Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 5 topics

Thursday, June 1, 2017

soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 01 11:20AM -0700

LOL
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 01 10:18AM -0700

And lose because she can't handle the pressure?
 
Is it coming yet again or can she finally go all the way? She'll never have a better opportunity to win a slam with no Serena, no Sharapova, no Azarenka.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 01 10:45AM -0700

Maybe in another final?
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 01 11:20AM -0700

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:18:31 PM UTC-5, Court_1 wrote:
> And lose because she can't handle the pressure?
 
> Is it coming yet again or can she finally go all the way? She'll never have a better opportunity to win a slam with no Serena, no Sharapova, no Azarenka.
 
No but Bootard did.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 01 08:27AM -0700

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 7:28:09 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> > (1) I never claimed to have "reviewed" any movie on your list that I classified as junk.
 
> Big fail here straight off the bat. You're in no position to classify
> something you haven't reviewed.
 
Sure I am. And so is everyone else.
 
> Kill Kill!' is something I would classify as junk if I just read the
> plot line. After watching the movie it's one of my all time faves -
> maybe even no.1
 
Good for you. I've had that happen too. It's nice. But sifting through what's likely worth my time or not isn't pointless because while I enjoy movies a lot, I don't have unlimited life hours to watch all of them.
 
> > (4) Obviously what constitutes "quality" or "junk" various widely among different people. For example, I mentioned "American Pie 2" earlier. Well loads of people loved that movie and it was a huge success. For me, it's junk. For you, it may be an all-time classic.
 
> For me it's junk. I admit I haven't watched it though, so would not
> make public comments.
 
No reason not to if it looks to me like it's probably a junk movie. I don't imagine that thousands of potential moviegoers will change their mind because of what anyone in an online discussion group says. Do you watch every damn movie that's available to you? I doubt it very much. You probably choose them according to what you think would be worth watching, and that means you have some means of making that decision. Saying you pick them all with equal expectation would be dishonest.
 
> Not sure why you're angry about this? I want to see reviews from anyone
> who's taken the time to watch anything. It makes it easier to find
> those 'gems' you would otherwise miss.
 
And that makes perfect sense. Now show me where I said that anyone else should decide to see any film I haven't seen based on what I said my expectation of it was. If you can find such a statement in this thread, then I'll apologize for it.
 
> If you had any decency you'd apologize to Steve & behave better in the
> future.
 
After your apologize to the world for kicking your dog to death. Oops, on second thought, no qualifier. Just apologize for kicking your dog to death.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 02 01:36AM +1000

On 2/06/2017 12:38 AM, *skriptis wrote:
> with good photos he deserves respect.
 
> Not that's anything wrong with staying anonymous, but give praise
> where it's warranted.
 
Yes, it's important to play the ball & not the man. If Gracchus, Raja
or john make a sensible post then I will praise it based on merit.
 
Those guys would never praise any post I make simply because it's made
by me. How dumb is that?
 
That's like thinking a girl is average looking, then 1 day drops her
clothes & reveals the body of a goddess. I would easily acknowledge &
recognize this. Gracchus & co would stick to original assessment. A
bit of a sore/cancer on this group unfortunately.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 02 01:40AM +1000

On 2/06/2017 1:05 AM, Gracchus wrote:
>> talking down to people who give the impression of being relatively
>> low-IQ and not very learned.
 
> Steve, Steve, you really need to think up some original tactics instead of using the same old stale ones borrowed from your Croatian suck buddy. Before you talk down to *anyone* here, first distinguish yourself as exceptional in any way. In years of posting, you've come across mostly as an ordinary blustering jerk who goes through life puffing up like a turkey to convince people he's a big shot. Bad news--it's never worked before and doesn't work now.
 
 
This is your big failing. You are now locked into this view & can never
resile from it, no matter what Jaros may post in the future.
 
That's pretty lame you must admit. You have played the man & not the ball.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 01 08:44AM -0700

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:37:07 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> Those guys would never praise any post I make simply because it's made
> by me. How dumb is that?
 
Completely untrue. I have praised posts you made and acknowledge when you make good points within a post.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 02 01:45AM +1000

On 2/06/2017 1:08 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> Imo Jaros is probably the smartest person on rst.
 
> Wow, Whisp, that's really disrespectful to bob. And he's been so loyal to you all these years. Bad form, old fellow.
 
bob openly endorses Jaros.
 
You seem to be locked into your views & unable to change, no matter what
the evidence shows? That's not an obvious sign of intelligence you must
admit?
 
If Einstein posted like Raja for yrs & then suddenly revealed his theory
of relativity, you would never acknowledge it because you have
permanently locked in your prejudice.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 02 01:55AM +1000

On 2/06/2017 1:27 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> Big fail here straight off the bat. You're in no position to classify
>> something you haven't reviewed.
 
> Sure I am. And so is everyone else.
 
Nobody is. That's like saying Mecir is crap even though you may have
never seen him play, because he's a baseliner, & you may think all
baseliners are crap. Then 1 day you watch him & think 'wow'.
 
 
>> plot line. After watching the movie it's one of my all time faves -
>> maybe even no.1
 
> Good for you. I've had that happen too. It's nice. But sifting through what's likely worth my time or not isn't pointless because while I enjoy movies a lot, I don't have unlimited life >hours to watch all of them.
 
But that's my point. That's why guys like Jaros are such a valuable
resource. At this point in time in his life he has the luxury of
indulging a fave pass time, & we should thank & encourage him to share
his insights, not mock him for god knows what reason. Jealous that he
has the time to indulge?
 
 
 
>> For me it's junk. I admit I haven't watched it though, so would not
>> make public comments.
 
> No reason not to if it looks to me like it's probably a junk movie. I don't imagine that thousands of potential moviegoers will change their mind because of what anyone in an online >discussion group says. Do you watch every damn movie that's available to you? I doubt it very much. You probably choose them according to what you think would be worth watching, and that >means you have some means of making that decision. Saying you pick them all with equal expectation would be dishonest.
 
Again that's my point for endorsing Jaros. None of us has the time to
watch everything, & undoubtedly we all miss gems that could be life
changing.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 02 01:58AM +1000

On 2/06/2017 1:44 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> Those guys would never praise any post I make simply because it's made
>> by me. How dumb is that?
 
> Completely untrue. I have praised posts you made and acknowledge when you make good points within a post.
 
Well that's a positive sign. Keep it up.
 
Keep in mind I welcome criticism when it's warranted.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 01 12:10PM -0400

>>> cratered around here. :(
 
>> Feeble flailing from you, Steve. You've never proven yourself as one of the exceptional people on RST. Self-praise and circle-jerks with your wingman don't even begin to compensate for that, so spare everyone the imperious airs.
 
> Imo Jaros is probably the smartest person on rst. I say this as someone
 
 
You are always obsessed with the label smart, smarter, smartest,....
 
Smart people don't die to be called smart.
Also smart people are always known.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 01 09:21AM -0700

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:55:32 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
 
> Nobody is. That's like saying Mecir is crap even though you may have
> never seen him play, because he's a baseliner, & you may think all
> baseliners are crap. Then 1 day you watch him & think 'wow'.
 
That's a terrible analogy, because Mecir's results in tournament play would make me take notice (and no, movie ticket sales aren't comparable). But I assume you mean stylistically, which is still a bad analogy.
 
> resource. At this point in time in his life he has the luxury of
> indulging a fave pass time, & we should thank & encourage him to share
> his insights, not mock him for god knows what reason.
 
Where's the mockery? All I did was take issue with the "tremendously wide variety of movies" claim. After he posted the list (which I thanked him for), I acknowledged the classics and good films I've seen, and said that about two-thirds looked like mainstream junk. At that point, he took it personally and began slinging insults. As for movies he posted comments on, I don't think I said anything negative whatsoever.
 
> Jealous that he
> has the time to indulge?
 
We all have only 24 hours in a day. And even if all those hours are free, we still need to make choices about how to use them. Life unfortunately is finite, and I have to admit that watching movies is an indulgence.
 
 
> Again that's my point for endorsing Jaros. None of us has the time to
> watch everything, & undoubtedly we all miss gems that could be life
> changing.
 
Did I slam his mini-reviews of any movies? I don't believe so.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 01 09:32AM -0700

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:23:49 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> see lots more films than TT of all varieties. Or you as well. So i'm
> easily the greater "cinephile", and thus my opinion, when I choose to
> give it, is worth more to the discerning reader.
 
But you only appear to be watching CURRENT films from all genres with a few classics thrown in. Where are you in the film threads when we are discussing TT's lists of films, many of them considered top films of all time?
 
Have you watched classics in all genres from 1930-1970 (post silent film era) for example? Do you watch foreign language films or indie films? What I see from the list you provided is that you are partial to CURRENT films(many of them big blockbusters) so if that's the case, it doesn't make you a well-rounded cinephile. It looks like you watch quantity over quality.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 01 09:50AM -0700

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:43:38 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> > So because I don't go see 100s of stupid X-Men and Baywatch type films a year it means I'm less of a movie > buff than you are? I've watched films in all genres my entire life.
 
> From what you've revealed so far, I'm far more of a film buff than you.
 
No you aren't.
 
 
> In that same time, you've probably sucked your
> thumb and thought about how much "Baywatch" must suck, LOL.
 
It just shows me what kind of person you must be if you could go to a cinema and pay to watch mindless Baywatch? It speaks to your immaturity.
 

> > Where are you when TT produces his lists of movies he's watched or plans on watching?
 
> Doing something more useful?
 
Like watching 130+ mostly adolescent type blockbusters at the cinema you mean?
 
> antidote. You guys have been making authoritative statements about films
> and it was apparent you see very little of them. RST needed this
> corrective.
 
We needed a corrective? You truly are obnoxious. Another narcissist on RST! But you like Trump so that was a dead giveaway.
 
 
> The discussion between you and TT about 'la la land' was
> laughable, really. That's what all your combined "scope" of filmwatching
> produced? Sheesh.
 
Your opinion about La La Land was laughable IMO. I guess it was too deep for you since it wasn't X-Men or Captain America!
 

> theaters since January 2016. I've been watching that quantity of films
> for decades. If you want what I saw from January 2006 to January 2007,
> I can post that too.
 
Exactly. So you've been watching current movies from 2007-2017. What about old Hollywood classics, foreign language films, indie films, period piece films, etc etc.
 

> films on that list. You seem to think that because I see most of the
> blockbusters that's all I see? That list contains plenty of films from
> many genres.
 
But they are all CURRENT. You had a few classics sprinkled in.
 

> anything I've watched on TV, DVD, Bluray, Netflix, etc. You think
> because TT is queueing up old films, films that I saw 20, 30, or 40
> years ago, on Netflix that this means he's seen more than me? Pretty funny.
 
Well since you have only posted a list of films you've watched at the cinema from 2017 and most of those films are blockbuster type films, how would I know that you have a broader scope and have watched old Hollywood classics, older indies, foreign language films, etc. etc.

> My comments? As far as we know, I see a LOT more foreign films, a lot
> more classics, etc. than TT or yourself. You think I don't because I
> don't chime in when TT mentions a 'classic'?
 
Except I doubt you do. You are too busy going to the cinema to see mostly silly movies it seems.
 
 
> Why would I bother to
> participate in a discussion of a classic *on a tennis forum* that I've
> seen many times,
 
Moron, you just posted a list of 130 current films you've seen on a tennis forum!
 
 
> forum and saying "hey guys, let's discuss Who's Next or Sgt. Pepper or
> Pet Sounds! Great albums, eh? But I also think they are overrated!"
 
> Done to death. This is a tennis forum, for crissakes.
 
So why did you enlighten us(on this tennis ng) with your list of 130 films you've seen at the cinema in 2017?
 
Great, you've seen 10 classic films. Congrats!
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 01 10:01AM -0700

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:56:09 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
 
> Don't doubt it, *see* it. Then you can have an informed opinion. And
> you're not really a QT fan? Even when he's repeating himself, he's a
> *genius*. Probably the only new one of the last 1/4 century.
 
Oh please. "Tarantino is a genius" is one of the most overused sayings I've heard. He's an idiot IMO. Pulp Fiction was extremely overrated. Many directors were geniuses but for me Tarantino isn't one of them. Not my cup of tea.
 
 
> Do you really think Big Budget = junk?
 
Not always but many times especially in the last 10 years or so. Big blockbusters used to be much better when I was a kid.
 
> critics who know more about films than either of us. Just because a film
> cost $250m and has the Disney hype machine behind it doesn't mean it
> doesn't have artistic and/or raw entertainment value.
 
Captain America simply isn't my thing. I'm long past that immature stage. You seem to be stuck in adolescence but each to his own.
 

> won't like 8 because so much of its appeal is rooted in the legacy of
> films. But I think anyone can enjoy CA right out of the box.
 
> Just my 2 cents.
 
I wouldn't see any of the Furious movies even if the young Cary Grant came to my door to accompany me to them. If I'm going to watch a silly guilty pleasure movie, it would be a horror or a comedy of some kind.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 01 10:07AM -0700

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 10:28:09 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> Imo Jaros is probably the smartest person on rst.
 
I thought you said I was? Fickle! :)
 
>Not sure why you're angry about this? I want to see reviews from anyone
who's taken the time to watch anything. It makes it easier to find
those 'gems' you would otherwise miss.
 
You must have missed the countless film threads on RST then? You just feel left out because you haven't personally watched many of those older classic movies.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 01 10:11AM -0700

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 10:42:47 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> My point is nobody should judge movies they haven't seen. If Jaros
> watches 100+ movies a yr then I consider him a valuable resource/asset
> in movie discussions.
 
Yes, but it appears he watches mostly current films and mostly big budget films. We've had countless film threads on RST for years discussing all kinds of films. TT had a zillion lists of films from all genres/eras he's watched for example and Gracchus, Grif and myself usually chimed in about our opinions on some of those films.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 01 10:12AM -0700

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 11:05:41 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> So maybe "Sausage Party" really is better than "The Godfather." Voila, it's possible!
 
LOL.
 

> So, there--your marvelous list of 130 might be the best thing since the remote control, which would theoretically make you the cock of the walk if they are. And to be honest, that's what this is all about, right? You felt left out of the movie conversations here, and thought your big A-bomb was to announce how many films you watch, which by some engineered logic and strategic blind spots would make you the most knowledgeable poster on RST when discussing movies. Ego. As always with guys like you, it all comes back to fragile pride and ego.
 
Exactly. That's certainly how it appears.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 01 10:54AM -0500

> On 6/1/2017 9:35 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> The latest survey from The Economist/YouGov this week found just 38
> percent of respondents approved of the job Trump has done in office.
 
Still throwing your temper tantrum. :(
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 01 07:31PM +0300

On 1.6.2017 18:54, stephenJ wrote:
>> The latest survey from The Economist/YouGov this week found just 38
>> percent of respondents approved of the job Trump has done in office.
 
> Still throwing your temper tantrum. :(
 
You just keep coming to me!
 
:)
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 01 10:42AM -0500

Says MC Arena should be renamed for Evonne Goolagong:
 
"It is now clear exactly who Court is: an amazing tennis player, and ...
a homophobe. Her vitriol is not just an opinion. She is actively trying
to keep LGBT people from getting equal rights (note to Court: we are
human beings, too). She is demonizing trans kids and trans adults
everywhere."
 
Navratilova said "we should not be celebrating this kind of behavior"
and recommended that the No. 2 arena at the Australian Open be given a
new name.
 
"I think the Evonne Goolagong Arena has a great ring to it," Navratilova
wrote, suggesting an alternative to Court. "Now there is a person we can
all celebrate. On every level."
 
http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/19510545/martina-navratilova-calls-margaret-court-homophobe-open-letter
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 02 01:57AM +1000

On 2/06/2017 1:42 AM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> "I think the Evonne Goolagong Arena has a great ring to it," Navratilova
> wrote, suggesting an alternative to Court. "Now there is a person we can
> all celebrate. On every level."
 
This has been ongoing here for a few days - hilarious stuff.
 
I must say Margaret has a lot of balls. I can see why she was so tough
& achieved so much in the game.
 
: )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 01 05:45PM +0200

> wrote, suggesting an alternative to Court. "Now there is a person we can
> all celebrate. On every level."
 
> http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/19510545/martina-navratilova-calls-margaret-court-homophobe-open-letter
 
 
Disgusting person.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 02 02:09AM +1000

On 2/06/2017 1:45 AM, *skriptis wrote:
 
>> http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/19510545/martina-navratilova-calls-margaret-court-homophobe-open-letter
 
> Disgusting person.
 
Margaret has a lot of views I don't agree with it, but she is from an
older generation who were tougher/more pragmatic - not self absorbed
naval gazing types who think world revolves around them.
 
Is it sensible to allow 10 yr old children who 'identify' as the
opposite gender to become so? Seems retarded on the surface no?
 
 
---
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