemination of rules material to third party publishers and difficulties over what finally showed up in the 4E licenses.
I may be in error in my recollection of the 4E debacle though, and if Necromancer are lining up writers who (at least in my mind) ought to have connections and influence at Hasbro - such as Ed Greenwood - maybe Necromancer are privy to inside information which gives them solid grounds for optimism that this time things will go more smoothly and favourably.
Hmmm. MCC beat 'rest of world' by 7 wickets. I'm not sure why Warne (rest of the world captain) didn't bowl himself unless he picked up some sort of injury; surely he's a better bowler than Kevin Pietersen (whose two overs went for twenty nine runs)?
Birmingham's flagship games store, 'Wayland's Forge' completed its relocation last month, and is now on the 'Lower Ground Floor' at 'The Custard Factory' in Digbeth. (Any 'Google Maps' information placing Wayland's Forge in Paradise Circus is out of date; it's possible, if Paizo's store locator places Wayland's Forge at the old Paradise Circus address, that Wayland's forge may not yet have got around to updating their information on Paizo, either.)
If you can get hold of it (either the TV series or accompanying book) one of the 'Seven Wonders of the Industrial World' was the Pacific Railroad.
I'd be tempted to give Prior a rest and bring Read in as wicket-keeper/captain. Notts have been doing quite well in the county championship thus far this year, and apparently Read's good enough a player to have been selected as the keeper for the MCC in the 50 over MCC vs Rest of World shindig at Lords next month.
Ever since the India tour, the England men's squad have plumbed ever greater depths of incompetence. The recent Headingly test should have been over in three days all the pundits in the radio commentary box who knew the players and ground were saying - but then the England bowlers wasted not one but *TWO* new balls in the Sri Lanka second innings by bowling the wrong length (despite the fact that the Sri Lankan bowlers had demonstrated exactly where to put the ball in the England first innings) and they let Angelo Matthews pile on a ridiculous number of runs with the tail by not only stopping trying to get him out but letting him smack boundaries too. (Matthews scored almost as many boundaries in the Sri Lanka second innings as the entire England batting line up did in their second innings.) The commentators on TMS have been going on and on about how England are led by two world-class bowlers, Anderson and Broad, whereas Sri Lanka's bowling lineup is about as good as a decent county side. If a visiting team makes better use of the conditions than an ostensibly superior class home-side, then something is very, very wrong somewhere - either the management (coach and captain) of the home side are useless, or someone in the setup's more crooked than a corkscrew.
With luck Cook will go now. Unfortunately I'm rather afraid that Moeen Ali's fine second innings rearguard will be used to somehow excuse Cook and to pretend that things are better than they are.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I wasn't commenting on F. Scott Fitzgerald. I was supplying the name of a well-known writer for whom making money was a primary consideration in writing. In addition to Wikipedia, I've also found a book review of a biography of Churchill which review mentions Churchill being in financial difficulties and writing to extract himself from it: *Link*However, since I don't have a copy of said biography immediately to hand, and I rather suspect that you're looking for extensive quotes from such a work, I'll bow out of this discussion.
Jeffrey Archer (another politician!) may well have embarked on his literary career with Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less, as far as I can determine, because he was in something of a financial hole in the wake of being amongst the victims of a fraud scheme.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Well, Winston Churchill for a start. I quote Wikipedia:"...Despite his lifelong fame and upper-class origins, Churchill always struggled to keep his income at a level which would fund his extravagant lifestyle. MPs before 1946 received only a nominal salary (and in fact did not receive anything at all until the Parliament Act 1911) so many had secondary professions from which to earn a living. From his first book in 1898 until his second stint as Prime Minister, Churchill's income was almost entirely made from writing books and opinion pieces for newspapers and magazines. The most famous of his newspaper articles are those that appeared in the Evening Standard from 1936 warning of the rise of Hitler and the danger of the policy of appeasement..."
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I suspect that most authors are more interested in entertaining sufficient readers to guarantee themselves a regular pay-cheque than in trying to make any kind of point. For example see the publishers 'Mills & Boon' and most of their output (one of the UK's market leaders in 'romance and fiction').
Mind you, I'm not sure to what extent it matters whether a practitioner in the field of literature is more interested in what they're studying or in the act of giving their opinion - either way they end up saying something about what they've been looking at.
Lord Snow wrote:
...There's no way around it, really. Literature is about books first and everything else second. That's basically the whole point. And, as a field that mostly concerns itself with the creations of other humans, unlike most other academic fields, I say there might be a difference between literature and it's fellow schools of thought. might. The idea is worth consideration, because like it or not, there's at least a grain of truth in the idea that studying something completely man-made is not exactly the same as figuring out the workings of our natural surroundings.
Is Literature always about books though? It seems to me that with regard to at least some practitioners in the field, Literature is more about them giving their own opinions and analysis than about what they profess to study. It doesn't matter to such practitioners what the works that they study are, because as far as they're concerned propounding their own opinions is the most important thing about the subject. They might as well critique an office health & safety code as a seventeenth century play or a nineteenth century novel.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Regarding any impact Ruth Benedict may or may not have had on Roosevelt, it was of limited effect because Roosevelt died on April 12th, 1945 (and was succeeded by Truman), and the Japanese surrender terms were finalised at the Potsdam conference in July, 1945. The current version (22nd June, 2014) of the Wikipedia article on the Surrender of Japan says that in fact at Potsdam the Amercian government took a line that they wanted to get rid of the Emperor and it was the British who wanted the Emperor retained. If Wikipedia is correct, at Potsdam the Americans went into the conference with a position the opposite of what you say Ruth Benedict had recommended to Roosevelt.
Lord Snow wrote:
There are various courses available in being an art critic, a film critic, a sports pundit, etc, etc. Literature is by no means the only field of human creation or endeavour that has experts who endlessly pick over other people's achievements and give forth their own opinions on.
Andrew Turner wrote:
My own feeling is that novelty value may make threads seem interesting and exciting; but after the first couple of thousand posts of seeing the same arguments on the same topics repeated over and over again, on thread after thread after thread the novelty value wears off – and interest and excitement go with them.Of course, if memory fades, interest may return...
James Jacobs wrote:
I put a link to this thread, over there, so if the Original Poster wants to drop by, it's up to them now...Thanks!
I would ask what Australia are doing playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but I suppose they offer more of a challenge than England did over the winter. The clown squad have just managed to lose a home one-day series to Sri Lanka, here in England. New faces, same old story of inconsistent and incompetent batting and a mistaken belief that four and a bit bowlers are good enough for a fifty over game. The only time the England bowling attack have done a good job overall was in the one game where they managed to bowl Sri Lanka out in 24 overs without needing to use the 'fifth bowler'. (Have to wonder if Sri Lanka threw that match, since being all out for 67 seems otherwise improbable.)