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

Thursday, June 22, 2017

soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 22 07:05AM -0700

Good points Max. There is nothing wrong with live and let live. Everyone should be free to follow their life style as long as they don't cause harm to each other.
 
The US Democrats are no different to US Republicans in that regard. They want to censor Internet, tap into people's phones and most of all help the lobbyists and their sponsors at the expense of the voters. There are no liberals in US politics.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 22 07:10AM -0700

It's a totally dumb argument, look how dumb your country looks for banning a book for decades just cos Hitler wrote it - best of all as I can pick Mein Campf at any high street book shop in London.
As I said who defines what is offensive, I find it offensive that Raja says Nadal is better than Sampras, should the police arrest him cos of it?
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 22 07:20AM -0700

That book and ideology caused mass genocide of a certain race/religion. It's should be banned at any cost.
 
Germany is right in censoring all things Nazi. Should the US uncensor KKK memorabilia?
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 22 07:23AM -0700

Me calling Stumpy a Tier 3 great doesn't cost 60 million Jewish lives
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 22 08:31AM -0700

You sound like a Nazi, wanting to ban and burn the books! How pathetic that you'd be scared of a book.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 22 08:45AM -0700

Better ban everything by Marx too then, as that book resulted in 70million+ dead and endless misery for millions that's still going on, but you'll excuse the one won't you.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 22 08:48AM -0700

60million!! No but it's still very offensive to me, so you should be arrested, put back in prison and banned from the net.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 23 01:05AM +1000

On 22/06/2017 11:49 AM, bob wrote:
 
> have you produced any of these videos?
 
> bob
 
Good chance. He's posting these links so he can get the hits up - very
low numbers.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 23 01:29AM +1000

A faulty kitchen appliance killed about 100 & caused this;
 
http://suissenews.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Grenfell-Tower-Fire-Death-toll-climbs-to-58.jpg
 
 
https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_24/2042836/170618-london-inside-grenfell-tower-police-handout-01-se-413p_4b7ab1ab4262c0532708864235ea5722.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg
 
 
 
One would think an airplane (weighing quite a bit more than a toaster)
hurtling into a building at 900 km/hr & with 40,000 liters of jet fuel
would be the equivalent of a billion toaster fires?
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com>: Jun 22 02:42PM +0100

On 21/06/2017 16:29, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>> Wimbledon has its own formula that emphasizes grass results. If Fed makes the semis at Halle the top 4 will be Murray, Djok, Rafa, Fed. If Fed wins Halle, seedings will be Murray, DJok, Fed, Rafa. If Fed loses today he's the 5th seed.
 
> Do ranking 3 & 4 follow certain rules in the draw to go with ranking 1&2? Or just random?
 
 
Apart from one in top half and one in bottom half, it's random. #3 could
be in either half, but #4 will be in opposite half.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 22 07:05AM -0700

> Apart from one in top half and one in bottom half, it's random. #3 could
be in either half, but #4 will be in opposite half.
 
Does this mean #4 can be in either half but #3 will be in opposite half? :)
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 22 06:02PM +0300

PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 22.6.2017 klo 17:05:
>> Apart from one in top half and one in bottom half, it's random. #3 could
> be in either half, but #4 will be in opposite half.
 
> Does this mean #4 can be in either half but #3 will be in opposite half? :)
 
Yes... 3 and 4 are always random except the other one is never random.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 22 05:21AM -0700

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 12:33:35 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 8:52:11 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
 
> > C1, if you watch Amelie, let us know what you think.
 
> A film about a quirky gamin will be irresistible to someone who liked "Chocolat."
 
Oh pipe down. :) Chocolat is a beloved movie and rightly so. It's charming/quaint.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 22 04:03PM +0300

bob kirjoitti 22.6.2017 klo 6:06:
 
>> Maybe I'll finally watch it. I haven't seen anything annoyingly quirky and whimsical since trying an episode of "The Durrells."
 
> laying 3:1 odds you think it's no better than so-so.
 
> bob
 
I have it at 6... but I have a feeling that with a second viewing it
might drop much lower...
 
I can't for the life of me remember the story (maybe there wasn't
much)... but I have a recollection that it is good looking visually and
different (quirky). I have to question my rating though since above all
I recall the film being rubbish with annoying characters.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 22 04:32PM +0300

TT kirjoitti 22.6.2017 klo 16:03:
> much)... but I have a recollection that it is good looking visually and
> different (quirky). I have to question my rating though since above all
> I recall the film being rubbish with annoying characters.
 
Watched some clips and still don't remember the story much. Yes, good
looking and 'different' but that shouldn't be enough for a 6. Definitely
not something I'd watch again and very French in rather annoying way. 5/10.
 
This of course means that Courtsie will now think it's the best film
ever. :-P
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 22 06:51AM -0700

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 9:32:55 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> not something I'd watch again and very French in rather annoying way. 5/10.
 
> This of course means that Courtsie will now think it's the best film
> ever. :-P
 
I'll probably like it because as I posted, I really liked the film A Very Long Engagement which was by the same director. Also, I think a lot of good films are made in France. For some reason you seem to have an aversion to many French films. Didn't you say that you didn't like Diabolique (1955) for example? For me that was an excellent film.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 22 05:40PM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 22.6.2017 klo 16:51:
 
>> This of course means that Courtsie will now think it's the best film
>> ever. :-P
 
> I'll probably like it because as I posted, I really liked the film A Very Long Engagement which was by the same director. Also, I think a lot of good films are made in France. For some reason you seem to have an aversion to many French films. Didn't you say that you didn't like Diabolique (1955) for example? For me that was an excellent film.
 
I liked Diabolique (6/10), although thought it wasn't quite the classic
it's supposed to be.
 
As for French films... I have watched recently-ish a lot and there are
good ones and bad ones but in general the French style feels often
designed to be intellectual (pseudo) and quirky for the sake of
quirkiness (which is exactly the problem with Amelie). The action films
are often overly hardcore/tough to the point of ridiculousness.
 
I would say the biggest problem with French cinema is that it tries so
hard to be something (endearing, hardcore, artistic, intellectual etc)
and the end result simply does not often come off as authentic - there's
only style but not good enough story or true depth of characters.
 
Try a few essential French New Wave films and see for yourself... lots
of it is all style over substance. Sometimes it works but more often
doesn't. The action films sometimes feel outright amateurish.
 
I have rated around 150 films which list the country and language as
France and French... My average rating for these films is 6,1 while my
average for all films is 6,45. So yes, French films often do let down.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 22 05:46PM +0300

TT kirjoitti 22.6.2017 klo 17:40:
 
> I have rated around 150 films which list the country and language as
> France and French... My average rating for these films is 6,1 while my
> average for all films is 6,45. So yes, French films often do let down.
 
 
...and this basically is the problem with Amelie too - it's ALL style
over substance. Hell, people here who praise it probably won't remember
the story either... that's why Carey has to see it again...
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 22 07:03AM -0700

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 3:26:02 AM UTC-7, Paul wrote:
 
> BULLSHIT.
 
> IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION:
 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc
 
 
Odd, they look exactly the same. :)
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 22 06:59AM -0700

Apparently the Queen is not pleased with Treeza either:
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40354313
 
 
Could'na happened to a nicer bunch.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jun 22 03:41AM -0700

Op donderdag 22 juni 2017 02:56:37 UTC+2 schreef bob:
 
> tennis for a change and fed had a bad day - maybe too tight, wanted it
> too much. but to say it was lucky isn't giving murray his fair due.
 
> bob
 
It was lucky :)
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jun 22 11:08PM +1000

On 22/06/2017 12:37 AM, *skriptis wrote:
 
> It's a different effort. E.g. him being British he didn't get full
> support vs Federer in Wimbledon final.
> He got in that couple of weeks later.
 
At Olympics it's not just tennis fans, so yes Murray would have got
massive support compared to Wimbledon where there are plenty of tennis &
Fed fans.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 22 04:45AM -0700

He needed a bigger body
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 22 03:04PM +0300

On 22.6.2017 14:45, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> He needed a bigger body
 
Poor Nishi. He's the behind-the-back-co-BOAT. With a serve he'd be the
Pete Best replacement.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jun 22 03:50AM -0700

Op donderdag 22 juni 2017 03:33:07 UTC+2 schreef Gracchus:
 
> > > i don't like the response, but that doesn't make him guilty.
 
> > LOL.
 
> Well bob is technically right. Nadal was guilty before the response.
 
:)))
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