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

Monday, June 5, 2017

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 05 02:04PM +0100


> No private jets to nice conference locations, no stylish receptions and parties anymore?
 
The next UN Climate Change Conference (COP23) is in Bonn in November,
COP24 should be in Katowice in Nov 2018 & COP25 in 2019 at a location
yet to be decided. They are annual events.
 
Not sure Bonn or Katowice in November are necessarily nice locations though.
 
The UNFCCC hold other meetings too:
 
<http://unfccc.int/meetings/unfccc_calendar/items/2655.php>
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 05 11:28AM +0100

On 05/06/2017 05:05, stephenJ wrote:
> "travel ban", rather that it is a "Muslim travel ban". There's nothing
> wrong with a travel ban vis a vis our 1st amendment, so your comment
> would hold merit only of he'd included "Muslim" in the tweet.
 
And yet others noted it too;
 
ACLU National‏ @ACLU Jun 3
 
ACLU National Retweeted Donald J. Trump
 
Glad we both agree the ban is a ban.
 
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
 
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!
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 05 12:03PM +0100

On 04/06/2017 22:47, *skriptis wrote:
 
 
> How many e.g. Arabs are wandering through the streets of London
> and how many through the streets of e.g. Tokyo?
 
> Can you take a guess?
 
London about 350,000, Tokyo about 250,000.
 
> Even their mayor is not British, but Muslim.
 
Actually he's both, along with 2.7m others. Ethnically his family are
from Pakistan, though his grandparents lived in Bombay/Mumbai until
partition in 1947. Pre-partition India had over 1,000 different ethnic
groups,
 
> But sure, claim their borders are "closed" and it's difficult to
> come there.
 
Who has ever claimed that?
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 05 07:14AM -0500

On 6/5/2017 5:28 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
> ACLU National‏ @ACLU Jun 3
 
> ACLU National Retweeted Donald J. Trump
 
> Glad we both agree the ban is a ban.
 
.. and yet they are wrong as well, if by that they mean what you meant.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 05 01:40PM +0100

On 05/06/2017 13:14, stephenJ wrote:
 
>> ACLU National Retweeted Donald J. Trump
 
>> Glad we both agree the ban is a ban.
 
> .. and yet they are wrong as well, if by that they mean what you meant.
 
That rather remains to be seen.
 
Are the SC ruling on the Fourth Circuit May 25 ruling only, or could
they overturn the Hawaii case as well? Actually looking at the SC
document it relates to the International Refugee Assistance (4th
Circuit) case only, so the 9th circuit could still uphold the Hawaii vs.
Trump case I assume.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 05 07:53AM -0500

On 6/5/2017 7:40 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
>>> Glad we both agree the ban is a ban.
 
>> .. and yet they are wrong as well, if by that they mean what you meant.
 
> That rather remains to be seen.
 
We probably won't ever see, unless (a) the SCOTUS upholds the lower
court's rulings, and (b) specifically cites today's Trump tweets about
"travel ban" in doing so. From the lower court decisions, the emphasis
has all been about the religious nature of the ban, that it bans
Muslims, not that it's a 'ban' per se.
 
> document it relates to the International Refugee Assistance (4th
> Circuit) case only, so the 9th circuit could still uphold the Hawaii vs.
> Trump case I assume.
 
Technically, yes. But, since the constitutional issues argued have been
the same in both the 4th and 9th circuits, it's extremely unlikely that
the supreme court would carve out a ruling (either for or against Trump)
that pertains to the 4th without also settling the issue before the 9th
as well.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 05 08:01AM -0500


> Well if you and other Americans believe that I'm afraid you are all in
> serious trouble. Not that any judge is always neutral, but the Judiciary
> is supposed to be exactly that, and they take oaths to be that.
 
FWIW, all federal officers, including congresspersons and the President,
take the same Oath of Office, swearing to uphold. protect and defend the
Constitution, as do judges. But all people are biased, the notion that
judges are neutral, particularly on divisive issues, is a 'legal
fiction'. That's why the fight over confirmation is so bitter on both
sides.
 
IMO, our federal courts wield way too much power. Congress is largely to
blame, as the Constitution actually empowers it to limit the cases the
federal courts can hear, but they don't do that, so in practice, our
federal courts get the final say about lots of things that Congress should.
 
> they may not always get everything right, but it's part of their job
> to hold people to account - but it seems that in the US if they do so
> it's dismissed as bias, or their all Dems, or all liberals, etc.
 
Actually, all parties do this - E.g., Democrats rail against what they
call the "right-wing bias" of FOX News constantly.
 
FWIW, this is absolutely nothing new. If you look throughout our
history, all the way back to the 1790s, perceptions by party X regarding
certain newspapers as biased against them/for the other party have
always been loudly voiced, and the Democracy has rolled right along.
That's part of freedom of speech - freedom to distrust the press and
loudly say so.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 05 08:04AM -0500

>On 6/5/2017 4:05 AM, Whisper wrote:
 
 
> He's doing better than 6-2 average per set played.
 
I'm getting excited at the prospect. A 15th slam to pass Sampras and
reignite chasing Fed, and La Decima at the FO?
 
Would be absolutely massive on all levels. The wild card of course is
injury.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 05 12:57PM +0300

On 5.6.2017 2:01, Court_1 wrote:
>> And lost by a putt one rain-interrupted semi that took a week to
>> play.
 
> I'm talking about at RG.
 
I know that. They only met 4 times at RG. That's too small a sample to
say much of anything. Flip one of the coin toss affairs and it's a 2-2.
 
That's why it's necessary to consider other results. Elsewhere Djok made
Rafa look like a poodle.
 
> How many times did peak Novak beat a Nadal
> in decent form at RG? Never. In 2015 Nadal was basically an
> impostor.
 
He was beating Rafa in the tummy match. The rain-delayed SF was decided
on the 1001th coin toss. That could have gone either way. Luck played a
HUGE part in both. Bad luck.
 
> Shut up with tummy excuses and rain excuses.
 
I like to call them ... "factors".
 
> Nobody cares except for
> some of those Nole family nuts. Novak lost those matches fair and
> square! *rolls eyes*
 
Even though Jaros has debunked luck, you can roll your eyes on that,
there's little question that Djok is the victim of horrendously bad luck
in 2 of his meetings with Rafa.
 
Too bad he's now half the man he used to be ...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 05 08:15PM +1000

On 5/06/2017 7:57 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
>> I'm talking about at RG.
 
> I know that. They only met 4 times at RG. That's too small a sample to
> say much of anything. Flip one of the coin toss affairs and it's a 2-2.
 
They played 7 times at RG (Rafa led 6-0), which is an all time world
record for 2 players playing each other at a slam. So rather than the
sample being 'too small', it's actually the biggest sample in recorded
tennis history.
 
Are you being purposefully obtuse, or is this just natural for you?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 05 03:31AM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 5:57:58 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> > I'm talking about at RG.
 
> I know that. They only met 4 times at RG. That's too small a sample to
> say much of anything. Flip one of the coin toss affairs and it's a 2-2.
 
What are you talking about? They have met at RG seven times and it's 6-1 for Nadal! There aren't any coin flips. The results are what they are. The only time Djokovic was able to beat Nadal at RG was in 2015 when Nadal was out of form. Stop fighting the truth. It is what it is. When Nadal is in form at RG, Djokovic can't beat him.
 
 

> That's why it's necessary to consider other results. Elsewhere Djok made
> Rafa look like a poodle.
 
Elsewhere, i.e.outside RG, means next to nothing for their legacies. All it does is add to their bank accounts.
 


> He was beating Rafa in the tummy match. The rain-delayed SF was decided
> on the 1001th coin toss. That could have gone either way. Luck played a
> HUGE part in both. Bad luck.
 
Newsflash: Nadal won. RG record: 6-1 Nadal. End of story.
 

> there's little question that Djok is the victim of horrendously bad luck
> in 2 of his meetings with Rafa.
 
> Too bad he's now half the man he used to be ...
 
And Nadal was half the man he used to be in 2015 when Djokovic beat him that one time at RG.
 
Another RG Djokovic slaughter by Nadal incoming! :)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 05 03:33AM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 6:15:55 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> Are you being purposefully obtuse, or is this just natural for you?
 
 
He's a full-on Djokotard. What do you expect? He makes up facts as he goes along such as Djokodal have only met four times at RG! *rolls eyes*
 
The funny thing is he used to be a Nadal lover. He may have to jump back on Nadal's bandwagon.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 05 04:10AM -0700

He would've for an historic 60 60 60 the other day!
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 05 02:16PM +0300

On 5.6.2017 13:33, Court_1 wrote:
 
> He's a full-on Djokotard. What do you expect? He makes up facts as he
> goes along such as Djokodal have only met four times at RG! *rolls
> eyes*
 
DUH! (<-- the biggest in RST history)
 
This was peak Novak v. peak Rafa, right? Only post 2011 count.
 
> The funny thing is he used to be a Nadal lover. He may have to jump
> back on Nadal's bandwagon.
 
People divorce, remarry and all that. That's normal.
 
But with tennis "heroes", you're supposed to wear chastity belts all
your life if you fall out with the previous hero?!
 
Ridiculous! How old are you?! 13?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 05 02:39PM +0200


> But with tennis "heroes", you're supposed to wear chastity belts all
> your life if you fall out with the previous hero?!
 
> Ridiculous! How old are you?! 13?
 
Haha.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 04 09:08PM -0400

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 16:15:12 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
 
>On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 2:19:22 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
>> lol. i think she's almost calling you a liar!
 
>I am. I don't believe he's seen 996/1001 movies on that list of greatest all time movies.
 
jaros sees movies almost every day, he posts when he goes and i've
witnessed it for a couple yrs.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 05 03:58PM +0300

bob kirjoitti 5.6.2017 klo 4:08:
 
> jaros sees movies almost every day, he posts when he goes and i've
> witnessed it for a couple yrs.
 
> bob
 
You can not be this silly... nobody has seen 996 films from that list
unless they have gone through that exact list for weeks/months.
...I would imagine someone could have seen at best 850-900 titles if
they had seen ALL the important classics & watched lots of new films.
(around half in the list are prior 1990 - and half after it, including
lots of unimportant modern titles)
 
What Stephen said was that he has not seen 5 films from first hundred
most important films. I have seen 100/100 and my total is around 800 titles.
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 05 01:53PM +0100

On 04/06/2017 22:01, *skriptis wrote:
 
> you don't compare city with a state.
 
> He aimed to underline that, as Paris agreement is a globalist shit.
 
> Therefore Pittsburg vs Paris. Makes perfect sense.
 
The Accord has nothing to do with Paris apart from a meeting held
there long after the US and most other countries had signed up.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 05 01:55PM +0300

On 5.6.2017 11:33, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> original post? I didn't need CNN or any other media source to tell me
> that he was presenting 'facts' with little basis in truth. He's got
> form.
 
It has nothing to do with it. It's bob's usual goal-post shifting
because he couldn't challenge any of the facts stated in this thread.
 
But this is interesting in its own right. bob is wrong in saying that
Obama had no legal grounds to sign the "treaty". Bob's misunderstanding
stems from the word "treaty". Only the Senate can approve "treaties" but
a treaty is not the only way for the US to enter into an international
agreement.
 
The Paris deal was built on top of an existing, Senate approved
agreement (UNFCCC). This is so because parts of the Paris agreement are
legally binding (procedural, monitoring parts). These could be fit into
the existing deal if the national targets were not legally binding.
 
This existing agreement allowed Obama to sign Paris as an executive
agreement.
 
Is the agreement legally binding?
 
Yes. The agreement is considered a "treaty" under international law, but
only certain provisions are legally binding. The issue of which
provisions to make binding was a central concern for many countries, in
particular the United States, which wanted an agreement the president
could accept without seeking congressional approval. Meeting that test
precluded binding emission targets and new binding financial
commitments. The agreement, however, includes binding procedural
commitments – such as the requirements to maintain successive NDCs and
to report on progress in implementing them.
 
Did Congress have any say over the agreement?
 
Under U.S. law, a president may under certain circumstances approve U.S.
participation in an international agreement without submitting it to
Congress. Important considerations include whether the new agreement is
implementing a prior agreement such as the UNFCCC that was ratified with
the advice and consent of the Senate, and whether it is consistent with,
and can be implemented on the basis of, existing U.S. law. Because the
agreement does not include binding emission targets, or binding
financial commitments beyond those contained in the UNFCCC, and can be
implemented on the basis of existing law, President Obama chose to
approve it by executive action.
 
https://www.c2es.org/international/2015-agreement/paris-climate-talks-qa
 
The authority for the legally binding aspects of the agreement actually
comes from a treaty that the United States Senate ratified in the 1990s:
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as
explained by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions:
 
The UNFCCC, adopted in 1992, is a treaty among governments that provides
a foundation for the global climate effort. Enjoying near-universal
membership, the convention was ratified by the United States with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The convention set a long-term
objective (avoiding "dangerous human interference with the climate
system"), established principles to guide the global effort, and
committed all countries to "mitigate" climate change by reducing or
avoiding greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Agreement defines how
countries will implement their UNFCCC commitments after 2020.
 
http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/01/authority-paris-agreement/
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 05 08:52AM +0100


> About 95 % of NYT, WaPo, AP, CNN, ABC, NBS, CBS, NSNBC journalists vote Democrat.
 
And we know this how?
 
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 05 01:48PM +0100


>>> About 95 % of NYT, WaPo, AP, CNN, ABC, NBS, CBS, NSNBC journalists vote Democrat.
 
>> And we know this how?
 
> Say, can't you read and listen?
 
Yes, and I've not read or heard anything like that, which was why I
asked. It's not something discussed by UK media, which is what I read
and listen to most.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 05 04:34AM -0700

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t0VOTUagv_A
 
The 90s really was the Golden Age in WTA tennis - so many classic slam finals! The FO 99 final was the greatest.
 
 
Max
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 05 04:11AM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:17:22 AM UTC+2, StephenJ wrote:
 
> > Superclown era.
 
> Forget it max, we said Bye Bye to Steffi months ago, LOL!
 
You said bye, bye to Steffi already when she took away Navratilova's #1 spot in 1988.
 
 
Max
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 05 04:07AM -0700

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:39:46 AM UTC+2, Court_1 wrote:
> > I rather think she finds people like you revolting, who call her face uglier than this homely Canuck chick's ass pimples. Who hate certain tennis players only because they did or still do beat up their faves!
 
> > Max
 
> She'd take knowing me over knowing you, believe me.
 
I never believe you. Especially not regarding Steffi Graf.
 
> At least I respect her game and accomplishments.
 
I respect her game, her accomplishments, her character and her beauty. Like many, many people in the world.
 
> These players must cringe and laugh at fans like you. I bet she's happy she didn't have to deal with social media when she was an active player with all of these obsessive loons who live vicariously through the players.
 
Steffi Graf always respected her fans. I don't think she respects haters like you. Actually she fears them somewhat. With all those guns in North America ...
 
 
Max
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 05 06:53PM +1000

On 5/06/2017 12:02 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
> When "you" think of...?
> "You get" the same names?
 
> Who is "you" and from where do those names "come up" to form a list that conveniently excludes the guy with the most impressive records ever and includes certain players with (a) far few titles (b) a resume with two-thirds of the majors on clay? Professional tennis journalists? A wide survey of tennis fans? Whisper and a tiny handful of online cronies? Ah! Looks like I've stumbled upon the answer: Number 3.
 
Don't be coy. You know exactly what I mean.
 
 
 
---
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