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

Sunday, June 4, 2017

calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 04 12:24PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 8:54:15 PM UTC+2, bob wrote:
 
> i'm under the impression that virtually all climate scientists except
> the ones employed by the oil industry say humans are the main cause.
 
> have i been "CNN'd"????
 
 
Yes, you have been duped.
 
Remember this alleged "97 % of all scientists consensus"?
 
 
Max
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 04 09:46PM +0200


> did reagan (CA), clinton (NY) or bush I and II (TX) stick around DC
> after their terms? nope, only obama. really bad form.
 
> bob
 
How about going to Germany recently, meeting with Merkel and
giving speeches in Berlin, all that before those NATO and G7
meetings to steal the spotlight?
 
Embarassing. A clown.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:31PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:38:35 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 10:46:44 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
 
> > Bwhahahahaha...Gracchus you have been funny since your comeback. Haven't you got the memo...Bootard is the new Melanie Oudin
 
> Bouchard has been a Wimbledon finalist though. Oudin never got that far.
 
Bouchard's meltdown after that loss to Kvitova at Wimbledon has been quite astonishing. Obviously there are issues behind the scenes going on, i.e. her not being able to deal with the pressure, rumors of dealing with anorexia at one point, who knows what else.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:33PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:44:39 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > What??
 
> > Well, to each their own ...
 
> What, her nose isn't big enough for you? Let me guess--you are German?
 
Bouchard's ass pimples are better looking than Graf's face. No comparison between the two in the looks dept. Bouchard wins that contest.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 04 12:37PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 12:31:53 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > Bwhahahahaha...Gracchus you have been funny since your comeback. Haven't you got the memo...Bootard is the new Melanie Oudin
 
> > Bouchard has been a Wimbledon finalist though. Oudin never got that far.
 
> Bouchard's meltdown after that loss to Kvitova at Wimbledon has been quite astonishing. Obviously there are issues behind the scenes going on, i.e. her not being able to deal with the pressure, rumors of dealing with anorexia at one point, who knows what else.
 
Quite true. Well, if Novotna came back and won Wimbledon after that horrific epic choke against Graf, anything's possible. But I don't know that Bouchard has Novotna's abilities.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 04 09:41PM +0200


>> > Well, to each their own ...
 
>> What, her nose isn't big enough for you? Let me guess--you are German?
 
> Bouchard's ass pimples are better looking than Graf's face. No comparison between the two in the looks dept. Bouchard wins that contest.
 
Bouchard
is younger, more toned and sluttier, therefore hotter.
 
Nothing else really matters.
 
 
I actually find Graf better looking face wise, which doesn't go in
her favour.
 
Bouchard has somewhat dumb face which is a turn on for every guy.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 04 12:27PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 9:00:49 PM UTC+2, jdeluise wrote:
> > you're a big boy, i think you could be open to all of it.
 
> Well I did listen to a full compliment of conservative talk radio
> yesterday. This Joey Pags fellow was interesting....
 
 
There are at least as many liberal nutters in US media, most probably even more.
Just watch CNN.
 
Yes, I know, they are owned by the DNC, but still ...
 
 
Max
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 04 09:51PM +0200

>> what they say, they're very close minded. read all sides first.
 
> Says the guy who cites breitbart, Fox News (mouthpieces for Trump), and
> anonymous sources... you're such a hypocrite bob.
 
What's wrong with breitbart
?
 
Fox is probably most split because they want money so the cater to
both sides. It means they're 50% right.
 
Tucker Carlson is phenomenal intelligent and funny. Others not much.
 
Breitbart otoh... Pure gold.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:15PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 3:04:28 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Maybe he was referring to Henry Fonda getting the Oscar, which I do think was a sympathy gesture. PC wasn't really a thing in 1980.
 
Part of it was a sympathy vote but he was very good in that movie and normally I think Henry Fonda's acting is stiff as a board. I think Jane is the best actor in the Fonda family.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 04 10:18PM +0300

bob kirjoitti 4.6.2017 klo 21:55:
 
>> I remember it as visually pleasing, story ok, but the acting often more melodramatic than convincing or emotionally moving. But maybe I'll see it in a different light in viewing again after so many years.
 
> it's what you said: a swan song for h fonda. overrated IMO.
 
> bob
 
Henry Fonda and Hepburn both won Oscars, deservedly.
Jane Fonda was just as good.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:19PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 3:13:25 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > I agree with you that On Golden Pond which tackles some of the same subject matter was more compelling. I'd give On Golden Pond an 8 probably. I enjoyed it thoroughly. A very well-rounded move with an emotional impact (at least for me.)
 
> I do remember some emotionally effective scenes, mostly Hepburn making them work. The ones between Henry and Jane not so much. But again, it's been ages since I've seen it and probably need to give it another look.
 
> "Ordinary People" was made the same year. I saw it then and a couple of times more over the years. This was a "moving human drama" that really worked well on all levels IMO and still holds up well.
 
Ordinary People was excellent. Probably as close to a 10 as a movie gets IMO. But On Golden Pond was effective as a moving human drama too (an 8 for OGP vs a 9.5 or 10 for Ordinary People.)
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 04 12:23PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 12:10:19 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 12:41:10 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > I don't know whether that's about older vs. modern films as much as Hollywood vs. "art" films. I mean, a movie with father & daughter Fondas + Hepburn is pure Hollywood even if the subject matter is serious. I'm not a huge fan of it actually. I found it annoying that Henry and Jane were working out their real-life father daughter baggage onscreen and got applauded for it. And Henry got a big tailwind at the Oscars because everyone knew he wasn't much longer for this world. If the film's stature has faded somewhat, no huge surprise.
 
> I think the fact that Jane and Henry were working out their own relationship problems in a sense gave it even more realism
 
Well that aspect irritates me to be honest--celebrities self-indulgently airing their relationship issues to the world by shoehorning them into the work. Even if the characters' relationship mirrors their own in some ways, there's grandstanding involved. I hated Katherine Hepburn's story about being off-camera and urging Jane to release her feelings in a "big scene" with Henry. That's just stoking melodrama.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:28PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 3:23:13 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > > I don't know whether that's about older vs. modern films as much as Hollywood vs. "art" films. I mean, a movie with father & daughter Fondas + Hepburn is pure Hollywood even if the subject matter is serious. I'm not a huge fan of it actually. I found it annoying that Henry and Jane were working out their real-life father daughter baggage onscreen and got applauded for it. And Henry got a big tailwind at the Oscars because everyone knew he wasn't much longer for this world. If the film's stature has faded somewhat, no huge surprise.
 
> > I think the fact that Jane and Henry were working out their own relationship problems in a sense gave it even more realism
 
> Well that aspect irritates me to be honest--celebrities self-indulgently airing their relationship issues to the world by shoehorning them into the work. Even if the characters' relationship mirrors their own in some ways, there's grandstanding involved. I hated Katherine Hepburn's story about being off-camera and urging Jane to release her feelings in a "big scene" with Henry. That's just stoking melodrama.
 
It all added to the effect for me and was heartwarming. Jane and Henry really had a difficult relationship and that rawness really came out in the movie. I really felt Jane's pain in that role.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 04 10:56PM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 4.6.2017 klo 22:19:
 
>> I do remember some emotionally effective scenes, mostly Hepburn making them work. The ones between Henry and Jane not so much. But again, it's been ages since I've seen it and probably need to give it another look.
 
>> "Ordinary People" was made the same year. I saw it then and a couple of times more over the years. This was a "moving human drama" that really worked well on all levels IMO and still holds up well.
 
> Ordinary People was excellent. Probably as close to a 10 as a movie gets IMO. But On Golden Pond was effective as a moving human drama too (an 8 for OGP vs a 9.5 or 10 for Ordinary People.)
 
I have...
 
OP - 9
OGP - 8
Amour - 6, slightly below Xanadu. :-P
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 04 10:51PM +0300

As Donald Trump does his best to destroy the world's hopes of reining in
climate change, let's be clear about one thing: This has nothing to do
with serving America's national interest. The U.S. economy, in
particular, would do just fine under the Paris accord. This isn't about
nationalism; mainly, it's about sheer spite.
 
About the economics: At this point, I think, we have a pretty good idea
of what a low-emissions economy would look like.
 
Clearly, it would be an economy running on electricity. The bulk of that
electricity would, in turn, come from nonpolluting sources: wind, solar
and, yes, probably nuclear.
 
What would life in an economy that made such an energy transition be
like? Almost indistinguishable from life in the economy we have now.
 
People would still drive cars, live in houses that were heated in the
winter and cooled in the summer, and watch videos about superheroes and
funny cats.
 
Wouldn't energy be more expensive in this alternative economy? Probably,
but not by much: Technological progress in solar and wind has
drastically reduced their cost, and it looks as if the same thing is
starting to happen with energy storage.
 
Meanwhile, there would be compensating benefits. Notably, the adverse
health effects of air pollution would be greatly reduced, and it's quite
possible that lower health care costs would all by themselves make up
for the costs of energy transition, even ignoring the whole
saving-civilization-from-catastrophic-climate-change thing.
 
The point is that while tackling climate change in the way envisaged by
the Paris accord used to look like a hard engineering and economic
problem, these days it looks fairly easy. We have almost all the
technology we need, and can be quite confident of developing the rest.
Obviously the transition to a low-emissions economy, the phasing out of
fossil fuels, would take time, but that would be O.K. as long as the
path was clear.
 
Why, then, are so many people on the right determined to block climate
action, and even trying to sabotage the progress we've been making on
new energy sources?
 
Don't tell me that they're honestly worried about the inherent
uncertainty of climate projections. All long-term policy choices must be
made in the face of an uncertain future (duh); there's as much
scientific consensus here as you're ever likely to see on any issue. And
in this case, uncertainty arguably strengthens the case for action,
because the costs of getting it wrong are asymmetric: Do too much, and
we've wasted some money; do too little, and we've doomed civilization.
 
Don't tell me that it's about coal miners. Anyone who really cared about
those miners would be crusading to protect their health, disability and
pension benefits, and trying to provide alternative employment
opportunities — not pretending that environmental irresponsibility will
somehow bring back jobs lost to strip mining and mountaintop removal.
 
While it isn't about coal jobs, right-wing anti-environmentalism is in
part about protecting the profits of the coal industry, which in 2016
gave 97 percent of its political contributions to Republicans.
 
As I said, however, these days the fight against climate action is
largely driven by sheer spite.
 
Pay any attention to modern right-wing discourse — including op-ed
articles by top Trump officials — and you find deep hostility to any
notion that some problems require collective action beyond shooting
people and blowing things up.
 
Beyond this, much of today's right seems driven above all by animus
toward liberals rather than specific issues. If liberals are for it,
they're against it. If liberals hate it, it's good. Add to this the
anti-intellectualism of the G.O.P. base, for whom scientific consensus
on an issue is a minus, not a plus, with extra bonus points for
undermining anything associated with President Barack Obama.
 
And if all this sounds too petty and vindictive to be the basis for
momentous policy decisions, consider the character of the man in the
White House. Need I say more?
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/trump-gratuitously-rejects-the-paris-climate-accord.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
 
Does Krugman read RST?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 04 08:16PM +0200

Nadal games percentage through first 4 rounds at FO.
 
 
2005 - 67% (76/114)
2006 - 63% (83/132)
2007 - 69% (74/107)
2008 - 77% (73/95)
2009 - 60% (74/123)
2010 - 69% (73/107)
2011 - 62% (87/140)
2012 - 79% (72/91)
2013 - 59% (82/138)
2014 - 76% (73/96)
2015 - 68% (77/114)
2016 - 44% (36/81) *
2017 - 78% (72/92)
 
*
He played only two matches in 2016, 80% (36/45), so I added two
triple bagel loses to penalize him maximally for non appearance
in 3rd and 4th round and to calculate 4 matches.
 
 
He had a freak set vs Bellucci in 2008 that went to 75, I'm sure
if calculated for the first 5 rounds, 2008 would come to top
every other year.
 
But as for first 4 rounds, it's 2012, closely followed by 2017.
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 04 02:32PM -0400

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 20:16:11 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
 
>Nadal games percentage through first 4 rounds at FO.
 
imagine if he was peak.
 
bob
 
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 04 09:37PM +0300

On 4.6.2017 21:32, bob wrote:
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
 
>> Nadal games percentage through first 4 rounds at FO.
 
> imagine if he was peak.
 
As peak as can be. Just watch the play.
 
Only a major malfunction can stop his run.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 04 11:41AM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:37:26 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> > imagine if he was peak.
 
> As peak as can be. Just watch the play.
 
> Only a major malfunction can stop his run.
 
Or a peak Novak can beat him in four sets!!
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:39PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:41:17 PM UTC-4, Guypers wrote:
 
> Or a peak Novak can beat him in four sets!!
 
Peak Novak never beat a Nadal in decent form at the FO. In 2015 when Djokovic beat Nadal at the FO, Nadal was terrible.
 
This year Novak won't beat Nadal.
"Scall5" <nospam@home.net>: Jun 04 02:35PM -0500

"Carey" wrote in message
news:e29bad82-e0b9-48a1-8530-d37690c790c6@googlegroups.com...
 
I woulda loved to have seen this. Nadal would win of course, but Muster
would get into it big time,
and not be intimidated at all. Courier-Nadal would be fun too, but
Muster... as Connors said, "that
guy's a goddamn Marine!". Quite the comment considering the source.
 
****************
 
I recall once where Muster and Courier were going to play the next round of
Roland Garros and Muster stated that Courier was a machine. Courier replied
with something like "He thinks *I* am the machine?!?"
-----------------------------
Scall5
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:36PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
 
> anyone who doesn't see a difference in style of nadal from Jan-Mar VS
> Nadal of 08-2014 isn't being very honest.
 
Yeah, the difference is his shots are better now, more improved in many ways. Better serve, better bh.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 04 09:28PM +0200

> On 04/06/2017 18:46, The Iceberg wrote:
 
>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
 
> Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates',
 
 
Yes they do, and yes you do, by any historical measure those
countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.

 
 
> country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
> problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
> whether they are or not.
 
 
Use common sense? Has rationalism been abolished in the west or what?
 
How do you know a typical Spanish player will excell on clay far
more than some US player?
 
 
 
 
> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
 
 
Correct. Social justice warriors in judiciary, media, legislature,
all conspired against him. You correctly point out it was not a
Muslim but they distorted its meaning to bring it down and to
attack the president.
 
 
 
 
> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us
> back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
 
> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
 
 
It's either being "stupid and alive" or "smart and dead". I know
what would I pick and say.
 
I certainly wouldn't say anything ridiculous as that Canadian
bafoon Trudeau "if you kill terrorists, they win".

 
How come the media are not mocking the idiot? His degeneracy is on
pair with those of EU leaders.
 
Imagine, if you kill someone who wants to kill you, you lost.
 
That would be too ridiculous even for any comedy show that
explores irony and sarcasm.
 
 
Sick.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 04 09:29PM +0200

> On 04/06/2017 18:46, The Iceberg wrote:
 
>> Yep! Also Trump gave a great quote when Brexit happened, this is why I like the guy, he's honest and supports Great Britain, unlike Obama. What's wrong with his other twitterings today? Yes they're non-PC but just being consistent and making a point about his travel ban. If you have open gates for the world's most dangerous people, what do you reckon the result going to be? I'd really be interested in answer. t a shame if you disagree just cos they're not PC.
 
> Neither the UK nor the US have anything like 'open gates',
 
 
Yes they do, and yes you do, by any historical measure those
countries are jokes that almost anyone can enter, and worse,
stay. If you fail to admit that, you're self delusional.

 
 
> country will allow any of 'the world's most dangerous people' entry. The
> problem is how do you know they are dangerous, and who gets to decide
> whether they are or not.
 
 
Use common sense? Has rationalism been abolished in the west or what?
 
How do you know a typical Spanish player will excell on clay far
more than some US player?
 
 
 
 
> Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
> appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
 
 
Correct. Social justice warriors in judiciary, media, legislature,
all conspired against him. You correctly point out it was not a
Muslim but they distorted its meaning to bring it down and to
attack the president.
 
 
 
 
> We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us
> back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!"
 
> So he's on record as saying IT IS a travel ban. Not smart.
 
 
It's either being "stupid and alive" or "smart and dead". I know
what would I pick and say.
 
I certainly wouldn't say anything ridiculous as that Canadian
bafoon Trudeau "if you kill terrorists, they win".

 
How come the media are not mocking the idiot? His degeneracy is on
pair with those of EU leaders.
 
Imagine, if you kill someone who wants to kill you, you lost.
 
That would be too ridiculous even for any comedy show that
explores irony and sarcasm.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:25PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:48:00 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
> Handling a quality claycourter like Ramos Vindaloo who is playing very well efficiently. Agassi effect?
 
Oh please. Djokoivc always handled ARV well. ARV ain't no Nadal on clay. It's no big deal that Djokovic beat ARV. That was always in the cards.
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