Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 8 topics

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:08PM -0700

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.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 04 07:10PM

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 12:08:31 -0700, Carey wrote:
 
> 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 was a big fan of Muster but I really think that Nadal would waste him
4,2,2 or some such.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:14PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 12:10:56 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> > comment considering the source.
 
> I was a big fan of Muster but I really think that Nadal would waste him
> 4,2,2 or some such.
 
 
Yeah, he wouldn't have enough for sure, but still wish I could see it.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:00PM -0700

Djokovic should probably beat Thiem. Djokovic is a bad match-up for Thiem and Thiem has stated he dislikes playing Djokovic.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 04 12:13PM -0700

Thiem has been cruising though. Could make things interesting.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 04 09:59PM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 4.6.2017 klo 21:43:
 
>> i thought it was a mediocre movie. saw it a few times now, it's blah.
>> PC.
 
> 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.
 
I think acting was convincing and in fact great from the entire cast.
 
I don't know why Bob says it is too 'PC'... the only context I can find
for that statement is that it was made in Hollywood and thus it was a
'liberal' film. Some people think that way which I find ridiculous and
disingenuous. I've read a few times comments about 'liberals' many times
on IMDB and I think Bob also used that recently. Sad!
 
Somehow if they like the film then it's not 'liberal Hollywood' product
any more. Go figure.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:02PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 10:16:32 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> But if Whisper sees more to it, maybe he can tell us what changed for him the second time around.
 
No, I'd rather he didn't. :)
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 04 12:04PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 11:59:18 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> on IMDB and I think Bob also used that recently. Sad!
 
> Somehow if they like the film then it's not 'liberal Hollywood' product
> any more. Go figure.
 
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.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:05PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 12:27:10 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> Lowered standards for modern films.
 
> Maybe a better comparison would be Bergman's 'Cries and Whispers', which
> is also about a dying relative & stuff.
 
A rating of 6 is too low for Amour in my opinion. I think I would probably go a bit higher to a 7. It was a slow burn movie but I thought it was well done.
 
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.)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:10PM -0700

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 and the acting performances by all were top-notch. I think it explored the father-daughter theme, the long term marriage theme and the Alzheimer's theme exceptionally well.
 

> Not to say that I think "Amour" is better. I didn't like it as much as C1 did, but still thought it was decent. It's been a while since I've seen it, but compared with "45 Years" it has more to do with the indignities that old age and decay reduces us all to if we live long enough.
 
I would say On Golden Pond was better than Amour.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:11PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:30:18 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> i thought it was a mediocre movie. saw it a few times now, it's blah.
> PC.
 
Well, as always you're wrong. :)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 12:13PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:59:18 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> I don't know why Bob says it is too 'PC'...
 
He ain't too swift?
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 04 12:13PM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 12:05:39 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > Maybe a better comparison would be Bergman's 'Cries and Whispers', which
> > is also about a dying relative & stuff.
 
> A rating of 6 is too low for Amour in my opinion. I think I would probably go a bit higher to a 7. It was a slow burn movie but I thought it was well done.
 
That rating sounds about right.
 
> 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.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 04 11:57AM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:51:50 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 1:32:16 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> > ... it was 6-4, 6-1. MC 2015 ...
 
> To be fair to Djoker, Ramos Vindaloo has been playing the best tennis of his career this season.
 
Yeah, but comparing the experience of playing ARV as a lefty to Nadal as a lefty on clay is like comparing Casper the Ghost to Godzilla.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 04 10:04PM +0300

On 4.6.2017 21:51, SliceAndDice wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 1:32:16 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> ... it was 6-4, 6-1. MC 2015 ...
 
> To be fair to Djoker, Ramos Vindaloo has been playing the best tennis of his career this season.
 
Yeah, and I'm reading Djok like the Devil reads the Bible. He
occasionally does play better than I think. Although everything is lost,
it's not all doom and gloom.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 04 03:00PM -0400


>> > bob
 
>> This coming from a Trump supporter, such irony!
 
>Why is this an irony? Trump is the master of fake news!
 
what is fake about obama sticking around buying a home in DC being bad
form? did he not buy the house after all?
 
bob
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 04 08:03PM +0100

>> Barbara. Montecito isn't on the beach, it's a good distance from the
>> coast and about 55 metres ASL.
 
> On photos it looks like less than 10 metres. Dangerous, dangerous, Al ...
 
It's an 'ocean-view' villa in the Montecito hills. Dunno what pictures
you have seen.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 04 07:58PM +0100

On 04/06/2017 19:03, bob wrote:
>> and Jared Kushner & Steve Bannon.
 
> my clinton comment was obviously sarcasm. sorry, i'll let you know
> next time i'm joking.
 
You always seem to be joking.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 04 07:00PM

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 14:28:33 -0400, bob wrote:
 
 
> everyone, myself included, should be open to many sources - not just the
> NYT and CNN, and say any other opinion is a lie. they're the same lie.
> 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.... at one point he was
talking about "President Merkel... or, maybe she's a Prime Minister....
or something". Do you think someone who hasn't heard of "Chancellor
Merkel" has any business discussing politics?
 
Then, he had the gall to whine about Macron (he called him "Macaroni")
shaking Trump's hand too long... which is of course a trademark Trump
move. I guess he was really angry Macron got the better of him, he went
on to claim that Macron should be thanking Trump instead, that without
Trump the french would be speaking German right now.
 
Yes, these are the bright luminaries of conservative political journalism!
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 04 03:01PM -0400


>> oops, sorry, CNN probably didn't tell you (or brian) that yet.
 
>> bob
 
>With same logic nothing Trump has done has been legal...
 
yeah - obama should've never opened that door for him.
 
>After all his presidency is a result of crime and will end in impeachment.
 
like obama's?
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 04 03:02PM -0400

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:54:13 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los>
wrote:
 
 
>I can't recall the details now ... but IIRC the Senate refused to sign
>anything *binding*. Which is the reason the Paris national targets were
>made non-binding. I'm not going to go out on a limb on this ATM. But will check on this.
 
check it all you like. if it was "non binding" it wasn't anything.
if it was "binding" (which hit wasn't) then it wasn't legal.
 
i don't think the pres can sign a treaty with a foreign nation w/out
senate approval. of course obama opened all these cans of worms, now
we live with them.
 
bob
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 04 07:49PM +0100

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', and almost no
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.
 
Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'. Now it's heading for the Supreme
Court they claim that it's not a travel ban per se, but instead is
'intensive vetting'. That argument has some merit, BUT what did he
tweet yesterday?
 
"Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump 19 hours ago
 
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.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 04 02:59PM -0400

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 19:49:47 +0100, Brian W Lawrence
>whether they are or not.
 
>Trump's travel ban was rejected by the courts partly because it gave the
>appearance of being a 'Muslim ban'.
 
it was "rejected by courts" because a judge with an opposing political
view heard the case.
 
brian, the usa is a divided nation right now. we're not 1 america
anymore unfortunately. sooner you realize that, sooner you'll
understand what's going on.
 
>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.
 
if a pro trump judge (or court) heard the case, it's a ban. if not,
it'll be "unconstitutional."
 
judges are just as biased in many cases as the press.
 
bob
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 04 09:29PM +0300

On 4.6.2017 21:15, TT wrote:
>> Rafa's been in this form for while now.
 
> No. Rafa was playing well early year but he is now playing better and is
> also more confident.
 
That's what happens when he's on clay. The things he does, work better
there. Can this be a surprise?
 
But yes, all the shots are and were there all along.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 04 11:49AM -0700

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:29:41 PM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> That's what happens when he's on clay. The things he does, work better
> there. Can this be a surprise?
 
> But yes, all the shots are and were there all along.
 
+1
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