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

Sunday, July 2, 2017

*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jul 03 01:51AM +0200

He didn't understand my post the other day, among couple of very
smart things I said my reference to Washington was lost allegedly
due to couple of typos.
 
But now your president makes the same point I made.
 
 
@realDonaldTrump
 
My use of social media is not Presidential - it?s MODERN DAY
PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Guypers <gapp111@gmail.com>: Jul 02 04:31PM -0700

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 6:28:42 PM UTC-4, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> A Nole-Feds semi, should it happen, would be a test worthy of a man trying to secure a chance to play for the right to be called all time Wimbledon king... Feds would have to earn it, big time. On the other side, a Murray-Rafa semi might, this time, have the chance of BOTH finalists being challenged and put through the mill, no matter who ends up in the final.
 
> The PROBLEM remains that HISTORICALLY it seldom works out that both semi-finals are troubling/trying tests. Normally, one side has a serious left down and one player gets through into the final without having been roughed up just prior to the final. And that often adversely affects the quality of the final.
 
> P
 
Fed and Rafa are in different halves, can only meet in the finals!
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jul 02 11:33PM

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 16:31:40 -0700, Guypers wrote:
 
 
>> having been roughed up just prior to the final. And that often
>> adversely affects the quality of the final.
 
> Fed and Rafa are in different halves, can only meet in the finals!
 
?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jul 03 01:41AM +0200


>> Bob - to be fair, it's also correct to note that though Feds was behind in the critical 5th in AO final, he'd lead the entire match until then.
 
> That latest tack is really bizarre. If anything, a player deserves MORE credit for being a break down in the 5th and then roaring back to win instead of caving in. Had it been 3-1 Federer in the 5th and then he lost, these same guys would be saying what a weakling that made him. This stuff about what the score was at any point in the match or whether a player was up/down so many sets is ultimately meaningless. Whisper originated the tactic to spin wins or losses depending on which player he likes more.
 
Don't be s troll. It's clear basically to anyone that once you win
from being down in the fifth, you could have very easily lost
that match.
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 03 02:11AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 3.7.2017 klo 1:42:
 
> 1) "Green Room" (2015.) A horror/thriller which seems to be on many best horrors released in 2016 lists and all I can tell you is from my perspective, its premise was idiotic with one illogical happening after another and over and above its illogical nature, it wasn't very entertaining or fast-paced and the characters were all extremely unlikable. It has a lot of gratuitous gore too. Labelled as a punk rock thriller--something I can do without in my life. *rolls eyes*
 
> I think StephenJ recommended this film as one of the best horror films he's seen in 2016 and I'm scratching my head over that one. It doesn't deserve its place on a best horrors list of 2016 or best horrors of any time list. This only confirms my belief that StephenJ must have a very adolescent mind(judging by his posts on RST) to like this silly and overhyped movie. There are other horror/thriller films released in 2016 which I would recommend over "Green Room."
 
> 2) "Magic in the Moonlight" (2014.) A Woody Allen film. I would say it's mediocre on the Woody Allen movie list scale. Not bad but not his best either. Colin Firth and Emma Stone have little chemistry IMO.
 
I've seen neither... but just finished watching 'NOCTURNAL ANIMALS'
... Have to disagree with you on it a bit.
Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal were both great, really good acting.
Visually the film was very good looking too.
That made the film feel pregnant with emotion, a bit too much perhaps.
 
Someone wrote that 'the film feels like it is desperate to say
something, but ultimately says very little'. I have to agree with
that... I just didn't quite understand the parallels between the two
stories, and I thought they messed the rhythm and momentum for both
stories instead of complimenting each other - made the film drag.
 
I gave it a 5.
 
Amy Adams has incredibly pretty blue eyes, and I feel a natural look
suits her much better than the overly make upped one which she sported
most of the time here. Her forte is not being a striking femme fatale
but a cute next door neighbour girl instead.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jul 02 11:15PM

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 15:42:08 -0700, Court_1 wrote:
 
> This only confirms my belief that StephenJ must have a very adolescent
> mind(judging by his posts on RST) to like this silly and overhyped
> movie
 
I'm definitely not impressed by his wow movies, like WW and Doctor
Strange (another stinker imo although the special effects were nice I
don't care about special effects with a story like that).
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 02 04:21PM -0700

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 

> suits her much better than the overly make upped one which she sported
> most of the time here. Her forte is not being a striking femme fatale
> but a cute next door neighbour girl instead.
 
Regarding Nocturnal Animals, I said that Gyllenhaal's acting was poor and that Adams was ok but she had nothing to work with in terms of a good script.
 
In the end we agree that it was a pretty bad movie. All style with little substance.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 03 02:23AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 3.7.2017 klo 2:21:
>> but a cute next door neighbour girl instead.
 
> Regarding Nocturnal Animals, I said that Gyllenhaal's acting was poor and that Adams was ok but she had nothing to work with in terms of a good script.
 
> In the end we agree that it was a pretty bad movie. All style with little substance.
 
Yes, if you think that then we agree. Exactly that, all style not so
much substance.
 
I somehow remembered that you liked it...
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 02 04:25PM -0700

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 4:03:18 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> She has an overbite and a lisp too! :) She's ok though. She kind of reminds me a little bit of a young Lucille Ball, with the red hair and big bulging blue eyes.
 
> > I agree with you about the lack of chemistry between Firth and Stone. This film is mostly another stale reworking of Woody's older man-->younger woman fixation.
 
> Yes, I was thinking Firth's character was too old for Stone's character (I know we disagreed about that when discussing Casablanca for example.)
 
Firth is 28 years older than Stone. Bogart was 15 years older than Ingrid Bergman. So in the case of "Casablanca," I see it as no huge deal. I think it worked for Rick to be more weather-beaten and be jaded on the outside with a romantic inner core. With "Magic in the Moonlight," I think Woody deliberately chose actors with a big age gap, making them essentially stand-ins for him and Soon-Yi. He's known to make art of his life, after all, which is fine when it works. I just think he's overdone this issue over the years and not been particularly honest about it either.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 02 04:28PM -0700

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 7:23:16 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 

> I somehow remembered that you liked it...
 
No, I didn't like Nocturnal Animals very much. I thought there were some stylish elements but overall it was weak and didn't work. I think your rating of 5/10 is reasonable.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 02 04:32PM -0700

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 7:25:50 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
 
> > > I agree with you about the lack of chemistry between Firth and Stone. This film is mostly another stale reworking of Woody's older man-->younger woman fixation.
 
> > Yes, I was thinking Firth's character was too old for Stone's character (I know we disagreed about that when discussing Casablanca for example.)
 
> Firth is 28 years older than Stone. Bogart was 15 years older than Ingrid Bergman. So in the case of "Casablanca," I see it as no huge deal. I think it worked for Rick to be more weather-beaten and be jaded on the outside with a romantic inner core. With "Magic in the Moonlight," I think Woody deliberately chose actors with a big age gap, making them essentially stand-ins for him and Soon-Yi. He's known to make art of his life, after all, which is fine when it works. I just think he's overdone this issue over the years and not been particularly honest about it either.
 
Was Bogart only 15 years older than Bergman? He looked a lot older IMO and looked a lot older in Casablanca than Firth did in Magic in the Moonlight. It must have been all of the smoking and booze that aged Bogart fast.
 
As for Woody Allen reproducing this age gap theme in films over and over to mirror his own life, I agree.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 03 02:38AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 3.7.2017 klo 2:28:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 7:23:16 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
>> I somehow remembered that you liked it...
 
> No, I didn't like Nocturnal Animals very much. I thought there were some stylish elements but overall it was weak and didn't work. I think your rating of 5/10 is reasonable.
 
Could have done better without the Amy Adams reality storyline. But
would probably have been even more pointless then...
 
The idea of someone reading a book and film telling the story from the
book is not very good... I like it more when the story is supposed to
really happen.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 03 02:40AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 3.7.2017 klo 2:32:
 
>> Firth is 28 years older than Stone. Bogart was 15 years older than Ingrid Bergman. So in the case of "Casablanca," I see it as no huge deal. I think it worked for Rick to be more weather-beaten and be jaded on the outside with a romantic inner core. With "Magic in the Moonlight," I think Woody deliberately chose actors with a big age gap, making them essentially stand-ins for him and Soon-Yi. He's known to make art of his life, after all, which is fine when it works. I just think he's overdone this issue over the years and not been particularly honest about it either.
 
> Was Bogart only 15 years older than Bergman? He looked a lot older IMO and looked a lot older in Casablanca than Firth did in Magic in the Moonlight. It must have been all of the smoking and booze that aged Bogart fast.
 
> As for Woody Allen reproducing this age gap theme in films over and over to mirror his own life, I agree.
 
Bogart never looked young. Sort of like James Coburn and Lee Marvin who
were born as 40 somethings.
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jul 02 11:42PM

On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 02:40:10 +0300, TT wrote:
 
 
 
> Bogart never looked young. Sort of like James Coburn and Lee Marvin who
> were born as 40 somethings.
 
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/05/2a/
c3/052ac32cba5a73538184c8260cf29517.jpg
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jul 02 11:42PM

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 23:42:20 +0000, jdeluise wrote:
 
>> were born as 40 somethings.
 
> https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/05/2a/
> c3/052ac32cba5a73538184c8260cf29517.jpg
 
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/05/2a/c3/052ac32cba5a73538184c8260cf29517.jpg
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 02 04:44PM -0700

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 7:38:34 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> The idea of someone reading a book and film telling the story from the
> book is not very good... I like it more when the story is supposed to
> really happen.
 
I liked the story within a story concept but in this case the stories didn't mesh well IMO. It was a silly story. SPOILERS AHEAD:
 
A writer creates a novel where his wife and daughter are killed violently which he equates with his own life circumstances where his wife, played by Adams, leaves him and aborts their child. Then he sends his ex-wife a copy of the finished novel to read and gets her to become interested in him again now that he's a successful writer at which point they set up a date and he doesn't show up. This is all supposed to be revenge for Adams leaving him in real life and aborting their child? WTF? Ridiculous.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 03 02:45AM +0300

jdeluise kirjoitti 3.7.2017 klo 2:42:
 
>> https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/05/2a/
>> c3/052ac32cba5a73538184c8260cf29517.jpg
 
> https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/05/2a/c3/052ac32cba5a73538184c8260cf29517.jpg
 
Photoshopped. :)
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 03 02:46AM +0300

Court_1 kirjoitti 3.7.2017 klo 2:44:
>> really happen.
 
> I liked the story within a story concept but in this case the stories didn't mesh well IMO. It was a silly story. SPOILERS AHEAD:
 
> A writer creates a novel where his wife and daughter are killed violently which he equates with his own life circumstances where his wife, played by Adams, leaves him and aborts their child. Then he sends his ex-wife a copy of the finished novel to read and gets her to become interested in him again now that he's a successful writer at which point they set up a date and he doesn't show up. This is all supposed to be revenge for Adams leaving him in real life and aborting their child? WTF? Ridiculous.
 
Yeah, pretty ridiculous parallel.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 02 04:49PM -0700

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 4:40:10 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
 
> > Was Bogart only 15 years older than Bergman? He looked a lot older IMO and looked a lot older in Casablanca than Firth did in Magic in the Moonlight. It must have been all of the smoking and booze that aged Bogart fast.
 
> Bogart never looked young. Sort of like James Coburn and Lee Marvin who
> were born as 40 somethings.
 
DeForest Kelly was born as a 50-something. I saw a film on YouTube where he was in his 20s and looked basically the same as in "Star Trek." Then there's Abe Vigoda, who was born as a 60-something!
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 03 02:59AM +0300

Gracchus kirjoitti 3.7.2017 klo 2:49:
 
>> Bogart never looked young. Sort of like James Coburn and Lee Marvin who
>> were born as 40 somethings.
 
> DeForest Kelly was born as a 50-something. I saw a film on YouTube where he was in his 20s and looked basically the same as in "Star Trek." Then there's Abe Vigoda, who was born as a 60-something!
 
:)
 
And Telly Savalas was born without hair!
 
(He actually had one still at original Cape Fear. Apparently shaved his
head for 'Greatest Story Ever Told' and kept it like that)
acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn): Jul 02 11:38PM

In article <5fffd20b-b862-465c-85cc-2d21a4ca4d92@googlegroups.com>,
>actually ended 64 years ago.
 
>> Wakalukong
 
>But it was South Korea who refused to sign to end the war.
 
Refused to sign? When was the last time a proposal for such was
brought up but refused?
 
I cannot imagine that if there were a will from the U.S. that South
Korea would be screaming "no, please, no..." against such a treaty
today, given what we have heard about what President Moon wants for
the Korean peninsula.
 
Indeed, Moon, during his White House visit, was very very careful not
to say anything to give the world the impression that he wasn't in
sync with Trump toward NK but expressed his relief that Trump wasn't
as hawkish or the warmonger some feared him to be.
 
Moon Jae-in plans to pursue his policy towards North Korea "with
more confidence" following his meeting with Mr Trump in Washington,
according to a government official quoted by Yonhap.
 
"With regard to our government's resolve to resume South-North
talks, it's true that there was some burden from worries that it may
undermine [international] sanctions on North Korea," he told the
agency.
 
But after the US President backed Mr Moon's plans for renewed
dialogue those fears appear to have faded, Yonhap reported.
 
"Noting that sanctions are a tool of diplomacy, the two leaders
emphasised that the door to dialogue with the DPRK remains open
under the right circumstances," read a joint statement following
their summit.
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-confident-north-peace-talk-moon-jae-in-meet-donald-trump-washington-a7819066.html
 
So, South Korea has always been the junior partner in the US-SK
military alliance, to say it mildly. South Korea has in fact very
little voice in the matter of its relationship to the North. When
G.W. Bush declared NK a part of the axis of evil, the South
immediately chilled its "Sunshine" Rapprochement to the North. And
when Obama wanted it to deploy THAAD, it grudgingly accepted, though
it refused to pay the one billion USD plus annual operating costs.
 
No, the tens of thousands of US soldiers parked in South Korea are
there because wishes of the US, or more precisely, from Washington,
and certainly not because of the desires of the majority of the south
Koreans.
 
If President Trump wants to, he can arrange a Camp David like thing
for the Koreans just as President Carter did with the Egyptian and
Israeli heads of state.
 
We have to stop confronting nations and start innovating again. But
right now, we can't even provide healthcare for our citizens.
 
Healthcare and education are vital investments any society needs to
make if it aspires to greatness.
 
What's going on with America right now is: On one hand, we are too
deeply mired in protecting the interests of some groups such as the
military-industrial complex. So the political class is busy spending
way more than what we have. But on the other, the same political
class is protecting big businesses such as the Pharma kings, the
insurance oligarchs, and the healthcare providers which profit on
people's lives - all to make sure that they earn handsomely.
 
The result is a totally short-sighted, politicized, and distorted
economy, which survives only by circulating more and more fake dollars
- money with dubious values and enforced by dubious means - and by
flexing its military muscles and making the rich and powerful richer
and more powerful.
 
At this time, it's growing an inevitable economic underclass which is
increasingly rebellious. And the political elite wants to suppress
this growing class by increasingly brute and brutal forces.
 
Asia is for the Asians and Korea is for the Koreans - north and south
- only. We should withdraw our trooops from South Korea, quit our
sprawling Okinawan bases, and return Bagram to the Afghanistan people.
 
Let the Asia be Asia, just like President Monroe wanted the Europeans
out of the Americas. And that's the only way forward that will give
humanity a more peaceful world to live in.
 
You see, if it were up to South Korea, we wouldn't be hearing a need
for NK and the US to negotiate directly. Concerning the South being
always pulled by a puppeteer, we should consult the well- researched
article by Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers:
 
North Korea and the United States: Will the Real Aggressor Please
Stand Down?
 
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, March 05, 2013
 
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/05/north-korea-and-the-united-states-will-the-real-aggressor-please-stand-down/
 
Near the end of World War II, as Japan was weakened, Korean
"People's Committees" formed all over the country and Korean exiles
returned from China, the US and Russia to prepare for independence
and democratic rule. On September 6, 1945, these disparate forces
and representatives of the people's committees proclaimed a Korean
People's Republic (the KPR) with a progressive agenda of land
reform, rent control, an eight-hour work day and minimum wage among
its 27-point program.
 
But the KPR was prevented from becoming a reality. Instead, after
World War II and without Korean representation, the US quite
arbitrarily decided with Russia, China and England, to divide Korea
into two nations "temporarily" as part of its decolonization.

Cheers!
 
lo yeeOn
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 02 04:35PM -0700

Most people love Trump cos he gave Saudi Wall St Hillary a good thrashing in the election!
TennisGuy <TGuy@techsavvy.com>: Jul 02 07:08PM -0400

On 7/2/2017 6:22 PM, jdeluise wrote:
> exactly a massive conspiracy theory involving wiring up three skyscrapers
> with exotic explosives alongside hijacking/crashing multiple jets is
> reasonable or feasible. And I know you won't because it simply isn't.
 
Ahhhhh..............
 
I think I finally understand what is troubling you with the
c.d. story.
 
It would trouble me too if I thought that 19 Muslim hijackers hijacked
planes (under the control of OBL) and then buildings were demolished.
 
Now that would not make much sense at all.
 
 
You need to get past the 19 hijacker story first jd.
Then the pieces will start to come together.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Jul 03 12:17AM +0300

TennisGuy kirjoitti 3.7.2017 klo 0:02:
 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGr4D1-zDI
 
> Nice try TT.
 
> That was another classic controlled demolition.
 
No, it was a 'natural' collapse caused by fire which can clearly be seen
from the footage...
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jul 02 11:13PM

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 19:08:33 -0400, TennisGuy wrote:
 
> You need to get past the 19 hijacker story first jd.
> Then the pieces will start to come together.
 
OK, so they just crashed themselves into the WTC towers, a field, and the
Pentagon? Or are you going to say an advanced AI did it? Maybe "Jane"
from the Ender universe?
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