Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Saturday, June 3, 2017

PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 03 08:17AM -0700

Fognini faught for a set and collapsed after.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 04 01:07AM +1000

On 3/06/2017 6:04 AM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> * if you liked "45" i bet you like this, but FWIW, if forced to choose
> among these two good films, i say 45 is slightly better, it just delves
> a little deeper.
 
I enjoyed 45, but it promised more than it delivered in the end. I give
it 7/10.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 04 01:09AM +1000

On 3/06/2017 8:02 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>> among these two good films, i say 45 is slightly better, it just delves
>> a little deeper.
 
> Please! 45 Years was a dull and unremarkable "marriage under the microscope" movie. Gracchus and I discussed it at length before. There are many movies examining marriage which are a lot better, i.e. Dodsworth(1936) examines a long term marriage that isn't what it's cracked up to be.
 
Overall that could be a fair assessment, but the 1st part, the build
up/suspense raised it's overall score for me. The main actors were very
good imo.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 04 01:13AM +1000

On 3/06/2017 9:26 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> Then why do critics adore 45 Years?
 
> That's a good question but why do critics like many of the things they do? 45 Years is nothing special and there are much better films which examine long-term marriage. As I posted above, the movie Dodsworth (1936) does a much better job of showing a long-term marriage saddled with problems.
 
I don't think it was about a 'marriage with problems' at all. By all
counts it was a great marriage, until a very remarkable & unlikely event
awakened strong emotions decades dormant. Very interesting & thought
provoking. Of course one can look at that situation & call it 'boring'
too : )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 04 01:16AM +1000

On 3/06/2017 11:04 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> Not sure if 45 Years was that kind of film though. Just a shot in the dark.
 
> It was just uneventful IMO. I was thinking after I watched it, "that's it?"
 
I guess the ending could never live up to the initial promise - much
like real life than a cookie cutter modern film? That was probably part
of it's appeal to many.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 03 07:23AM -0500

Murray wins a very entertaining first set, 10-8 in a tiebreaker.
 
Too bad neither of these guys has a chance to win the title. Casts a
pall over it.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 03 08:15AM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 8:23:59 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
Delpo gave up after the first set?
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 03 08:00AM -0700

He just beat Potro in 3 sets, hard going but a 6-0 in the final set!
It's ridiculous the difference in level of Murray's play when Lendl shows up.
Amazing and GOOD!
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 03 08:12AM -0700

Del Potro is injured
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 03 05:40AM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 12:06:28 PM UTC+2, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> deflection.
 
> "In 119 days, President Trump has made 586 false and misleading claims"
 
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.081267b6c062>
 
 
The WaPo has made far more "false and misleading claims" in the same time.
 
 
Max
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 03 05:41AM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 12:40:39 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> > wrong/incorrect/false that wasn't criticised at all? Just a few
> > examples would be fine. No rush.
 
> the other two sour grapes dumb pro-Hillary types who STILL can't take that Trump won?
 
 
I think this fascist experiment in the USA is very interesting.
Hopefully Americans do it better than we Germans back in the day ...
 
 
Max
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 03 02:14PM +0100


>> "In 119 days, President Trump has made 586 false and misleading claims"
 
>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.081267b6c062>
 
> The WaPo has made far more "false and misleading claims" in the same time.
 
Well if you say so, though I doubt that you can back up the claim. But,
AFAIK, the Post isn't the 'leader of the free world'. Of course I could
be mistaken.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 03 02:16PM +0100

On 03/06/2017 11:41, The Iceberg wrote:
 
>> He's criticised a lot because he continually says & does things that
>> invite criticsm. He's controversial.
 
> Brian, defending Hillary as usual.
 
Where did I do that? I mentioned her in the first paragraph - no defense
there.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 03 02:18PM +0100

On 03/06/2017 11:40, The Iceberg wrote:
>> wrong/incorrect/false that wasn't criticised at all? Just a few
>> examples would be fine. No rush.
 
> the other two sour grapes dumb pro-Hillary types who STILL can't take that Trump won?
 
Two short planks, mate. Two short planks. Maybe a box of frogs.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 03 09:26AM -0500

On 6/3/2017 8:14 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
> Well if you say so, though I doubt that you can back up the claim. But,
> AFAIK, the Post isn't the 'leader of the free world'. Of course I could
> be mistaken.
 
That whole "leader of the free world" phrase lost its relevance when the
USSR collapsed 1/4 century ago. Have no idea why it's still sometimes used.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 03 08:06AM -0700


> > the other two sour grapes dumb pro-Hillary types who STILL can't take that Trump won?
 
> I think this fascist experiment in the USA is very interesting.
> Hopefully Americans do it better than we Germans back in the day ...
 
oh yes you say Trump's fascist LOLOL
undecided <costasz@gmail.com>: Jun 03 08:06AM -0700


> >A drop of a few % at the Elite top-10 level is the difference between winning slams and not winning. That extra 2-3% would be the better defense/speed and more consistent FH. At 3/4, Nadal would be out of the top 100.
 
> nadal past few yrs til this jan played like #100.
 
> bob
Yes, 2016 was top-20 form and yet he stayed in the top 10. Right now, his form is closer to top-5. I know everyone is hyping his form like he will demolish everyone but he tasted a couple of loses, he is not peak. At peak, he'd go through clay season undefeated.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 03 06:00AM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 7:41:14 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
 

> TT just asked me to respond to a list of the best 250 movies of the
> 2000s, and I had seen 229 of them, LOL, 97 of the top 100.
 
I didn't look at that list but it's limited to movies of the 2000s. What about this list of greatest movies of all time. How many have you seen?
 
https://letterboxd.com/top10ner/list/top10ners-1001-greatest-movies-of-all-time/
 

> Remember, from what you've said so far, it's clear I've seen far, far
> more films than you. Good ones, bad ones, classic ones. You learn from
> seeing bad films too, btw.
 
What have I said so far that would give you that idea? I've been into movies since I was a kid and the only thing that stopped me from watching more movies was limited about of time due to first school, then work and life.
 
TT has posted many movie lists in different genres and we've all answered how many we've seen in each genre. Go back and find those threads for my answers. Remember, quantity over quality doesn't make somebody more of a movie buff. It's clear that TT, Gracchus, Grif and myself are all movie buffs. TT obviously sees more movies than all of us. He's probably already watched a few today, lol.
 

 
> Do you count having seen a film if you watch it on ABC with commercials
> every 15 minutes? If it's pan and scan?
 
> These are burning questions.
 
I watch movies in all ways, i.e. go to the cinema or from home where we have various home theatre set-ups with the best equipment (my husband is into all of that and he's finicky about it.) I can watch a movie at home on our big screen tvs/home theatre set-ups or I can watch them on a computer or Ipad if the mood strikes me. I don't have to go to a cinema to get the full experience. In fact, I prefer watching movies these days from the comfort of my own home.
 
I get a lot of movies from a work colleague who gets dvds from a distributor and he gives me copies of many movies every few weeks. I have a huge dvd collection from that particular source and also from buying so many movie dvds over the past 20 years. Sometimes if I'm flipping though the tv channels and I see something I like I'll watch it live or I'll dvr it and watch it later. Or at times I'll download from the internet. Any way possible there is to watch a movie, I've done it.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 03 09:45AM -0500

On 6/3/2017 8:00 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>> 2000s, and I had seen 229 of them, LOL, 97 of the top 100.
 
> I didn't look at that list but it's limited to movies of the 2000s. What about this list of greatest movies of all time. How many have you seen?
 
> https://letterboxd.com/top10ner/list/top10ners-1001-greatest-movies-of-all-time/
 
OK, easier to list the ones I haven't:
 
41, 42, 55, 69, 80.
 
 
>> seeing bad films too, btw.
 
> What have I said so far that would give you that idea? I've been into movies since I was a kid and the only thing that stopped me from watching more movies was limited about of time due to first school, then work and life.
 
> TT has posted many movie lists in different genres and we've all answered how many we've seen in each genre. Go back and find those threads for my answers. Remember, quantity over quality doesn't make somebody more of a movie >buff.
 
You keep missing the point: I've seen films of all kinds, loads of them,
and many in actual movie theaters. TT posted the top 250 of the past 17
years and I've seen 229 so why would you keep talking about my viewing
quality?
 
> It's clear that TT, Gracchus, Grif and myself are all movie buffs. TT obviously sees more movies than all of >us. He's probably already watched a few today, lol.
 
From what I've seen here, I've seen the most, and particularly in
theaters, where any cinephile will tell you that's the only way to get
the true experience. It's hard to take someone who claims to be a 'movie
buff' seriously if they can't recognize the superiority of cinema
viewing over TV at home. A lot of subtleties are lost in translation.
That's why I see as many classics on the big screen as possible, and no,
projecting a DVD onto a big screen doesn't count, LOL.
 
Still, if by necessity one has to watch from home, and yes that's often
the case, then you can reduce that lost information by having a quality
setup. I suspect from your response you don't really have a home theater
setup to maximize your experience, you're not really hip to sound and
picture quality, keys to a movie experience and thus gaining maximum
knowledge about it. Am i mistaken?
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 03 07:01AM -0500

On 6/2/2017 4:34 PM, *skriptis wrote:
> has been so vocal against him during th campaign.
 
> Instead avoiding the subject altogether reminds of hoping that
> everyone forget your pick in David w contest, that's gone badly.
 
OK, but even if you have more respect for the continued anti-trump
yammering of TT/Pelle etc., surely court's approach is a lot better for
this forum?
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 03 03:51PM +0200


> OK, but even if you have more respect for the continued anti-trump
> yammering of TT/Pelle etc., surely court's approach is a lot better for
> this forum?
 
 
Yes. In general.
 
But since we have off topic one way or another, I prefer any pro
or anti trump post over movie posts. ;)
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 03 09:25AM -0500

On 6/3/2017 8:51 AM, *skriptis wrote:
 
> Yes. In general.
 
> But since we have off topic one way or another, I prefer any pro
> or anti trump post over movie posts. ;)
 
Fair enough, though I'd be willing to dispense with both. :)
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 03 06:03AM -0700

Have any close black friends?
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 03 06:55AM -0500

On 6/2/2017 3:03 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> (not words), she should not be punished. This is called going overboard.
 
> I like MN & Court about the same. Both strong women with strong
> personal opinions.
 
Yes. I agree with MN a lot more often than Court but both have the
courage of their convictions, not afraid to say things that are
unpopular/know they'll catch flack for.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 03 06:15AM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 7:55:38 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> Yes. I agree with MN a lot more often than Court but both have the
> courage of their convictions, not afraid to say things that are
> unpopular/know they'll catch flack for.
 
It's "flak" not "flack" in this case.
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