Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 21 10:01AM -0400

https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40358006
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 21 07:05AM -0700

During the hearing, the judge said of Becker: 'One has the impression of a man rather burying his head in the sand'.
 
His barrister, John Briggs, told the court he is 'not a sophisticated person when it comes to finances'.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 21 07:21AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 4:05:07 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> During the hearing, the judge said of Becker: 'One has the impression of a man rather burying his head in the sand'.
 
> His barrister, John Briggs, told the court he is 'not a sophisticated person when it comes to finances'.
 
 
Come on, give us PROOF that BB declared bankruptcy.
Not just some media headlines.
 
 
Max
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 21 07:29AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:05:07 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> During the hearing, the judge said of Becker: 'One has the impression of a man rather burying his head in the sand'.
 
> His barrister, John Briggs, told the court he is 'not a sophisticated person when it comes to finances'.
 
Now Zverev may be able to afford him :)
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 21 08:56PM +1000

On 21/06/2017 9:59 AM, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> Did it ever occur to you that the answer could be neither?
> Or that we could know for a FACT that 1. was not true and
> we don't have hard evidence for 2. but lots of circumstantial evidence?
 
Personally I don't believe any modern conspiracy theories that are on a
mass world scale, simply due to logistics of pulling it off. Nobody
with IQ over 10 would even attempt it imo. I could be wrong, but I
think there is only miniscule chance of that.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 21 10:40PM +1000

On 21/06/2017 12:32 PM, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> Wrong again. I am not any of the above professionals, yet I am NOT
> taking the word of others!
 
> Fortunately I have a brain in my head!
 
This is why wars/terrorism exist. I think your position is 100% wrong -
not 99.9%, but really 100%. You on the other hand are at least 99%
certain you are right.
 
Neither of us is retarded or on drugs, so it fascinates me how people
can think like you while seeming to be at least average intelligence.
Do you ever wonder about that? If not you should give it some thought.
 
The great Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence". Man I wish he was alive to cast his comments on this issue.
I can guess what he might say though.
 
: )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 21 10:41PM +1000

On 21/06/2017 12:39 PM, TennisGuy wrote:
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpiVv8tQdmY
 
> So much so your head might just start to explode. :)
 
> Does Scott write as coherently as I do?
 
I actually did watch it. Thanks for wasting my time & adding to the
clicks for this clip.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 21 10:42PM +1000

On 21/06/2017 12:49 PM, jdeluise wrote:
 
> And you can prove that explosions heard by eyewitnesses caused the towers
> to collapse? Humans have a great capacity to rationalize events from
> only cursorily related memories.
 
This is what Carl Sagan would say.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 21 10:47PM +1000

On 21/06/2017 1:01 PM, TennisGuy wrote:
> columns on a floor at the exact same time.
> Anything short of that will result in a building tilting over with a
> collapse or partial collapse.
 
You have to be able to prove this claim. Where are the examples of
something as massive as the WTC being 'tilted' to 1 side? Scott
expected the planes to actually bounce off the building, because
apparently he did a simulation throwing a model plane into a skyscraper
model & it bounced off?
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 21 10:49PM +1000

On 21/06/2017 1:04 PM, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> Not even a friggin' earthquake could have brought down the building as
> it did!
 
> But please don't take my word for this. Do your own research.
 
So have you considered why these theories haven't been accepted in 16
yrs? Seems very strange.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 21 10:50PM +1000

On 21/06/2017 1:10 PM, TennisGuy wrote:
>> claim, right?
 
> Correct. All of this information is out there.
> I can't hide it.
 
 
Somebody is hiding it extremely well. Amazing in this day & age. Some
would say it's impossible to hide something like this.
 
: )
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 21 10:51PM +1000

On 21/06/2017 1:15 PM, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> One pro demolition expert who declared with absolute certainty that
> WTC7 came down by controlled demolition was 'suicided' not too long
> after making his statement.
 
Not surprised. Bet he had many mental issues.
 
: )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 21 11:03PM +1000

On 21/06/2017 5:28 PM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> does not mean that such explosions were caused deliberately. Explosions
> caused by chemical explosives always leave forensic evidence behind,
> none was found after 9/11.
 
It really amazes me people who seem to be average intelligence on the
surface can swallow conspiracy ideas like this hook line & sinker. It
also saddens me too. I mean there would be millions of pieces of
evidence that would easily prove 911 was a staged job if it was.
 
My personal opinion, & not meaning to offend anyone, is that these
people must have some kind of mental injury/disability that impedes
logical thinking. They may be of good intelligence overall, but there
is some part of the brain that's not functioning too well when it come
to logic.
 
It would be interesting to see stats on % of 911 conspiracy theorists in
Fedfan population v non-Fed fan.
 
: )
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 21 02:16PM +0100

On 21/06/2017 13:22, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> California how many John Smiths from California would have been found
> who were still alive?
 
> So the identity of the hijackers as we know and were told is wrong?
 
Well the names we know were the names that they used while in the US.
There were comprehensive paper trails that allowed their movements to
be reconstructed in great detail. Those names were not necessarily
'real', or not the names they were given at birth.
 
Several of the more prominent were known to have used aliases, while
others appear to have been traced back for several years with what
would appear to be their real names.
 
As an example, the presumed pilot of AA77 was Hani Saleh Hasan Hanjour.
He first entered the US (or someone with that name did) in 1991,
enrolling at the University of Arizona to study English. Within a few
months he left and returned to Saudi. He returned to the US in 1996,
again studying English in California before taking flying lessons in
Arizona.
 
He received a commercial pilot certificate in 1999 and returned again
to Saudi. He applied to the civil aviation school in Jeddah, but was
turned down. Later in 1999 he told his family he was going to the
Emirates to find work. It is alleged that he instead went to
Afghanistan, where he was identified by bin Laden or others as having
the necessary piloting 'skills'.
 
In December 200 he was back in the US taking more pilot training. In
April 2001 he relocated to Virginia and then to New Jersey (late May)
where he took further training.
 
Most of these details were discovered by the FBI.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
wkhedr <wkhedr@my-deja.com>: Jun 21 07:21AM -0700

https://youtu.be/G1zED8dy63w
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 21 07:24AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 4:24:26 AM UTC+2, jdeluise wrote:
> > then all the other parts of the 9/11 myth fall apart quickly.
 
> WTC7 was conclusively proven "by science" to have been brought down by
> demo charges then?
 
It was brought down several weeks before WTC 1 & 2. They used holograms until 9/11 to give the impression that it still stood.
 
 
Max
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 21 07:28AM -0700

https://youtu.be/nQrpLp-X0ws
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 21 03:15PM +0200


>> >But what makes him think Murray is the only one to possibly stop Federer at Wimbledon? Because he lucked out, playing a half-dead Fed in that gold-medal match 5 years ago?
 
>> he lucked out in 3 easy sets.
 
> Right...because he was playing a Federer that had wrung himself out beating Del Potro in a marathon match. Must take into account Murray's record against Federer in big events and the fact that Federer handled Murray comfortably on the same surface at Wimbledon a few weeks earlier.
 
But it goes both ways. Just as Federer was exhausted after del
Potro match (he has no one to blame but himself) same way you've
have to admit Murray felt huge pressure in that Wimbledon final
unknown to any player ever with all the British expectations and
70 year stuff, alongside usual pressure players feel to win first
slam. That's a big burden.
 
Plus they've closed the roof at one point which helped Federer as
the break helped him at the time and he's even better indoors
than Murray.
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 21 07:27AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 6:30:03 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
 
> > Right...because he was playing a Federer that had wrung himself out beating Del Potro in a marathon match. Must take into account Murray's record against Federer in big events and the fact that Federer handled Murray comfortably on the same surface at Wimbledon a few weeks earlier.
 
> But it goes both ways. Just as Federer was exhausted after del
> Potro match (he has no one to blame but himself)
 
I didn't imply that anyone else was to blame.
 
> unknown to any player ever with all the British expectations and
> 70 year stuff, alongside usual pressure players feel to win first
> slam. That's a big burden.
 
Not comparable. Pressure is entirely subjective. I don't know anything about Murray's internal state. Some players thrive on pressure and some don't. Besides, if what you say is true, why wouldn't playing for Britain in the London Olympics be an enormous burden too, especially after just falling short at Wimbledon against the same player? Why could Murray be suddenly capable of handling it a few weeks later?
 
> Plus they've closed the roof at one point which helped Federer as
> the break helped him at the time and he's even better indoors
> than Murray.
 
They owed Federer that for forcing him to play the 2008 final in the dark. ;)
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 21 03:00PM +0200

> http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-georgia-house-race-20170620-htmlstory.html
 
> Cool eh! Shows that all the polls are nonsense and Trump is a VERY popular president, except amongst Hillary fans!
 
Can't stop winning. lol
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
joh <joshorst@gmail.com>: Jun 21 06:46AM -0700

Op woensdag 21 juni 2017 10:49:56 UTC+2 schreef The Iceberg:
> http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-georgia-house-race-20170620-htmlstory.html
 
> Cool eh! Shows that all the polls are nonsense and Trump is a VERY popular president, except amongst Hillary fans!
 
Hillary won the popular vote
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 21 11:16PM +1000

On 21/06/2017 11:24 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> No.
 
>>> He shows tremendous respect for McEnroe as a player and competitor. He simply could never stand him as a person. Agassi, otoh, Connors detests on every level.
 
>> And yet Agassi has surpassed McEnroe in the greatness debate as well and could at least win something significant past age 25.
 
 
But Agassi never reached the peaks Mac did. Not many would choose
Agassi to play a match for their life over peak McEnroe. At his best
McEnroe barely lost a match in a year, beat greats like Jimbo 61 61 62
in Wimbledon final, Lendl 63 64 61 in USO final etc
 
 
 
>>> Anyway, I don't attribute any special significance to this. Just saying that I clearly recall him saying it once, and it surprised me enough to be memorable.
 
 
Not sure why it would really surprise anyone who followed tennis in the
80's? It wasn't a radical idea McEnroe might be better than Borg/Jimbo.
It was the common view.
 
 
 
 
>> You do realize that Connors has stated he would pick Nadal out of today's players to play a match for his life and that he prefers Nadal's fighting spirit compared to the other current great players. I guess Connors' "appreciation" for other ATG players goes down a peg or two for you now that Nadal is involved! :)
 
> It's irrelevant, because as I just said, "I don't attribute any special significance to this." You've gotten the idea that I'm backing Whisper's argument because we both remember Connors saying the same thing. But how often do you see me back Whisper's argument on anything?
 
 
Everyone knows my opinion, I was merely relaying Jimbo felt the same
way. As did Borg. Why do people get angry about this? Borg/Jimbo are
entitled to their opinion.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 21 11:17PM +1000

On 21/06/2017 11:43 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
> No, that's incorrect. McEnroe was a fabulous player for about six years but once he hit age 25, he fizzled big time and there's no way he can be seen as greater than Bjorn Borg which is what posters such as Whisper want us to believe based on all of this made-up BOAT crap. It means nothing. There's no tennis analyst who would put McEnroe above Borg on the greatest scale. Borg lost motivation and quit but not long after Borg quit, McEnroe toiled around for years and years doing essentially nothing significant and there's no way to spin that.
 
> I'm tired of people overrating McEnroe.
 
Imo he's greatly underrated.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 21 04:34PM +0300

On 21.6.2017 16:16, Whisper wrote:
> to play a match for their life over peak McEnroe. At his best McEnroe
> barely lost a match in a year, beat greats like Jimbo 61 61 62 in
> Wimbledon final, Lendl 63 64 61 in USO final etc
 
And to his credit, didn't lose to Darcis in the first round at his worst
slam. That would have left him in the dust in the BOAT stakes.
 
Of course, anybody who longingly says "I wish I could play like him ..."
can't really be a BOAT contender either.
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 21 05:52AM -0700

Ddl has class.
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