Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 10 topics

Thursday, May 18, 2017

RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 05:35PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 5:26:54 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> you mean like how you dismissed me when i told you a week ago that fed
> cared more for an 8th wimbledon than 2nd FO?
 
> bob
 
I merely asked you to look up Federer's comments that if he were going to play the FO, it was to win. You understood it as me dismissing you. Not my problem.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 05:37PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 5:30:17 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> just dismiss a man's point of view cause it disagrees with yours w/out
> giving any thought to the logic. you do that often.
 
> bob
 
What political spectrum? What did I dismiss that SJ said? I disagreed with him, yes.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 09:00PM -0400

On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:35:38 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> cared more for an 8th wimbledon than 2nd FO?
 
>> bob
 
>I merely asked you to look up Federer's comments that if he were going to play the FO, it was to win. You understood it as me dismissing you. Not my problem.
 
:-) ok, i've beaten it (and you) to death. time to move on.
 
bob
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 06:09PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:00:32 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >I merely asked you to look up Federer's comments that if he were going to play the FO, it was to win. You understood it as me dismissing you. Not my problem.
 
> :-) ok, i've beaten it (and you) to death. time to move on.
 
> bob
 
With the understanding that we disagreed amicably and that I did not 'dismiss' your PoV in a cavalier and haughty manner. We will continue to agree on some and disagree on others :)
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 09:15PM -0400

On Thu, 18 May 2017 18:09:54 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
 
>> :-) ok, i've beaten it (and you) to death. time to move on.
 
>> bob
 
>With the understanding that we disagreed amicably and that I did not 'dismiss' your PoV in a cavalier and haughty manner. We will continue to agree on some and disagree on others :)
 
we're always amicable. i have no issue with you personally.
 
we just had a little chat a couple wks ago about fed's FO motivation,
i was proven correct. so i'm not always wrong!
 
on to next argument! :-)
 
bob
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 18 04:45PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 3:13:41 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > A situation you are quite accustomed to no doubt! ;)
 
> > If she's really pretty, I don't even mind the squeeze.
 
> I thought you detested shallowness? ;) You often call me out for being too shallow and concerned with appearance and yet you make a comment like this one? Ha ha ha!
 
First of all, you're choosing weak ground to try an attack like this. Anyone who can't see that I was making a quip would have to be an idiot, and since I know you're not an idiot, you knew my intent.
 
Second, where have I ever said that looks meant nothing to me? Being a human male--a biological unit--an attractive woman catches my immediate attention much faster than one less attractive. The difference between us is in values and priorities. For example, if I were presented with the choice of a vapid, cold-hearted woman with "10" looks vs. a non-bombshell who is clever, funny, and compassionate, it would be no contest. I'd choose the woman #2 in a heartbeat to actually *be* with, and a relationship with her would be far more gratifying (although...I'd still bang the vapid "10" once if she asked nicely).
 
Anyone who claims that looks count zero for them in attraction or seeking a romantic partner isn't being honest. I've certainly never made that claim
 
And although we're all guilty here of jokes about celebrities' looks, for me that's mostly about disliking the person's character and grabbing an easy handle to flail them. You're far quicker than I am to utterly dehumanize someone based on looks alone (example: "woof woof" for Linda and Yoko, talking about Susan Boyle types as if they're animals, etc.).
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 08:34PM -0400

On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:22:12 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>> i think it's more your concern and love for money, while detesting
>> anyone who disagrees.
 
>You don't like living a nice life style and people with good looks? That's NOT the impression I receive from most of your posts.
 
everyone would like a nice lifestyle. but it's not to the extent of
the dog eat dog mentality you seem to exhibit often (screw those dirty
workers for your dad's company, eh?)
 
i'm for fair play and wouldn't mind seeing myself, and others far more
succesful than i, drop a notch to have a more balanced america. in the
end it benefits everybody anyway.
 
i know you don't agree with that.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 08:34PM -0400

On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:30:53 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>> You don't like living a nice life style
 
>*lifestyle*
 
oh jeez. let's cut it out with the typo corrections, i promise not to
call you on them.
 
bob
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com>: May 18 06:13PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 5:57:26 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> grass game, that's why i have to put him after sampras.
 
> HC? hmmm. fed, agassi, djokovic, even sampras, seem like up there. i
> might give slight nod to fed.
 
Fed beat Pete in their lone encounter. He also tied Pete at W without putting the audience to sleep by bombing serves. Edge to Roger.
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 05:40PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 5:14:46 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> seems that 8th Wimbledon far outweighs a 2nd FO in fed's mind. just
> like he told us in january, just like i told you last week.
 
> bob
 
My position based on Federer's comments was that if he were playing FO, it would be with the intention of winning it. There were enough tune ups for WImbledon and last year he played Wimbledon reaching the semis without playing FO as a tune up.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 08:59PM -0400

On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:40:31 -0700 (PDT), RaspingDrive
>> like he told us in january, just like i told you last week.
 
>> bob
 
>My position based on Federer's comments was that if he were playing FO, it would be with the intention of winning it.
 
oh my. go run for office. just man up.
 
bob
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 06:12PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:59:24 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >My position based on Federer's comments was that if he were playing FO, it would be with the intention of winning it.
 
> oh my. go run for office. just man up.
 
> bob
 
I have explained my PoV.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 18 03:38PM -0700

If Trump is a king, dictator or a mafia don, he can demand loyalty. Turns out he is none of that...
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 19 01:22AM +0200

> If Trump is a king, dictator or a mafia don, he can demand loyalty. Turns out he is none of that...
 
It's all about spins.
 
If you want to, no doubt you can paint this to look bad, using
some nerdy legal criteria, branch separation, cherrypicking etc.
You can.
 
 
But foundation of every human relationship is trust. It means you
respect the other person, you won't engage in backstabbing,
twisting his/her words, and that you'll do everything with best
intent.
 
It's like marital vows.
 
So if you can't even promise to be loyal to someone, on a personal
level, then it's very likely you won't be, either.

 
 
 
The thing is, it seems many people/media/power groups hate Trump
so much that they're even willing to risk American safety and
reputation.
 
Recent scandal where you had nyt or wapo revealing national
secrets is shocking.
 
Trump shares some intel data with his allies in fight vs
terrorism, or wannabe allies, or just country that he wants to
closely cooperate and fix relations. Russia. Extending a hand of
cooperation is a step that could lead in that direction.

 
He has a mandate to do that. He's an elected leader.
 
Next, you have leaks from US intelligence services, on he how
allegedly revealed some secrets, bla bla. But now everyone knows
that, that it was Israeli Intel, coming from a town in Syria etc.

Trump didn't reveal that to the world. Nor did Putin.
 
It was done by traitors, leakers within US intelligence, through MSM.
They've done the exact thing they accuse him of doing.
 
 
The whole narrative is bizarre.
 
 
It's like watching one of those Star Trek episodes in mirror
universe where Spock is a an emotional sadist.
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 08:29PM -0400

On Fri, 19 May 2017 01:22:33 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
>The whole narrative is bizarre.
>It's like watching one of those Star Trek episodes in mirror
> universe where Spock is a an emotional sadist.
 
it's because a portion of the country is so bitter that trump is
presiden they'll leak secrets if necessary to bring him down or make
him look bad. we're not in a war with russia, nor germany, nor japan,
nor china, atm. we should treat them all fairly equal in terms of
int'l cooperation towards our national goals (terrorism, trade, etc.)
and give everyone a chance to be our ally. putin may not be the best
or nicest, but our interest is what's best for american citizens. if
we cared about which foreign leader was a crook or worse, we'd have to
eliminate a lot of so called "allies." this may ruffle the feathers of
some "allies" of the past 60 yrs, but so be it. they're in it for
themselves anyway, always have been.
 
bob
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: May 19 12:47AM

On Thu, 18 May 2017 20:29:28 -0400, bob wrote:
 
 
> it's because a portion of the country is so bitter that trump is
> presiden they'll leak secrets if necessary to bring him down or make him
> look bad.
 
The reality is you're part of a very small but vocal group who is willing
to overlook anything and everything he has done or could possibly do.
 
It's telling though that you don't dispute *skriptis' central (incorrect)
point that the POTUS is owed an oath of fealty by the director of the
FBI? Let's be real here, Trump foolishly thought he could make his
problems go away by firing his investigator and that nobody would be the
wiser. He's a "dumbo", as you'd say...
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 09:12PM -0400

>> look bad.
 
>The reality is you're part of a very small but vocal group who is willing
>to overlook anything and everything he has done or could possibly do.
 
absolutely not. in fact i'm disappointed in some of his actions to
date. but it's pretty hard to know what he did and didn't do, based on
NYT or WaPo.
 
we're in a situation where all the fake news coming out isn't
credible, on both sides. just so happens trump is in a war with mass
media, and lies come out as well as truths. so you can only watch some
measurable metrics and make up your own mind about what's really going
on.
 
>It's telling though that you don't dispute *skriptis' central (incorrect)
>point that the POTUS is owed an oath of fealty by the director of the
>FBI?
 
sorry i didn't read that.
 
no, the president is not owed an oath of loyalty by FBI. however,
james comey was fired for a very valid reason IMO, and i'd say this no
matter who was president: the FBI's job is NOT to be at the top of the
news every day. if the director of the FBI is top of the news every
day, he's truly failing.
 
it's like a ref in a football game: if you notice him, he did a bad
job.
 
james comey, in so doing, has let the agency get out of scope and off
base IMO. that justifies trying a new head, as comey (and i liked
comey) just didn't keep a tight ship (was drifting further off base
daily) and his job is to keep a tight ship.
 
> Let's be real here, Trump foolishly thought he could make his
>problems go away by firing his investigator and that nobody would be the
>wiser. He's a "dumbo", as you'd say...
 
 
i don't believe that at all, nobody would think if there were problems
firing comey would fix them. i think most of them are just witch hunt
by NYT.
 
bob
RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com>: May 18 05:42PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 5:11:32 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> i accept your apology in advance. like i said, quit being contrary
> just cause it's me.
 
> bob
 
Answered elsewhere.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 08:38PM -0400

On Thu, 18 May 2017 15:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
>> the election's over 6 months, he's in office 4, let it go man.
 
>> bob
 
>impeachment time!!!!
 
what a bunch of spoil sports who sit around for months waiting for a
president they don't like to be impeached.
 
bob
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 19 12:14AM +0200

>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
> WTF does this mean? Can the guy speak English?
 
> "There is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign, but I can always speak for myself, and the Russians, zero," Trump told ABC News' Chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl.
 
 
As if the accusations are more coherent?
His reply is perfectly fitting.
 
Well said.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bmoore@nyx.net: May 18 05:03PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 3:30:02 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
 
> As if the accusations are more coherent?
> His reply is perfectly fitting.
 
> Well said.
 
Wow.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: May 18 03:56PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:52:15 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:39:02 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
 
> > Look, my point is the conditions were the same for both the players. So I don't see why any asterisk has to be assigned to Nadal's gutsy win.
 
> Shakes, it doesn't matter whether conditions are the same for both if one player has the physical disadvantage of poor night vision.
 
I remember you touched on this point before. But is it a known fact ? I think if it was something that was well known, the referee would've post-poned it once the conditions were dark.
 
> Quite different than McEnroe just being a crappy wind player for example. There's a good reason that matches that extend to dusk are suspended due to darkness. But at that match, officials probably just didn't want the logistical hassles of splitting a final over two days, so they made a shady call (so to speak). End result might have been the same or different, but we'll never know. Such a shame to taint a classic.
 
They should've started the match 1 hr early.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 06:04PM -0400


>>> I think Ljubicic told him that he should avoid Rafa on clay.
 
>> :)) I am sure Nadal was also hoping to regain the mental edge with a victory on clay.
 
>Pretty damn pathetic from Fed.
 
i'd say the same except he's 35 so gets slack. but yes, he ducked
nadal here. he's earned that right unfortunately.
 
 
>Now let's ask Courtsie if she thinks Fed has a 'silent ban'?
 
that was the 1st thing in my mind. :-)
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 18 06:04PM -0400

On Mon, 15 May 2017 12:30:30 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> against Rafa has been the scheduled beating on clay.
 
>> I think Ljubicic told him that he should avoid Rafa on clay.
 
>It was wisdom. He shouldn't waste his time on the FO whether Rafa is there or not. He risks injuring himself in that dirt-pit when he should grab a head start tuning himself up for Wimbledon. Smart choice from the Great Man.
 
it was. i gave the same advice the past few yrs, 1st time he took me
up.
 
bob
calimero377@gmx.de: May 18 03:07PM -0700

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 12:42:10 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> Asked if Obama's opinion has changed since Trump took office, one of the
> sources said: "Well, it hasn't gotten any better."
 
> http://nypost.com/2017/05/17/what-barack-obama-really-thinks-about-donald-trump/
 
 
That coming from the amateur is quite rich ...
 
Idiots like Obama and Hillary paved the way for the orange clown. That's a fact.
 
 
Max
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.

0 comments:

Post a Comment