Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 10 topics

Thursday, June 15, 2017

The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 15 06:04AM -0700

Are they are despicable as the Saudi-backed Hillary or Obama that were China's poodle, bombed without trial and caused Syria and Libya disasters?
joh <joshorst@gmail.com>: Jun 15 06:41AM -0700

Op donderdag 15 juni 2017 15:04:38 UTC+2 schreef The Iceberg:
> Are they are despicable as the Saudi-backed Hillary or Obama that were China's poodle, bombed without trial and caused Syria and Libya disasters?
 
Putin thinks so
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/392276-un-raqqa-syria-us-bombing/
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 06:44AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 3:04:38 PM UTC+2, The Iceberg wrote:
> Are they are despicable as the Saudi-backed Hillary or Obama that were China's poodle, bombed without trial and caused Syria and Libya disasters?
 
Hillary and Obama caused Syria and Libya disasters? What???
 
Lol, is Breitbart telling you that?
 
 
Max
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 15 07:17AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 1:36:09 AM UTC-7, Federer Fanatic wrote:
> See https://gomovies.to/film/the-putin-interviews-season-01-21051/watching.html?ep=666840
 
> FF
 
 
I look forward to watching this. Thanks for the link.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 02:51PM +0200

> See https://gomovies.to/film/the-putin-interviews-season-01-21051/watching.html?ep=666840
 
> FF
 
I still haven't seen, did you?
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 15 10:31AM -0500

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
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 09:00AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:31:08 PM UTC+2, Federer Fanatic wrote:
> have been as antagnostic and perhaps could have forged a better relationship with
> West.
 
> FF
 
What makes you think he thought that?
 
 
Max
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 15 11:34AM -0400

http://m.dw.com/en/australian-pm-malcolm-turnbull-mocks-donald-tru
mp-in-leaked-recording/a-39267716
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 15 06:43PM +0300

On 15.6.2017 18:34, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> http://m.dw.com/en/australian-pm-malcolm-turnbull-mocks-donald-tru
> mp-in-leaked-recording/a-39267716
 
Trump is the laughing stock among his peers. He knows it too, that's why
the poor thing resorts to the only thing he has going for him: cheap
bullying.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 08:59AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:34:27 PM UTC+2, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
 
Deutsche Welle?
I mean, really???
 
They are called "Radio Peking" here in Germany for a reason ...
 
 
Max
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 03:01PM +0200

> As an aside, I disagree with the trend of razing Confederate statues and monuments, which IMO is essentially a type of cultural revisionism.
 
> I agree for any monument erected before 1900. The problem is most were put up in the 1960s in a clear response to the civil rights act. I mean, why would Arizona even have confederate memorials in the first place?
 
You're being sneaky here. ;)
At first your proposal looks sensible, but.
 
What's the difference in motivation and attitudes of those who
erected and supported those monuments in 1890s vs those who did
it in the 1960s?
 
The guys in the 19th century were less "racist"? Or it is the same
people and same chain of events? ;)
 
 
Bottom line, even those erected in the 1960s are now over half a
century old.
If they've been there that long, it is cultural revisionism to
remove them now.
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 15 08:12AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 9:30:02 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> century old.
> If they've been there that long, it is cultural revisionism to
> remove them now.
 
It was cultural reasons that put them there in the 1960s, so no reason to rule out cultural reasons for taking them down.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 15 08:26AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 6:30:02 AM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> century old.
> If they've been there that long, it is cultural revisionism to
> remove them now.
 
Attitudes and motivations change, but the historical figures depicted still did what they did back then and that doesn't change. A statue of Robert E. Lee is a statue of Robert E. Lee no matter when it was erected. I'd say there's a problem only if the intent of the statue/monument is explicitly racist. For example, a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest holding a burning cross with the inscription, "God Bless the KKK." But how many of those statues are like that?
 
If any changes are to be made, far better to provide educational context than try to sweep history under the rug by demonizing anyone associated with the Confederacy or slavery in general. For instance, when you visit Monticello, the guides don't pretend that Thomas Jefferson never had slaves. On the contrary, tours include the slave quarters and guides talk about the Hemings family. Yet there are people who would prefer the extreme opposite reaction of knocking down all statues of and monuments to even presidents like Jefferson and Washington because they owned slaves. And what good does that do? IMO it's a sensible solution only to simpletons who can't deal with the ambiguity of history.
history's ambiguities.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 15 08:28AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 8:26:12 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:

> the ambiguity of history.
> history's ambiguities.
 
Sorry for the redundancy. Sloppy edit. :)
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 15 10:24AM -0500

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 21:28:07 +1000, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> wrote:
| On 15/06/2017 2:59 AM, Federer Fanatic wrote:
|> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 07:35:10 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com> wrote:
|> | On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 4:33:31 AM UTC-7, Federer Fanatic wrote:
|> |> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:36:24 -0700 (PDT), Carey wrote:
|> |> | On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 3:22:28 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
|> |> |> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
|> |> |> > I've been watching some of Rios's matches online, as I wasn't paying attention much when he was playing.
|> |> |> > The guy was incredible! Can you imagine Rios-Mecir? Two of the most magical players ever, and maybe
|> |> |> > the two best who didn't win a Major.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> Lol ! Did you read my post yesterday about how Rios was like Mecir in some ways ?
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> | No, I didn't see that particular one, but it was another of your posts including Rios that jogged my memory.
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> Early Fed versus Rios: https://youtu.be/aObTLmd8Y0E
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> FF
|> |
|> |
|> | Good find, FF. Tx
|>
|> Your welcome.
|>
|>
|
|
|
| It's 'you're'.
|
| Gracchus
|
|
 
Haha....true he would likely say that and obviously be correct ;-)
 
FF
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 04:30PM +0200


>> ...which makes 35-year-old Fed's AO Final win over N even more impressive.
 
> It certainly does. That was one unforgettable slam. For Fedfuckers it
> would have been pure nirvana.
 
 
True fedfuckers didn't watch that match. :)
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 15 08:13AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:01:03 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
 
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
What a great match, old Fed beating the shit out of peak kneedal, great to watch the great man!
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 15 08:21AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 8:13:18 AM UTC-7, Guypers wrote:

> What a great match, old Fed beating the shit out of peak kneedal, great to watch the great man!
 
 
You betcha, and he won it *firing winners*. Real tennis.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 15 06:06AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 8:01:03 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
 
> So just say it. The only difference is, you being pleased with the
> Nadal that's less dangerous to Federer.
> --
 
Less dangerous to current Federer with an improved BH attack. This Nadal probably would've still beaten prior Federer, so I give credit to Fed for the turnaround. Nadal's tweaks aren't the primary reason for it like Bob suggests.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 04:22PM +0200


>> So just say it. The only difference is, you being pleased with the
>> Nadal that's less dangerous to Federer.
 
> How is this current Nadal less dangerous to anyone?
 
 
I meant less dangerous to Federer, no?
But it applies to everyone really.
 
He can't defend as much, and if he loses confidence in his new
style during a particular match for whatever reason, or if he has
a bad serving day, he's toast.
 
Didn't TT feared Rafa's nerves the most before FO final?
 
 
In the old days he had far more options of grinding out such
matches, ultimately frustrating opponents and prevailing.

 
Do you believe he's equally likely to come through a bad day in
the office, as he was, while younger? I don't.
 
Not to mention such bad days in the office are more likely now.
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 04:29PM +0200

>> Nadal that's less dangerous to Federer.
>> --
 
> Less dangerous to current Federer with an improved BH attack. This Nadal probably would've still beaten prior Federer, so I give credit to Fed for the turnaround. Nadal's tweaks aren't the primary reason for it like Bob suggests.
 
 
I'd say this
 
1. Long break helped Federer and mostly not losing to Nadal for
couple of years Federer growing some balls. Big thing. He forgot
how to lose.
 
2. Nadal's confidence not at all time high, due to his bad results
in the last 3 years and also himself unfamiliar how'd his new
style work out. Ffs this AO was his first slam semi since 2014.
He was out big time until recently.
 
3. Technical issue. Federer's new backhand vs Nadal's flatter
forehand and more aggressive shots worked for Federer and will
continue to do so.
 
Next time they meet, #2 is out of the picture so should be fun.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 15 04:52PM +0300

On 15.6.2017 13:59, Whisper wrote:
 
>> It actually makes sense... why should hard court have two slams when
>> clay and grass have only one.
 
> You just said it was bullshit? Make your mind up.
 
He did. :)
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 06:46AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 1:32:13 PM UTC+2, 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.
 
She looks like a beautiful woman in her late 30s.
 
 
Max
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 15 06:12AM -0700

Lol
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jun 15 06:06AM -0700

Haas was always Fed's best pal as long as Fed kept paying him off like at the FO that time!
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