Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 8 topics

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 15 02:44PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 3:22:57 AM UTC-4, ahonkan wrote:
> is that he has lost 3 big matches to his perennial doormat Federer.
> Apart from that, he has completed his annual harvest of clay titles
> between April & June & not won anything before that ...
 
As I said, with Nadal you never know. He could bomb out in the first week at Wimbledon or with a good draw he could make the final and win the title. First of all, he's mentioning his potential knee troubles on a grass surface already and says the low bending on grass often causes him pain in the knees. But he's also saying if he's playing well he could go far and he'll try his best to do so. So who knows?
 
Just because he lost early at Wimbledon in the past few years it doesn't necessarily mean that he will do same this year. When was the last time Federer won the AO before 2017? If these ATG players have won something before they can do it again.
 
He's playing more aggressively with a better serve so that should help him. Also, Djokovic is out to lunch at the moment and Murray isn't at his best. Look how Murray disintegrated against Wawrinka in the fifth set of the FO. Nadal is in the best form out of the Big Four players (along with Federer.)
 
If Nadal made it to the AO final and almost won it when it was on a quicker hc and if he didn't lose a set on the way to his FO title, he's dangerous. You can live in denial or in the past if you wish. I'm just saying the possibility is there for Nadal to do well at Wimbledon again.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 15 02:48PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2:07:11 AM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
 
> Actually it is very easy to predict with Nadal on fast surfaces. He will go back to a shell when he faced a big hitter on a fast surface , he will retreat more towards his traditional clay court stand on a grass court. His instinct is not an aggressive player. When the match is tough players do go back to their original mode.
 
The AO 2017 was played on a faster hc surface and Nadal came within inches of winning it! He's playing more aggressively and that should translate well on a grass surface.
 
I doubt he'll win Wimbledon but a lot will depend on his draw and if he has a good one, he may show up in the second week where he can be dangerous.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 15 05:47PM -0400

Hey Icey what do you think about PM May ordering a full public inquiry
into the disaster?
 
Oh and what do you think about the fire officials saying that the
building was not at risk of collapsing?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 09:08PM +0200


>> I disagree. IMO there's something very wrong with going any way the wind blows. It fosters short-sightedness in future generations.
 
> Pretending the civil war was about anything other than a desire to maintain slavery is the historical revisionism. The VP of the Confederacy made it clear: the Confederacy's "cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery ? subordination to the superior race ? is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
 
> Seems understandable if communities decide they want to use their core public areas to honor something or someone else.
 
 
Well individuals are not the same, so how could collectives and
races be the same?
Retarded suggestion.
You have IQ worldview tests and Africans rate pretty much low.
Otoh they're superior in some physical elements.

We're all different. Those are facts.
 
I think Lee is being retroactively "punished" not for fighting for
slavery as an obvious injustice but for his preaching/attitude of
his own superiority.
And that's exactly wrong here.
 
It's the opposite what should be. Condemn slavery, an act of
injustice, not fight against personal bigotry of long decades
humans or interfere with personal bias even in present day, of
which some might be fact based actually.
 
Remember Gandhi preached segregation of Indians and blacks. He
obviously thought Indians are superior.
 
Should India remove his statues?
 
 
 
Hell, even Federer thinks he's superior than anyone else. That's
normal.
 
 
 
--
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 15 01:02PM -0700


> > > The people leading communities today shouldn't be bound by decisions leaders made 40 years ago. Many facets of communities change over time (including their citizenry), and there's nothing wrong with them deciding to honor someone or something different.
 
> > I disagree. IMO there's something very wrong with going any way the wind blows. It fosters short-sightedness in future generations.
 
> Pretending the civil war was about anything other than a desire to maintain slavery is the historical revisionism. The VP of the Confederacy made it clear: the Confederacy's "cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
 
Slavery was obviously the central cause of the war. I don't buy into the Lost Cause narrative or any of that. But saying that hundreds of thousands of soldiers died solely in defense of slavery is a simplification no matter what the VP said. Many Confederate soldiers had no stake in whether slavery continued or not. And there were plenty of Union soldiers that didn't care either. I'm not just speculating either. There are tons of diaries, writings, and other primary sources from the "there-and-then" to document their thoughts and motivations.
 
> Seems understandable if communities decide they want to use their core public areas to honor something or someone else.
 
In its present form, IMO what's taking place is politically motivated knee-jerk pandering more than a sincere desire to honor anything.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 02:03PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 10:02:09 PM UTC+2, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Slavery was obviously the central cause of the war. I don't buy into the Lost Cause narrative or any of that. But saying that hundreds of thousands of soldiers died solely in defense of slavery is a simplification no matter what the VP said. Many Confederate soldiers had no stake in whether slavery continued or not. And there were plenty of Union soldiers that didn't care either. I'm not just speculating either. There are tons of diaries, writings, and other primary sources from the "there-and-then" to document their thoughts and motivations.
 
> > Seems understandable if communities decide they want to use their core public areas to honor something or someone else.
 
> In its present form, IMO what's taking place is politically motivated knee-jerk pandering more than a sincere desire to honor anything.
 
 
If I were a black American all monuments honoring confederate soldiers would be an insult to me.
I'm surprised that many white Americans can be so tone-deaf.
 
 
Max
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 15 02:24PM -0700


> If I were a black American all monuments honoring confederate soldiers would be an insult to me.
> I'm surprised that many white Americans can be so tone-deaf.
 
But Max--you aren't a black American. So how do you know how you'd feel? Your sweeping statement presumes that all black Americans are of a like mind, which is in itself racist.
 
I get the point that sayfellas is trying to make...that those who fought for the Confederate cause functioned to uphold an evil institution, and thus become symbolic of that evil whether or not they were so individually. But I still think that creating historical context for those monuments is a far better solution than knocking them down, which is really counterproductive in the long run.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 11:14PM +0200


>> In its present form, IMO what's taking place is politically motivated knee-jerk pandering more than a sincere desire to honor anything.
 
> If I were a black American all monuments honoring confederate soldiers would be an insult to me.
> I'm surprised that many white Americans can be so tone-deaf.
 
 
At least they're not color-blind?
--
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 02:30PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:24:45 PM UTC+2, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > If I were a black American all monuments honoring confederate soldiers would be an insult to me.
> > I'm surprised that many white Americans can be so tone-deaf.
 
> But Max--you aren't a black American. So how do you know how you'd feel? Your sweeping statement presumes that all black Americans are of a like mind, which is in itself racist.
 
You aren't able to put yourself in another person's shoes or mind?
Poor boy ...
 
 
Max
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 15 02:36PM -0700


> > But Max--you aren't a black American. So how do you know how you'd feel? Your sweeping statement presumes that all black Americans are of a like mind, which is in itself racist.
 
> You aren't able to put yourself in another person's shoes or mind?
> Poor boy ...
 
An entire ethnic group residing in a country isn't "another person." Such characterization is reductionist and insulting. I'm surprised you can't see that. Then again, you're Max, so maybe I'm not so surprised.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 15 02:45PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 4:02:09 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Slavery was obviously the central cause of the war. I don't buy into the Lost Cause narrative or any of that. But saying that hundreds of thousands of soldiers died solely in defense of slavery is a simplification no matter what the VP said. Many Confederate soldiers had no stake in whether slavery continued or not. And there were plenty of Union soldiers that didn't care either. I'm not just speculating either. There are tons of diaries, writings, and other primary sources from the "there-and-then" to document their thoughts and motivations.
 
> > Seems understandable if communities decide they want to use their core public areas to honor something or someone else.
 
> In its present form, IMO what's taking place is politically motivated knee-jerk pandering more than a sincere desire to honor anything.
 
We're not talking about monuments to confederate soldiers but confederate leaders. Big difference. And their placement was just as politically motivated to start with, which is why many were erected in the 1960s after civil rights legislation. So it doesn't make any sense to decry political motivation or cultural issues for their removal when those are the same reasons the monuments are there in the first place. To remove all politcal/cultural motivations around the monuments would mean removal of the monuments, because they wouldn't have been there in the first place. And turning all of them into "teachable moments" is pretty silly IMO...we're talking multiple monuments in many cities...not just one.
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 15 02:19PM -0500

On 6/15/2017 6:09 AM, John Liang wrote:
>> has 13 slams & Borg 11. Borg quit at age 25, Fed won his last blue-chip
>> at age 30 - 5 extra yrs to get 2 more blue-chips.
 
> Sorry, you are making that assumption. The bluest of blue chip event during Borg's era was Wimbledon and USO. Connors did not even play FO between 74-79 but he played both USO and Wimbledon. Clearly FO wasn't the bluest of blue > chip slam even back then and it still isn't.
 
Lots of truth in this. E.g., circa 1980, Borg was known in the USA
almost entirely for his Wimbledon exploits, and to a lesser extent his
USO struggles. Virtually nobody among the public was aware of his FO
titles. The FO just wasn't regarded as being much those days.
Ironically, it became better-known soon after Borg retired, in the
mid-1980s.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 15 02:22PM -0500

On 6/15/2017 6:51 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> remembers or cares about.
 
> That's the bottom line. It doesn't matter how any of us feel about it,
> slams are all that matter.
 
Yes, e.g., the one major career blunder Sampras made was sacrificing the
1998 AO to ensure he finished #1 for a sixth straight year. Seemed like
a good idea at the time, but nowadays, nobody cares that he accomplished
that, whereas a 15th slam on his resume would count for way more.
 
In the end, everything else washes away, slam wins are the only enduring
legacy value.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
MBDunc <michaelb@dnainternet.net>: Jun 15 01:09PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 10:22:30 PM UTC+3, StephenJ wrote:
> that, whereas a 15th slam on his resume would count for way more.
 
> In the end, everything else washes away, slam wins are the only enduring
> legacy value.
 
'99 AO .. and while Sampras would have been tier1 favourite for sure....after all he won it "only" twice...and lost to Flipper/Kucera/Martin even during heavy favourite days.... (note fun stat: Sampras AO titles - both times Agassi was not in the draw '94, '97).
 
And it is just too much to ask to stay 100% motivated for slams for a decade *) You skip, you lost it. You most probably skipped it as you knew you have mental/fitness/etc uphill battle to go....they are human...
 
*) See Djoker post-FO, or sporadical Nadal with his mini-hiatuses and skips....
 
And if you start playing with wouldacouldashoulda you soon will end up making scenarios without WW1 ever happening and Tilden playing and winning globally everywhere with steamboat and horse carriage logistics.
 
.mikko
DavidW <no@email.provided>: Jun 16 07:18AM +1000

On 16/06/2017 5:22 AM, stephenJ wrote:
> Yes, e.g., the one major career blunder Sampras made was sacrificing the
> 1998 AO to ensure he finished #1 for a sixth straight year.
 
Not playing ensured that?
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 15 01:20PM -0700

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-of-the-21st-century.html?WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-061517-L1&=&=&em_pos=large&emc=edit_el_20170615&nl=el&nl=at-times&nlid=18314170&ref=headline&te=1&_r=0
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 15 08:22PM

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:20:12 -0700, Guypers wrote:
 
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-
of-the-21st-century.html?WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-061517-
L1&amp=&amp=&em_pos=large&emc=edit_el_20170615&nl=el&nl=at-
times&nlid=18314170&ref=headline&te=1&_r=0
 
Wow, a lot of stinkers in that list. "Mad Max: Fury Road" and "The 40-
Year-Old Virgin"?
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 02:06PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 10:20:15 PM UTC+2, Guypers wrote:
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-of-the-21st-century.html?WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-061517-L1&=&=&em_pos=large&emc=edit_el_20170615&nl=el&nl=at-times&nlid=18314170&ref=headline&te=1&_r=0
 
 
NYT?
Weren't that those geniuses who called "Then There Will Be Blood" the best film of the 21st century?
 
Lolol
 
 
Max
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 15 11:48PM +0300

TRADERS are not usually a cheery lot. But they seemed more than pleased
last November when Donald Trump stunned pollsters to win the presidency.
Although most of his policy proposals were muddled at the time, he did
express a few consistently that cheered markets: they liked his plans to
increase government spending, especially on infrastructure, while
cutting tax and regulation.
 
All of this though, hinged on the belief that Mr Trump, a political tyro
who had declared war on the establishment, could navigate the byzantine
politics of Washington, DC. But as a barrage of scandals emerged from
the White House, traders have begun to doubt the Republicans' ability to
pass legislation. On May 9th the president unexpectedly fired James
Comey, then head of the FBI, deepening such concerns. Many wonder
whether anything can be passed at all.
 
Betting markets reckon that Mr Trump's chances of passing a
corporate-tax cut bill this year fell from 56% to 42% by May 10th.
Although stockmarkets remain at an all-time high, other indicators more
sensitive to Mr Trump's promises have started to reverse course.
 
Data from Goldman Sachs, a bank, show that when Mr Trump was first
elected, the stocks of certain companies did especially well: those
paying high tax rates, and those working in the construction and
engineering industries outperformed the overall market index. But as the
president's chances of pushing through his policies have waned, so too
have these firms' fortunes in the market.
 
In hindsight, traders should have been more sceptical that a Beltway
outsider could radically shake up Washington. Who knew that public
policy could be so complicated?
 
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/06/daily-chart-10
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 15 02:10PM -0500

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 09:00:43 -0700 (PDT), calimero377@gmx.de <calimero377@gmx.de> wrote:
| On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:31:08 PM UTC+2, Federer Fanatic wrote:
|> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 14:51:25 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
|> | Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid> Wrote in message:
|> |> See https://gomovies.to/film/the-putin-interviews-season-01-21051/watching.html?ep=666840
|> |>
|> |> FF
|> |>
|> |
|> |
|> | I still haven't seen, did you?
|>
|>
|> 1st part. Stone is of an anti-American government type.
|>
|> My impression of Putin: Bureaucrat who was thrust into a position of power. Has
|> been forced to adopt solutions/cohorts that he may have wanted to avoid but
|> in the interest of saving Russia.
|>
|> One interesting point is that he thought the Russions post world war II should not
|> have been as antagnostic and perhaps could have forged a better relationship with
|> West.
|>
|>
|> FF
|
| What makes you think he thought that?
|
|
| Max
 
 
He said so. Perhaps he's full of BS? Watch it. Not saying the guy is great human being. He
really is a technocrat governed by reason of an accountant...my description.
 
FF
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 12:39PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:10:23 PM UTC+2, Federer Fanatic wrote:
 
> He said so. Perhaps he's full of BS? Watch it. Not saying the guy is great human being. He
> really is a technocrat governed by reason of an accountant...my description.
 
> FF
 
Putin a "technocrat"???
 
 
Max
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 15 11:10PM +0300

>> really is a technocrat governed by reason of an accountant...my description.
 
>> FF
 
> Putin a "technocrat"???
 
Ok. How about "cleptocrat"?
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 10:24PM +0200


>>> FF
 
>> Putin a "technocrat"???
 
> Ok. How about "cleptocrat"?
 
 
Aristocrat.
 
 
 
--
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 15 02:25PM -0500

On 6/15/2017 6:32 AM, Whisper wrote:
>> She turns 48 today!
>> You wouldn't believe that considering how beautiful she still is!!
 
> She doesn't look a day over 47.
 
😁😜🥂
 
Thing is, though, she does look better at 47 than she did at 27, or 17.
She was a 4 during her playing days, maybe a 6 now.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 12:36PM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:25:56 PM UTC+2, StephenJ wrote:
 
> 😁😜🥂
 
> Thing is, though, she does look better at 47 than she did at 27, or 17.
> She was a 4 during her playing days, maybe a 6 now.
 
She was a 8.5 as a teenager. From 1990 to 1994 a slow rise to a clear 10. Since 2009 still at least a 9. Among the over-40 cohort a relative 10 of course.
 
 
Max
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