Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 20 updates in 8 topics

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: May 30 05:14PM +0100

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4549622/Monaco-Formula-One-Grand-Prix-Pregnant-Serena-Williams.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailceleb>
 
She appeared in a brief interview on Channel 4's F1 live coverage (UK).
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
calimero377@gmx.de: May 30 11:04AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:14:26 PM UTC+2, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
 
Daily Mail?
 
Lol
 
 
Max
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: May 30 11:44AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-4, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
 
Looking a little like Queen Latifah, don't you think??
calimero377@gmx.de: May 30 11:11AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:19:22 AM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> The death happened at Hamerton Zoo Park, near Huntingdon, at about 11:15 BST on Monday.
> Friend Garry Chisholm, a wildlife photographer in his spare time, said she was the "focal point" and "shining light" of the wildlife park.
> The zoo said it was a freak accident, and police said it was not suspicious.
 
 
And Courty would be right since more people are killed by tigers in the USA every year than by guns!
 
Max
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: May 30 10:25AM -0700

Despite being a fan, does this mean Zverev is going to be another one not bothered by slams, just like Denko?
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: May 30 05:52PM

On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:25:53 -0700, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> Despite being a fan, does this mean Zverev is going to be another one
> not bothered by slams, just like Denko?
 
Russian??
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 30 11:00AM -0500

On 5/30/2017 9:31 AM, Gracchus wrote:
>> of you guys who watch a fraction of this. You can't comment on movies
>> you haven't seen, or if you do it's meaningless.
 
> Whisp, go back and get that high school diploma before trying to make "rules" for anyone else here. >Seriously, this is your attempt at logic...? (1)the larger the number of movies one sees each year, the more >they must know about movies (2) one can't make any judgement about a movie's quality without sitting through >the whole thing.
 
About (2) I don't think anyone has so far made a distinction between
seeing a movie in its entirety and say walking out 2/3 of the way
through. Whisper didn't. We've just talked about whether someone has
seen or not seen a film. And on that point, it's obvious that the
opinion of someone who has seen a film should be given far more weight
than the opinion of someone who hasn't - the latter's opinion probably
isn't worth anything at all. E.g., I thought Roger Ebert was a good
critic, and he saw a billion more movies than me, but if he were around
to say "I didn't see Baywatch but I think its junk because IMO the Rock
is a terrible actor, he always sucked in movies i did see", that opinion
is worthless, because hell, the Rock might have done a good job in that
film anyway. He'd be taking a very narrow, heck, fundamentally
unartistic/uncritical stance. Shameful, really.
 
So sure, you can make your judgment about a film you haven't seen, it's
just unwise for anyone to pay any attention to it.
 
As for (1), quantity is putatively important, because it just refers to
having seen a movie, a prereq for having a useful opinion about it. So
whisper's point about me vs you, TT, Courtie, and the other self-styled
movie crits around here is generally correct.
 
Though it might not be specifically correct. E.g., I may have seen many
more films than rajazepflorocker, but if he's seen more bollywood films
than me, than his judgment about a bollywood film should, all else
equal, carry more weight (I know that's a terrible example because one
shouldn't trust raja's judgment on anything, but the general point stands).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: May 30 11:01AM -0500

On 5/30/2017 10:40 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> Jaros is more qualified to call something 'crap' as he actually watched
> it.
 
> I am not sure how he can be better qualified if he has no quality or taste filter that help him to avoid >watching the majority of the 130 movies a year that fall under junk or bad category.
 
Your ignorance is, literally, breathtaking.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 30 09:16AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 8:41:00 AM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> > Jaros is more qualified to call something 'crap' as he actually watched
> it.
 
> I am not sure how he can be better qualified if he has no quality or taste filter that help him to avoid watching the majority of the 130 movies a year that fall under junk or bad category.
 
Whisper and Jaros apparently have a mutual support pact wherein each is obligated to jump in whenever the other finds himself in an indefensible position. The strategy is very transparent, very stupid, and very ineffective.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 30 09:24AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:00:37 AM UTC-5, StephenJ wrote:
> than me, than his judgment about a bollywood film should, all else
> equal, carry more weight (I know that's a terrible example because one
> shouldn't trust raja's judgment on anything, but the general point stands).
 
Though you made some effort this time to make some points, your points are all invalid. a) You are not Ebert. You are not paid for critiquing movies. You shouldn't be watching crap he was literally forced to.b) You are an old guy and you shouldn't be watching 130 movies a year without any sort of filter unless you are plain stupid or just absolutely devoid of anything to do in life and c) I have better judgement on Bollywood movies than say TT because I have watched a lot of Bollywood movies growing up and still do a lot more than say TT. But that point does not apply to you vs Gracchus or Court1. You all grew up in English speaking part of the world. You all should have the same level of judgement when it comes to Hollywood movies. But of course some of you are intelligent and some of you are Iceberg. And I am afraid you fall in the latter category.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 30 06:21PM +0200

>> it.
 
>> I am not sure how he can be better qualified if he has no quality or taste filter that help him to avoid watching the majority of the 130 movies a year that fall under junk or bad category.
 
> Whisper and Jaros apparently have a mutual support pact wherein each is obligated to jump in whenever the other finds himself in an indefensible position. The strategy is very transparent, very stupid, and very ineffective.
 
 
Said by whom?
--
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: May 30 09:39AM -0700

> Whisper and Jaros apparently have a mutual support pact wherein each is obligated to jump in whenever the other finds himself in an indefensible position. The strategy is very transparent, very stupid, and very ineffective.
 
You forgot skirpshit.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 30 09:46AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:00:37 AM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
> is worthless, because hell, the Rock might have done a good job in that
> film anyway. He'd be taking a very narrow, heck, fundamentally
> unartistic/uncritical stance. Shameful, really.
 
You started off well here and it finished like the punchline of a Trump tweet. I was waiting for the "Very unfair!" part.
 
Your Ebert example just isn't applicable. I never liked his reviews, but that's neither here nor there. Since he was writing reviews professionally and influenced millions of movie viewers, I agree that it would be unethical to write a review of a movie he hadn't seen or had only seen part of. But here we're casually discussing films in a tennis newsgroup, so there aren't the same obligations. I don't think I or anyone else is claiming that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a film we haven't seen is necessarily junk. However, I've lived more than long enough and have seen more than enough films in my life to be able to make confident guesses based on what I've seen thousands of times. It's not like the clues aren't there. Title, cast, tagline, movie poster, synopsis, trailer, etc. All these things are meant to give the prospective viewer a feel for what kind of film it is, what to expect, and what audience it's intended for. I mean come on, if I see a movie poster that has frat boys crammed into a car and they're mooning someone from the window, it's *possible* the thing might be a brilliant, thought provoking production that mature adults will marvel at. But I can still predict with high accuracy that it probably isn't.
 
> So sure, you can make your judgment about a film you haven't seen, it's
> just unwise for anyone to pay any attention to it.
 
Your opinion is duly noted. :)
 
> As for (1), quantity is putatively important, because it just refers to
> having seen a movie, a prereq for having a useful opinion about it. So
> whisper's point
 
He has no point about anything ever. He's a babbling Croat.
 
> about me vs you, TT, Courtie, and the other self-styled
> movie crits around here is generally correct.
 
How are we "self-styled" exactly? None of us call ourselves "movie critics" the way Whisper calls himself a "tennis analyst." We all like movies, we've all seen a lot, and we were among the first to discuss them here so we do it the most. If we see something that impresses us one way or the other, we post impressions of it. The only people who resent this seem to have an agenda of their own.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: May 30 09:49AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:00:37 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
no, you dont have to eat the whole apple to find it is rotten, one bite should tell you that! read any books?
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: May 30 09:55AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:39:03 AM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> > Whisper and Jaros apparently have a mutual support pact wherein each is obligated to jump in whenever the other finds himself in an indefensible position. The strategy is very transparent, very stupid, and very ineffective.
 
> You forgot skirpshit.
 
Yeah, well he's very forgettable.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: May 30 09:55AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:39:03 AM UTC-5, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Whisper and Jaros apparently have a mutual support pact wherein each is obligated to jump in whenever the other finds himself in an indefensible position. The strategy is very transparent, very stupid, and very ineffective.
 
> You forgot skirpshit.
 
Add Iceberg to that list.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: May 30 09:55AM -0700

> Who is this Zverev that everyone is picking for the final?!!!
 
Out in the 1st round
bob <bob@nospam.net>: May 29 08:52PM -0400


>Well 98 and change actually, but i'm betting Pelle didn't know that and
>it's close enough, right? And anyway, didn't all the heroic Obama
>achievements on climate change since then reset the clock on that?
 
obama took the chickens way out: he signed a pact in the 7.5th year of
his presidency to take effect about a decade down the road. brave man,
that obama.
 
bob
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: May 30 05:52PM +0200


> Not only did she *win* 2 GS titles but reached the final of another.
> She lost one GS final to and won one GS final against Serena, the #1.
> If that makes her a 'colossal fluke', I rest my case.
 
So if she wasn't a fluke with 2 slams imagine the odds of Sampras
with 14 slams being a fluke?
 
Yet we hear that occasionally.
 
 
--
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: May 30 09:01PM +1000

On 30/05/2017 2:31 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> Can anyone imagine Federer getting arrested for DUI (anyone besides
> Iceberg, who I'm certain has proof)?
 
It's well known Tiger has a large appendage. Combine that with his
fortune & endless opportunities to stray & it's a no-brainer he ends up
in the tabloids.
 
Famous guys/sportsmen etc who have micro penises tend to have an
immaculate public & private persona. This isn't rocket science.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.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.

0 comments:

Post a Comment