Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 13 topics

Friday, June 9, 2017

Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 09 09:06AM -0500

And Any has figured out how to play on clay. Impressive.
 
FF
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 09 07:08AM -0700

> And Any has figured out how to play on clay. Impressive.
 
Clay plays the way it's supposed to and it is what Wawrinka likes but Murray is just starting very back to return everything and Wawrinka can't rush to the net to finish the points.
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 09 09:23AM -0500

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:08:16 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
|> And Any has figured out how to play on clay. Impressive.
|
| Clay plays the way it's supposed to and it is what Wawrinka likes but Murray is just starting very back to return everything and Wawrinka can't rush to the net to finish the points.
 
Sure, but it does make it a bit more difficult to Stan to hit shots for winners
consistently and Andy can get returns back. But sure Stan's net play is poor.
 
FF
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 08 08:01PM -0400

On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 12:27:08 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los>
wrote:
 
 
>Well, the right way involves some political realities (which you choose
>to igneore). The bottom line is this: Obama was within his legal rights
>to sign Paris, and you were wrong in saying he was not.
 
i'm not exactly wrong, though i said it as more of a question and for
effect. you didn't pick up on it, that's fine.
 
obama went to unreal lengths to try to create it as some new weird
type of thing, not a "treaty," not an "agreement" but sort of new
hybrid that doesn't exist, something that would get him political
brownie points and no political or economic fallout. he didn't go
through the proper channels (senate) and because of it, it was a
"nothing" "treaty" or whatever you (or obama) wish to call it. that's
why trump laughed and unsigned it.
 
frankly, he was weak about the environment, it wasn't his pet topic,
though his party forced him a bit.
 
 
>> plus obama went to tremendous lengths to keep the terminology of this
>> "pact" very vague, and not use the word treaty.
 
>My guess is, it's because under US law it was not a "treaty".
 
under int'l law, they call it a "treaty." under US law, various
attorneys call it what they want based on the outcome they want.
because obama intended it that way. his attorneys advised him what to
call it, how to describe it, so that he could sign that piece of horse
poop w/out going through the senate.
 
you know pelle, when you want something done but know you don't have
the votes, you suck it up and try to move on to the next topic or
compromise. you don't do end runs like obama did and then blame the
opponent for undoing it. but i doubt even 1% of americans have read as
much about it as we've discussed in this 1 thread so nobody knows or
cares. all they know is: "oh, big bad trump blew up the planet" cause
that's what CNN told you, i mean, them. LOL.
 
>>> Except you.
 
>> i questioned the legality of calling paris a "treaty."
 
>There you go again. Tut tut, bob.
 
in the US, it's not a treaty. in the world, it's a treaty. it was
political games from obama.
 
>You didn't even mention the word "treaty". You said:
 
>"obama had no legal grounds to "sign" the "paris
>accords" to begin with".
 
i didn't need to call it a treaty, i don't need to call it anything.
if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck... it's
a duck.
 
 
>They are not a bad concept. Even though they are voluntary, for example
>France has hinted at tightening its own targets because of US leaving
>Paris. Others take voluntary targets seriously.
 
the smallest offenders (france) wil willingly play along. that's how
they are. they ride bikes and eat cheese. the chinese and indians will
piss on you though.
 
>You, the environmentalist, voted for abolishing them..
 
i am an environmentalist who drives an electric car, has 100% led
bulbs in my house forever now, takes public transportation almost
daily and recycles and started recycling programs for others. i LIVE
the environment.
 
the GOV'T doesn't need phony programs, the PEOPLE need to live it and
it'll change. if the gov't did REAL programs that meant much more than
they did, fine. but hillary wasn't for it, obama wasn't either. obama
campaigned on "no gulf drilling." lol on that one!
 
Gore and Bernie are the only 2 enviromntal candidates in my lifetime
who cared about it - and you scorned bernie the "wacko." LOL on YOU
PELLE!!!! live with donald now!
 
 
>> let it go pelle, hillary lost and hillary likely needs psychiatric
>> care for the rest of her life.
 
>Nobody cares a hoot about Hillary.
 
of course you do. you probably need to borrow her therapist.
 
>"bunk" in some way. I asked you to explain it, you snipped it out.
>That's a nice dodge. If you think snipping the dodges aren't noted,
>you're wrong. You seem to be wronging all the time.
 
i was right on november 8th. you? lol
 
bob
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 09 06:04AM -0700

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 6:58:15 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
> 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.
 
The most impressive Serena stat for me is that she's played 51 slam or olympic final matches across all disciplines and only lost 8 times. That's unreal to me. Graf, for comparison, is 24-13. 84% vs 64% with slam/olympic titles on the line. Navratilova is 59-26 (69%).
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 08 07:44PM -0400


>Not bitter but slightly amused.
>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.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 08 07:43PM -0400

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:13:12 -0700 (PDT), kaennorsing
>> me.
 
>> bob
 
>Maybe in exchange for some time at night?
 
like i said, why these 3 men would ever give megyn kelly the time of
day is beyond me.
 
bob
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 10 12:18AM +1000

He's playing well enough to have already won this match 76 63 63, yet
he's down 2 sets to 1.
 
Murray doing what he does so well, just hanging in trying to withstand
the talent onslaught & eke out a dour victory.
 
I tipped Stan to lose final & to beat Murray in 5, so still on track.
 
: )
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 08 07:36PM -0400

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 21:10:31 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
>> > But yeah, stranger things have happened.
 
>> As I said, I hope Stan wins that match.
 
>Yeah, Stan isn't a mope like Murray. The head-pointing thing gets tiresome,
 
you kidding? i'm tuning in just to watch that head pointing! gives me
endless joy, seriously.
 
> but he's Polish so must cut him some slack.
 
bob
bmoore@nyx.net: Jun 08 09:36PM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 4:30:57 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> >http://time.com/4810257/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-poll/
> >Damning. "Bye Bye Donald!"
 
> makes no difference why. bye bye poor pelle!
 
*That's* your response?
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 08 07:30PM -0400

On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 13:11:55 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pelle@svans.los>
wrote:
 
>61% of Americans think he fired Comey for protecting himself.
>http://time.com/4810257/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-poll/
>Damning. "Bye Bye Donald!"
 
makes no difference why. bye bye poor pelle!
 
bob
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 09 08:47AM -0400

>> 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.
 
I don't think so. The Starr investigation re Clinton was more political,
Starr seemed inclined to cast a very wide net.
 
This SP will focus laser-like on the Russian issue. If there's no
evidence that Trump or his campaign 'colluded' with Russia on the
election, it will end there. He won't go off on tangents.
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 09 09:00AM -0400

On 6/9/2017 7:23 AM, *skriptis wrote:
 
> 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.
 
Frankly, this is a stunning exposition of naivete about North Korea. But
to each his own.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 09 06:14AM -0700

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 8:47:29 AM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
 
> This SP will focus laser-like on the Russian issue. If there's no
> evidence that Trump or his campaign 'colluded' with Russia on the
> election, it will end there. He won't go off on tangents.
 
Looking into possible collusion means looking into financial issues (eg, did collusion include funneling money for campaign activities, etc.), which means examining all of Trump's business dealings. That's a huge can of worms.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 09 03:28PM +0200

>> give up from developing nukes and missiles in that case.
 
> Frankly, this is a stunning exposition of naivete about North Korea. But
> to each his own.
 
 
Nope. I was ironic with my proposal as it's clear USA would never
abandon their south Korea bases, and why should they. Empire
doesn't retreat unless it has to. Of course Trump won't and can't
do it. But at least he's tried third approach including China in
solving this issue. It showed his greatness and willingness to
achieve progress, peacefully.
 
Nor did I say north Koreans are some jolly good fellows.
 
But let's not pretend, at least here, among adults, that north
Koreans are some isis type crazed motherfuckers for no reason,
when they've been under US gunsight for the last 70 years. You
said they're more like isis, or that you're concerned that they
could be. I'm replying to that. That only.
 
You mentioned "Soviet threat" that you grew up under. Well, for
north Koreans it's "US threat". You could have at least comforted
yourself by knowing Soviets don't want nuclear war as well, and
won't attack for no reason.
 
But can north Koreans comfort themselves with that fact that USA
won't attack them? Don't think so, since you waged war in their
country already once, still have troops there, and they know the
list of countries that were attacked and whose governments were
overthrown by USA.
 
So I'm saying, their fears, are fact based. Can't blame them for
wanting to have a deterrent. That doesn't make them "crazies"
who'd want to use it, before they got crushed themselves by USA.

 
 
So are they crazies? Imo, no.
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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
StephenJ <stephenj@flex.com>: Jun 08 05:17PM -0400

On 6/8/2017 1:33 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> :)
 
LOL .. good luck. :)
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 08 07:24PM -0400

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 11:01:35 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
 
>> Max
 
>It's pretty much the frying pan or the fire. But if the Republicans are smart, they'll cut themselves loose from Trump now instead of binding their own fortunes to him. Even if he survives this current thing, he'll be all the more damaged and vulnerable when the next scandal comes along. And since he has almost no foresight or self-control, it inevitably will, and soon.
 
>If Pence takes over, it's still a Republican administration for the next 3.5 years, and he'd be far more focused and competent in advancing his agenda. Not a good thing from my perspective, but at least Pence is as close to sane as a Christian far-right politician can be. Trump OTOH is just a loose cannon pointed in a different direction every day. The chaos he's brought hasn't been the crucible I hoped it might be.
 
i believe half of it is trump. and half of it is the hatred the
opposition has for him, including biased media, to the pt he's been
and will be nitpicked to death.
 
remember, he's not a lifetime polished and practiced politician
carefully measuring every word and action to the nth degree. so if
you're at attacking hyena, he definitely leaves some openings. but why
is the country full of attacking hyenas? we frankly aren't acting like
1 nation.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 08 07:13PM -0400


>UK voters seem to have buyer's remorse.
 
voters? or press?
 
> Now better stay in the EU and prevent economic decline?
>Max
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 08 07:18PM -0400

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:14:12 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
>On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 12:04:04 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/07/comey-testimony-no-obstruction-no-impeachment-jonathan-turley-column/102603050/
>I forgot to mark this 'OT'. Apologies.
 
"We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless ..."
 
bob
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 09 06:40AM -0700

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 10:58:35 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > 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.
 
Since the "new Stan" of 2014, he and Nadal are 1-1 on outdoor hard, 1-1 on indoor hard, and 1-1 on clay...so exactly even. That said, this was during a bad couple years for Nadal.
grif <griffin_230@hotmail.com>: Jun 08 11:34PM +0100

On 08/06/2017 23:22, Court_1 wrote:
 
>>> Thiem played well against a Djokovic who was a shadow of his former self and who gave up and tanked the third set. Nadal won't give Thiem that luxury. Betfair is correct. Nadal is the overwhelming favorite vs Thiem in the SF. for Thiem to win he has to ball bash to perfection and do it long enough to take three sets off Nadal on Chatrier. That's a big feat.
 
>> 1st Set of Thiem vs Djoker was extremely close. I don't think Djoker played badly so I give Thiem a lot of credit, he played at a very high level.
 
> I don't know what match you were watching if you can say that Djokovic didn't play badly. He was terrible. What happened to his incredible backhand? He was making bh error after bh error. He clearly tanked after losing the first set. Every commentator on The Tennis Channel agreed with that. It's a win for Thiem and that's all he should care about but saying Djokovic played well is silly.
 
Wilander:
"It will be interesting, he obviously has to solve a lot of things Novak. Clearly now he's as far away from his best that we've seen in seven or eight years."
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/814135/Novak-Djokovic-French-Open-loss-Dominic-Thiem-Mats-Wilander
 
Come on Clayray!
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 09 07:02AM -0700

He creates tons of opportunities by his ground strokes but end up losing the points volleying or hitting bad overheads.
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 09 09:07AM -0500

On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:02:22 -0700 (PDT), PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> wrote:
| He creates tons of opportunities by his ground strokes but end up losing the points volleying or hitting bad overheads.
 
 
He's hitting them in the wrong locations. Murray probably the greatest reader of shots.
 
FF
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 09 11:31PM +1000

On 9/06/2017 8:19 PM, TT wrote:
>> 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.
 
 
Only if you ejaculate, otherwise they are just as full.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 09 06:43AM -0700

On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 9:32:04 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> > Balls usually get lighter after they played with them a bit.
 
> Only if you ejaculate, otherwise they are just as full.
 
Knew these posts were coming :)
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