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

Friday, June 9, 2017

"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 09 02:56PM +0300

... at 5 all, and Wrinka seems to be playing pretty damn good.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 09 02:58PM +0300

On 9.6.2017 14:56, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> ... at 5 all, and Wrinka seems to be playing pretty damn good.
 
Looks to be gusty.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 09 03:16PM +0300

On 9.6.2017 14:56, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> ... at 5 all, and Wrinka seems to be playing pretty damn good.
 
The FH let him down a bit in the TB. Had an opportunity to wrap it in.
 
Vamos Thiem!
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 09 05:44AM -0700

MURRRRRRRAAAAAYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 09 05:43AM -0700

So far it's giving him the edge.
bmoore@nyx.net: Jun 08 08:48PM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:52:29 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > 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.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 08 09:32PM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:01:03 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
 
> Are you actually:
> 1. Afraid of north Korea?
 
It would be foolish not to be concerned about their long-term intent and developing capabilities. Fear is a whole other thing. I grew up during the Cold War but never felt "afraid" of the Russians even though the threat of nuclear war was always part of the day-to-day reality.
 
> 2. Saying trump is not belligerent enough towards north korea?
 
No American president yet has found an effective way to deal with North Korea. Being belligerent now would only work for Trump if he were ready to back up any threat regardless of consequences to S. Korea, Japan, etc. Trying to get the Chinese to pressure them is a sensible idea in the short term. Unfortunately it probably won't end up working.
 
> 3. Using that as a gay metaphor?
 
No, but interesting that merely mentioning a missile evoked such thoughts in you.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 08 09:58PM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:25:50 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> embarrassing or to hurt the country? not me, it's like wishing your
> pilot to have a heart attack while flying your plane just cause he may
> be a jerk.
 
He creates most of the problems himself though and then fans the flames every day. Can't attribute it all to malicious intent from the Democrats and media. Remember, the Republicans never really wanted him as their nominee. There was even talk of denying Trump the nomination after he defeated the competition. So I don't think his currency goes very far with them unless he can stack up a succession of wins. That hasn't been happening because he's constantly giving the opposition ammunition to use against him via the tweets, faux pas, etc. They don't even have to look for him to slip up because he does it constantly with no spin required.
 
But as you said, he's never going to change and probably couldn't if he wanted to. I don't care much whether he survives or falls.
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 09 06:41AM -0400

On 6/9/2017 12:32 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> Are you actually:
>> 1. Afraid of north Korea?
 
> It would be foolish not to be concerned about their long-term intent and developing capabilities. Fear is a whole other thing. I grew up during the Cold War but never felt "afraid" of the Russians even though the threat of nuclear war was always part of the day-to-day reality.
 
With the USSR, I always had the sense that their paramount purpose was
to survive and thrive, and they understood that launching nukes would
destroy themselves. They weren't martyrs, willing to trade their lives
for ours, so like you that meant I didn't live in 'fear' of being nuked
even though the reality was I lived at the pleasure of those old
gangsters running the Kremlin for the first 25 years of my life. So for
that reason it went without saying that I opposed our side attacking the
USSR, even though they truly were an evil empire.
 
The danger that a group like ISIS gets nukes is that they show every
indication of being the opposite - there's a very real possibility that
they would be willing to be nuked themselves if it means they wipe out 5
million, or better yet 50 million, 'infidels' or 'apostates' in return.
 
The fear I have of North Korea is that they are so radicalized that I'm
not sure they don't lean more towards the ISIS side of things. I could
see someone like KJO thinking it would be great to go out in a blaze of
glory, taking nuclear hits on NK, in return for wiping out Los Angeles
or other US cities. I also think it clear that it is now inevitable that
they will soon, very soon, have missiles capable of delivering their
nukes just about anywhere.
 
For that reason, I can't say I would be against a pre-emptive military
strike right now, even though such a strike would have to be fatal to
the NK regime, meaning that given their powerful armed forces, it would
have to be massive and would come at a tremendous cost in the lives of
our military personnel and also among South Korean civilians. As big as
that cost would be, IMO it would be worse to live with the knowledge
that the wack-jobs running NK could nuke us at any time.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 09 01:23PM +0200

> our military personnel and also among South Korean civilians. As big as
> that cost would be, IMO it would be worse to live with the knowledge
> that the wack-jobs running NK could nuke us at any time.
 
 
 
Good point about Soviet union wanting to thrive and prosper,
nobody wanted nuclear war during cold war. Not them, not you.

 
And e.g. Isis being nutjobs, who'd use it. Correct.
 
 
I disagree about north Korea, though. I could be wrong as they do
look radicalized when you see them, general population, but
leadership is definitely not. Kim has a nice life, he won't give
it up. And north Koreans realize they have to defend themselves
from "you". Who ever talks about preemptive strikes and wars?
It's a warmongering par excellence wrapped up in pacifism.

 
Even in their most belligerent tv propaganda I've seen, they only
talk about retaliation. You otoh, talk about attacking someone
who hasn't attacked you on the US soil, ever, while you waged war
in their country, still have troops there, and their country
being split in two.
 
From north Korean point of view, USA is the only nation that ever
used nukes, and USA attacked and overthrew many sovereign
countries, and massive US troops are still stationed on their
border in south Korea, so their moves are logical.

 
It doesn't take to be a genius to understand that the only
countries USA would never dare to "strike preemptively" are
those capable of defending themselves, or simply, those who also
have nukes.
 
 
Now can USA remove their troops and overall military presence from
Korean peninsula? I'm sure north Korea would be more inclined to
give up from developing nukes and missiles in that case.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 09 05:40AM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 2:06:50 PM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> Why is it the end for Trump? What's going to happen?
 
Bill Clinton was originally investigated for a land deal that happened way before he was elected president. That investigation led to Monica...
 
With a special prosecutor, Trump's lifetime of activities is now under scrutiny. You really think they're not going to find illegal activities? Trump has been able to settle lawsuits and bribe his way through the business world, but none of that is going to work now if they find he's been laundering Russian mob/dirty money, which is what most people expect his value to the Russians has been.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 09 12:57PM +0300

Carey kirjoitti 8.6.2017 klo 22:04:
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/
 
The writer is wrong.
Of course it is obstruction of justice...
 
Trump asked the FBI chief to drop the investigation and when he didn't
then Trump fired him.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 09 01:04PM +0300

bob kirjoitti 9.6.2017 klo 2:18:
>> I forgot to mark this 'OT'. Apologies.
 
> "We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless ..."
 
> bob
 
'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.
 
And he probably also did the same thing with other intelligence chiefs
who refuse to answer questions...
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 09 06:24AM -0400

>On 6/8/2017 3:04 PM, Carey wrote:
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/
 
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.
 
Furthermore, even if Comey had said that Trump did tell him to drop it,
that would just be his word vs Trump's, and you shouldn't remove a
President from office merely because someone claims they said or did
something.
 
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.
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 09 06:27AM -0400

On 6/9/2017 5:57 AM, TT wrote:
> Of course it is obstruction of justice...
 
> Trump asked the FBI chief to drop the investigation and when he didn't
> then Trump fired him.
 
(1) saying you 'hope' someone else does something isn't the same as
asking them to do it. At the least, it requires clarification.
 
(2) the only evidence we have that Trump 'asked' the FBI chief to drop
the investigation is Comey saying he did, and that's not proof. I can
say the tooth fairy visited me last night, that doesn't prove it happened.
 
Now if a tape emerges that shows Trump ordered Comey to drop the
investigation, that would be different.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 09 12:56PM +0200

> say the tooth fairy visited me last night, that doesn't prove it happened.
 
> Now if a tape emerges that shows Trump ordered Comey to drop the
> investigation, that would be different.
 
;)
 
--
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 09 06:58AM -0400

On 6/8/2017 7:44 PM, bob wrote:
>> In which regard has Williams blown past Graf? Number of slams?
>> Well, that department wasn't important
 
> it sure was important to you when federer got to 15.
 
 
What's funny is that Max is very wrong about the import of slam numbers.
Ever since she surpassed Evert and MN at 18 slams, I've always said that
*if* you ignored the Seles stabbing and went just on court
accomplishments, Graf was clearly the Open Era GOAT. That was based on
slams won, and that was clearly the consensus among everyone, really**.
So to act like somehow the goalposts have been changed against Steffi is
absurd.
 
** There were some, including Graf herself, that said MN was #1, but
that was arrived at by adding in MN's doubles accomplishments. Even
those people acknowledged Graf as the #1 singles player, as she had won
the most singles slams. Heck, if we throw in stuff like Gold Medals and
doubles, Serena wipes out Graf by an even larger margin.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 09 05:36PM +1000

On 9/06/2017 9:05 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
> Which player am I star fucking? I'm simply telling the truth that Pliskova had no chance vs Halep on clay and that Pliskova is annoying to watch because in every match that I've ever watched her in, she hits about 6 incredible shots and then that's it, the next shot is an error.
 
> Ostapenko I think may have a greater upside than Pliskova. Somebody on here posted that Ostapenko reminds him of Seles and that's a pretty good comparison.
 
> I fear that Ostapenko may hit Halep off the court in the final. I hope I'm wrong and that she will be able to absorb Ostapenko's power because this is Halep's best shot at a FO title.
 
Halep doesn't deserve the FO title more than Ostapenko. I tipped Halep
from the beginning but would be happy with either girl winning.
Ostapenko might be the next multiple slam winner type, who knows?
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 09 06:45AM -0400

>On 6/8/2017 6:19 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> It was never in doubt that Halep would beat Pliskova on clay.
 
That's pretty silly. The match was close, and if a couple of points had
gone Plisk's way, she coulda won.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.los>: Jun 09 12:22PM +0300

Wow. I'm probably the last to know but ...
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mays-gamble-ona-snap-british-vote-backfires-spectacularly-as-losses-trigger-calls-to-step-down/2017/06/09/d2c7c106-4c9a-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_story.html?utm_term=.919a641b6a46
 
... it looks like a hung Parliament. What that will mean for the Brexit
negotiations, hmmm, not very good. Getting rid of May's "strongman"
program of having and eating in 12 points is a relief for the EU side.
 
OTOH, a partner with a flimsy mandate means the negotiations could well
drag on beyond 2 years with umpteen elections in between.
 
Lord, what a nightmare. Just get Iceberg out of the EU! ;) ;) ;)
joh <joshorst@gmail.com>: Jun 09 03:24AM -0700

Op vrijdag 9 juni 2017 11:23:01 UTC+2 schreef Pelle Svanslös:
 
> ... it looks like a hung Parliament. What that will mean for the Brexit
> negotiations, hmmm, not very good. Getting rid of May's "strongman"
> program of having and eating in 12 points is a relief for the EU side.
 
That was a bit naive to begin with.
 
> OTOH, a partner with a flimsy mandate means the negotiations could well
> drag on beyond 2 years with umpteen elections in between.
 
Only when all EU members agree on longer negotiations.
But there's always hard brexit.
 
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 08 08:15PM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-4, soccerfan777 wrote:
 
> > > Andy Murray is gay, anyway. Does she hit it anywhere as hard as say Del Potro?
 
> > They had a list of a bunch of male players such as Thiem, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka etc. She is right up there with them.
 
> That's pretty impressive... to be in the company of Thiem (if that is true).
 
Two things though..the men hit the ball with pace AND spin,which makes their shots fast and heavy. The women do not have as much topspin on their shots. In addition, I believe the women play with lighter balls.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 09 05:56PM +1000

On 9/06/2017 11:58 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
> Here is proof of what I was telling you the Tennis Channel commentators were saying about Ostapenko's fh speed vs Thiem, Nadal, Wawrinka, and Murray.
 
> https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/19024941_1314378025347523_4629758014118947444_o.jpg?oh=b8ade5b97611e219291d122887d45b70&oe=599CDB60
 
> Scary!
 
I told you the modern guys were softcocks.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 09 01:19PM +0300

SliceAndDice kirjoitti 9.6.2017 klo 6:15:
 
>>> They had a list of a bunch of male players such as Thiem, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka etc. She is right up there with them.
 
>> That's pretty impressive... to be in the company of Thiem (if that is true).
 
> Two things though..the men hit the ball with pace AND spin,which makes their shots fast and heavy. The women do not have as much topspin on their shots. In addition, I believe the women play with lighter balls.
 
Balls usually get lighter after they played with them a bit.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 08 10:03PM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:43:30 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > :)
 
> > It would be Murray of course. I would be glad to see him win that contest, but it would be unlikely.
 
> What do you think Thiem's chances vs Nadal are?
 
I haven't watched him play. But I agree with you that winning a 3-of-5 match in a slam is a whole other challenge that winning 2-of-3 in a tune-up.
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