Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Friday, June 2, 2017

bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:30PM -0400

On Wed, 31 May 2017 07:53:11 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
 
>> Just giving an example of what appeal there is in these type of
>> shows/movies.
 
>We can start talking when you stop licking Whisper/Iceberg/Bob/StephenJ's ass.
 
he's disagreed with me often enough.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:31PM -0400

On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:35:33 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
 
>> That's almost everyone of any significance in rst. What's the
>> point of this group without those men?
 
>No. that is every troll on this newsgroup who deserves the firing squad. RST would be better off without them.
 
it was better off when you promised to leave and actually did it once.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:36PM -0400

On Wed, 31 May 2017 13:42:28 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
 
>> It's not possible to 'never' have a point. You're playing the man/being
>> racist.
 
>So you think Gracchus is a "man of colour" who hates white people?
 
IMO gracchus is unikely to be a "man of colour" and he has never shown
any animisoty towards white people.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:38PM -0400

On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
>no, you dont have to eat the whole apple to find it is rotten, one bite should tell you that! read any books?
 
i'm reading "perfume" right now. pretty good halfway through.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:39PM -0400

>the whole thing, because I'd want to know about the part the walker
>missed. But it would have some value.
 
>But never having seen it at all? Utterly useless.
 
i can tell you there are a handful of movies i wished i walked out.
 
bob
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Jun 02 08:41PM -0400

On Wed, 31 May 2017 19:58:35 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>> of you guys who watch a fraction of this. You can't comment on movies
>> you haven't seen, or if you do it's meaningless.
 
>His opinions should carry more weight regarding movies than anybody else on RST because he goes to see 100s of predominantly crap movies like Captain America, X-Men, Baywatch and Ghostbusters a year? What happened to quality over quantity? Would you say a person who drives a different low end car every day for a year knows more about a quality/luxury car than a person who drives a Mercedes C300 Coupe for the same period of time?
 
suicide squad, btw, i wished i would've walked out of after 15mins.
however, was obligated to finish it through.
 
>If this is a contest about who goes to see more "current" films in a year, then StephenJ wins but he's definitely not more of a movie buff overall than TT, Gracchus, Grif and myself. TT watches 2 movies a day it seems and he's all over the map with his tastes, watching everything from current day films to classics in every genre. I joke a lot with TT about some of his movie tastes but he definitely watches a wide variety of films, a much greater variety than StephenJ and I would say he's much more of a true cinephile than StephenJ is.
>I think Gracchus and I have been watching all kinds of films and have had an interest in films since we were kids. The quantity I was able to personally watch was limited due to school/work/life etc.
>So my point is that TT for sure doesn't watch a fraction of the movies StephenJ does and TT has a much broader scope. Gracchus, Grif and I have certainly watched many films over the years of all different genres and don't restrict ourselves to current day smut the way StephenJ seems to. So quantity is not greater than quality.
 
movies, like anything else, is a matter of opinion. to each their own.
i may disagree with another opinion, but he's entitled to it.
 
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 02 03:02PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 4:04:27 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:

> * if you liked "45" i bet you like this, but FWIW, if forced to choose
> among these two good films, i say 45 is slightly better, it just delves
> a little deeper.
 
 
Please! 45 Years was a dull and unremarkable "marriage under the microscope" movie. Gracchus and I discussed it at length before. There are many movies examining marriage which are a lot better, i.e. Dodsworth(1936) examines a long term marriage that isn't what it's cracked up to be.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 03 01:42AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 3.6.2017 klo 1:02:
>> among these two good films, i say 45 is slightly better, it just delves
>> a little deeper.
 
> Please! 45 Years was a dull and unremarkable "marriage under the microscope" movie. Gracchus and I discussed it at length before. There are many movies examining marriage which are a lot better, i.e. Dodsworth(1936) examines a long term marriage that isn't what it's cracked up to be.
 
Then why do critics adore 45 Years?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 02 04:26PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 6:42:51 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> > Please! 45 Years was a dull and unremarkable "marriage under the microscope" movie. Gracchus and I discussed it at length before. There are many movies examining marriage which are a lot better, i.e. Dodsworth(1936) examines a long term marriage that isn't what it's cracked up to be.
 
> Then why do critics adore 45 Years?
 
That's a good question but why do critics like many of the things they do? 45 Years is nothing special and there are much better films which examine long-term marriage. As I posted above, the movie Dodsworth (1936) does a much better job of showing a long-term marriage saddled with problems.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 02 04:46PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 4:26:06 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > Please! 45 Years was a dull and unremarkable "marriage under the microscope" movie. Gracchus and I discussed it at length before. There are many movies examining marriage which are a lot better, i.e. Dodsworth(1936) examines a long term marriage that isn't what it's cracked up to be.
 
> > Then why do critics adore 45 Years?
 
> That's a good question but why do critics like many of the things they do? 45 Years is nothing special and there are much better films which examine long-term marriage. As I posted above, the movie Dodsworth (1936) does a much better job of showing a long-term marriage saddled with problems.
 
Maybe because it was marketed as an art film and had two quality actors with respectable track records in the central roles. Critics watch the film with high expectations and cognitive dissonance does the rest. Any alternate theories?
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 03 03:23AM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 3.6.2017 klo 2:46:
 
>>>> Please! 45 Years was a dull and unremarkable "marriage under the microscope" movie. Gracchus and I discussed it at length before. There are many movies examining marriage which are a lot better, i.e. Dodsworth(1936) examines a long term marriage that isn't what it's cracked up to be.
 
>>> Then why do critics adore 45 Years?
 
>> That's a good question but why do critics like many of the things they do? 45 Years is nothing special and there are much better films which examine long-term marriage. As I posted above, the movie Dodsworth (1936) does a much better job of showing a long-term marriage saddled with problems.
 
I take your word on Dodsworth and will probably watch it at some
point... seems to pop up a lot on lists with 30s titles. So it's at
least supposed to be one of the important films of the 30s.
 
> Maybe because it was marketed as an art film and had two quality actors with respectable track records in the central roles. Critics watch the film with high expectations and cognitive dissonance does the rest. Any alternate theories?
 
Mass hypnosis? Sometimes I wonder if I saw the same film as critics did.
Often times uneventful film with LOOOONG shots seems to do the trick.
One example of such film would be Haneke's Cache (2005) and of course
Tarkovsky's Stalker which took the method to new spheres. Not to mention
Bela Tarr's all films. Sometimes it works and serves the storytelling
but more often doesn't, imo.
 
Not sure if 45 Years was that kind of film though. Just a shot in the dark.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 03 03:25AM +0300

TT kirjoitti 3.6.2017 klo 3:23:
> Bela Tarr's all films. Sometimes it works and serves the storytelling
> but more often doesn't, imo.
 
> Not sure if 45 Years was that kind of film though. Just a shot in the dark.
 
Or maybe I just wanted to namedrop? :)
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 02 03:09PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 2:49:25 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > raised the level of his game, and allowed him to find his
> > ranges.
 
> Saying Djokovic's level improved as the match went on isn't saying much from the bits I saw. Djokovic will go up in flames against Nadal. I don't know what you are watching. Heck, Djokovic is lucky Goffin got injured because Goffin may have been able to beat him.
 
Sadly, I think you are correct about Djok's current form. Well, I hope he gets back in form in time for Wim.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 02 03:28PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 6:09:15 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> Sadly, I think you are correct about Djok's current form.
 
Right? Unless a person is blind, how could that not be correct about Djokovic's current form and his chances against a confident and resurgent Nadal at the FO this year? IMO there can only be one outcome just as there was only going to be one outcome at the FO 2015 between Nadal and Djokovic when Nadal was awful and Djokovic was at his best.
 
 
> Well, I hope he gets back in form in time for Wim.
 
Not before Federer carves him a new ass at Wimbledon! :) Seriously, Djokovic won't be ready to win Wimbledon. He'll need more time to get it together. He's not only losing to big hitting players who can blow him off the court but he's being outmatched at the back of the court by nobodies. Clay and grass surfaces are his weakest. If he's going to find his best form again, it will be on a hc surface IMO.
Shakes <kvcshake@gmail.com>: Jun 02 03:39PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 3:28:47 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 6:09:15 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> > Sadly, I think you are correct about Djok's current form.
 
> Right? Unless a person is blind, how could that not be correct about Djokovic's current form and his chances against a confident and resurgent Nadal at the FO this year? IMO there can only be one outcome just as there was only going to be one outcome at the FO 2015 between Nadal and Djokovic when Nadal was awful and Djokovic was at his best.
 
Well, maybe Nadal will get nervous ?
 
 
> > Well, I hope he gets back in form in time for Wim.
 
Oops, ... *to* form ...
 
 
> Not before Federer carves him a new ass at Wimbledon! :)
 
Oh no, not the 8th title, please. :)
 
> Seriously, Djokovic won't be ready to win Wimbledon. He'll need more time to get it together. He's not only losing to big hitting players who can blow him off the court but he's being outmatched at the back of the court by nobodies. Clay and grass surfaces are his weakest. If he's going to find his best form again, it will be on a hc surface IMO.
 
HC is his best surface, yes, but so it is for many others. While he is not a natural on grass, the others, barring Fed & Nadal, are probably even worse on grass.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 02 04:10PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 6:39:26 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> Oh no, not the 8th title, please. :)
 
> > Seriously, Djokovic won't be ready to win Wimbledon. He'll need more time to get it together. He's not only losing to big hitting players who can blow him off the court but he's being outmatched at the back of the court by nobodies. Clay and grass surfaces are his weakest. If he's going to find his best form again, it will be on a hc surface IMO.
 
> HC is his best surface, yes, but so it is for many others. While he is not a natural on grass, the others, barring Fed & Nadal, are probably even worse on grass.
 
Yes 8th W for Fed would be awesome!
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 03 01:11AM +0200


> Oh no, not the 8th title, please. :)
 
>> Seriously, Djokovic won't be ready to win Wimbledon. He'll need more time to get it together. He's not only losing to big hitting players who can blow him off the court but he's being outmatched at the back of the court by nobodies. Clay and grass surfaces are his weakest. If he's going to find his best form again, it will be on a hc surface IMO.
 
> HC is his best surface, yes, but so it is for many others. While he is not a natural on grass, the others, barring Fed & Nadal, are probably even worse on grass.
 
He's definitely late, as I suggested, to return to his ideal (as
much as he can at this point of career) form for FO.

 
It seems he's only begun to sort out his head, and sorting out
your form comes afterwards. Luckily he's physically there almost
the entire time, more or less, so it shouldn't take months I
suppose.
 
But in order to have best possible chance for this FO, he should
have been there during IW, Miami where he was in Rome, form wise.
First signs of some coherent play were only shown in Rome. Of
course the consistency would trouble him afterwards.

 
 
This match against the German was the first one this year, where
he was down, but noticeably upped his game, played well in
patches and came through. It's one of the most important matches,
whekdr isn't that dumb when he discusses tennis.

 
But imo, he needs dozen matches like those vs delpo and Thiem in
Rome and these fighting mstches like vs Schwartzmann before he
restores himself. He's on 3 for now.
 
He'd be late with his form if it were any other slam, let alone FO
with resurgent Nadal.
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 02 04:31PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 6:39:26 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
 
> > Right? Unless a person is blind, how could that not be correct about Djokovic's current form and his chances against a confident and resurgent Nadal at the FO this year? IMO there can only be one outcome just as there was only going to be one outcome at the FO 2015 between Nadal and Djokovic when Nadal was awful and Djokovic was at his best.
 
> Well, maybe Nadal will get nervous ?
 
Seriously? Nadal will carve him up like he's a Thanksgiving turkey.
 

 
> > Not before Federer carves him a new ass at Wimbledon! :)
 
> Oh no, not the 8th title, please. :)
 
Gear up for it! :)
 

> > Seriously, Djokovic won't be ready to win Wimbledon. He'll need more time to get it together. He's not only losing to big hitting players who can blow him off the court but he's being outmatched at the back of the court by nobodies. Clay and grass surfaces are his weakest. If he's going to find his best form again, it will be on a hc surface IMO.
 
> HC is his best surface, yes, but so it is for many others. While he is not a natural on grass, the others, barring Fed & Nadal, are probably even worse on grass.
 
Nah. Players like Kyrgios or Zverev could take Djokovic out at Wimbledon. Heck, those players may be able to take out Federer if they are zoning. Even players like Raonic or Cilic could be dangerous at Wimbledon. Or how about Querrey? ;)
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 02 08:15PM -0400

>> raised the level of his game, and allowed him to find his
>> ranges.
 
> Saying Djokovic's level improved as the match went on isn't saying much from the bits I saw. Djokovic will go up in flames against Nadal. I don't know what you are watching. Heck, Djokovic is lucky Goffin got injured because Goffin may have been able to beat him.
 
Poor djokovic.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jun 02 08:17PM -0400


>> > Seriously, Djokovic won't be ready to win Wimbledon. He'll need more time to get it together. He's not only losing to big hitting players who can blow him off the court but he's being outmatched at the back of the court by nobodies. Clay and grass surfaces are his weakest. If he's going to find his best form again, it will be on a hc surface IMO.
 
>> HC is his best surface, yes, but so it is for many others. While he is not a natural on grass, the others, barring Fed & Nadal, are probably even worse on grass.
 
> Nah. Players like Kyrgios or Zverev could take Djokovic out at Wimbledon. Heck, those players may be able to take out Federer if they are zoning. Even players like Raonic or Cilic could be dangerous at Wimbledon. Or how about Querrey? ;)
 
Poor djokovic dead at 30. Somehow Federer got another life I at
35 but djokovic is dead forever at 30.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 03 03:24AM +0300

PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 3.6.2017 klo 3:17:
 
>> Nah. Players like Kyrgios or Zverev could take Djokovic out at Wimbledon. Heck, those players may be able to take out Federer if they are zoning. Even players like Raonic or Cilic could be dangerous at Wimbledon. Or how about Querrey? ;)
 
> Poor djokovic dead at 30. Somehow Federer got another life I at
> 35 but djokovic is dead forever at 30.
 
Yes it's terrible. :)
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail>: Jun 03 09:22AM +1000

On 3/06/2017 3:53 AM, stephenJ wrote:
> Netflix or HBO. Go to your theater and see it, in 3D.
 
> B++
 
> ---
 
 
 
Good to hear. A friend was seeing it on friday night at the cinema, not
sure if it was 3D? I'll see what he thinks.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jun 03 12:30AM +0200

https://youtu.be/UvpKksppJ40
 
 
My fellow Americans...
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 02 03:35PM -0700

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 2:40:45 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> 3) ...Thiem survives earlier rounds and suddenly finds himself as good as he actually is. (best bet?)
> +) Delpo (who will beat Murray)
 
> Where is Wawrinka? Did he lose?
 
He will. He's not winning this tournament unless Nadal gets injured.
Federer Fanatic <TheRelentlessTide@nospam.invalid>: Jun 02 05:02PM -0500

https://youtu.be/VVKHWSxlkkQ
 
 
for non German speakers only ;-)
 
FF
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