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

Sunday, June 4, 2017

Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 03 08:04PM -0700

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmpLSW47MPQ
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 03 08:32PM -0700

Missing Federer? :)
 
What will we do when he quits? :)
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 03 08:43PM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Missing Federer? :)
 
> What will we do when he quits? :)
 
Sure, I am missing the Great Man. I'll still watch Stan, Kyrgios, maybe one or two more, but that's about it.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 03 08:48PM -0700

> Sure, I am missing the Great Man. I'll still watch Stan, Kyrgios, maybe one or two more, but that's about it.
 
Stan is good to watch on clay and Kyrgios has to learn to work harder and stay consistent for longer times.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 04 07:40PM +1000

On 4/06/2017 1:32 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Missing Federer? :)
 
> What will we do when he quits? :)
 
Troll rst forever?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 03 07:50PM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 11:09:40 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> 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..
 
 
It was mostly forgettable for me. I was expecting so much more given some of the raves I'd heard/read about it and given the pedigree of the actors. Considering the subject matter, I was expecting something with a greater emotional impact but instead it felt flat for me. It's true that you may not know somebody or all of somebody after 45 years of marriage and it's an interesting premise but if you are going to tell that story make it provoking and moving. I felt nothing but "that was it?"
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 03 07:58PM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 12:18:26 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> And perhaps the real point is that during the course of a long marriage, even where one member may believe the two have merged to one, those people can still never know each other 100%, and therefore are destined to die "alone" like anyone else.
 
That was the message of the film and a message like that should be effective in delivering an emotional reaction but the film failed to deliver in that way for me. It was an average film IMO.


> There's also this thing that probably started with Polanski's "Knife in the Water." That film cleverly left things unresolved. But it seems so many filmmakers since have done that whenever they want to seem especially "arty" ("In the Bedroom," "The White Ribbon," "Limbo," etc.).
 
Did you like "In the Bedroom?" That was a film I enjoyed immensely and felt an emotional punch from it. It delivered in that way for me whereas "45 Years" failed.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 03 09:53PM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 7:58:50 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 12:18:26 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> > There's also this thing that probably started with Polanski's "Knife in the Water." That film cleverly left things unresolved. But it seems so many filmmakers since have done that whenever they want to seem especially "arty" ("In the Bedroom," "The White Ribbon," "Limbo," etc.).
 
> Did you like "In the Bedroom?" That was a film I enjoyed immensely and felt an emotional punch from it. It delivered in that way for me whereas "45 Years" failed.
 
Apart from the ending, I did like "In the Bedroom."
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 04 07:39PM +1000

On 4/06/2017 12:50 PM, Court_1 wrote:
>> up/suspense raised it's overall score for me. The main actors were very
>> good imo..
 
> It was mostly forgettable for me. I was expecting so much more given some of the raves I'd heard/read about it and given the pedigree of the actors. Considering the subject matter, I was expecting something with a greater emotional impact but instead it felt flat for me. It's true that you may not know somebody or all of somebody after 45 years of marriage and it's an interesting premise but if you are going to tell that story make it provoking and moving. I felt nothing but "that was it?"
 
I think it's one of those that seem better upon reflection, or a 2nd
viewing.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 04 03:35AM -0500

On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 21:40:58 -0400, bob <bob@nospam.net> wrote:
| On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 01:24:10 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
|<skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
|
|>I hope so.
|
| he's smart enough to stay off london bridge.
|
| bob
 
 
Pity...
 
FF
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 04 12:38PM +0300

On 4.6.2017 4:40, bob wrote:
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
 
>> I hope so.
 
> he's smart enough to stay off london bridge.
 
So are the centipedes in his neighbour's rosegarden.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 04 02:39AM -0700

On Sunday, 4 June 2017 02:40:59 UTC+1, bob wrote:
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
 
> >I hope so.
 
> he's smart enough to stay off london bridge.
 
Thanks for the concern guys! yeah! was a few bridges away from where it happened, am good and well! these scumbag terrorists would get the deep fat fryer if I had my way!
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 04 04:53AM +0100

On 04/06/2017 02:38, bob wrote:
> to be balanced, then make up your own mind after? american mainstream
> media is in a war and they've chosen sides - they're not "reporting
> news" by any means.
 
What?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 04 12:29PM +0300

On 4.6.2017 4:38, bob wrote:
> to be balanced, then make up your own mind after? american mainstream
> media is in a war and they've chosen sides - they're not "reporting
> news" by any means.
 
Are you sober?
 
Play the ball, not the man (or broad generalities). Isn't that what you
guys like to say?
 
This particular thread is about the inaccuracies/misrepresentations/lies
of one Trump outing. If you want to dispute what's been said about them,
by all means do.
 
If the only thing you have to say is "CNN? Lol", which is what you're
saying above, then maybe you better not say anything.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 04 07:28PM +1000

On 4/06/2017 4:05 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> I forgot Eliot Tetltscher & Bill Scanlon.
 
> It's been a while since I've heard those names. :) I can still picture that weird front-foot stepping thing Teltscher did when waiting to return serve.
 
Yes, lots of 'interesting' stylists when I started watching tennis - I
liked the way Teltscher smacked his bh. Gene Mayer is another name who
had his own style - double-handed on both sides. He actually got to
no.4 in the rankings in 1980 when you had peak Borg/Mac/Jimbo around.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 04 11:21AM +0300

On 3.6.2017 23:55, bob wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:29:29 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los>
> wrote:
 
> what "data" is she complaining about?
 
I'm not sure she's complaining, but she does acknowledge a piece was
missing. Read the article.
 
she should be leading with her
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 03 03:09PM -0700

Just joking ...
 
Of course they won't do that.
 
 
Max
joh <joshorst@gmail.com>: Jun 04 12:39AM -0700

> Just joking ...
 
you must be German
 
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 03 06:32PM -0400


>Just joking ...
>Of course they won't do that.
 
elon musk flies private jet, i think i read it burns 490gal/hr.
 
>i'm beginning to understand why Americans elected the orange clown in the first place. Just wanted to show the middle finger to those hypocrites.
 
you don't say? when i railed about this for a year, where were you?
 
>But - is fascism really the solution .... ?
 
??
 
bob
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 04 07:54AM +0100

On 03/06/2017 23:32, bob wrote:
 
 
>> Just joking ...
>> Of course they won't do that.
 
> elon musk flies private jet, i think i read it burns 490gal/hr.
 
It seems Musk has a Gulfstream G650, but it's the upgrade ER (extended
range) model. It's capable of Mach 0.9 at which speed it consumes
~3500lbs/hr. However on the longest flights they tend to cruise at
about Mach 0.85, using ~2800lbs/hr. The routine cruising speed is
about Mach 0.87 burning ~3100lbs/hr.
 
The standard conversion from pounds to gallons is to divide by 6.79,
which gives 412g/hr, 456g/hr & 575g/hr. Generally it's a bit slower
than a commercial wide-body, but also needs more fuel despite having
half as many engines. Wide-bodies consume ~400+ gallons per hour.
 
To put the figures into context BP estimates that aircraft world wide
consume about 230m gallons of fuel per day, roughly 10m per hour on
average, 20,000 times as much as a G650. I have no idea how many times
Musk uses his plane, but I doubt it's as frequent as once a week, and
not all flights will be long-haul ones.
 
It is estimated that all world aircraft combined only contribute about
3% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere. So even if Musk's plane did fly
every day it would be adding only 0.00015% of CO2.
 
That said, CO2 isn't the most abundant greenhouse gas (GHG), but jet
planes do also add to the most abundant GHG, which is water vapour.
Unfortunately they also produce H2O at high altitudes where it cannot
quickly be absorbed into clouds, and eventually precipitation.
 
Aviation isn't high on the list of targets for carbon reduction.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 03 07:47PM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 7:35:30 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 3:39:36 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> > Wawrinka could play Monfils next rd. Should be an interesting match, at least until Monfils expends his nervous energy and tires.
 
> Why would that match-up be interesting? Any winner other than Wawrkina would be a travesty as you know there's a high probability that Monfils would tank his next match if he won. After Monfils' disgraceful tank at the USO 2016 vs Djokovic, I've given up taking him seriously or watching any of his matches. He's exactly what a professional tennis player should not be.
 
Well, for one thing, Monfils is 2-2 against Wawrinka. And his career win % is highest on clay. So he could trouble Wawrinka.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 03 08:02PM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 10:47:05 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> > > Wawrinka could play Monfils next rd. Should be an interesting match, at least until Monfils expends his nervous energy and tires.
 
> > Why would that match-up be interesting? Any winner other than Wawrkina would be a travesty as you know there's a high probability that Monfils would tank his next match if he won. After Monfils' disgraceful tank at the USO 2016 vs Djokovic, I've given up taking him seriously or watching any of his matches. He's exactly what a professional tennis player should not be.
 
> Well, for one thing, Monfils is 2-2 against Wawrinka. And his career win % is highest on clay. So he could trouble Wawrinka.
 
On clay I doubt Monfils will trouble Wawrinka. I think it will probably be fairly routine for Wawrinka.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 03 08:31PM -0700

> Well, for one thing, Monfils is 2-2 against Wawrinka. And his career win % is highest on clay. So he could trouble Wawrinka.
 
Shakes doesn't want Wawrinka in the final.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 03 08:46PM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 8:31:49 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Well, for one thing, Monfils is 2-2 against Wawrinka. And his career win % is highest on clay. So he could trouble Wawrinka.
 
> Shakes doesn't want Wawrinka in the final.
 
Shakes may or may not, but I sure do. Go effin' Stan!
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 03 09:55PM -0700

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 8:47:00 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
 
> > > Well, for one thing, Monfils is 2-2 against Wawrinka. And his career win % is highest on clay. So he could trouble Wawrinka.
 
> > Shakes doesn't want Wawrinka in the final.
 
> Shakes may or may not, but I sure do. Go effin' Stan!
 
Ditto. Pole power.
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