Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Friday, June 23, 2017

calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 23 08:46AM -0700

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 3:47:53 AM UTC+2, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> Please explain how steel beam sections weighing more than 5 ton drifted
> 500+ feet to the side?
 
> ???
 
 
WTC 1 was 1370 feet high. WTC 7 was 370 feet away (not 500).
WTC 1 didn't collapse in its "footprint".
The debris from WTC 1 consisted of heavy columns and lighter plates which had been welded between those column beams.
 
So what else do you think caused those fires in WTC 7?
Do you really want to tell us that the jews (or sone other meanies)first flew those planes into WTC 1 & 2, then exploded all those bombs which they planted in dozens of floors, then started several fires in WTC 7 and then exploded all those bombs they had planted in several floors of WTC 7?
 
And people like you are allowed to vote ...
 
 
Max
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 24 01:52AM +1000


> And people like you are allowed to vote ...
 
> Max
 
People like him scare me a bit.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 23 10:37AM -0700

> WTC 1 was 1370 feet high. WTC 7 was 370 feet away (not 500).
WTC 1 didn't collapse in its "footprint".
The debris from WTC 1 consisted of heavy columns and lighter plates which had been welded between those column beams.
 
So what else do you think caused those fires in WTC 7?
Do you really want to tell us that the jews (or sone other meanies)first flew those planes into WTC 1 & 2, then exploded all those bombs which they planted in dozens of floors, then started several fires in WTC 7 and then exploded all those bombs they had planted in several floors of WTC 7?
 
And people like you are allowed to vote ...
 
 
 
People aren't discussing fire her. Try to read
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 23 10:51AM -0700

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 7:37:02 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> And people like you are allowed to vote ...
 
> People aren't discussing fire her. Try to read
 
 
Lol, I know why you don't want to discuss those WTC 7 fires. You conspiracy nutters are so predictable ...
 
 
Max
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 23 05:46AM -0700

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 2:26:32 AM UTC-4, SliceAndDice wrote:
 
> > Look at that pathetic crybaby player Nishikori at the top of the list(Pelle may be his only fan outside of Japan) and then look at Federer at the bottom of the list!
 
> > Amazing.
 
> Why isn't Haas a pathetic crybaby too? :)
 
Haas has had multiple surgeries. Nishikori seems like a hypochondriac to me. Literally every other week it's something else with him.
arahim <arahim_arahim@hotmail.com>: Jun 23 10:44AM -0700

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 9:23:44 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_qv9T6UQAA5XFu.jpg
 
> Look at that pathetic crybaby player Nishikori at the top of the list(Pelle may be his only fan outside of Japan) and then look at Federer at the bottom of the list!
 
> Amazing.
 
For all his early fame Djokovic is not that far off Nadal and Murray.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 23 08:18AM -0700

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 1:00:54 PM UTC+2, kaennorsing wrote:
> > I mean to me it's a no-brainer.
 
> > bob?
 
> Yes, steel buildings are designed specifically to keep standing. That's the single most important thing they're designed to do. It's therefor a totally ridiculous assumption that even a few hours of fire had these massive, gigantic steal constructions suddenly *collapse into their steel footprint at freefall speeds*. All three.
 
And now the resident Dutch nutter also chimes in ...
 
 
Max
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 23 08:20AM -0700

> What I'm asking myself is whether people like you get an orgasm when they lie like this.
Who ever claimed the towers went down "in free fall" or "molten steel" was involved?
But people like you repeat those lies again and again and again and again.
 
Put more effort in reading and understanding instead of your "CNN lol" kind of replies.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 23 09:44AM -0700

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 5:20:09 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Who ever claimed the towers went down "in free fall" or "molten steel" was involved?
> But people like you repeat those lies again and again and again and again.
 
> Put more effort in reading and understanding instead of your "CNN lol" kind of replies.
 
 
You say there was 'free fall"?
You say the government's explanation was "molten steel"?
 
Yes or no?
If you have even one "yes" you are a liar.
Quite simple.
 
Almost all conspiracy nutters are pathological liars. They like lying and the thrill whether they can get away with it. Look at the Holocaust deniers or the JFK conspiracy nutters.
 
 
Max
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 23 01:32PM -0400


> You say there was 'free fall"? You say the government's explanation
> was "molten steel"?
 
> Yes or no? If you have even one "yes" you are a liar. Quite simple.
 
 
You my dear friend Max have just proven for all of rst and any
other member of the public, your ignorance on 9/11.
 
*** Almost 10 years ago N.I.S.T. (a U.S. government agency) finally
admitted that WT7 was indeed in free fall for more than 3 seconds. ***
 
The significance of that admission cannot be overstated.
 
In essence it was an admission that 9/11 was an inside job.
 
So there is one "yes". Hmmmm... PeteWasLucky was not a liar.
I guess that means that you were a liar?
 
 
> Almost all conspiracy nutters are pathological liars. They like lying
> and the thrill whether they can get away with it. Look at the
> Holocaust deniers or the JFK conspiracy nutters.
 
Phewwww, I am so glad you added that "Almost" at the beginning or I
would surely have to be a nutter and a pathological liar. :)
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 23 10:35AM -0700

> You say there was 'free fall"?
You say the government's explanation was "molten steel"?
 
Yes or no?
If you have even one "yes" you are a liar.
Quite simple.
 
Almost all conspiracy nutters are pathological liars. They like lying and the thrill whether they can get away with it. Look at the Holocaust deniers or the JFK conspiracy nutters.
 
What are you talking about?!!
 
What molten steel? lol
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 23 08:26AM -0700

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 2:05:59 AM UTC-5, The Iceberg wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 18:00:32 UTC+1, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > Marx didn't murder anyone. Hitler and his evil buddies did.
 
> what a weak cowardly answer, Marx's book caused millions of murders.
 
He did ask for millions to be murdered in his book. Hitler did by saying all communists, Jews and Eastern Europeans are inferior race and should be exterminated.
 
> Also this must mean Mao and Stalin's book must be banned as well, but they're not.
 
Depends upon what is in their book.
 
> It's hilarious I can buy some silly old book in any book shop in London and it's literally illegal in Germany.
 
Because they don't Hitler loving Neo-Nazis springing up in every nook and corner. I am sure UK doesn't have to deal with that because UK was anti-Nazi to begin with and fought war against them. What UK should be afraid is Brits becoming anti-German (and you can see some of that with the British soccer hooligans).
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 23 08:33AM -0700

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all did thanks to Marx, I know it's no different to thicko PC Remoaners like you.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 23 09:05AM -0700

So it's totally arbitrary then and the state should decide, just like why you CAN buy Mao and Stalin's book yet you want to ban Hitler's book.
Classic liberal, you really mean you want everything banned you personally disagree with, but cos Marx and co were left-wing their books and the millions they murdered is fine.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 23 09:07AM -0700

Yes ok, you are right on that one!
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 23 09:36AM -0700

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 6:05:05 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> So it's totally arbitrary then and the state should decide, just like why you CAN buy Mao and Stalin's book yet you want to ban Hitler's book.
> Classic liberal, you really mean you want everything banned you personally disagree with, but cos Marx and co were left-wing their books and the millions they murdered is fine.
 
 
If Churchill had ordered the "Endlösung" of the jews his books most probably would be banned in the UK today.
 
You live in your village, you have no idea of foreign cultures, histories and mindsets, you don't speak any foreign languages, You don't read foreign books or newspapers (except US ones maybe).
Let me guess - you voted Brexit?
 
 
Max
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 23 07:13PM +0200

>> their own policy, is a bit different from armed police forces
>> storming your house because of those comments.
> And that happens in Croatia?
 
 
You didn't read about it? It happened in Germany.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 23 06:55AM -0700

I got about halfway through it and quit. Aside from the special effects, I thought it was terrible. Stupid dialogue and weak plot. A King Kong for dummies. The original Kong and the 2005 version were much better IMO.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 23 06:55AM -0700

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:53:41 AM UTC-4, soccerfan777 wrote:
 
> Your rating is not in line with the review. It should be 2/10 based on what you said
 
It's BAD. Trust me.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 24 01:45AM +1000

On 23/06/2017 11:53 PM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Your rating is not in line with the review. It should be 2/10 based on what you said
 
I think it deserves a better rating as the overall sum of the production
is better than the individual elements. It's a fun popcorn movie.
 
'Serious' movie critics would probably give it a 3, but movies aren't
only for serious types.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 24 01:47AM +1000

On 23/06/2017 11:55 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> I got about halfway through it and quit. Aside from the special effects, I thought it was terrible. Stupid dialogue and weak plot. A King Kong for dummies. The original Kong and the 2005 version were much better IMO.
 
It didn't attempt to take itself seriously. Yes individual elements
were weak, but overall it's a good popcorn movie.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 24 01:50AM +1000

On 23/06/2017 11:55 PM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 9:53:41 AM UTC-4, soccerfan777 wrote:
 
>> Your rating is not in line with the review. It should be 2/10 based on what you said
 
> It's BAD. Trust me.
 
So is Sharknado - if you take it seriously.
 
Guess what - films, music, tennis, sports etc are not serious endeavors.
They are fun activities, but yes can also be taken extremely seriously.
 
: )
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 23 10:20AM -0700

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 8:46:03 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> is better than the individual elements. It's a fun popcorn movie.
 
> 'Serious' movie critics would probably give it a 3, but movies aren't
> only for serious types.
 
So in saying this, you're basically admitting you know nothing about movies, right? :)
 
I understand what you mean, though. There is such thing as a "popcorn movie." That's how I feel about many of the Marvel ones. It's a great ride and I enjoy the interactions and special effects while knowing that there's not much substance underneath. I'll hardly ever watch one of these twice.
 
This is also one of the reasons I avoid giving numerical ratings or "grades" to films. It's like there are different axes for craftsmanship, depth, and the sheer enjoyment factor. No rating fits all. So I can see an X-Men film and have lots of fun watching, but assigning a high rating to it alongside classics or near-classics ends up looking kind of silly.
 
I should add that I haven't seen "Kong: Skull Island," so don't know if I'd think it was good, fun, fun and bad, or simply bad.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 23 09:46AM -0700

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 2:08:21 AM UTC+2, bob wrote:
> ...i thought germany was a free and democratic country. glad max
> educated me before my trip! i think i better bring protection.
 
> bob
 
If you want to worship Hitler Palestine is indeed a better place.
 
 
Max
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 23 08:22AM -0700

Hahahah
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