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

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 21 10:54AM -0700

Kid is very impressive. great lefty serve, beautiful one-handed backhand, great shotmaker, not overawed by the moment at all. Return of serve needs some work is all.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 21 01:02PM -0400

On 6/21/2017 1:27 AM, jdeluise wrote:
> the only *possible* explanation is controlled demolition remember) would
> outweigh circumstantial evidence though, right? Why bring up
> circumstantial evidence if you claim to have iron-clad scientific proof?
 
You are correct. It wasn't necessary. I shouldn't have brought it up.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 21 01:05PM -0400

On 6/20/2017 8:14 PM, Guypers wrote:
>> Or that we could know for a FACT that 1. was not true and
>> we don't have hard evidence for 2. but lots of circumstantial evidence?
 
> Are you a Puki??
 
No I am a person who greatly admires the skills of someone who wins
many rst 'Hops' contests but doesn't know dick all about what happened
on 9/11.
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jun 21 10:09AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 1:06:30 PM UTC-4, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> No I am a person who greatly admires the skills of someone who wins
> many rst 'Hops' contests but doesn't know dick all about what happened
> on 9/11.
 
Do you? Can you discuss the Kennedy assassination? grassy knoll CIA operative or was it LBJ"s bro??
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 10:12AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 5:12:35 AM UTC-7, Brian W Lawrence wrote:

> damage, from an initiating event, from element to element, eventually
> resulting in the collapse of an entire structure, or a
> disproportionately large part of it." <
 
 
The quote above is pure hand-waving, and has no explanatory power whatsoever.
 
 
TennisGuy, thanks for the links you've provided.
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 21 01:52PM -0400

On 6/20/2017 10:19 PM, bob wrote:
 
> in a more or less symmetrical way straight down. that seems to be the
> root of the issue for you, you've repeated it many many times for yrs
> now.
 
We aren't talking about "buildings" now, just WTC7.
There is a smoking gun that I haven't mentioned yet about WTC7
that allowed this perfect symmetrical collapse.
 
It is the dead giveaway that proves that explosives were used
to bring down the building.
 
WTC7 was in free fall for more than 3 seconds.
This means that all of the core columns on *eight floors* were cut
simultaneously.
This could not have happened due to fires.
Fires can't severe all core columns on eight floors
at precisely the same split second.
 
 
> do you think gravity tends to pull concrete and steel sideways?
 
> bob
 
Good question bob. I am glad you asked it.
 
Gravity tends to pull concrete and steel straight down.
I was taught this in school and confirmed that it is correct
by observation.
 
Something very strange happened on 9/11 though.
Steel beam sections weighing more than 5 tons
fell sideways!
 
They didn't just fall a few feet sideways though.
They didn't fall 10, or 20 feet sideways, away from the buildings.
They didn't fall, 50, 60 or 75 feet sideways, away from the buildings
as one might expect heavy steel beams to fall.
 
They didn't fall 100, or 200 feet sideways, away from the buildings
again, as one might expect heavy steel beams to fall.
 
Nor did they fall 300 or 400 feet sideways.
 
Some beams fell more than 500 feet sideways,
due to gravity!
 
Fortunately we have photographic proof of this.
It is not based on hearsay.
 
I have a collection of rock solid evidence proving that
9/11 was an inside job.
This belongs to that collection. :)
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jun 21 01:53PM -0400

On 6/21/2017 1:12 PM, Carey wrote:
 
> The quote above is pure hand-waving, and has no explanatory power whatsoever.
 
> TennisGuy, thanks for the links you've provided.
 
You're welcome! :)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 09:42AM -0700

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 11:53:29 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > :(
 
> So now DDL is the acting GOAT *and* BOAT! :)))
 
> Now isn't that so much better than hanging around into old age doing crap roles like the once-great "Bobby" De Niro?
 
DDL is the Bjorn Borg of the entertainment world. Go out on top and forever be an enigma.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 09:43AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:17:56 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> > don't worry this is all just method acting, his next film is about an actor that quits acting.
 
> Could be a marketing stunt to promote his latest film...
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5776858/reference
 
No! DDL is the last person to do hokey marketing like that. If you look up the definition of fame whore you won't see DDL's picture.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 21 08:06PM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 21.6.2017 klo 19:43:
 
>> Could be a marketing stunt to promote his latest film...
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5776858/reference
 
> No! DDL is the last person to do hokey marketing like that. If you look up the definition of fame whore you won't see DDL's picture.
 
Wonder who he did have to give blowjobs to get those Oscars?
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 10:35AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 1:06:49 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> >> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5776858/reference
 
> > No! DDL is the last person to do hokey marketing like that. If you look up the definition of fame whore you won't see DDL's picture.
 
> Wonder who he did have to give blowjobs to get those Oscars?
 
If he isn't a worthy Oscar winner I don't know who is.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 21 10:43AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:36:07 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > > No! DDL is the last person to do hokey marketing like that. If you look up the definition of fame whore you won't see DDL's picture.
 
> > Wonder who he did have to give blowjobs to get those Oscars?
 
> If he isn't a worthy Oscar winner I don't know who is.
 
Leo? ;)
SliceAndDice <vishalkn@gmail.com>: Jun 21 10:52AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 1:43:50 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > > Wonder who he did have to give blowjobs to get those Oscars?
 
> > If he isn't a worthy Oscar winner I don't know who is.
 
> Leo? ;)
 
**puke**
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 21 09:08AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 8:57:31 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> :)
 
> Unfortunately the list appears to be in reverse order though, so Lesbos
> are actually on 100th spot, which still earns a lot of street cred.
 
On first glance, I've seen 39 of these. Nice to see "The Tingler" on there! I love that film. Glorious schlock.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 09:35AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 11:42:07 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
 
> And the hell is 'Amelie' grinning there.
 
I haven't seen Amelie yet but I watched the French foreign language film A Very Long Engagement (2004) last night which is by the same director who directed Amelie-Jean-Pierre Jeunet and I thought it was great. A visually stunning film which is part mystery, part war film, part adventure and part romance. It shows the horrors of war at one end of the spectrum and the beauty of the French countryside at the other end of the spectrum and it has a whimsical side with some quirky Tim Burton-like characters. Some areas of the plot seen convoluted or unconvincing/unrealistic/irrational(i.e. the main character's inability to believe her fiancé is dead) but you are so caught up in the journey that some questions about the plot don't matter much. The film almost seems at times like a fairy-tale or fantasy set against the backdrop of WWI.
 
Overall it's a delightful story and directed by a talented director. I definitely have to watch Amelie and some of his other films now.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 21 08:04PM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 21.6.2017 klo 19:35:
 
>> And the hell is 'Amelie' grinning there.
 
> I haven't seen Amelie yet but I watched the French foreign language film A Very Long Engagement (2004) last night which is by the same director who directed Amelie-Jean-Pierre Jeunet and I thought it was great. A visually stunning film which is part mystery, part war film, part adventure and part romance. It shows the horrors of war at one end of the spectrum and the beauty of the French countryside at the other end of the spectrum and it has a whimsical side with some quirky Tim Burton-like characters. Some areas of the plot seen convoluted or unconvincing/unrealistic/irrational(i.e. the main character's inability to believe her fiancé is dead) but you are so caught up in the journey that some questions about the plot don't matter much. The film almost seems at times like a fairy-tale or fantasy set against the backdrop of WWI.
 
> Overall it's a delightful story and directed by a talented director. I definitely have to watch Amelie and some of his other films now.
 
I think Amelie is ok but waay overrated. Well you know I don't like much
Burtonesque quirkiness.
 
I watched yesterday TENDER MERCIES (1983) and thought it was a really
good 'slice of life' movie. I tend to like these sort of laid back neo
western/country stories. Duvall won the lead Oscar from his role and he
was good although I'm not sure if his accent was all 'legit'.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jun 21 08:17PM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 21.6.2017 klo 19:08:
 
>> Unfortunately the list appears to be in reverse order though, so Lesbos
>> are actually on 100th spot, which still earns a lot of street cred.
 
> On first glance, I've seen 39 of these. Nice to see "The Tingler" on there! I love that film. Glorious schlock.
 
The name doesn't tingle a bell...but the film looks great.
I've rated 63.
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 10:27AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:04:39 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> good 'slice of life' movie. I tend to like these sort of laid back neo
> western/country stories. Duvall won the lead Oscar from his role and he
> was good although I'm not sure if his accent was all 'legit'.
 
 
Ahh, 'Tender Mercies'... I've been trying to remember the name of that so I could see it again.
And I liked 'Amelie' quite a lot. Bought the dvd in fact.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 21 10:30AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 9:36:00 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > And the hell is 'Amelie' grinning there.
 
> I haven't seen Amelie yet but I watched the French foreign language film A Very Long Engagement (2004) last night which is by the same director who directed Amelie-Jean-Pierre Jeunet and I thought it was great. A visually stunning film which is part mystery, part war film, part adventure and part romance. It shows the horrors of war at one end of the spectrum and the beauty of the French countryside at the other end of the spectrum and it has a whimsical side with some quirky Tim Burton-like characters. Some areas of the plot seen convoluted or unconvincing/unrealistic/irrational(i.e. the main character's inability to believe her fiancé is dead) but you are so caught up in the journey that some questions about the plot don't matter much. The film almost seems at times like a fairy-tale or fantasy set against the backdrop of WWI.
 
> Overall it's a delightful story and directed by a talented director. I definitely have to watch Amelie and some of his other films now.
 
You've used the words "whimsical" and "quirky," both of which are anathema to me. I think this is why I've intuitively avoided "Amelie" so far.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 10:40AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 1:04:39 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> I think Amelie is ok but waay overrated. Well you know I don't like much
> Burtonesque quirkiness.
 
Does Amelie have some quirkiness as well?
 

> good 'slice of life' movie. I tend to like these sort of laid back neo
> western/country stories. Duvall won the lead Oscar from his role and he
> was good although I'm not sure if his accent was all 'legit'.
 
I don't think I've seen Tender Mercies? I did see Crazy Heart(with Jeff Bridges) which people say is similar to Tender Mercies and I liked Crazy Heart.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jun 21 10:42AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:04:39 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> > Overall it's a delightful story and directed by a talented director. I definitely have to watch Amelie and some of his other films now.
 
> I think Amelie is ok but waay overrated. Well you know I don't like much
> Burtonesque quirkiness.
 
If forced to watch either another Tim Burton film or another from Wes Anderson, I'd probably pick Anderson. A cruel choice either way. They're two peas from the same pretentious pod.
 
> good 'slice of life' movie. I tend to like these sort of laid back neo
> western/country stories. Duvall won the lead Oscar from his role and he
> was good although I'm not sure if his accent was all 'legit'.
 
I think Duvall uses a "stock" southern accent like Tommy Lee Jones. Maybe that's why they worked so well together in "Lonesome Dove." :)
 
I liked "Tender Mercies." It's very understated and low-key without being dull. When "Crazy Heart" came out, ten minutes in I was thinking, Hey...I've seen this before. But "Tender Mercies" did it so much better.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 10:51AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 1:30:06 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > I haven't seen Amelie yet but I watched the French foreign language film A Very Long Engagement (2004) last night which is by the same director who directed Amelie-Jean-Pierre Jeunet and I thought it was great. A visually stunning film which is part mystery, part war film, part adventure and part romance. It shows the horrors of war at one end of the spectrum and the beauty of the French countryside at the other end of the spectrum and it has a whimsical side with some quirky Tim Burton-like characters. Some areas of the plot seen convoluted or unconvincing/unrealistic/irrational(i.e. the main character's inability to believe her fiancé is dead) but you are so caught up in the journey that some questions about the plot don't matter much. The film almost seems at times like a fairy-tale or fantasy set against the backdrop of WWI.
 
> > Overall it's a delightful story and directed by a talented director. I definitely have to watch Amelie and some of his other films now.
 
> You've used the words "whimsical" and "quirky," both of which are anathema to me. I think this is why I've intuitively avoided "Amelie" so far.
 
I wouldn't say A Very Long Engagement is too whimsical or quirky at all. It's a serious war film after all but unlike other serious war films it has elements of whimsy and most of the characters have eccentricities but it's toned down. It's not like the over the top quirkiness of say The Grand Budapest Hotel(your favorite) or a film like Nebraska.
 
Man, I really enjoyed A Very Long Engagement. It's very well-done IMO and the director is super talented. It's a visually breathtaking movie and the director uses a brown-red color tint to depict the vintage feel of something which takes place during WWI. Then you have the dark gray tones of heinous war scenes juxtaposed with beautiful colors of the French countryside in the next shots.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 21 10:11AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 12:01:11 PM UTC-4, TT 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.
 
> So there's actually some relevance to that match.
 
> Who is Fed playing against and at what time?
 
M. Zverev at 11:30am local time.
heyguys00@gmail.com: Jun 21 10:32AM -0700

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 12:01:11 PM UTC-4, TT 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.
 
> So there's actually some relevance to that match.
 
> Who is Fed playing against and at what time?
 
M Zverev Thursday at 5:30pm
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jun 21 09:51AM -0700

I had this when I was younger and just got another copy. Most rock criticism is pretty bad IMO,
but this is OK, and if nothing else provides some benchmarks. Hasn't aged as badly as I thought it might.
Also, the '79 version is much better (again IMO) than the '83. It now seems quaint that there was once
something of a common culture... heh.
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