Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 11 topics

Friday, June 2, 2017

"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 02 01:58PM +0300

First Goffin is robbed of a win against Ruffi, now he has to retire
leading the 1st set 5-4. Bad for the clownish draw too.
 
"Le Belge menait 5-4 dans le premier set. Il s'est blessé après une
glissade en fond de court durant laquelle son pied s'est pris dans la
bâche. Il a demandé un time-out médical afin d'être soigné par un kiné,
mais a dû jeter l'éponge quelques minutes plus tard."
 
https://www.rtbf.be/sport/tennis/roland-garros/detail_suivez-goffin-zeballos-en-direct-live-11h?id=9622874
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 02 05:34AM -0700

Why did he "have" to retire???
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 02 05:33AM -0700

Goffin retired!
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 02 11:42AM +0200


>> > But seriously, did StephenJ ever post in movie threads in the past before I started posting on RST and did he show an interest in all genres from the past, i.e movies pre 2007?
 
>> To my recollection not really.
 
> Nope, I don't think so either. And if a non-pathological human wanted to start participating in movie discussions, he'd just show up and start talking with people in a normal fashion and be welcomed by those already there. But this guy of course takes the Trumpian route and tries to bull his way to head of the pack, claiming he was the MOST qualified of ANYONE here because he'd seen MORE movies of the BROADEST variety "in the theater" (as if that's the least bit relevant) than ANYONE here. Presumably the rest of us were then expected to respond with "oohs" and "aahs" and defer to his judgement on all films forever. LOL. Good luck with that.
 
Well, responding with oohs
and aahs might be too much for persons
with big ego, it might be too submissive for you. However your
response wasn't submissive, and wasn't even moderate, you simply
denied everything he said, so you response was very cocky.

 
That's kinda, ignorant, no?
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 02 07:28AM -0500

On 6/1/2017 11:32 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>> 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.
 
I mentioned that I watch a lot of movies in theaters, and someone
(Gracchus?) asked for the last 130 i had seen, so that's why i posted
the films i've seen since january 2016. That doesn't mean these are the
only films i've seen, LOL.
 
I've been watching tons of films in theaters since the 1970s! And of
course I've watched tons of films from the 1920s onwards.
 
But, I see as many films in theaters as i can, because to me, no matter
how sophisticated your home theater (and I bought the first DVD player
sold in Louisiana in 1997, my first dolby digital 5.1 receiver in 1997,
have had a 110" screen with 1080p projector since 2005, a bluray and
HD-DVD player since 2006, etc.), there is NOTHING that beats a public
theater presentation of a *film*.
 
That, IMO, is mark one of a true cinephile - you don't pass up chances
to see films in a real theater. Netflix, cable, bluray, etc. are pale
imitations and translation to the small screen misses a lot of the
experience.
 
Today I'm seeing Wonder Woman in LiMAX 3D. Will report back on it.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 02 07:31AM -0500

>>On 6/1/2017 9:42 AM, Whisper wrote:
 
> My point is nobody should judge movies they haven't seen.
 
That's fundamentally true, and TT's willingness to declare films he
hasn't seen "crap" is prime evidence that he's no kind of reliable
cinephile.
 
A really philistine attitude ... :(
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 02 07:16AM -0500

On 6/2/2017 2:59 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> but the entire effort is engaging.
 
>> B+
 
> Thanks.
 
My pleasure. :)
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 02 02:29PM +0300

Washington (CNN) -- Democratic data gurus are lashing out at Hillary
Clinton after she complained publicly that her campaign was hamstrung by
a party that had out-of-date information on individual voters.
 
Clinton said Wednesday in an interview with Recode's Kara Swisher that
once she became the Democratic nominee, she inherited "nothing." The
Democratic National Committee's data, she said, "was mediocre to poor,
nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it."
 
Her comments drew swift rebuttals from some Democratic operatives who
built, or worked with, that data.
 
Tom Bonier, the chief executive officer of TargetSmart, a Democratic
voter-targeting firm, said in using the DNC's data, the Clinton campaign
was "absolutely standing on the shoulders of the Obama data juggernaut.
There's just no question."
 
"I can tell you, having worked with the DNC from the outside over that
time period, the DNC not only maintained what was built as part of the
Obama 2008 and 2012 campaigns, but they built upon it," he said. "And
that meant more staff and that meant better data. They built an in-house
analytics team, which they had not had in the past. And they were
constantly adding data to the file."
 
Bonier added: "You can argue about whether or not they were behind
Republicans. ... But it's absurd to suggest that any Democratic
candidate who was using the DNC data in 2016 was inheriting nothing, as
Secretary Clinton said. What they were inheriting was the best data
operation the Democratic Party has ever seen."
 
So what went wrong?
 
Several Democrats pointed to the Clinton campaign's use of the data in
making decisions about which voters to target, where to send the
candidate and where to devote its advertising dollars.
 
That element of the campaign -- analytics -- is built on top of the
party-provided data.
 
Still, there were elements of Clinton's argument that are difficult to
dispute.
 
Much of her criticism of the DNC was an implicit shot at former
President Barack Obama, who many Democrats have complained kept his own
campaign's data and analytics housed separately and allowed the party's
infrastructure to lapse under former chairwoman Debbie Wasserman
Schultz's leadership.
 
The Republican National Committee made improving its data and analytics
a priority between 2012 and 2016, erasing the advantage Obama had in
previous elections.
 
Clinton also cited the Trump campaign's use of the controversial GOP
firm Cambridge Analytica, which boasts of "psychographic" profiles of
voters based heavily on Facebook information.
 
Clinton's campaign did not hire a similar outside data firm, but she
said Cambridge Analytica helped Trump.
 
"You can believe the hype on how great they were or the hype on how they
weren't, but the fact is, they added something," she said.
 
Tom Perez, the new Democratic National Committee chairman, also
complained about the party's data operation in his campaign for the job
over the winter. However, ... "There are a lot of reasons for not
winning that election."
 
"We're totally focused on the future of the DNC," he told Burnett.
"We're totally focused on building an infrastructure for success."
 
DNC spokesman Michael Tyler said the party is in the process of
overhauling its data and technological operations.
 
"Tom has said before that the DNC was not firing on all cylinders and
that's why he did a top to bottom review that included technology. The
DNC is now undergoing an organizational restructuring that will include
a new chief technology officer, who will do an in-depth analysis and
maintain the party's analytics infrastructure needs," Tyler said in a
statement.
 
"Tom is already deeply engaged with the outpouring of support from
Democrats across the country, from Silicon Valley to suburban Georgia,
who want to help improve the data and tech, get it in the hands of more
organizers everywhere, and build the grass-roots funding stream required
to support those efforts."
 
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-dnc-data-pushback/
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 02 07:15AM -0500

Democrats sniping at each other. Good post, LOL.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 02 07:08AM -0500

But ... but ... but .. Trump is ineffectual and can't get anything done !!!
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 02 06:06PM +1000

On 2/06/2017 6:39 AM, Federer Fanatic wrote:
 
> Yes, Whisp was confused and didn't realize that you're a kindred spirit? Shocking
> lack of awareness on his part.
 
> FF
 
I knew skriptis was referring to MN - I was just making a general
comment re Court.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 02 06:17PM +1000

> Changing the name of the stadium is no punishment to Court--it's just words after all. Her life won't be affected at all.
 
It would be moronic to change the name. Court has won more slams than
any player in history, male or female.
 
Her views are consistent with current Australian law (gay marriage is
illegal).
 
Stripping Court of any honors would be the same as stripping MN for
being a lesbian.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 02 06:21PM +1000

On 2/06/2017 1:20 PM, Jason White wrote:
 
>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
> In the end, I blame and denounce the media for giving a voice and platform to what should be a irrelevant portion of the population.
 
The media's job is to publish stories that will attract huge interest.
This is a big story with big buzz. It's like a tennis match between
Court & MN. Margaret put the 1st serve in, MN returned it & now it's a
long, punishing baseline rally.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 02 02:53AM -0700

That's the thing that annoys me with this kind of thing - it always my way or the banned high-way with these types, they have no tolerance yet holler on about being tolerant. People are allowed to disagree, especially if they have a good basis on which to speak from, as Court does. Just cos you disagree doesn't mean you "hate" someone, but the media purposely promote this and stir it up.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 02 04:52AM -0700

Lol..I was just taking the "words aren't harmful" argument to it's logical conclusion. If words aren't harmful, then removing two words from a stadium can't be harmful either.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 02 11:59AM +0300

On 2.6.2017 10:29, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> From his statement in the Rose Garden:
 
> "I would like to begin by addressing the terrorist attack in Manila."
 
> Philippine sources say it wasn't a 'terrorist attack'.
 
It was "a lone man aiming to rob gamblers".
 
 
> He's quoting from an MIT report, which actually estimates a figure
> between 0.6 & 1.1 degrees. The authors say he 'misunderstood our
> research'.
 
"Those pledges shave 0.2 C of warming if they're maintained through
2100, compared with what we assessed would have been the case by
extending existing measures (due to expire in 2020) based on earlier
international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun," Reilly said in
October 2015 when the MIT study was published.
 
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jun/01/fact-checking-donald-trumps-statement-withdrawing-/
 
The 0.2 figure is playing with percentages again. It is the incremental
increase from the Copenhagen/Cancun level assuming it would be kept.
Since those expire long before 2100, it looks like the wrong way of
doing it.
 
> "Our tax bill is moving along in Congress, and I believe it's doing very
> well. I think a lot of peop"le will be very pleasantly surprised."
 
> There is no bill yet, so it isn't before Congress at all.
 
Embarrassing.
 
> nations and have pledged $4.7b. His 'billions and billions and billions
> of dollars' is currently $2b. Admittedly that only covers the years to
> 2020, but contributions beyond 2020 would be agreed in the future.
 
Excellent.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 02 02:45AM -0700

Oh go back to the Clinton News Network with your petty Fake news, you let Obama and Hillary get away with saying absolutely anything.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 02 02:46AM -0700

I'm gunna win and give Hillary a good thrashing! That's the only quote that matters AHAHAHhhHhhHhhHhHa just get over it, Trump won!
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 02 11:49AM +0200


> Bill Peduto, mayor of Pittsburgh, tweeted, "Fact: Hillary Clinton
> received 80% of the vote in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh stands with the
> world & will follow Paris Agreement."
 
 
This says it all imo, his opponents are so lame and keen on
twisting his words in everything he does that it's

best to ignore them totally.
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 02 11:45AM +0100

On 02/06/2017 10:49, *skriptis wrote:
 
> This says it all imo, his opponents are so lame and keen on
> twisting his words in everything he does that it's
> best to ignore them totally.
 
Good policy.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 02 11:45AM +0100

On 02/06/2017 10:45, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> Oh go back to the Clinton News Network with your petty Fake news, you let Obama and Hillary get away with saying absolutely anything.
 
Cites?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
ahonkan <ahonkan@gmail.com>: Jun 02 01:19AM -0700

On Friday, 2 June 2017 01:00:04 UTC+5:30, *skriptis wrote:

> Murray struggled again but I guess/hope his worst is behind him
> and that he'll put up some decent performances from now onwards.
 
What bothers me about Murray is that he is a slow starter and needs
to lose a set in order to wake up and play well. In fact, he almost
always breaks the opponent in the first game of the next set after he
loses one.
This strategy is of course fraught with danger when he faces the Big 3
and that shows in his records vs them, esp at the slams.
me <neil.robinson@udptechnology.com>: Jun 02 03:03AM -0700

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 8:30:04 PM UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
 
> Even the score is unusual, it seems as if Kyrgios collapsed for
> some reason. He was a set and a break up and it went all downhill
> for him from that point.
 
Kyrgios just collapsing for some reason. How very unusual!
flqms710@gmail.com: Jun 02 02:18AM -0700

2011년 6월 5일 일요일 오전 6시 12분 48초 UTC+9, Manco 님의 말:
kathula.kkc@gmail.com: Jun 02 01:17AM -0700

On Sunday, 16 April 2017 23:36:13 UTC+5:30, Federer Fanatic wrote:
> See https://www.udemy.com/andreagassi/
 
> Jaros? What do you think? ;-)
 
> FF
 
https://www.ebuzzap.com/the-fundamentals-of-tennis-for-beginners/
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