Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

Sunday, June 18, 2017

TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 18 05:03PM -0400

On 6/18/2017 11:40 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Go to Bestbuy. Only a hardwire IT guy can guide you right.
 
Correction. A hardwire TT guy here can guide you.
He's an expert on everything! :)
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 18 02:39PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 4:08:07 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
> the system I'm writing this on has been problematic with the latest linux
> kernels and I've had to work around it for months (running older kernels
> or manually deleting the latest firmware).
 
Absolutely!
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 02:50PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:08:07 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> the system I'm writing this on has been problematic with the latest linux
> kernels and I've had to work around it for months (running older kernels
> or manually deleting the latest firmware).
 
 
...and that's just the kind of stuff that would make my head explode. :)
not a techie or a gear guy in general (except for a few hand tools).
undecided <costasz@gmail.com>: Jun 18 03:30PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> Needs to have a dvd player, and I want to use a non- Windows, non-Mac OS, probably a form of
> Ubuntu. Looking for a sturdy, non-disposable unit, with a nice screen.
> Suggestions welcome. Thx.
 
I personally like the Dell XPS line...None of them have DVD anymore but a USB Slim DVD external drive works fine. I am pretty sure you can install Ubuntu on them.
 
Dell even has a page for this:
http://www.dell.com/support/article/us/en/04/SLN151664/how-to-install-ubuntu-linux-on-your-dell-pc?lang=EN
 
This is the XPS I am thinking of. Tiny, well made.
 
https://slickdeals.net/f/10220848-dell-xps-12-9250-detachable-12-5-quot-4k-ips-touch-m5-6y54-8gb-ram-256gb-ssd-thunderbolt-3-wifi-ac-win10h-650-with-f-s?src=SiteSearchV2_SearchBarV2Algo1
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 18 08:32PM -0400

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 08:40:05 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
 
>Go to Bestbuy. Only a hardwire IT guy can guide you right. And there are not many here. I am definitely not the right person.
 
i doubt best buy will sell a non windows, non mac machine. try the
good guys or newegg.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 18 08:35PM -0400

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 09:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 
>> Suggestions welcome. Thx.
 
>> You can get a Windows system then virtualize the O/S you want or even install it and make it dual boot.
 
>Unless there is a good reason for it, I'd much prefer to have no Micro$oft or Apple stuff on it, at all.
 
technical reason or making a political statement?
i don't buy anything apple btw.
 
think there are lots of google chormebooks out there, perhaps some
others laptops using chrome or linux.
 
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 03:15PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 10:32:01 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> solely for comedic purpose. Not much different in tone from other films
> where Robert De Niro plays the father...
> My rating is 5... 6 at best.
 
I have the opposite reaction with respect to these films. I could hardly sit through Winter's Bone and I found Silver Linings Playbook entertaining. I thought Winter's Bone DULL, extremely slow and I didn't care about any characters or their plights which was the fault of the script and direction. It felt like I was watching some bad Lifetime tv movie. I have no idea how that movie was rated so highly and I could never recommend it to anybody. A complete snoozefest. Furthermore Lawrence's acting in it was nothing special IMO. She was much better in Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle IMO. I would rate Winter's Bone a 5 (if that) and SLP a 7.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 03:34PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:21:20 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
 
> What's there to hate? Ok, we know that C1's strength is is not
> atmosphere films and on top of that this films is as far as it can get
> from costume dramas with rich superficials... so there's that.
 
If ever you have made a false statement, it is this one above. I do NOT dislike atmospheric films. I could give you a list of many atmospheric films I liked. The first two that pop into my head are The Revenant and Shutter Island. The storyline in Winter's Bone seemed promising enough but it didn't deliver in any way. It was such an uneventful movie and dragged so much it was like torture to watch the whole thing.
 
The fact that it depicts a bunch of hillbillies has nothing to do with my dislike of the film. I disliked the film because it was painfully slow. Deliverance ( a film featuring hillbillies) was a masterpiece compared to WB.

 
> But yes, the ONLY flaw
 
The entire movie was one big flaw. Nothing redeeming about it for me.
 

> However, what the film perhaps suffered in credibility was amply
> compensated with atmosphere...
 
Atmosphere wasn't enough to save that piece of tripe. Honestly, I thought the movie was awful in every way.

> Yeah, I think Hustle is better than this one.
 
> It's easy to spot a bad-mediocre comedy for the last decades: It has De
> Niro in it.
 
De Niro wasn't bad at all in SLP, he's quite adept at comedy IMO but Lawrence and Cooper were the main attractions. I thought it was a cute and humorous in parts movie.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 03:40PM -0700

Speaking of atmospheric movies, I watched another Mario Bava film--"Kill, Baby Kill (1966.)
 
I liked it a lot. It's like entering the stylized world of Mario Bava with spectacular use of lush color, shadows, atmospheric shots of spiral staircases in a decaying old villa and shots of a ghostly child appearing and disappearing. This is how a Gothic horror is done well with a slow burn ghost story.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 03:48PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Yes, probably both of those factors at work. Lots of icky rural mountain folk, none of them beautiful, "nothing happens."
 
Nothing does happen! That's the problem.

 
> > It's easy to spot a bad-mediocre comedy for the last decades: It has De
> > Niro in it.
 
> De Niro is determined to destroy his early career legacy, and doing a great job of it. His characters used to feel larger than life. Now he's always some hapless shmoe.
 
De Niro isn't destroying his career. He could make a bad movie each day for the rest of his life and he would be considered an A+ actor. He makes a lot of mediocre films for sure but he must have his reasons for doing them, i.e. workaholic, has an expensive lifestyle and needs the money, etc. Doesn't he have six kids or something? I think we discussed this before. Maybe he has a gambling addiction? Who knows.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 18 04:30PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 3:48:51 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:47:02 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > Yes, probably both of those factors at work. Lots of icky rural mountain folk, none of them beautiful, "nothing happens."
 
> Nothing does happen! That's the problem.
 
:))
 
> > > Niro in it.

> > De Niro is determined to destroy his early career legacy, and doing a great job of it. His characters used to feel larger than life. Now he's always some hapless shmoe.

> De Niro isn't destroying his career. He could make a bad movie each day for the rest of his life and he would be considered an A+ actor.
 
I said he was destroying his career legacy, not his career. And I absolutely think doing a long string of crap films does lasting damage to one's rep. Don't you think that happened with Brando? His early performances are still valued, but as a whole he is remembered as an uneven actor who did most of his best work quite early in his career. De Niro is similar in that he's not just appearing in a lot of mediocre to poor movies, but giving weak "walk through" performances too.
 
> He makes a lot of mediocre films for sure but he must have his reasons for doing them, i.e. workaholic, has an expensive lifestyle and needs the money, etc. Doesn't he have six kids or something? I think we discussed this before. Maybe he has a gambling addiction? Who knows.
 
Oh, I'm sure he has his reasons for grabbing the quick money, and those reasons must matter more to him than how the public will remember Robert De Niro after he's gone.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 05:23PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 7:30:29 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > De Niro isn't destroying his career. He could make a bad movie each day for the rest of his life and he would be considered an A+ actor.
 
> I said he was destroying his career legacy, not his career. And I absolutely think doing a long string of crap films does lasting damage to one's rep. Don't you think that happened with Brando? His early performances are still valued, but as a whole he is remembered as an uneven actor who did most of his best work quite early in his career. De Niro is similar in that he's not just appearing in a lot of mediocre to poor movies, but giving weak "walk through" performances too.
 
I'm not so sure De Niro is destroying his career legacy at this stage of the game. I think when most people think about De Niro they will think about his great work earlier on in his career. He makes a lot of crap these days but he still puts in the odd good performance. He was fine in American Hustle, Silver Linings Playbook, Joy, etc. He was good in Limitless. At least he has the ability to act unlike many actors today in films who don't have that ability at all. De Niro will always be an A+ list actor and I don't really think he can damage his legacy at this point. It's like can Federer damage his legacy if he never wins another match?
 

> Oh, I'm sure he has his reasons for grabbing the quick money, and those reasons must matter more to him than how the public will remember Robert De Niro after he's gone.
 
I think the overall public perception of him as an actor will always be high. Again. compare him with most of the wooden drone actors working today.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 19 03:29AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 19.6.2017 klo 1:15:
>> where Robert De Niro plays the father...
>> My rating is 5... 6 at best.
 
> I have the opposite reaction with respect to these films. I could hardly sit through Winter's Bone and I found Silver Linings Playbook entertaining. I thought Winter's Bone DULL, extremely slow and I didn't care about any characters or their plights which was the fault of the script and direction. It felt like I was watching some bad Lifetime tv movie. I have no idea how that movie was rated so highly and I could never recommend it to anybody. A complete snoozefest. Furthermore Lawrence's acting in it was nothing special IMO. She was much better in Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle IMO. I would rate Winter's Bone a 5 (if that) and SLP a 7.
 
(what the hell is wrong with my newsreader quotation formatting?)
 
Anyway... now that Gracchus - an expert on Hillbillies - absolved
Winter's Bone on credibility...I'm going to give it a 9/10. ;-P
 
I think it was simply quite exceptional on bleak atmosphere.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 19 03:30AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 19.6.2017 klo 1:40:
> Speaking of atmospheric movies, I watched another Mario Bava film--"Kill, Baby Kill (1966.)
 
> I liked it a lot. It's like entering the stylized world of Mario Bava with spectacular use of lush color, shadows, atmospheric shots of spiral staircases in a decaying old villa and shots of a ghostly child appearing and disappearing. This is how a Gothic horror is done well with a slow burn ghost story.
 
Well at least the name sounds quite promising...
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 05:35PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 8:29:40 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> Anyway... now that Gracchus - an expert on Hillbillies - absolved
> Winter's Bone on credibility...I'm going to give it a 9/10. ;-P
 
> I think it was simply quite exceptional on bleak atmosphere.
 
What good is exceptional bleak atmosphere without good direction or an engaging script? Honestly, I couldn't watch that drab movie again for all the tea in China.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 18 02:07PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 10:30:34 AM UTC-7, Guypers wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 1:27:45 PM UTC-4, soccerfan777 wrote:
 
> > India used to good in Soccer and Tennis as well. Time to get rid of Cricket and get into Field Hockey, Soccer, Tennis or <insert any other sport here>
 
> No, pukis are better cricket players, better fast bowling, Indian boweling is shit!
 
Don't know about Pak being better cricket players as of current standing, but I do agree that Pakistan have always had better bowlers than India. Mainly thanks to Imran Khan.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 19 12:06AM +0200

> India lose to Pakistan in the Champions Trophy final by a whopping 180 runs. Major ass whooping.... bwhahahahahahaha... It was watched by record number of Indians.
 
> India has invested too much into this garbage sport. Too many overpaid, ungrateful, mediocre talent divas out there. We were so good in field hockey before the 80s. Ever since we won the cricket world cup in 1983 we have forgotten all sports and just focused on cricket.
 
> India used to good in Soccer and Tennis as well. Time to get rid of Cricket and get into Field Hockey, Soccer, Tennis or <insert any other sport here>
 
India should probably have more national teams, similarly to UK
where England, Wales, Ireland and Ireland compete separately in
football etc.
 
In India people don't even speak the same language. How can their
athletes even communicate?
 
A national team representing over billion people that speak
different languages? Sounds like a joke.
 
Chineese are at least monocultural nation and vast majority of
them speak the same language.
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Jun 18 03:52PM -0700

Man...wtf is wrong with you. We Indians are all Indians. Doesn't matter what culture we follow what language we speak or what religion we follow or not follow.
 
We can communicate with each other we mingle with each other and celebrate each other festivals and weddings. The unity in diversity is what makes Indians great and unique among other nations.
 
We have like 100 languages and 5000 dialects a d we have so many religions in India.
 
*dipshit, you come from a nation Yugoslavia which split into many nations in a brutal fashion. I don't expect dipshits like you to understand the concept and mingling with other cultures. You are by far the most backward thinking scumbags i have ever seen. It's people like who give rise to fascists and dictators who know the concept of divide and conquer and abuse it.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 18 05:20PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 10:27:45 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:
> India lose to Pakistan in the Champions Trophy final by a whopping 180 runs. Major ass whooping.... bwhahahahahahaha... It was watched by record number of Indians.
 
> India has invested too much into this garbage sport. Too many overpaid, ungrateful, mediocre talent divas out there. We were so good in field hockey before the 80s. Ever since we won the cricket world cup in 1983 we have forgotten all sports and just focused on cricket.
 
> India used to good in Soccer and Tennis as well. Time to get rid of Cricket and get into Field Hockey, Soccer, Tennis or <insert any other sport here>
 
This is the second time I've seen Kohli crack under pressure. He also didn't perform well in the last World Cup SF against Australia.
 
First off, having won the toss, he should've chosen to bat first.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 04:31PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 10:13:32 AM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
 
> I have read you post, I can see the your theory of BOAT is absolute crap and you think you get a gibberish response that is because your definition of BOAT is gibberish. Your BOAT theory is like Titanic it sinks more than 100 years ago.
 
+1. The whole BOAT theory is pure nonsense. Who cares. All that matters is which players are the greatest overall based on the accomplishments the tennis world deems as most important, i.e. slams, #1 stats. That's it. It's simple.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 18 04:58PM -0700

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 9:31:22 AM UTC+10, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 10:13:32 AM UTC-4, John Liang wrote:
 
> > I have read you post, I can see the your theory of BOAT is absolute crap and you think you get a gibberish response that is because your definition of BOAT is gibberish. Your BOAT theory is like Titanic it sinks more than 100 years ago.
 
> +1. The whole BOAT theory is pure nonsense. Who cares. All that matters is which players are the greatest overall based on the accomplishments the tennis world deems as most important, i.e. slams, #1 stats. That's it. It's simple.
 
Yes. if Nadal manages to win more slam than Federer then it does not matter what the argument is that he is a greater player than Federer. Getting a better mix of slam like winning more W and on HC will just solidify his claim if he manage to win more slam than Federer.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jun 19 12:10AM +0300

On 18.6.2017 23:22, John Liang wrote:
 
>>> .mikko
 
>> Agreed. Maybe the most resoundingly stupid on-tennis topic at RST, and that's saying someting.
 
> If Nadal was considered as BOAT then someone has to explain why he had 2 wins out of 5 Wimbledon finals in his career, 3 wins from 7 slam finals on hard court against Federer,Djokovic and Wawrinka. So 5 wins out of 12 slam finals on non clay court surface qualified him as BOAT on non clay court surface, that is les than 50% success rate, not to mention lacking of success in defending any of the non clay court titles, a BOAT should have done a lot better than that.
 
Even in Rafa's 2 best years, 2010 and 2013, he had some embarrassing
losses. In 2010 a slew of HC losses in the Asian swing + the loss to the
arch rival at WTF. The losses at Cincy to ... Baghditis and another to
... Feli aren't helping his case either. NQ.
 
2013 is Rafa's best bet for BOATing. A 91 win% is up there but falls
short against Fed's and Djoks' best. There's another loss to Djok at WTF
and of course the Darcis loss. That's a strict violation of
 
BOAT Rule #1: A BOAT must not suck.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 02:52PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:10:28 PM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
 
> BOAT Rule #1: A BOAT must not suck. <
 
 
:)
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jun 18 04:39PM -0700

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 2:23:23 AM UTC+10, Carey wrote:
 
> > > Agreed. Maybe the most resoundingly stupid on-tennis topic at RST, and that's saying someting.
 
> > The problem is not the concept/arguing itself but totally doubtless single-minded opinions which do not accept that <another name out of their comfort zone> might also have a valid case.
 
> ... which is why I came up with FOAT, favorites of all time. Little interest shown, alas. ;)
 
Nadal would not be whisperbob's FOAT, they purely invented the term BOAT against one player Federer. Deep in their mind they tried to boost up Nadal as BOAT in this era to suit their argument that Federer can't be GOAT if he is not BOAT in his era, this is what it is all about. But what draw these three player close in competition is Nadal's dominance on clay otherwise his 5 wins in 12 finals on grass/HC does not hold up well against Federer's 17 out 23 and Djoker's 11 out of 16. It is a long stretch to consider Nadal as BOAT on non clay court surface even in this era.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 04:04PM -0700

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 11:42:30 AM UTC-4, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Figures that a chick like Court1 would love them
> Nothing wrong with that they have some great memorable and shallow songs.
 
> A friend of mine summed up The Cars best. They are an easy band to get in and am easy band to get out as well ;)
 
Are you the self-appointed arbiter of all things good in music? Did somebody make you RST Music Hall Monitor?
 
You are just one opinion here. I liked The Cars when I was a kid and still like and listen to their cds from time to time. Their original The Cars album was fantastic IMO. You think because you like Led Zeppelin that that gives you the right to tell other people what music is good? Music tastes are as varied as can be.
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