Digest for rec.sport.pro-wrestling@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 23 topics

Sunday, July 31, 2016

robert <rjs2085@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 09:57PM -0700

hell yeah
"SPAZZCATAZ." <unifarva4@gmail.com>: Jul 31 09:59PM -0700

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 12:57:14 AM UTC-4, robert wrote:
> hell yeah
 
fuck no, punk
robert <rjs2085@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 09:57PM -0700

hell yeah
robert <rjs2085@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 09:56PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:38:02 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:15:54 PM UTC-4, robert wrote:
> > Then your kidneys may fail
 
> not possible
 
very likely.
robert <rjs2085@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 09:56PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:03:57 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> Senior Republican leaders, including House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, remained silent, as did vice presidential nominee Mike Pence.
 
what?
robert <rjs2085@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 09:55PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:39:19 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:15:32 PM UTC-4, robert wrote:
> > Sugar cane?
 
> coke cane
 
that's illegal.
robert <rjs2085@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 09:55PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:40:46 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
 
> > > chad said.
 
> > how edoes chad know?
 
> you are tghe kwisatz haderach
 
thanks bro!
robert <rjs2085@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 09:54PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:41:37 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:13:51 PM UTC-4, robert stickler wrote:
> > Really?
 
> oh yes
 
impossible.
robert <rjs2085@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 09:54PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:42:19 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:13:38 PM UTC-4, robert stickler wrote:
> > You really think that?
 
> yes
 
she's mean!
robert <rjs2085@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 09:53PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:42:53 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:13:22 PM UTC-4, robert stickler wrote:
> > He turned on god
 
> so will trump
 
that's absolutely ridiculous
robert <rjs2085@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 09:53PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:44:17 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:03:34 PM UTC-4, robert stickler wrote:
> > The sword in the stone?
 
> what?
 
what?
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:48PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:44:56 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:02:32 PM UTC-4, robert stickler wrote:
> > It will never be part of my reality
 
> you dont know that
 
yeah huh bro.
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:48PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:45:49 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:01:52 PM UTC-4, robert stickler wrote:
> > I'll give anything for him to win
 
> he still wont
 
yes he will. the american public will not vote for hillary. she's beyond corrupt.
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:46PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:01:20 PM UTC-4, robert stickler wrote:
> > What?
 
> it aint going to work.
 
what's not going to work?
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:46PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:47:35 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:00:40 PM UTC-4, robert stickler wrote:
> > Poor man's grub
 
> you like low class fare
 
and high priced women.
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:46PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:48:12 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:00:26 PM UTC-4, robert stickler wrote:
> > What's funny?
 
> you in generwl
 
that's not funny!
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:46PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:50:13 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:20:50 PM UTC-4, robert wrote:
> > Hell yes
 
> that is a biblical affliction. not real.
 
people still get it all the time.
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:45PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:50:36 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:19:54 PM UTC-4, robert wrote:
> > Hell yes
 
> fuck no.
 
oh hell yeah.
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:45PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:51:15 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:19:05 PM UTC-4, robert wrote:
> > Hell yes
 
> yainydenny
 
lol i knew it! ha ha ha ha!
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:45PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:51:36 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:18:18 PM UTC-4, robert wrote:
> > Hell yes
 
> they good?
 
dang right they are!
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:43PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:51:49 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:17:47 PM UTC-4, robert wrote:
> > Hell yes
 
> meh
 
i agree with that response.
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:43PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 2:52:27 PM UTC-4, SPAZZCATAZ. wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:17:22 PM UTC-4, robert wrote:
> > Hell yes
 
> fvck yeah
 
they tear up the roof of your mouth!
The Brunei Bindlestiff <unifarva@gmail.com>: Jul 31 01:27PM -0700

when robbys president
robert stickler <rjs2084@aol.com>: Jul 31 09:43PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 4:28:04 PM UTC-4, The Brunei Bindlestiff wrote:
> when robbys president
 
who's she?
The Brunei Bindlestiff <unifarva@gmail.com>: Jul 31 01:29PM -0700

when robby is presi...aw hell not even then.
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.pro-wrestling+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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

Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 06:07PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 5:51:14 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
> What about Tomic?
 
 
How could I forget? ;)
Tier3 <yayrlcjn@6paq.com>: Jul 31 08:28PM -0700

>I think it's a reasonable call. Other contenders: Mecir, mid-career Agassi (ugh),
Djokovic; who else? <
 
A 2-handed Rosewall. Always underspun and always perfectly struck.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 05:36PM -0700

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 6:08:31 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> (1) Show me a single statement where I claimed Sanders would have won if not for the DNC "bias" ??? This is what you're continually arguing against, after all.
 
> (2) Wasserman and the DNC repeatedly denied accusations of bias from Sanders and his people throughout the campaign. But e-mails are proof, and Wasserman knew she had not a leg to stand on, which is why she quit. So there is no question that she and her cronies tried to influence the election in Clinton's favor. It is not a "theory."
 
> (3) Crucial point: you apparently believe that unless one believes Sanders would have won without the DNC's intervention, then it is no big deal. I disagree. Corruption within a major political party is a very big deal. Saying it's time to "move on" is like Jeb Bush saying to forget Iraq War criticisms because "that's the past." That kind of thinking gives everyone a free pass no matter their poor choices or the ramifications of them. If proven cheaters like Lance Armstrong don't get a free pass in sports, I don't see why political officials should. Even worse to further reward them.
 
Gracchus, the DNC emails may have shown bias towards Clinton but there is absolutely no proof that anything talked about in those emails influenced the results of the election--i.e. either to hurt Sanders or aid Clinton. Those were private emails which should have stayed private. Imagine if all things people said in emails but did not result in any actual consequences were used against them? If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on RST because he infuriates me, does that mean I should be arrested? So some of the emails showed that the DNC liked Clinton more than Sanders. They don't show that the DNC used their resources to influence the election. There is zero proof of that.
 
What about the fact that a foreign power, i.e. the Russian government is likely trying to get Trump elected? They actually took action and hacked and exposed private emails right before the Democratic convention (timely wasn't it?) That doesn't bother most people but what was said in private emails when there is no proof that what was said in those private emails resulted in Sanders losing does bother most people? That's strange to me.

> > Yes, I'm in between a Conservative and a Liberal depending on what issue is being discussed. Believe what you want. I am definitely not a Socialist or left wing radical though. As I said, you are in the minority, not me.
 
> In your neck of the woods perhaps so. But what does minority or majority have to do with anything anyway?
 
What neck of the woods? I'm talking about American people where Clinton actually just won the Democratic nomination and not Sanders. What a minority/majority has to do with it is that you are acting like your opinion on Communist Central Tennis is the majority opinion in America and clearly it isn't otherwise your man Colonel Sanders would be battling vs Trump(rather than Clinton) instead of going back to KFC and dreaming up more chicken recipes.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 09:03PM -0400

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:36:51 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>> (2) Wasserman and the DNC repeatedly denied accusations of bias from Sanders and his people throughout the campaign. But e-mails are proof, and Wasserman knew she had not a leg to stand on, which is why she quit. So there is no question that she and her cronies tried to influence the election in Clinton's favor. It is not a "theory."
 
>> (3) Crucial point: you apparently believe that unless one believes Sanders would have won without the DNC's intervention, then it is no big deal. I disagree. Corruption within a major political party is a very big deal. Saying it's time to "move on" is like Jeb Bush saying to forget Iraq War criticisms because "that's the past." That kind of thinking gives everyone a free pass no matter their poor choices or the ramifications of them. If proven cheaters like Lance Armstrong don't get a free pass in sports, I don't see why political officials should. Even worse to further reward them.
 
>Gracchus, the DNC emails may have shown bias towards Clinton but there is absolutely no proof that anything talked about in those emails influenced the results of the election--i.e. either to hurt Sanders or aid Clinton. Those were private emails which should have stayed private. Imagine if all things people said in emails but did not result in any actual consequences were used against them? If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on RST because he infuriates me, does that mean I should be arrested?
 
it means you shouldn't be in a position of supposed unbias toward
gracchus and his doings.
 
> So some of the emails showed that the DNC liked Clinton more than Sanders. They don't show that the DNC used their resources to influence the election. There is zero proof of that.
>What about the fact that a foreign power, i.e. the Russian government is likely trying to get Trump elected?
 
what about the fact that a supposed neutral power, our press, is
trying to get hillary elected?
 
> They actually took action and hacked and exposed private emails right before the Democratic convention (timely wasn't it?) That doesn't bother most people but what was said in private emails when there is no proof that what was said in those private emails resulted in Sanders losing does bother most people? That's strange to me.
 
sanders may or may not have lost if the DNC was completely neutral
from the start.

>> > Yes, I'm in between a Conservative and a Liberal depending on what issue is being discussed. Believe what you want. I am definitely not a Socialist or left wing radical though. As I said, you are in the minority, not me.
 
>> In your neck of the woods perhaps so. But what does minority or majority have to do with anything anyway?
 
>What neck of the woods? I'm talking about American people where Clinton actually just won the Democratic nomination and not Sanders. What a minority/majority has to do with it is that you are acting like your opinion on Communist Central Tennis is the majority opinion in America and clearly it isn't otherwise your man Colonel Sanders would be battling vs Trump(rather than Clinton) instead of going back to KFC and dreaming up more chicken recipes.
 
the system wasn't fair. it was rigged. it was a fix. THAT is the
problem, and i'm astonished you don't grasp that.
 
if clinton beats trump, but by chance trump's name is left off the
ballot in 25 states due to "computer glitch," should we say "it's ok,
hillary would've won anyway, she was the favorite, no harm done"? you
understand, no?
 
bob
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jul 31 05:16PM -0800


> If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on
> RST because he infuriates me
 
Seriously Court_1 you are taking this election far too seriously and are
devolving into a depraved lunatic right before our eyes and it's very
upsetting and embarrassing. Get help.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 06:22PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:03:27 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >Gracchus, the DNC emails may have shown bias towards Clinton but there is absolutely no proof that anything talked about in those emails influenced the results of the election--i.e. either to hurt Sanders or aid Clinton. Those were private emails which should have stayed private. Imagine if all things people said in emails but did not result in any actual consequences were used against them? If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on RST because he infuriates me, does that mean I should be arrested?
 
> it means you shouldn't be in a position of supposed unbias toward
> gracchus and his doings.
 
Expressing bias in an email means very little. It's not enough to prove actual results.
 
> >What about the fact that a foreign power, i.e. the Russian government is likely trying to get Trump elected?
 
> what about the fact that a supposed neutral power, our press, is
> trying to get hillary elected?
 
??? There are certain publications which support Trump and certain publications which support Clinton. It's not a one-way street at all as you are stating it to be.

> > They actually took action and hacked and exposed private emails right before the Democratic convention (timely wasn't it?) That doesn't bother most people but what was said in private emails when there is no proof that what was said in those private emails resulted in Sanders losing does bother most people? That's strange to me.
 
> sanders may or may not have lost if the DNC was completely neutral
> from the start.
 
LOL. BS. Only disgruntled supporters of a failed candidate float that theory.

 
> the system wasn't fair. it was rigged. it was a fix. THAT is the
> problem, and i'm astonished you don't grasp that.
 
There is NO proof that this election was rigged. What do you have? Some private thoughts between DNC members via email? That's your proof and you believe the election is rigged because psycho Trump tells you it's true? What is he supposed to say?
 
 

> ballot in 25 states due to "computer glitch," should we say "it's ok,
> hillary would've won anyway, she was the favorite, no harm done"? you
> understand, no?
 
That's your further proof of rigging? You would be laughed out of court.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 06:30PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:17:00 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
 
> Seriously Court_1 you are taking this election far too seriously and are
> devolving into a depraved lunatic right before our eyes and it's very
> upsetting and embarrassing. Get help.
 
Coming from you(the chief RST bitter instigator) that's hilarious. I was trying to make a point which was things said in private emails do not amount to election rigging no matter how much you wish it to be so. I obviously wasn't serious about harming Gracchus. *rolls eyes*
 
Stop bothering me and trying to rile me up. Don't you have some salmon fishing or something like that to do in Alaska?
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jul 31 05:33PM -0800

> so. I obviously wasn't serious about harming Gracchus. *rolls eyes*
 
> Stop bothering me and trying to rile me up. Don't you have some salmon
> fishing or something like that to do in Alaska?
 
No, I'm a life long vegetarian.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 31 06:34PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 6:03:27 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
 
> >Gracchus, the DNC emails may have shown bias towards Clinton but there is absolutely no proof that anything talked about in those emails influenced the results of the election--i.e. either to hurt Sanders or aid Clinton. Those were private emails which should have stayed private. Imagine if all things people said in emails but did not result in any actual consequences were used against them? If I say in an email to a colleague I feel like killing Gracchus on RST because he infuriates me, does that mean I should be arrested?
 
> it means you shouldn't be in a position of supposed unbias toward
> gracchus and his doings.
 
Yes, and in addition to that, C1's analogy is inaccurate. It's the difference between (1) telling her colleague she feels like killing me, and (2) talking with her colleague about the best way to kill me. In instance #2, I'd say the police should investigate it to see if there are grounds for arrest or not. And #2 is much closer to what was going on with the DNC.

 
> >What neck of the woods? I'm talking about American people where Clinton actually just won the Democratic nomination and not Sanders. What a minority/majority has to do with it is that you are acting like your opinion on Communist Central Tennis is the majority opinion in America and clearly it isn't otherwise your man Colonel Sanders would be battling vs Trump(rather than Clinton) instead of going back to KFC and dreaming up more chicken recipes.

> the system wasn't fair. it was rigged. it was a fix. THAT is the
> problem, and i'm astonished you don't grasp that.
 
So am I.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 06:46PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:34:57 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > it means you shouldn't be in a position of supposed unbias toward
> > gracchus and his doings.
 
> Yes, and in addition to that, C1's analogy is inaccurate. It's the difference between (1) telling her colleague she feels like killing me, and (2) talking with her colleague about the best way to kill me. In instance #2, I'd say the police should investigate it to see if there are grounds for arrest or not. And #2 is much closer to what was going on with the DNC.
 
Wrong. Saying in an email that I feel like killing somebody or talking with a colleague about the best way to kill a person means nothing if there isn't more concrete proof of a crime--i.e. forensic evidence for example. Things said privately between DNC members in emails don't prove rigging. PERIOD. Where is the proof that the DNC used its resources to influence the election? And why didn't you answer my question about the Russian government and how they are allegedly trying to install Trump as president by actually hacking and exposing private emails? That doesn't bother you and private emails between the DNC members are worse for you? Talk about morals. SMH.

 
> > the system wasn't fair. it was rigged. it was a fix. THAT is the
> > problem, and i'm astonished you don't grasp that.
 
> So am I.
 
All I'm seeing is that some of the DNC members prefer Clinton over Sanders but that doesn't prove actual rigging.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 31 07:01PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 6:46:51 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > > gracchus and his doings.
 
> > Yes, and in addition to that, C1's analogy is inaccurate. It's the difference between (1) telling her colleague she feels like killing me, and (2) talking with her colleague about the best way to kill me. In instance #2, I'd say the police should investigate it to see if there are grounds for arrest or not. And #2 is much closer to what was going on with the DNC.
 
> Wrong. Saying in an email that I feel like killing somebody or talking with a colleague about the best way to kill a person means nothing if there isn't more concrete proof of a crime--i.e. forensic evidence for example.
 
Sure, but it certainly could be conspiracy to commit a crime if the discussion is deemed a serious one. If you learned that there was such an e-mail discussion about you, are you saying you wouldn't be concerned?
 
> Things said privately between DNC members in emails don't prove rigging. PERIOD. Where is the proof that the DNC used its resources to influence the election?
 
If a serious internal investigation were conducted, we'd know if there were proof or not. The DNC has signaled no intent to do that. Wasserman's resignation alone does not address the issue.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jul 31 08:15PM -0700

It's hard for me to get too riled up about the DNC leaning on the scales for Clinton when it was Sanders playing the system by switching parties just so he could run in democratic primaries. If Sanders was as pure as people make out he would've stayed an independent. But he knew switching parties was the only thing that would give him leverage to influence the party platform at the convention. Sanders was playing the game as much as anybody. Sanders winning the nomination of a party he doesn't truly identify with would've been the bigger travesty. Sanders played the game and got outplayed. That's how it goes.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jul 31 08:24PM -0700

Analyses by people like Nate Silver show Clinton would've won h2h against Bush.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 06:01PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 3:30:53 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
 
> > > A lot of people would assume Connors would win a fight with Mac but not me. Mac was fiery as Hell.
 
> > Mac was fiery as a tennis competitor and in verbal confrontation. It doesn't mean it would translate into winning hand-to-hand combat. There's no clear size advantage between the two, and Connors always seemed a lot more willing. He was the kind to go up against a larger opponent even when he might get knocked on his ass. Not the case with McEnroe IMO.
 
> I agree with you. Mac, for the most part, seemed a bully - tough against guys whom he could get his way with, who he knew were soft at heart.
 
 
Here's Mac, doing some talking:
 
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/08/john-mcenroe-fight-jimmy-connors-ivan-lendl/1
"Scall5" <nospam@home.net>: Jul 31 09:17PM -0500

"Gracchus" wrote in message
news:1d77ac16-cad3-4be2-918d-ca06d9f441aa@googlegroups.com...
 
On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:45:05 PM UTC-7, Scott wrote:
 
> A lot of people would assume Connors would win a fight with Mac but not
> me. Mac was fiery as Hell.
 
Mac was fiery as a tennis competitor and in verbal confrontation. It doesn't
mean it would translate into winning hand-to-hand combat. There's no clear
size advantage between the two, and Connors always seemed a lot more
willing. He was the kind to go up against a larger opponent even when he
might get knocked on his ass. Not the case with McEnroe IMO.
 
**************
 
Connors grew up in East St. Louis, a rough place! I would assume he was
pretty good at fighting...
-----------------------------
Scall5
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:55PM -0400


>> I've seen a few myself. I think they're sneaking over from Canada.
 
>It's hopeless then. I was thinking that if Trump becomes president you
>could move to Canada for safety...
 
...and healthcare.
 
>*rolls eyes*
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:57PM -0400

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> > warming, nuclear weapons too.
 
>> I know, but I agree with bob that it's irrelevant when compared to what the US citizens themselves want. If the citizens elect Trump, then it's a clear message that they want a change in the system; they probably don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
 
>So if the majority of Americans wanted change so desperately why didn't Sanders win the Democratic nomination? Talk is cheap.
 
the fact he came anywhere near as close as he did against a
ridiculously stacked deck proves it.
 
>How is Trump going to help the middle class? You think he cares about them when all is said and done?
 
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 06:35PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 8:57:15 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >So if the majority of Americans wanted change so desperately why didn't Sanders win the Democratic nomination? Talk is cheap.
 
> the fact he came anywhere near as close as he did against a
> ridiculously stacked deck proves it.
 
No it doesn't. The only thing that would prove it would be if Sanders won. Witch-hunts after the fact by disgruntled Bernie supporters don't prove rigging.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 31 06:45PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 6:35:21 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > the fact he came anywhere near as close as he did against a
> > ridiculously stacked deck proves it.
 
> No it doesn't. The only thing that would prove it would be if Sanders won. Witch-hunts after the fact by disgruntled Bernie supporters don't prove rigging.
 
"Witch-hunt" has become an overused term in recent years, but works fine in Hillary's case. Anyway, whether the majority wants change or not now, they surely will after another Clinton administration. That's the one silver lining.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 06:55PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 9:45:26 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> "Witch-hunt" has become an overused term in recent years,
 
It's better than using the overused term "haters" which drives me crazy.
 
 
>Anyway, whether the majority wants change or not now, they surely will after another Clinton administration. That's the one silver lining.
 
You don't know that. The proof is always in the pudding.
 
In any case, I think we have exhausted all of this political talk and things are being repeated over and over at this point. Are you reading any good books at the moment--fiction or non-fiction? I'm trying to catch up on some classic literature or some really good modern classic fiction.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 01 03:57AM +0300

1.8.2016, 3:52, bob kirjoitti:
 
> like max, you think we're at the same pt as then. like a dog can smell
> fear on a person, i sense it on you. unfounded.
 
> bob
 
Stop it silly. You're just using that as an excuse to ignore my opinion.
 
And I don't think my opinion of Putin would be any different if lived in
US. Of course I would be much fatter.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 01 03:53AM +0300

1.8.2016, 3:43, bob kirjoitti:
>> biased and not just a messenger.
 
> you mean like the press?
 
> bob
 
I mean that if you're going to propagate stolen secrets then you better
make sure you have damn high morals and are doing it for freedom of the
press only. Assange is not. He's complicit of the crime.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 01 12:44AM +0200

Djokovic vs Nishikori
63 75
 
His 4th Canadian Open, he's second behind Lendl at 6.
 
 
An improving record 30th ATP1000 masters title.
(Nadal 28, Federer 24)
 
 
Overall it's the 47th "big" title for Djokovic, equaling Federer.
Nadal is at 43, Murray at 16.
 
Big, ie slams+yec+masters+olympics
 
 
 
Let's hug.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 01 12:47AM +0200


> BTW, do they do Sunday work in your Russian troll house?
 
> Max
 
This is why people consider you a bore around here. You just post
in mechanic/robotic style as if everything previously written
never occured in the first place.
 
 

--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Aug 01 12:49AM +0200


> A free society doesn't need troll houses. Free people always chose democracy over dictatorship. That is Putin's problem.
 
> Max
 
Soviets? In 2016?
 
I see, good to know what's going on in your mind.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
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 rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 5 topics

Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:31PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 4:12:50 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> I say take down Assange. Send James Bond to kill him, or take him out of
> the embassy where he hides. Or even better - negotiate with Ecuador to
> kick him out of the embassy.
 
I didn't realize that Assange said that. Now I'm a real fan of his. :)
 
Look, why should there be anything in those e-mails to "hurt" Hillary unless she and/or the DNC did something very wrong that they should be embarrassed about? Good job, Julian!
 
I think Hillary will win regardless, but at least her elephantine buttocks will be quivering with fear for a while.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 01 02:58AM +0300

1.8.2016, 2:31, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> the embassy where he hides. Or even better - negotiate with Ecuador to
>> kick him out of the embassy.
 
> I didn't realize that Assange said that. Now I'm a real fan of his. :)
 
Assange claims it's not personal but it most certainly is. I think
Clinton wanted him to answer for his deeds in US court... which he still
may have to do when he leaves the embassy.
 
In any case, the timing of the leak reveals that Assange is very much
biased and not just a messenger.
 
> Look, why should there be anything in those e-mails to "hurt" Hillary
 
There of course wasn't.
 
But the idea was to disturb Democratic Convention, to make good news to
bad news for the party and in media. In that context it could have
influenced Hillary as well, as in replacing some positive DNC coverage
with negative.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:42PM -0400

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 16:31:55 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> the embassy where he hides. Or even better - negotiate with Ecuador to
>> kick him out of the embassy.
 
>I didn't realize that Assange said that. Now I'm a real fan of his. :)
 
admitted he has more on hillary, and timed 1st wave with convention.
:-)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3716498/Julian-Assange-confirms-Wikileaks-material-related-Hillary-Clinton-s-campaign-admits-publication-bombshell-DNC-emails-timed-coincide-convention.html
 
>Look, why should there be anything in those e-mails to "hurt" Hillary unless she and/or the DNC did something very wrong that they should be embarrassed about? Good job, Julian!
>I think Hillary will win regardless, but at least her elephantine buttocks will be quivering with fear for a while.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:43PM -0400

>may have to do when he leaves the embassy.
 
>In any case, the timing of the leak reveals that Assange is very much
>biased and not just a messenger.
 
you mean like the press?
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 01 03:53AM +0300

1.8.2016, 3:43, bob kirjoitti:
>> biased and not just a messenger.
 
> you mean like the press?
 
> bob
 
I mean that if you're going to propagate stolen secrets then you better
make sure you have damn high morals and are doing it for freedom of the
press only. Assange is not. He's complicit of the crime.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:52PM -0400


>I actually posted previously that I am not and Finland would be the last
>of Russia's neighbours to be in danger. But who the hell knows what that
>lunatic wants...
 
you said you're not afraid, but it's clear you are.
 
>You wouldn't mind if Putin attacked Finland, huh?
 
i said you're scared to death of something that has no chance of
happening, whether clinton or trump is in the office.
 
of course i wouldn't condone of russia even unduly influencing
finland. but as an american, my main concern is our interests, warring
with russia another 50 yrs seems dumb.
 
>Chamberlain's comment on Hitler taking Czechoslovakia:
>" quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing"
>Yeah... totally irrelevant...
 
like max, you think we're at the same pt as then. like a dog can smell
fear on a person, i sense it on you. unfounded.
 
bob
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 04:42PM -0700

I think it's a reasonable call. Other contenders: Mecir, mid-career Agassi (ugh),
Djokovic; who else?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 05:50PM -0700

Agassi, Djokovic, Connors, Borg (in no particular order.)
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 05:51PM -0700

What about Tomic?
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 04:27PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 3:31:42 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> some body into each shot to get any pace. same for his serve (not the
> flatness, but just the work required).
 
> bob
 
Yeah, I agree. I didn't make clear that Connors was *slicing the hell*
out of the serve. He had the flattest groundies I've ever seen, too.
And that BH was just sensational. I wish he and Agassi had been contemporaries.. I think Connors would have beaten him. Pure speculation.
 
Oh, and *Patti Connors* was at that exo I mentioned. Ooh la la, what a hottie. Seeing her might have been the best part.. :)
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:35PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 4:27:27 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:

> Oh, and *Patti Connors* was at that exo I mentioned. Ooh la la, what a hottie. Seeing her might have been the best part.. :)
 
When Connors married a Playboy bunny, I never expected it would end up lasting for 30-some years and counting. Remember when he punched that guy who tried to kiss her at a tournament?
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:44PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 7:35:33 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 4:27:27 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
 
> > Oh, and *Patti Connors* was at that exo I mentioned. Ooh la la, what a hottie. Seeing her might have been the best part.. :)
 
> When Connors married a Playboy bunny, I never expected it would end up lasting for 30-some years and counting. Remember when he punched that guy who tried to kiss her at a tournament?
 
LOL, nothing on the side, only Bill does that!
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 04:48PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 4:35:33 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 4:27:27 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
 
> > Oh, and *Patti Connors* was at that exo I mentioned. Ooh la la, what a hottie. Seeing her might have been the best part.. :)
 
> When Connors married a Playboy bunny, I never expected it would end up lasting for 30-some years and counting. Remember when he punched that guy who tried to kiss her at a tournament?
 
 
No, I either never knew that or totally forgot, probably the former.
 
Go Bad-ass Jimbo!
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:46PM -0400

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 16:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
 
>Yeah, I agree. I didn't make clear that Connors was *slicing the hell*
>out of the serve. He had the flattest groundies I've ever seen, too.
>And that BH was just sensational. I wish he and Agassi had been contemporaries.. I think Connors would have beaten him. Pure speculation.
 
i watched jimmy practice one time for a good hour. he was hitting with
a high school age kid at the old lipton tournament, and hitting mostly
BHs. over and over and over. hard, flat, 1" net clearance. i was like
how does it always clear by an inch? but against borg, i recall he
caught a lot of tape while borg had that 2' topspin clearance..
 
>Oh, and *Patti Connors* was at that exo I mentioned. Ooh la la, what a hottie. Seeing her might have been the best part.. :)
 
bob
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jul 31 04:58PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 3:48:36 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> I would say that US pres elections is not only about USA though. It has
> lots of influence around the world...Economy, military etc -wise. Global
> warming, nuclear weapons too.
 
I know, but I agree with bob that it's irrelevant when compared to what the US citizens themselves want. If the citizens elect Trump, then it's a clear message that they want a change in the system; they probably don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 01 03:04AM +0300

1.8.2016, 2:58, Shakes kirjoitti:
>> lots of influence around the world...Economy, military etc -wise. Global
>> warming, nuclear weapons too.
 
> I know, but I agree with bob that it's irrelevant when compared to what the US citizens themselves want. If the citizens elect Trump, then it's a clear message that they want a change in the system; they probably don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
 
That "change" would be like pissing in your pants in wintertime... warms
at first but gets freezing fast.
 
Change from corrupt politicians to complete con man...
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 31 05:06PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 5:04:34 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> > I know, but I agree with bob that it's irrelevant when compared to what the US citizens themselves want. If the citizens elect Trump, then it's a clear message that they want a change in the system; they probably don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
 
> That "change" would be like pissing in your pants in wintertime... warms
> at first but gets freezing fast.
 
Sounds like you've tried this.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jul 31 05:07PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 5:04:34 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> That "change" would be like pissing in your pants in wintertime... warms
> at first but gets freezing fast.
 
> Change from corrupt politicians to complete con man...
 
Lol !!
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 01 03:17AM +0300

1.8.2016, 3:04, TT kirjoitti:
 
> That "change" would be like pissing in your pants in wintertime... warms
> at first but gets freezing fast.
 
> Change from corrupt politicians to complete con man...
 
Besides... it's all a brainwash... republican narrative... "we don't
want Obama for four more years since he was terrible president"...
except that in reality he wasn't. It's the republican alternate universe.
 
Same as "Hillary was awful Secretary of State" - actually she wasn't and
had very high approval ratings when in office.
 
But if you repeat something often enough then people are going to
believe it, that's Fox News/conservative media form of brainwashing:
 
Obama is terrible president
Clinton was horrible Secretary of State
Benghazi was Clinton's fault
Current America is like a scenery from Mad Max, and with flesh eating
zombies too.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 01 03:21AM +0300

1.8.2016, 3:07, Shakes kirjoitti:
>> at first but gets freezing fast.
 
>> Change from corrupt politicians to complete con man...
 
> Lol !!
 
Thank you.
(since Kettler hasn't posted in a while)
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 31 05:29PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 5:17:29 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> Benghazi was Clinton's fault
> Current America is like a scenery from Mad Max, and with flesh eating
> zombies too.
 
I've seen a few myself. I think they're sneaking over from Canada.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Aug 01 03:32AM +0300

1.8.2016, 3:29, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> Current America is like a scenery from Mad Max, and with flesh eating
>> zombies too.
 
> I've seen a few myself. I think they're sneaking over from Canada.
 
It's hopeless then. I was thinking that if Trump becomes president you
could move to Canada for safety...
 
*rolls eyes*
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:33PM -0400

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
 
>> That "change" would be like pissing in your pants in wintertime... warms
>> at first but gets freezing fast.
 
>Sounds like you've tried this.
 
lol.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jul 31 08:37PM -0400


>Obama is terrible president
>Clinton was horrible Secretary of State
>Benghazi was Clinton's fault
 
the opposing party frequently criticizes even a very successful
president, i understand that.
 
that's not the problem with hillary. you simply shouldn't get rewarded
with the presidency given her behavior going back to 70s.
 
>Current America is like a scenery from Mad Max, and with flesh eating
>zombies too.
 
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 31 05:42PM -0700

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 7:58:37 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
> > lots of influence around the world...Economy, military etc -wise. Global
> > warming, nuclear weapons too.
 
> I know, but I agree with bob that it's irrelevant when compared to what the US citizens themselves want. If the citizens elect Trump, then it's a clear message that they want a change in the system; they probably don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
 
So if the majority of Americans wanted change so desperately why didn't Sanders win the Democratic nomination? Talk is cheap.
 
How is Trump going to help the middle class? You think he cares about them when all is said and done?
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.