Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 19 updates in 10 topics

Sunday, June 25, 2017

TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 25 09:59PM +0300

kaennorsing kirjoitti 24.6.2017 klo 16:13:
>> Wow give me a break.
 
>> : )
 
> You're exactly wrong of course. The taller they are, the MORE likely they are to keel over. The shorter, the less likely. Yet, these 'short' buildings keeled over while being attempted to collapse downward. The reason is that straight, steel beams can not collapse in itself, although they MAY bend (allowing for a keel). That's why they are used as building blocks designed to keep standing straight... Hard to understand?
 
Whisper is correct.... more mass means that the structure below offers
less resistance. The towers were huge, not only height but the width too
which may not be obvious if you never visited the site. When I visited
WTC I was first impressed by the enormity of the ground floor, it was
HUGE. Then I was impressed by the speed of the elevator which actually
locked my ears due to quick change in altitude. Finally I was impressed
by the height looking down from 110th floor.
 
Also:
 
-If it would have been a controlled demolition the sound of explosion(s)
would have been huge. Did they invent dynamite without sound?
 
-It collapsed from the exact level the plane hit it.
 
-Why would a 'free fall' mean it was a controlled demolition? If there's
a demolition - that doesn't still mean a building collapses in free fall
now does it...
Pelle Svanslos <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 25 10:13PM +0300

On 25/06/2017 21.59, TT wrote:
>> to understand?
 
> Whisper is correct.... more mass means that the structure below offers
> less resistance.
From very little I know of it, the weak points in the structrure were
the points where the floors were jointed to the core and outer
perimeter. Once these joints failed, the floors dropped like cards, one
on top of another.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 25 02:47PM -0400

On 6/25/2017 12:01 PM, *skriptis wrote:
> whatsoever in the most difficult of situations.
 
> It's impossible, incomprehensible, unimaginable to have Tsonga,
> Monfils, Berdych types playing like this.
 
In other words, according to you, Cout_1 should never ever mention
Lopez as a clown again, whereas Tsonga, Monfils, Berdych are all fair game.
Pelle Svanslos <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 25 08:35PM +0300

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2017/06/22/434917/coverage-losses-senate-health-care-bill-result-18100-27700-additional-deaths-2026/
 
"Thanks, bob".
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 25 11:13AM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 7:35:30 PM UTC+2, Pelle Svanslos wrote:
> https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2017/06/22/434917/coverage-losses-senate-health-care-bill-result-18100-27700-additional-deaths-2026/
 
> "Thanks, bob".
 
So long as they are Dems I say good riddance!
 
 
Max
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 25 11:18AM -0700

And, you never explained why you are such a bug supporter of the Republican party.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 25 11:33AM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 11:18:21 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
 
> And, you never explained why you are such a bug supporter of the Republican party.
 
I assume "bug" supporter is a typo, but in this case it fits.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 25 11:41AM -0700

Lol, yeah
Jason White <infiniti_g35_guy88@yahoo.com>: Jun 25 10:52AM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 5:19:23 AM UTC-7, rec.sport.tennis wrote:
> fallen off a cliff, Murray still not at 2016 level.
 
> Nadal needs to avoid first week potholes, Federer's body needs to hold
> up. If both these happen it's gonna be a repeat of the AO final.
 
Odds of final not featuring one of the usual suspects. Looking at the list, it hasn't happened since 2003.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 25 02:37PM -0400

On 6/25/2017 8:41 AM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Could be but this is grass not clay.
 
A.O. was played on clay?
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 25 11:29AM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:56:10 AM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslos wrote:
> really doesn't. Beautiful reading. And reaaaally smooth, STRONG legs
> picking up the volley. Rafa woulda broken himself to pieces right there.
 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_h8RCvoofY#t=6m8s
 
Yes, including the FH volley, often an issue.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 25 10:00AM -0700

http://www.menstennisforums.com/2-general-messages/735250-percentage-each-surface-level-atp-world-tour-picture.html
 
So according to this:
 
Clay: 30%
Grass: 10%
Hard:
Outdoor: 38.6%
Indoor: 21.4%
Total Hard: 60.0%
Carpet: Extinct?
 
The Big 3 titles by surface:
 
Federer: 92
Clay: 11(11.95%)
Grass: 16(17.39%)
Hard:
Outdoor: 43(46.74%)
Indoor: 20(21.73%)
Total Hard: 63(68.48%)
Carpet: 2(2.17%)
 
Nadal: 73
Clay: 53(72.6%)
Grass: 4 (5.48%)
Hard:
Outdoor: 14(19.18%)
Indoor: 2(2.74%)
Total Hard: 16(21.92%)
 
Djokovic: 67
Clay: 13(19.4%)
Grass: 3(4.48%)
Hard:
Outdoor: 39(58.21%)
Indoor: 12(17.91%)
Total Hard: 51(76.12%)
 
 
Some takeaways:
Djokovic's hard court titles pad up his resume by 16.12%, Federer's grass titles pad up his resume by 7.39% and hard by 8.48% and Nadal's clay titles by a ridiculous 42.6%. Goes to show how much of a one-trick pony Nadal is compared to the rest of the greats.
 
Both Djokovic's and Federer's clay resumes are below par, but that is because Nadal has been winning pretty much everything there.
 
Federer has the most balanced resume. Imagine how much more accomplished he would be if grass was not so criminally neglected.
 
Underlines Nadal's clay GOAT status, but puts a huge question mark on his overall GOAT credentials especially since hard is the most competitive surface on tour by a huge margin and clay the least.
 
In my opinion, Djokovic has a bigger claim to GOAT status if he can rack up a couple more slams.
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 25 10:13AM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 1:00:55 PM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> Federer has the most balanced resume. Imagine how much more accomplished he would be if grass was not so criminally neglected.
 
> Underlines Nadal's clay GOAT status, but puts a huge question mark on his overall GOAT credentials especially since hard is the most competitive surface on tour by a huge margin and clay the least.
 
> In my opinion, Djokovic has a bigger claim to GOAT status if he can rack up a couple more slams.
 
Djokovic has a bigger claim than Nadal, I mean.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 25 11:27AM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 10:13:31 AM UTC-7, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> > Underlines Nadal's clay GOAT status, but puts a huge question mark on his overall GOAT credentials especially since hard is the most competitive surface on tour by a huge margin and clay the least.
 
> > In my opinion, Djokovic has a bigger claim to GOAT status if he can rack up a couple more slams.
 
> Djokovic has a bigger claim than Nadal, I mean.
 
 
Nice work, thank you for posting this.
Pelle Svanslos <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 25 08:57PM +0300

Too often, we think of politics as a game, losing ourselves in the
personalities and the strategies and the winning and losing. But the
reason it matters in the first place is that all of our lives are
affected by politics, by who holds power and what decisions they make.
And in those decisions, lawmakers reveal themselves. They show us what —
and who — is important to them. Republicans and Democrats aren't just
opposing teams, like the Yankees and Red Sox. They represent two
alternate visions of the world and two very different moral systems.
 
While those contrasting moralities express themselves every day in ways
large and small, every once in a while a party gets the opportunity to
make a grand statement about what it believes. That's what Republicans
in the Senate did this week when they released their version of a
health-care bill. If you want to know what today's GOP is all about, you
can find the answer woven through that bill's pages.
 
Let's begin with one of the party's two great goals, one that extends
beyond this bill to other issues like taxes and regulation. That goal is
to make life as easy and pleasant as possible for the wealthy, those
"job creators" whose virtue is proven by the size of their bank accounts.
 
The Senate's bill gives them a cornucopia of benefits, rolling back the
tax increases that were contained in the Affordable Care Act, to the
tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. One cut, on investment taxes,
would even be made retroactive to the beginning of the year, just to put
something extra in the wealthy's pockets. There are a couple of more
little goodies in there, like the repeal of an ACA provision that
limited the tax deduction for insurance company CEO pay to the first
$500,000. The Republicans who wrote the bill were being very thoughtful.
 
Then there's Medicaid, the bill's most prominent target for assault. It
also not only eliminates the ACA's expansion of Medicaid, phasing it out
beginning in 2021, but goes much farther. Medicaid would no longer be an
"entitlement," ... Instead, Medicaid would be subject to new,
slow-growing per capita caps, which represents hundreds of billions in
cuts in coming years. In addition, states would be given "flexibility"
over whom they cover, meaning they'd be allowed to reduce benefits or
kick people off the program entirely. And who are the beneficiaries of
Medicaid? The poor, the disabled, and the elderly ...
 
That's not all. While the bill maintains the basic structure of the ACA
subsidies that allow people not poor enough for Medicaid to be able to
afford insurance, it makes them stingier, reducing the highest income at
which people can receive the subsidies and cutting the subsidies'
amount, so they're pegged to what it would take for you to buy a less
expensive plan with higher deductibles. That's right, higher deductibles
— which everyone hates and Republicans used as a way of attacking the
ACA. This bill encourages them.
 
The bill also allows states to opt out of the ACA's "essential health
benefits" requirement, meaning insurers would once again be free to
offer cheap plans that cover very little. Ending the EHB requirement
could be a backdoor way of gutting the protection people with
pre-existing conditions now enjoy — if insurers can offer you bare-bones
plans, then the guarantee that you'll be covered for your pre-existing
conditions will cease to mean very much. It also allows states to seek
waivers for the ACA's outlawing of annual and lifetime limits on
coverage, which threatens the security of everyone who has an
employer-provided plan.
 
So let's review:
 
- The wealthy get a huge tax break
- Millions of poor and middle-class people lose health coverage altogether
- Medicaid is gutted and hobbled
- Fewer people get insurance subsidies, and those subsidies are smaller
 
What does it say about the values and priorities of the people who wrote
this bill, and the people who will vote for it? It says that they are
deeply concerned about maximizing the wealth of the wealthy — so
concerned, in fact, that they're willing to take away health coverage
from millions of people in order to provide the wealthy a large tax cut.
It says that they think that poor people have it too easy. It says that
they believe health care is a privilege, not a right — if you can afford
it, good for you, but if you can't, too damn bad. And it says that their
vision of America's health-care future is one that is surpassingly
cruel, where alone among the world's industrialized democracies, we'll
intentionally leave millions of our citizens without health coverage and
allow them to be bankrupted by medical bills.
 
In trying to defend this monstrosity — and whatever compromise Senate
Republicans can make with their House counterparts, whose bill was even
more vicious — Republicans will say that they share the same goals on
health care as anyone else, a system that is affordable and
comprehensive and protects everyone. Don't believe it for a second.
 
http://theweek.com/articles/707541/senate-health-bill-scathing-indictment-republican-party
Pelle Svanslos <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 25 08:24PM +0300

The White House blamed the Obama administration Sunday for failing to
tackle possible Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election,
sticking with a new strategy to fault President Trump's predecessor for
an issue currently facing the president himself as part of a widening
FBI probe.
 
Appearing on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday morning, Kellyanne Conway,
counselor to the president, struck a combative tone, saying: "It's the
Obama administration that was responsible for doing absolutely nothing
from August to January with the knowledge that Russia was hacking into
our election. They did absolutely nothing. They're responsible for this."
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/06/25/white-house-blames-obama-for-failing-to-stop-russia-collusion/?utm_term=.a522a876b792
 
Lol.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 25 10:30AM -0700

Does this mean Trump admits that there was collusion?
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 24 05:17PM +1000

On 24/06/2017 11:37 AM, bob wrote:
 
> depends what it hit on the way down.
 
> you did see smoke and dust, did you not?
 
> bob
 
I think he expected the beams to just fall straight down as if dropped
from a height?
 
I'm running out of popcorn.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 25 09:59AM -0700

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:50:12 AM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> He is one of very few I like to watch.
> Great serve motion, volleys, slice.
 
 
Agree on Lopez. He has a very pretty game. I'm glad he beat Cilic too.
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