Digest for alt.sports.football.pro.miami-dolphins@googlegroups.com - 5 updates in 2 topics

Saturday, February 16, 2019

euphemism <euphemism@mindspring.com>: Feb 15 11:23PM -0600

Absolutely appalling... the NFL has caved to the nonsense lawsuit and
agreed to pay Collin Kaerpernick off to "shut him up." All they've done
is allow him to win in the view of the public. They've as much as
admitted that there was a conspiracy to keep Colin from playing. He's
the ultimate martyr to his cause and now he walks away with millions in
money he never earned. Hush money? Those fucking idiots just paid him
to become the greatest anti-NFL spokesperson ever. All he has to do is
stand there and smile. He won... they lost. What a chicken-shit bunch
of pansies they've shown themselves to be.
 
Now, just to prove they have nothing to hide, won't they have to insist
that all League teams give Colin a tryout before they acquire any new
quarterbacks? Sort of an expansion on the Rooney rule?
 
Not sure there's enough stone in Mt. Rushmore to carve Colin's head into
it. They'll have to make it like a Chia Pet.
Drumrboy <drumrboy@aol.com>: Feb 16 03:06AM -0800

Disgusting! Are these clowns deliberately trying to kill their Golden Goose?
Doc <Doc@Doc.com>: Feb 16 01:53PM

euphemism <euphemism@mindspring.com> wrote in news:c04sa7.953.17.1
> quarterbacks? Sort of an expansion on the Rooney rule?
 
> Not sure there's enough stone in Mt. Rushmore to carve Colin's head into
> it. They'll have to make it like a Chia Pet.
 
I agree with you. The NFL is becoming more and more of a joke day by day.
 
Doc
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
J Lunis <lunis.j@gmail.com>: Feb 16 09:33AM -0500

On 2/16/2019 12:23 AM, euphemism wrote:
 
> Not sure there's enough stone in Mt. Rushmore to carve Colin's head into
> it. They'll have to make it like a Chia Pet.
 
I don't like the decision any more than you do. OTOH, reality is no
more major legal costs and no more dragging on the publicity for 2-5
more years. This sounds more like both sides saying 'we don't have
clear evidence you are guilty, so let's get something done.' One of
those instances where, the next day, both sides can claim they were right.
 
Side note: personally, I have a distrust of jury trials in civil cases.
bob@bob.mail: Feb 15 05:33PM -0500

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:34:26 -0600, Stoobz <stoobz4@comcast.net>
wrote:
 
>later rounds (they won't) but all this talk about Kyler Murray going to
>Miami in the top of the draft is crazy.
 
>I'm hoping it's all smoke and mirrors.
 
Jimmy Johnson's take -
 
Don't necessarily succumb to the temptation to draft 5-10 Oklahoma
quarterback Kyler Murray.
 
"Kyler Murray is the kind of player who can take you to the playoffs
or can be hurt his second game," Johnson said. "He is exciting and a
great college player, but he is undersized and a big part of his game
is mobility and mobile quarterbacks in the NFL don't last very long.
But he is great player and exciting. It would be a tough call for me
for the long haul. I would be hesitant."
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to alt.sports.football.pro.miami-dolphins+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Feb 16 05:13AM -0800

Good job Occasional-Cortex, PWL and Pelle types! 70% of blacks and 81% of Latinos wanted Amazon in NYC, BUT the good ole Marxists that wreck everything they touch wrecked it! LOL
 
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/15/abolishice-helped-kill-new-yorks-amazon-hq-deal/
 
This was not a populist uprising against a big business seeking subsidies. According to polling data, most Queens residents supported Amazon's move to New York, but their voices were overwhelmed by the activists. Among black voters, 70 percent supported the Amazon deal, while only 25 percent objected. Among Latinos, 81 percent supported Amazon with only 17 percent opposing. Whites were less enthusiastic, with just 51 percent favoring and 40 percent opposing.
Calimero <calimero186@gmx.de>: Feb 16 06:49AM -0800

Am Samstag, 16. Februar 2019 14:13:07 UTC+1 schrieb The Iceberg:
> Good job Occasional-Cortex, PWL and Pelle types! 70% of blacks and 81% of Latinos wanted Amazon in NYC, BUT the good ole Marxists that wreck everything they touch wrecked it! LOL
 
> https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/15/abolishice-helped-kill-new-yorks-amazon-hq-deal/
 
> This was not a populist uprising against a big business seeking subsidies. According to polling data, most Queens residents supported Amazon's move to New York, but their voices were overwhelmed by the activists. Among black voters, 70 percent supported the Amazon deal, while only 25 percent objected. Among Latinos, 81 percent supported Amazon with only 17 percent opposing. Whites were less enthusiastic, with just 51 percent favoring and 40 percent opposing.
 
 
Hopefully this nutty bartender gets primaried next year.
 
 
Max
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Feb 17 01:18AM +1100

On 16/02/2019 2:36 am, MBDunc wrote:
>> 90% of the slams & relegating those 3 to r/up status. Would you say if
>> those 2 weren't around, Fed/Rafa/Djoker wouldn't be be goat level?
 
> In reality it just does not work that way. It is speculation which cannot be proven either ways.
 
You can't make both these statements - ie can't say it 'doesn't work
that way', but then also 'cannot be proven'. If it can't be proven then
you can't say it does not work that way.
 
 
 
> For example *your own theory* has been many times that top champs push themselves into even greater heights (like would Djokovic ever been that good without Fed/Nadal as yardsticks?). Same with >Murray?
 
 
Yes, this is obvious in sports like tennis where the goal is to beat the
other guy on the day, & not beat a static time measure (athletics) or
score (golf). You can play very poorly in a Wimbledon final yet still
win the title if the other guy plays worse. You don't have to play
anywhere near boat level tennis. That's not true in athletics & golf.
 
 
 
> Connors improved and modified his game many times due to Borg and then Mac existence. Laver 1969 was gamewise totally different beast compared to 1962 due to push by pro-rankds.
 
 
Yes, but this doesn't negate my post. Those 2 guys that may have
existed could have simply been too good for the fab 3, no matter how
hard they pushed themselves.
 
It's certainly true Fed/Rafa/Djoker were able to reach the top of their
potential thanks to the high quality of all 3 guys forcing greater efforts.
 
 
 
> And then there is math and probabilities ... which most do not understand. This means there are no gimme wouldacouldashouldas but everything can happen.
 
 
You've said before that it doesn't matter if players like Borg, Mac,
Sampras, Fed etc never existed because other players would have filled
the void & rose to that level. This never made sense to me. I wonder
what would it be like today if Elvis, Michael Jackson, Barbra Streisand,
Beatles etc never existed? This also makes me think of the potentially
amazing artists we never got to experience due to twist of fate. Same
goes for tennis & pretty much everything in life. 'Coulda/woulda' is on
some levels abstract, but it's also very tangible imo.
 
If I stabbed Rafa in 2005 would some other guy have won 11 FO's in his
place? What about the guy who was aborted that would have won 4
calendar slams?
 
 
 
> This results Hewitt beating Sampras at USO final, Delpo beating Fed at USO, Stan beating both Djoker and Nadal at same AO...
 
 
 
Of course anything can happen. An early match that rammed this home for
me was Peter Doohan beating 2 time defending Wimbledon champ Becker at
Wimbledon. I seriously thought that would be something like 61 60 61
blowout. End of the day tennis is a 1 on 1 gladiatorial sport where
history means nothing on the day. You have to go out & win 1 more match,
no matter how good you were in earlier rds. Rafa at this AO is a
perfect example.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Feb 17 01:25AM +1100

On 16/02/2019 5:08 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> guy try & beat the more skilled player - fascinating to watch imo
 
> Because you crave something you don't get from today's tennis you can't say this level of tennis isn't much higher than the way they played before.
 
> Oh I enjoyed watching humans assemble cars but because it's boring now to keep watching robots doing a better job I decide to make a statement that manufacturing was better before.
 
Can't compare cars to tennis players. Just because cars get better
doesn't mean everything does. Human talent can happen anytime. You're
not going to argue Beiber/Rihanna are the best singers ever right?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Feb 17 01:28AM +1100

On 16/02/2019 5:58 am, The Iceberg wrote:
 
>> Because you crave something you don't get from today's tennis you can't say this level of tennis isn't much higher than the way they played before.
 
>> Oh I enjoyed watching humans assemble cars but because it's boring now to keep watching robots doing a better job I decide to make a statement that manufacturing was better before.
 
> this level of tennis isn't much higher than the way they played before cos it doesn't have any tactics. Are you saying Madison Keys is better than Steffi cos she hits it harder and more often from the baseline?
 
Katy Perry is better singer than Barbra Streisand because everything in
old days was inferior.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net>: Feb 16 06:43AM -0800

On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 4:18:59 PM UTC+2, Whisper wrote:
> You can't make both these statements - ie can't say it 'doesn't work
> that way', but then also 'cannot be proven'. If it can't be proven then
> you can't say it does not work that way.
 
I just did.
 
OF course "doesn't work this way" and this "cannot be proven" are different angles. The point was that any hypothetical speculation instantly goes uncontrolled as there are too much variables.
 
> You don't have to play
> anywhere near boat level tennis. That's not true in athletics & golf.
 
Bolt run 9.58 and 19.19 2009. He has not gotten any close to these times since but still won tons of golds2010-2016 (like 100/200m doubles at OGs 2012 and 2016).
 
> > Connors improved and modified his game many times due to Borg and then Mac existence. Laver 1969 was gamewise totally different beast compared to 1962 due to push by pro-rankds.
 
> It's certainly true Fed/Rafa/Djoker were able to reach the top of their
> potential thanks to the high quality of all 3 guys forcing greater efforts.
 
This is apparent. Not only their long career but their ability to shrug off crucial career-defining losses and then come back as strong as ever... someone like Borg would have been running away for years....
 
 
> You've said before that it doesn't matter if players like Borg, Mac,
> Sampras, Fed etc never existed because other players would have filled
> the void & rose to that level.
 
If you do remember: I copied this opinion almost word-to-word from you :) - from 2002. I have mentioned this earlier also...may be I set up a trap here, did I?
 
> This never made sense to me.
 
See above...
 
> If I stabbed Rafa in 2005 would some other guy have won 11 FO's in his
> place? What about the guy who was aborted that would have won 4
> calendar slams?
 
That's the reason we love to check actual records for goatness/boatness rather than wouldacouldashoulda databases which are infinite. The best potential tennis talent ever can might as well be your regular barfly who just never picked a racket.
 
> > This results Hewitt beating Sampras at USO final, Delpo beating Fed at USO, Stan beating both Djoker and Nadal at same AO...
 
> no matter how good you were in earlier rds. Rafa at this AO is a
> perfect example.
 
That's the point. There are no gimmes.

.mikko
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: Feb 16 01:48AM -0800

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 11:14:25 PM UTC-8, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
He is having a good run at Rotterdam. On the way back?
 
He has taken out three guys now ranked above him and set to face Nishikori next. And those are three decent players:
Benoit Paire (58);
Raonic (14) who is on the comeback trail himself and had a QF showing at AO; Shapovalov (25) who has been in the conversation for the last year.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Feb 16 02:45AM -0800

On Saturday, 16 February 2019 09:48:44 UTC, arahim wrote:
 
> He has taken out three guys now ranked above him and set to face Nishikori next. And those are three decent players:
> Benoit Paire (58);
> Raonic (14) who is on the comeback trail himself and had a QF showing at AO; Shapovalov (25) who has been in the conversation for the last year.
 
yes looks like a handy win against Shapov! the Nishi match should be a good one.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Feb 17 01:22AM +1100

On 16/02/2019 3:35 am, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Gilbert finding ways to beat players far more talented. That's
> fascinating to me & tennis allows you to do that.
 
> Comparing Gilbert and Wawrinka?
 
My post makes it very clear Wawrinka is not the low skilled journeyman -
the 'yes, but I was thinking more the...' bit gave it away?
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com>: Feb 15 03:29PM -0800

On 2/15/19 2:02 PM, *skriptis wrote:
>> --Sawfish
 
> If we can't have government working in our best interests, like
> family members work for each others then we don't need it.
 
It's been that way increasingly since the 70s, I'd say. It was
initialized by the Vietnam involvement, and confirmed by Watergate and
Nixon's subsequent resignation.
 
Everyone started getting real cynical. You can see where we are now, in
the US.
 
 
> Let's have a mad max scenario. I can take care of myself that way,
> sure.
 
> Now that would be truly liberating.
 
Hah!
 
You know, skript, I had a moment of revelation concerning the
desirability of anarchy--which, I am embarrassed to admit, I thought was
desirable for a person like me, being in my mid-20s, and hence
invincible and immortal.
 
I'd had a few instances where my first wife provoked overt responses
from men on the street, often in poor neighborhoods, or maybe where one
might encounter a group of bikers.
 
Cold Spring Tavern behind Santa Barbara, in the 70s, springs readily to
mind...
 
And even when she didn't do this provocative stuff, there was still the
danger that she'd attract a fair degree of sexual attention, and I'd
have to brave it out, one way or another.
 
Burkas, anyone?... :^)
 
One day as were getting ready to walk past a bunch of young black guys
near the LA Colosseum and I was trying to figure out how best to deal
with the inevitable situation, it dawned on that in a *real* anarchy I'd
have to carry a gun in order to keep possession of my wife. Every day.
 
I'd have to carry something intimidating every single time I went
anywhere public with her, because she'd be like a $100 bill on the
ground, and whoever is the most dominant gets to keep it.
 
It was then that I re-thought my position on anarchy.
 
"Civilization upgrade", indeed! :^)
 
I didn't get smart enough to leave her until several years later.
 
> should expect nothing, and don't even care. That's the reason for
> the current nihilism in the west. And people killing themselves
> rich drugs.
 
Probably. But that's the reality i have to deal with for the rest of my
life, most likely. So rather than attempt to moderate this, I can weasel
by learning how best to work within this corrupt system.
 
If I were in my 30s instead of in my 70s, I'd come at it differently...
 
> losers and that they should accept their misfortune that's his
> legacy.
 
> Trump turned the tables on that. He restored patriotism.
 
Disagree. There is likely some argument that Trump is the second coming
of Reagan. He's not as encouraging or positive, that's for sure, but...
 
It sure *feels* that way, here as an observer.
 
 
> We expect care from goverment. Government is responsible for
> planning, but love has to be part of everything. We expect them
> to care. Not to give us free stuff.
 
In my experience "caring" went gradually out of vogue after Watergate,
when it became apparent that in order to hold power, no expedient that
promised success, however distasteful, and without direct precedent,
would be off-limits.
 
It's like dealing with a lot of the posters here on RST.
 
I'd say that prior to maybe 1980 there was a tradition of limited, but
real, trust in authority in the US. This may have come as a tag-along
from WWII.
 
After Nixon, Carter *seemed* decent, but was also seen as weak and
incompetent. Reagan was seen as decent--rightly or wrongly--but
optimistic and effective.
 
It was as if Reagan was Kennedy, but instead of promising that NASA
would land a man on the moon within the 60s, *you'd* land on the moon,
by your own volition, and the administration would stand back and let it
happen.
 
This is of course silly, but it was very definitely positive and
optimistic. It was "anti-cynicism".
 
 
> If you're sending message we are all in it for ourselves, no
> matter how much emphasis you put on legal nuances, it destroys
> fabric of society.
It's what's happening here, and if you are not a part of it (look out
for yourself) you will in essence be entering a 100m sprint wearing a 60
kilo weight jacket.
 
> So what you see as liberating, I see as alienating. He did
> liberate people. Liberated everyone from shared collective
> identity, expectations, hope.
 
No. You fail to realize that what he used as a unifier is that the US is
composed of competent, motivated individuals. For those who bought this,
they felt a sense of unity.
 
Again, while no one was purposely excluded, many just were neither
prepared, nor confident, and they had some real troubles.
 
But for most of the rest--and this was increasingly the emergent
Boomers--just as the emergent Millennials bought into Obama's rhetoric
of social restitution for past wrongs.
 
 
> Humans are social creatures. Both individual and collective parts
> are important.
 
Agreed, but understand: it is a pit filled with the vilest of vipers,
here. You need look no further than the integrity--or complete lack
thereof--of many of the posters here in RST. *That's* what I'm talking
about, and it's why the informed individual here in the US cannot afford
to trust people outside of a circle of proven friends and acquaintances.
 
You can expect no compromise or cooperation; it's been shown over and
over again...
 
 
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give me Dadaism, or give me nothing!"
--Sawfish
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Feb 15 11:49PM

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:29:57 -0800, Sawfish wrote:
 
> thereof--of many of the posters here in RST. *That's* what I'm talking
> about, and it's why the informed individual here in the US cannot afford
> to trust people outside of a circle of proven friends and acquaintances.
 
lol
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Feb 16 12:58AM +0100


> You seem to think government is made up of all these innocent, angelic creatures that somehow only care deeply about the populace and to serve and protect them like a mother would her babies... The reality is government is run by power hungry politicians who's sole purpose is to get elected by promising to steal from Peter to give to Paul. Devision is their only solution. Sold as unity. They will step on you if they have to.
 
> That's why Reagan said what he said. He understood it is indeed the problem, as power corrupts and government claims as much power and monopoly as it can get. Like a cancer it becomes deadly if left to run its course. It attracts only the most ambitious of power hungry. And only the nastiest, most despicable make it to the top. Especially in a socialist, big government type of system.
 
I know the realities, but you have to have a positive nice story,
that will inspire people.
 
If you tell them their governments is made of psychopaths, and
government is a ruling elite, the best of the people, and even
more, in a democracy, government is an extension and reflection
of the people, in that case, what do you think, what was your
actual message to those people, and what the end result will be?

 
Nihilism.
 
 
You seem to have a high opinion of him. So be it. He's not my
favorite, for sure.
 
Atomized society, made of self centered people, in which people
are not connected and are emotionally disconnected from pursuing
common interests, that, as we see, has consequences.

 
 
We don't have to be Borg (collective), but some degree of
collectivism is necessary to have a healthy society that can make
people happy.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Feb 16 12:02AM

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:29:57 -0800, Sawfish wrote:
 
> Disagree. There is likely some argument that Trump is the second coming
> of Reagan. He's not as encouraging or positive, that's for sure, but...
 
> It sure *feels* that way, here as an observer.
 
A lying, cheating draft dodger is a symbol of American patriotism to
you? Wow!
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Feb 16 12:06AM

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:29:57 -0800, Sawfish wrote:
 
> I'd have to carry something intimidating every single time I went
> anywhere public with her, because she'd be like a $100 bill on the
> ground, and whoever is the most dominant gets to keep it.
 
As Whisper said the other day, "Classic pin dick by the sounds."
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Feb 16 12:18AM

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 00:58:58 +0100, *skriptis wrote:
 
> a democracy, government is an extension and reflection of the people,
> in that case, what do you think, what was your actual message to those
> people, and what the end result will be?
 
Vote 'em out!
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Feb 16 01:27AM +0100

>> about, and it's why the informed individual here in the US cannot afford
>> to trust people outside of a circle of proven friends and acquaintances.
 
> lol
 
Sawfish nice story about dangerous neighborhood.
 
I value your personal experience about this. And your comparison
with rst is helpful.
 
Yes, it puts things in perspective. I would certainly not want to
live in a society with people who are vile, selfish, but most
importantly, pushing everything in the direction that I don't
want, and being different from me and my people, they have
different interests so of course they will push their stuff. I
don't often think about that.
 
When you are in a homogenous society, remember your San Pedro episode.
 
But since reality is more similar to this story about walking in a
dangerous neighbourhood with your wife, I might understand what
was appeal with Reagan at the time.
 
I might understand or try to understand what made Reagan desirable
in the eyes of the people, at that particular historical moment,
when he appeared, which was also part of long process that ended
with the today's society. Society in which (until Trump came)
conservatism was somehow linked not with the teachings of e.g.
George Washington, but with open borders, free trade,
overthrowing third world regimes, and other nonsense.

 
But It's not how would I like things to be, so it kinda looks (for
America) that everything went downhill after they set Nixon up.
That started a chain reaction.
 
Awful event for America and the world.
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com>: Feb 15 05:02PM -0800

On 2/15/19 4:27 PM, *skriptis wrote:
> different interests so of course they will push their stuff. I
> don't often think about that.
 
> When you are in a homogenous society, remember your San Pedro episode.
Exactly.
> conservatism was somehow linked not with the teachings of e.g.
> George Washington, but with open borders, free trade,
> overthrowing third world regimes, and other nonsense.
 
You are correct in concluding that after JFK, LBJ, Nixon--all of whom
exercised decisive executive power and leadership, as Trump is doing
now--followed by the weak Carter, Reagan's ideological rhetoric
represented an individualist, rather than a collective, model for success.
 
I bought into the Reagan-esque ideas about deregulation for quite a
while, until the 2008 liquidity crisis pimp-slapped some sense into me.
I spent a LOT of time analyzing what led to it, and there was no other
conclusion than it was a lack of appropriate regulation.
 
it has become more apparent to me that some kind of hybrid system would
work best--and China looks something like such a system.
 
 
> But It's not how would I like things to be, so it kinda looks (for
> America) that everything went downhill after they set Nixon up.
> That started a chain reaction.
Nixon is truly a Richard III-like tragic figure. Tremendously capable
and canny, combined with a paranoid anxiety and probably a deep
self-loathing.
 
> Awful event for America and the world.
 
I'm hoping that this is yet another cyclical historic phase, but am
uncertain that anything other than a serious and prolonged existential
threat, enforcing unity as a necessary expedient for survival, would be
sufficient.
 
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: He talks the talk...but does he walk the walk?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Feb 16 02:32AM

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 17:02:49 -0800, Sawfish wrote:
 
> uncertain that anything other than a serious and prolonged existential
> threat, enforcing unity as a necessary expedient for survival, would be
> sufficient.
 
So you'd like a 1984-like scenario?
Calimero <calimero377@gmx.de>: Feb 16 02:07AM -0800

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 10:18:18 PM UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
 
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
 
Yes, he ended the Soviet Union and their empire. You must HATE him.
 
 
Max
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Feb 15 03:11PM -0800

On Friday, 15 February 2019 22:07:17 UTC, jdeluise wrote:
 
> > That would be "toe the line" jd and all others who toed the line and
> > copied him.
 
> Thanks, Tennis Guy.
 
jd, been wondering also why are you so divisive on this wall thing? it doesn't cost much in the long run and will be good at keeping illegals out, why not just go along with it?
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Feb 15 07:57PM

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:49:42 -0800, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> majority in the Senate, which is for much more long term policy and The
> Wall is definitely one of those. The house of reps is for shorter term
> stuff like tax rates or parking fines etc.
 
But didn't he lie? He literally promised hundreds of times that Mexico
would write a check for it. He even famously begged the Mexican
president to do it.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Feb 15 09:48PM +0200

On 15/02/2019 21.37, Calimero wrote:
>>> of her and put that burden on the taxpayer.
 
>> What's up? I thought you environmentalists liked zero emissions targets?
 
> You can be an environmentalist without worshipping in the climate change church.
 
If environmentalism is your #1 concern, you don't really vote against
it. Unless it isn't your #1 concern, despite what you say.
 
Then again, bob says a lot of things.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Feb 16 01:34AM +0100

A big battle in south America.
 
Night session, typical gruelling clay match.
 
The clay is back.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Feb 15 08:31PM +0100

>>> --
 
> The welfare attitude. Get free upkeep, then whine because you have to
> fill out few forms.
 
Would you be ok with Putin annexing Sweden, forcing you to pay
membership and then when you fill out few forms and send them to
Moscow for approval, you get some money back for various projects
in Sweden?
 
And if you're really good in filling forms, you might actually get
more money than Finland.
 
See, there's a chance.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Manuel aka Xax <xamigax@gmail.com>: Feb 15 03:04PM -0800

Le jeudi 14 février 2019 00:27:31 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky a écrit :
> I watched a little... I think his high risk game didn't go his way.
 
Avoiding to face Monfils, who trashed him in their previous meeting ?
By the way, Gael aslo trashed Dzumur (1 & 2, or so)
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

BTTalbot2003@yahoo.com: Feb 15 10:50AM -0800

What amazes me is players and the players' assn.
claiming collusion when teams have not yet offered
enormous contracts to players like Harper and
Machado. Figures like 10 years and anywhere from
$300M to $400M. It's not collusion, it's common sense.
 
And it makes me uneasy to hear reports that the Sox
are still in the hunt for Machado.
 
BTT
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.