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

Friday, June 9, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 08:07PM -0400

>> >Damning. "Bye Bye Donald!"
 
>> makes no difference why. bye bye poor pelle!
 
>*That's* your response?
 
trump didn't fire comey to protect anything due to russians. and i had
no problem with comey, but when the FBI director is front page of the
news for >1yr, he's slipping up in his role. needed to go.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 10 03:19AM +0300

bob kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 3:07:
> no problem with comey, but when the FBI director is front page of the
> news for >1yr, he's slipping up in his role. needed to go.
 
> bob
 
Is this the latest explanation from Trump or did you come up with this
yourself?
 
...it's hard to keep up with the official white house Comey firing
excuse list.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 07:46PM -0400


>> It's reaching the point where people that serve him will have to choose between loyalty and doing the right thing.
 
>He is a clown and an enbarrassment, yes.
>But there is no shred of evidence that he did something criminal until now.
 
and what evidence is there now?
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 07:47PM -0400

>> If anyone can prove he lied then this would be a good start.
 
>There's no motive for Comey to invent stuff and then write memos. Comey
>lying about this makes zero sense. Trump lying makes all the sense.
 
comey is smarting from the firing. and comey has been a bit of a drama
queen for a year. but i've nothing really against him. he basically
said trump did nothing illegal. he was "worried trump might lie." so?
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 10 02:54AM +0300


> Who says this?
 
> Max
 
The media, Comey. Nobody is denying it actually.
 
The memos had limited circulation inside the FBI well before he was fired.
 
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comey_memos
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 08:17PM -0400


>> Who says this?
 
>> Max
 
>The media, Comey. Nobody is denying it actually.
 
? don't think so.
 
>The memos had limited circulation inside the FBI well before he was fired.
>Read more:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comey_memos
 
i also read other FBI is embarrassed of comey's behavior.
 
bob
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: Jun 10 12:38AM +0100

On 09/06/2017 19:26, Yama wrote:
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAw-7sHXkAAeNS0.jpg
 
> Hoho!
> So...Federer is the Invisible Woman?
 
Yeah, being compared with the Invisible Woman is slightly disparaging. He's more like Wonder Woman and engenders a similar kind of fervour amongst his ardent admirers :p
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/08/weep-watching-wonder-woman-you-werent-alone
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 07:41PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 01:44:01 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
 
>If so then is Stan the rightful guy in 'The big 4' over Murray?
 
would be CGS too, no?
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 10 02:45AM +0300

Yama kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 1:56:
>>> lost a Slam final... :)
 
>> About time then.
 
> 'Statistical loss' is a superstition. Best to bet on existing trend.
 
Well, Rafa has won 9/9 RG finals...
 
And now the good part: His best of five record on clay is 101-2. That's
damn ridiculous!
 
So what were you saying about a trend? :)
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 09 04:45PM -0700

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:41:25 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
 
> >If so then is Stan the rightful guy in 'The big 4' over Murray?
 
> would be CGS too, no?
 
> bob
 
He is yet to win Wimbledon.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 10 02:55AM +0300

grif kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 2:38:
> He's more like Wonder Woman and engenders a similar kind of fervour
> amongst his ardent admirers :p
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/08/weep-watching-wonder-woman-you-werent-alone
 
Man, you sure have a crush on WW. :)
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: Jun 10 01:04AM +0100

On 10/06/2017 00:55, TT wrote:
 
>> Yeah, being compared with the Invisible Woman is slightly disparaging. He's more like Wonder Woman and engenders a similar kind of fervour amongst his ardent admirers :p
>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/08/weep-watching-wonder-woman-you-werent-alone
 
> Man, you sure have a crush on WW. :)
 
I blame Gal Gadot!
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 08:16PM -0400

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 16:45:11 -0700 (PDT), SliceAndDice
 
>> would be CGS too, no?
 
>> bob
 
>He is yet to win Wimbledon.
 
right, my mistake.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 08:10PM -0400

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 19:58:34 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> given nadal problems. in fact, though nadal beat stan almost always,
>> he didn't at AO final did he? and this is a different stan also.
 
>Stan has always given Nadal problems with a 15-3 h2h in favor of Nadal?
 
no - i said stan is the TYPE of player who gives nadal problems. a guy
capable of hitting extremely hard powerful shots, hitting nadal off a
court if he's on.
 
and i think we all agree stan bloomed very late, and nadal built up
the H2H when stan was pre stanimal.
 
>Secondly, this is on CLAY where Nadal has dominated Stan and this is at the FO! This isn't the AO.
 
i watched the djok match. stan was unreal. if he plays that way he
will win.
 
 
>> any time you'd like to play a couple sets i'm game. if you win 2 games
>> in 2 sets, i'd be happy to listen to your opinion more.
 
>So because you may be able to beat me at tennis that means I know less than you do when it comes to tennis analysis? I don't think so.
 
your analysis of wawrinka is using a H2H that goes way back, when
nadal was peak and stan wasn't too good. stan bloomed late and he's
the type of player, has the type of game, to trouble nadal.
 
bob
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 09 05:16PM -0700

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 8:10:25 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> nadal was peak and stan wasn't too good. stan bloomed late and he's
> the type of player, has the type of game, to trouble nadal.
 
> bob
 
Agree, if Stan plays like he did today, has a good chance of beating Rafa!
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 08:16PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 01:01:47 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
>Concern is a legit thing.
>And it's your government's job.
 
>But this is rst and common folks discussion.
 
careful, gracchus might be left coast CIA for all we know. :-)
 
>You really think north Koreans are even slightly irrational? That
> they'd just wake up one day and launch something?
>So you believe that?
 
we should decipher between the NKorean gov't and the NKorean people
when we talk about the koreans.
 
>Maybe their posture has something to do with your posture, ever
> since GWB declared them to be evil country, together with Iraq,
> Iran etc. So it's been 15 years that they're on a shot list.
 
wonder if jim jong il spilled his coffee when bush gave that state of
the union speech? could see it now:
"huh? wtf? what did we do?" lol
 
> even seem to be anti-American, culturally and so, remember them
> welcoming Rodman etc.
>Very unlikely that they're crazed motherfuckers zombie/Borg types.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 07:59PM -0400

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:28:00 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
>It's not a bunch of lunatics, but a country of over 20 million
> people, with scientists etc. You won't achieve much by not
> treating them as a country.
 
IMO, NKorea isn't concerned that the USA will nuke them, they are
simply trying to remain relevant in a world that, if not for their
nuke development, they would be completely lost and foregone. trump's
not nuking NKorea or anyone else, but he might try harder to put the
squeeze on them and also launch some strategic 1st strike smart
accurate missiles to destroy their capabilities.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 08:05PM -0400

>> > remember, he's not a lifetime polished and practiced politician
 
>> He is a lifetime innocent guy that never lied and never used cheap manipulative tactics to reach his goals, we understand.
 
>Yes, a babe in the woods, manipulated by the big bad wolves.
 
never said that. just said that he's not so good at watching every
word he says, ensuring it comes out PC.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 10 03:15AM +0300

bob kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 3:05:
> never said that. just said that he's not so good at watching every
> word he says, ensuring it comes out PC.
 
He cleared the room from witnesses to present his innocent 'hope'...
 
Trump knew exactly what he was doing.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 07:49PM -0400


>'Trump didn't understand' is a lie...
 
>He cleared the room from other people before making his demand to Comey.
>So he knew that what he was doing was wrong.
 
"demand?" lol. nope. he said "i hope he won't need to be
investigated." chose his words carefully and legally.
 
>And he probably also did the same thing with other intelligence chiefs
>who refuse to answer questions...
 
probably this, probably that.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 07:51PM -0400


>There's no way the House holds a vote to impeach Trump. Comey said Trump
>"hoped" he would drop the Flynn investigation, which doesn't make it
>clear he directed him or even asked him to.
 
i believe trump said he "hoped flynn wouldn't need to be investigated"
which is even less than saying "i hope you drop the investigation."
 
>Nixon wasn't forced to resign until a tape was released which proved
>that he assented to interfering with an investigation. It will take
>similar proof to impeach Trump, and it should take similar proof.
 
bob
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 10 03:11AM +0300

bob kirjoitti 10.6.2017 klo 2:49:
>> So he knew that what he was doing was wrong.
 
> "demand?" lol. nope. he said "i hope he won't need to be
> investigated." chose his words carefully and legally.
 
You're trying to lawyer around clear cut blackmail/obstruction case.
 
Maybe you could claim that Trump didn't mean it IF he had not fired the
guy when he didn't comply.
 
Besides, according to Comey's testimony Trump had already promised to
keep him previously, but questioned the position again during the 'hope
discussion'. Damn clear threat...play ball or else...
 
>> who refuse to answer questions...
 
> probably this, probably that.
 
> bob
 
No other good reason for Roberts not to answer the question and clear
Trump of that allegation.
 
Trump also cleared the room before discussion with Roberts.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 07:42PM -0400


>Last Tory candidate who won more was the great Margaret Thatcher in 1979.
>Of course Fake Media won't mention it. While still whining that the nasty woman won the popular vote against the orange clown in the US presidential elections.
 
? media here is acting like labour won. what gives?
 
bob
Yama <yama212NOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk>: Jun 10 02:06AM +0300

10.6.2017, 0:03, StephenJ kirjoitti:
>> age 32 if he wins on sunday.
 
> In a word, yes. And as you say, he's earned each slam, beating Joker and
> Nadal to win all of them so far. A fourth would be amazing.
 
Yeah, that's the best part. It's not like he has been beating mugs to
fluke out a big win.
 
http://i.imgur.com/JTWWhq9.png
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 09 07:40PM -0400

On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 01:52:22 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>
wrote:
 
>before his 33rd b'day, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
>If he does win it would mean he's beaten Djoker in 2 of those finals &
>Rafa (most likely) in 2 - that's pretty hardcore for a late bloomer.
 
good post, hard to see guys peaking that late anymore but stan has
done the seemingly impossible. and he plays a game that's appealing to
the eye.
 
while i'd like to see rafa win for obvious reasons, i like stan and if
he wins congrats to him.
 
bob
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