Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 20 updates in 6 topics

Thursday, June 15, 2017

*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/
*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/
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jun 15 02:06PM -0500

On 6/15/2017 9:22 AM, *skriptis wrote:
 
> 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.
 
In the past, I assumed that it was obvious that a 31 year old was
fundamentally inferior to a 26 year old. But with the modern nutrition
and training, I'm now no longer certain.
 
Beyond that, no, I don't think Nadal's current style of play is more
susceptible to Fed or the field than his more defensive game. IMO,
Nadal's reputation as a "grinder" and "defender" was never warranted,
I've always viewed him as power baseliner with plenty of winner-whipping
capability and execution.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 08:58PM +0200

NBA Hall-of-Famer Dennis Rodman has presented North Korea?s leader
Kim Jong-un with a series of gifts ? including Donald Trump?s
negotiating bible ?Art of the Deal? ? during his fifth visit to
the isolated Asian nation.
 
 
Imagine Kim gets so amazed with Trump's book and capitalism as a
whole so he changes the course of his country?
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jun 15 07:03PM

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 20:58:18 +0200, *skriptis wrote:
 
> Imagine Kim gets so amazed with Trump's book and capitalism as a
> whole so he changes the course of his country?
 
Why would a cult leader want to change course in this manner?
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 15 09:34AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:26:12 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> 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.
 
Monticello is privately owned. Private citizens are welcomed to put up whatever monuments they want on their property. If a state of local government decides it no longer wants to honor someone who fought for slavery (and that's what we're talking about--monuments that honor their effort...not educational installations), and honor something else, there shouldn't be a fuss about it IMO. The people leading communities today shouldn't be bound by decisions leaders made 40 years ago. Many facets of communities change over time (including their citizenry), and there's nothing wrong with them deciding to honor someone or something different.
bmoore@nyx.net: Jun 15 09:39AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:45:06 PM UTC-7, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> a similar reception after Rio.
 
> The Queen did visit Wimbledon during the 2010 Championships, and was
> introduced to him then - as well as Federer, Serena and many others.
 
OK, you would know better than I :-)
bmoore@nyx.net: Jun 15 09:58AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:01:03 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
 
> > You don't care if it's false? You have criticized other news as "fake". Why do you give this one (which actually *is* fake) as pass?
 
> Well if it's fake it's fake. I'm not the one faking it. So what do
> you want me to say?
 
It makes little sense to comment on it if it's not true. Note that your original link has been changed.

> It has not come from Trump's supporters but from those ego
> disliked him and wanted him humiliated, harmed, etc.
 
> So, same source.
 
No, certainly not the "same source".
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 07:11PM +0200


>> 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.
 
> Monticello is privately owned. Private citizens are welcomed to put up whatever monuments they want on their property. If a state of local government decides it no longer wants to honor someone who fought for slavery (and that's what we're talking about--monuments that honor their effort...not educational installations), and honor something else, there shouldn't be a fuss about it IMO. The people leading communities today shouldn't be bound by decisions leaders made 40 years ago. Many facets of communities change over time (including their citizenry), and there's nothing wrong with them deciding to honor someone or something different.
 
 
You're a wise man. Of course current communities aren't bound by
the decision of people who lived their previously. Nor they can't
be.
 
That's why if an entity wants to preserve its heritage it should
try to survive and oppose its own annihilation. It naturally
means be wary of mass immigration. Of course the newcomers won't
have the respect nor would they feel emotional link to your
history.
 
If the people in question lose the ability to impose themselves
and to preserve their biological majority, of course their
culture, and their statues will eventually go down.

 
Basic math.
 
 
Grachus is right, a Robert Lee statue is a Robert Lee statue.
Regardless being erected in 19th, or 20th century.

For someone from a foreign country, e.g. me, who's visiting South,
it's perfectly normal and expected to see that statue
there.
 
I guess mosques are something you'll be able to see in the new
South, whereas Robert Lee statue isn't.
 
That's cultural degradation.
 
 
 
--
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 15 10:37AM -0700


> > 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.
 
> Monticello is privately owned. Private citizens are welcomed to put up whatever monuments they want on their property. If a state of local government decides it no longer wants to honor someone who fought for slavery (and that's what we're talking about--monuments that honor their effort...not educational installations), and honor something else, there shouldn't be a fuss about it IMO.
 
Some "fought for slavery." A lot more fought for the Confederacy. Suggesting that they're necessarily synonymous is an example of the simplification that comes with historical revisionism. The forces driving the effort to knock these things down want the public to think in dichotomous terms. I see no reason why figures like Jefferson, Lee, etc. have to be either heroic icons or evil slave owners/defenders of slavery. For those troubled by their associations, better to add an educational marker acknowledging both aspects instead of regarding the monument as a shameful tribute and consigning it to some warehouse.
 
 
> The people leading communities today shouldn't be bound by decisions leaders made 40 years ago. Many facets of communities change over time (including their citizenry), and there's nothing wrong with them deciding to honor someone or something different.
 
I disagree. IMO there's something very wrong with going any way the wind blows. It fosters short-sightedness in future generations.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 11:03AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 7:37:56 PM UTC+2, Gracchus wrote:
> > > history's ambiguities.
 
> > Monticello is privately owned. Private citizens are welcomed to put up whatever monuments they want on their property. If a state of local government decides it no longer wants to honor someone who fought for slavery (and that's what we're talking about--monuments that honor their effort...not educational installations), and honor something else, there shouldn't be a fuss about it IMO.
 
> Some "fought for slavery." A lot more fought for the Confederacy. Suggesting that they're necessarily synonymous is an example of the simplification that comes with historical revisionism.
 
Some Wehrmacht generals fought for the Nazi holocaust. A lot more fought for Germany in WW2.
 
Your thoughts?
 
 
> The forces driving the effort to knock these things down want the public to think in dichotomous terms. I see no reason why figures like Jefferson, Lee, etc. have to be either heroic icons or evil sltave owners/defenders of slavery. For those troubled by their associations, better to add an educational marker acknowledging both aspects instead of regarding the monument as a shameful tribute and consigning it to some warehouse.
 
> > The people leading communities today shouldn't be bound by decisions leaders made 40 years ago. Many facets of communities change over time (including their citizenry), and there's nothing wrong with them deciding to honor someone or something different.
 
> I disagree. IMO there's something very wrong with going any way the wind blows. It fosters short-sightedness in future generations.
 
 
Max
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 15 11:23AM -0700


> > Some "fought for slavery." A lot more fought for the Confederacy. Suggesting that they're necessarily synonymous is an example of the simplification that comes with historical revisionism.
 
> Some Wehrmacht generals fought for the Nazi holocaust. A lot more fought for Germany in WW2.
 
> Your thoughts?
 
That your post is typical Max bullshit. If you have something to say, say it.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 11:30AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 8:23:53 PM UTC+2, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > Some Wehrmacht generals fought for the Nazi holocaust. A lot more fought for Germany in WW2.
 
> > Your thoughts?
 
> That your post is typical Max bullshit. If you have something to say, say it.
 
Robert E. Lee should have been executed right at the end of the Civil War.
 
Max
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 15 11:36AM -0700


> > > Your thoughts?
 
> > That your post is typical Max bullshit. If you have something to say, say it.
 
> Robert E. Lee should have been executed right at the end of the Civil War.
 
Thanks for being upfront. I wondered before if you were trying to make a retarded parallel. Now I know it for sure.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 15 11:56AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 1:37:56 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> Some "fought for slavery." A lot more fought for the Confederacy. Suggesting that they're necessarily synonymous is an example of the simplification that comes with historical revisionism. The forces driving the effort to knock these things down want the public to think in dichotomous terms. I see no reason why figures like Jefferson, Lee, etc. have to be either heroic icons or evil slave owners/defenders of slavery. For those troubled by their associations, better to add an educational marker acknowledging both aspects instead of regarding the monument as a shameful tribute and consigning it to some warehouse.
 
> > The people leading communities today shouldn't be bound by decisions leaders made 40 years ago. Many facets of communities change over time (including their citizenry), and there's nothing wrong with them deciding to honor someone or something different.
 
> I disagree. IMO there's something very wrong with going any way the wind blows. It fosters short-sightedness in future generations.
 
Pretending the civil war was about anything other than a desire to maintain slavery is the historical revisionism. The VP of the Confederacy made it clear: the Confederacy's "cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
 
Seems understandable if communities decide they want to use their core public areas to honor something or someone else.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 15 08:33PM +0200


>> > Your thoughts?
 
>> That your post is typical Max bullshit. If you have something to say, say it.
 
> Robert E. Lee should have been executed right at the end of the Civil War.
 
:)
 
How merciful were Russians then, you killed 20 million of their
people in their country, what should have been appropriate
punishment for you?
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 15 10:03AM -0700

On Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:34:27 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> http://m.dw.com/en/australian-pm-malcolm-turnbull-mocks-donald-tru
> mp-in-leaked-recording/a-39267716
> --
 
Ouch..wasn't the smartest thing to do though.
calimero377@gmx.de: Jun 15 09:53AM -0700

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/15/the-bogus-claim-that-a-map-of-crosshairs-by-sarah-palins-pac-incited-rep-gabby-giffordss-shooting/?utm_term=.181659e20a0e
 
 
You think the NYT just made an innocent mistake ...?
 
Lol
 
 
Max
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 15 09:12AM -0700

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/business/wells-fargo-loan-mortgage.html?_r=0
 
 
Useless parasites. They provide value only to the Grifter Class.
 
Public banking now!!! (C.U. Member here)
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 15 09:27AM -0700

lol
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