Digest for rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 13 topics

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jul 04 03:39PM +0300

Remember when Donald Trump declared that "nobody knew that health care
could be so complicated"? It was a rare moment of self-awareness for the
tweeter-in-chief: He may, briefly, have realized that he had no idea
what he was doing.
 
Actually, though, health care isn't all that complicated. And Republican
"reform" plans are brutally simple — with the emphasis on "brutally."
 
Trump may be the only person in Washington who doesn't grasp their
essence: Take health insurance away from tens of millions so you can
give the rich a tax cut.
 
Some policy subjects, on the other hand, really are complicated. One of
these subjects is international trade. And the great danger here isn't
simply that Trump doesn't understand the issues. Worse, he doesn't know
what he doesn't know.
 
According to the news site Axios, Trump, supported by his inner circle
of America Firsters, is "hell-bent" on imposing punitive tariffs on
imports of steel and possibly other products, despite opposition from
most of his cabinet. After all, claims that other countries are taking
advantage of America were a central theme of his campaign.
 
And Axios reports that the White House believes that Trump's base "likes
the idea" of a trade war, and "will love the fight."
 
Yep, that's a great way to make policy.
 
O.K., so what's complicated about trade policy?
 
First, a lot of modern trade is in intermediate goods — stuff that is
used to make other stuff. A tariff on steel helps steel producers, but
it hurts downstream steel consumers like the auto industry. So even the
direct impact of protectionism on jobs is unclear.
 
Then there are the indirect effects, which mean that any job gains in an
industry protected by tariffs must be compared with job losses
elsewhere. Normally, in fact, trade and trade policy have little if any
effect on total employment. They affect what kinds of jobs we have; but
the total number, not so much.
 
Suppose that Trump were to impose tariffs on a wide range of goods —
say, the 10 percent across-the-board tariff that was floated before he
took office. This would directly benefit industries that compete with
imports, but that's not the end of the story.
 
Even if we ignore the damage to industries that use imported inputs, any
direct job creation from new tariffs would be offset by indirect job
destruction. The Federal Reserve, fearing inflationary pressure, would
raise interest rates. This would squeeze sectors like housing; it would
also strengthen the dollar, hurting U.S. exports.
 
Claims that protectionism would inevitably cause a recession are
overblown, but there's every reason to believe that these indirect
effects would eliminate any net job creation.
 
Then there's the response of other countries. International trade is
governed by rules — rules America helped put in place. If we start
breaking those rules, others will too, both in retaliation and in simple
emulation. That's what people mean when they talk about a trade war.
 
And it's foolish to imagine that America would "win" such a war. For one
thing, we are far from being a dominant superpower in world trade — the
European Union is just as big a player, and capable of effective
retaliation (as the Bush administration learned when it put tariffs on
steel back in 2002). Anyway, trade isn't about winning and losing: it
generally makes both sides of the deal richer, and a trade war usually
hurts all the countries involved.
 
I'm not making a purist case for free trade here. Rapid growth in
globalization has hurt some American workers, and an import surge after
2000 disrupted industries and communities. But a Trumpist trade war
would only exacerbate the damage, for a couple of reasons.
 
One is that globalization has already happened, and U.S. industries are
now embedded in a web of international transactions. So a trade war
would disrupt communities the same way that rising trade did in the
past. There's an old joke about a motorist who runs over a pedestrian,
then tries to fix the damage by backing up — running over the victim a
second time. Trumpist trade policy would be like that.
 
Also, the tariffs now being proposed would boost capital-intensive
industries that employ relatively few workers per dollar of sales; these
tariffs would, if anything, further tilt the distribution of income
against labor.
 
So will Trump actually go through with this? He might. After all, he
posed as a populist during the campaign, but his entire economic agenda
so far has been standard Republican fare, rewarding corporations and the
rich while hurting workers.
 
So the base might indeed like to see something that sounds more like the
guy they thought they were voting for.
 
But Trump's promises on trade, while unorthodox, were just as fraudulent
as his promises on health care. In this area, as in, well, everything,
he has no idea what he's talking about. And his ignorance-based policy
won't end well.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/opinion/trump-trade-war.html
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jul 04 03:35PM +0300

After Donald Trump's surprise election victory, many people on the right
and even in the center tried to make the case that he wouldn't really be
that bad. Every time he showed a hint of self-restraint — even if it
amounted to nothing more than reading his lines without ad-libbing and
laying off Twitter for a day or two — pundits rushed to declare that he
had just "become president."
 
But can we now admit that he really is as bad as — or worse than — his
harshest critics predicted he would be? And it's not just his contempt
for the rule of law, which came through so clearly in the James Comey
testimony: As the legal scholar Jeffrey Toobin says, if this isn't
obstruction of justice, what is? There's also the way Trump's character,
his combination of petty vindictiveness with sheer laziness, leaves him
clearly not up to doing the job.
 
And that's a huge problem. Think, for a minute, of just how much damage
this man has done on multiple fronts in just five months.
 
Take health care. It's still unclear whether Republicans will ever be
able to pass a replacement for Obamacare (although it is clear that if
they do, it will take coverage away from tens of millions). But whatever
happens on the legislative front, there are big problems developing in
the insurance markets as we speak: companies pulling out, leaving some
parts of the country unserved, or asking for large increases in premiums.
 
Why? It's not, whatever Republicans may say, because Obamacare is an
unworkable system; insurance markets were clearly stabilizing last fall.
Instead, as insurers themselves have been explaining, the problem is the
uncertainty created by Trump and company, especially the failure to make
clear whether crucial subsidies will be maintained. In North Carolina,
for example, Blue Cross Blue Shield has filed for a 23 percent rise in
premiums, but declared that it would have asked for only 9 percent if it
were sure that cost-sharing subsidies would continue.
 
So why hasn't it received that assurance? Is it because Trump believes
his own assertions that he can cause Obamacare to collapse, then get
voters to blame Democrats? Or is it because he's too busy rage-tweeting
and golfing to deal with the issue? It's hard to tell, but either way,
it's no way to make policy.
 
Or take the remarkable decision to take Saudi Arabia's side in its
dispute with Qatar, a small nation that houses a huge U.S. military
base. There are no good guys in this quarrel, but every reason for the
U.S. to stay out of the middle.
 
So what was Trump doing? There's no hint of a strategic vision; some
sources suggest that he may not even have known about the large U.S.
base in Qatar and its crucial role.
 
The most likely explanation of his actions, which have provoked a crisis
in the region (and pushed Qatar into the arms of Iran) is that the
Saudis flattered him — the Ritz-Carlton projected a five-story image of
his face on the side of its Riyadh property — and their lobbyists spent
large sums at the Trump Washington hotel
 
Everything suggests that Trump is neither up to the job of being
president nor willing to step aside and let others do the work right.
And this is already starting to have real consequences, from disrupted
health coverage to ruined alliances to lost credibility on the world stage.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/opinion/donald-trump-health-care-bill.html
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jul 04 03:30PM +0300

The basics of Republican health legislation, which haven't changed much
in different iterations of Trumpcare, are easy to describe: Take health
insurance away from tens of millions, make it much worse and far more
expensive for millions more, and use the money thus saved to cut taxes
on the wealthy.
 
Donald Trump may not get this — reporting by The Times and others,
combined with his own tweets, suggests that he has no idea what's in his
party's legislation. But everyone in Congress understands what it's all
about.
 
The puzzle — and it is a puzzle, even for those who have long since
concluded that something is terribly wrong with the modern G.O.P. — is
why the party is pushing this harsh, morally indefensible agenda.
 
Think about it. Losing health coverage is a nightmare, especially if
you're older, have health problems and/or lack the financial resources
to cope if illness strikes. And since Americans with those
characteristics are precisely the people this legislation effectively
targets, tens of millions would soon find themselves living this nightmare.
 
Meanwhile, taxes that fall mainly on a tiny, wealthy minority would be
reduced or eliminated. These cuts would be big in dollar terms, but
because the rich are already so rich, the savings would make very little
difference to their lives.
 
More than 40 percent of the Senate bill's tax cuts would go to people
with annual incomes over $1 million — but even these lucky few would see
their after-tax income rise only by a barely noticeable 2 percent.
 
So it's vast suffering — including, according to the best estimates,
around 200,000 preventable deaths — imposed on many of our fellow
citizens in order to give a handful of wealthy people what amounts to
some extra pocket change. And the public hates the idea: Polling shows
overwhelming popular opposition, even though many voters don't realize
just how cruel the bill really is. For example, only a minority of
voters are aware of the plan to make savage cuts to Medicaid.
 
In fact, my guess is that the bill has low approval even among those who
would get a significant tax cut. Warren Buffett has denounced the Senate
bill as the "Relief for the Rich Act," and he's surely not the only
billionaire who feels that way.
 
Which brings me back to my question: Why would anyone want to do this?
 
I won't pretend to have a full answer, but I think there are two big
drivers — actually, two big lies — behind Republican cruelty on health
care and beyond.
 
First, the evils of the G.O.P. plan are the flip side of the virtues of
Obamacare. Because Republicans spent almost the entire Obama
administration railing against the imaginary horrors of the Affordable
Care Act — death panels! — repealing Obamacare was bound to be their
first priority.
 
Once the prospect of repeal became real, however, Republicans had to
face the fact that Obamacare, far from being the failure they portrayed,
has done what it was supposed to do: It used higher taxes on the rich to
pay for a vast expansion of health coverage. Correspondingly, trying to
reverse the A.C.A. means taking away health care from people who
desperately need it in order to cut taxes on the rich.
 
So one way to understand this ugly health plan is that Republicans,
through their political opportunism and dishonesty, boxed themselves
into a position that makes them seem cruel and immoral — because they are.
 
Yet that's surely not the whole story, because Obamacare isn't the only
social insurance program that does great good yet faces incessant
right-wing attack. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability
benefits all get the same treatment. Why?
 
As with Obamacare, this story began with a politically convenient lie —
the pretense, going all the way back to Ronald Reagan, that social
safety net programs just reward lazy people who don't want to work. And
we all know which people in particular were supposed to be on the take.
 
Now, this was never true, and in an era of rising inequality and
declining traditional industries, some of the biggest beneficiaries of
these safety net programs are members of the Trump-supporting white
working class. But the modern G.O.P. basically consists of career
apparatchiks who live in an intellectual bubble, and those Reagan-era
stereotypes still dominate their picture of struggling Americans.
 
Or to put it another way, Republicans start from a sort of baseline of
cruelty toward the less fortunate, of hostility toward anything that
protects families against catastrophe.
 
In this sense there's nothing new about their health plan. What it does
— punish the poor and working class, cut taxes on the rich — is what
every major G.O.P. policy proposal does. The only difference is that
this time it's all out in the open.
 
So what will happen to this monstrous bill? I have no idea. Whether it
passes or not, however, remember this moment. For this is what modern
Republicans do; this is who they are.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/opinion/understanding-republican-cruelty.html?mabReward=TS4&recp=0&moduleDetail=recommendations-0&action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific®ion=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 04 09:41PM +1000

On 4/07/2017 3:19 AM, me wrote:
 
>>> I doubt it. Cilic destroyed Federer at the 2014 US open. On his day, he has the game to beat anyone.
 
>> Yes, but the problem is "his days" vs the Big Four are few and far between.
 
> Agreed. However my point is that if I were Nadal (who currently in great form), I would rather see Kohlschreiber than Cilic in my quarter. Kohlschreiber is only a threat if Nadal plays badly.
 
I disagree with this modern day sentiment of ducking/avoiding dangerous
players, being fearful etc. The greats should relish playing the
toughest guys as much as possible.
 
There's a Borg v McEnroe movie coming out 40 yrs after the event. You
won't see any Borg v Tanner, Federer v Bagditis movies any time soon.
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 04 04:49AM -0700

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 7:41:41 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
 
> I disagree with this modern day sentiment of ducking/avoiding dangerous
> players, being fearful etc. The greats should relish playing the
> toughest guys as much as possible.
 
 
It seems like Nadal disagrees. As he allegedly said:
 
"If I reach the final, I'd like to face a different opponent than Federer," said Nadal, who beat Federer in the 2008 final after defeats in 2006 and 2007.
 
"I don't like to face best players in the final and I think I played against Roger already enough times this year."
 
http://au.eurosport.com/tennis/wimbledon/2017/rafael-nadal-i-don-t-want-to-face-roger-federer-if-i-reach-final_sto6240127/story.shtml
me <neil.robinson@udptechnology.com>: Jul 04 05:27AM -0700

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 12:49:16 PM UTC+1, Court_1 wrote:
 
> "If I reach the final, I'd like to face a different opponent than Federer," said Nadal, who beat Federer in the 2008 final after defeats in 2006 and 2007.
 
> "I don't like to face best players in the final and I think I played against Roger already enough times this year."
 
> http://au.eurosport.com/tennis/wimbledon/2017/rafael-nadal-i-don-t-want-to-face-roger-federer-if-i-reach-final_sto6240127/story.shtml
 
I really don't find Nadal particularly honest when he says these kind of things. I'm sure he actually relishes the prospect of beating Federer in another slam final. His false modesty gets very tiresome. Heck, if he ended up facing Gasquet in the final, you can be sure he would spout some nonsense about having to be at his very best to have a chance against such a strong player.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jul 04 03:29AM -0700

Op maandag 3 juli 2017 23:56:40 UTC+2 schreef Pelle Svanslös:
> >> existed. Awesome.
 
> > Actually this time it's not about the tennis, dummy.
 
> I made it about the tennis.
 
What were you thinking?
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jul 04 03:24PM +0300

On 4.7.2017 13:29, kaennorsing wrote:
 
>>> Actually this time it's not about the tennis, dummy.
 
>> I made it about the tennis.
 
> What were you thinking?
 
Tennis.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 04 12:01AM -0700

On Monday, 3 July 2017 22:33:14 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> special relationship" with the EU.
 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-european-union-eu-steve-baker-theresa-may-wholly-torn-down-libertarian-alliance-a7820721.html
 
> :)
 
Totally agree with him, at last somebody with a sensible good idea of Brexit. The EUSSR is like having the USA system, BUT the President is selected, not elected, what a joke.
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 04 12:02AM -0700


> > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-european-union-eu-steve-baker-theresa-may-wholly-torn-down-libertarian-alliance-a7820721.html
 
> > :)
 
> The EU should do the same with the UK which the USA did with the CSA when they seceeded.
 
LOL bring it on, it would be hilarious cos we'd end up owning you lot.
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jul 04 03:05AM -0700

Op dinsdag 4 juli 2017 09:01:38 UTC+2 schreef The Iceberg:
 
> > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-european-union-eu-steve-baker-theresa-may-wholly-torn-down-libertarian-alliance-a7820721.html
 
> > :)
 
> Totally agree with him, at last somebody with a sensible good idea of Brexit. The EUSSR is like having the USA system, BUT the President is selected, not elected, what a joke.
 
Not just the president. NObody is elected in the EUSSR. In essence far worse than the US system (which is a fascist war-machine) on many levels.
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Jul 04 03:23PM +0300

On 4.7.2017 13:05, kaennorsing wrote:
 
>>> :)
 
>> Totally agree with him, at last somebody with a sensible good idea of Brexit. The EUSSR is like having the USA system, BUT the President is selected, not elected, what a joke.
 
> Not just the president. NObody is elected in the EUSSR.
 
Nonsense.
 
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jul 03 05:52PM -0700

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 3:34:01 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > Nadal is a bad matchup for anyone on clay.
 
> My point was Nadal is a bad match-up for Wawrinka everywhere. He wouldn't have been a threat to Nadal if they met at this Wimbledon either.
 
> I can't see who will stop this Nadal from making the final. Cilic? I really doubt it. Nadal looks like a man possessed.
 
And didn't seem like he needed to even get out of second gear yet. Rafa gaining momentum.
 
P
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 04 09:45PM +1000

On 4/07/2017 5:33 AM, Tim wrote:
 
>> You're clearly panicking about Rafa already. Will he stop Federer in the
>> final and crush your heart?
 
> Rafa is guaranteed to win it.
 
Yes, USO too.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 04 04:53AM -0700

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 9:45:30 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> Yes, USO too.
 
No, Tomic will straight set Nadal should they meet at USO....
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 04 09:33PM +1000

On 3/07/2017 11:17 PM, John Liang wrote:
 
>> You have to look at my analysis in totality, not just the wrong ones.
>> Would you judge Federer on the slams he lost only?
 
> Sure but you are contradicting yourself with your posts. You judge Nadal's grass court performance based on just 1 match he won against Federer in 5 sets that happened almost 9 years ago,
 
If that was the only success Rafa ever had v Roger then I wouldn't
discuss it at all.
 
 
> if we look at their record in a 'Totality' then Federer was in 10 finals to Nadal's 5 and Nadal's 2 wins from 5 finals, in last five years Nadal won 5 matches in 4 years.
 
Yes, but this has nothing to do with which player is capable of higher
peaks. Fed is the most consistent by far - he's probably goat/boat in
that stat, but Rafa's peak is clearly superior to Fed - imo of course.
 
I also think Fed 'could have' been Rafa's master if he had a better net
game & played a bit smarter, but then my aunt would be my uncle if she
had a dick.
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 04 04:51AM -0700

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 9:33:50 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> > Sure but you are contradicting yourself with your posts. You judge Nadal's grass court performance based on just 1 match he won against Federer in 5 sets that happened almost 9 years ago,
 
> If that was the only success Rafa ever had v Roger then I wouldn't
> discuss it at all.
 
It was his only success on grass against Federer and even that went to five sets. And what are you doing here then ?
 
> Yes, but this has nothing to do with which player is capable of higher
> peaks. Fed is the most consistent by far - he's probably goat/boat in
> that stat, but Rafa's peak is clearly superior to Fed - imo of course.
 
Higher peak, we could also said Krajicek was capable of higher grass peak than Sampras base on that straight set slapping of Sampras in 96 Wimbledon. Was Nadal's peak far superior than Fed, lets how did he perform in his career in defending non clay court slam or even don't worry about slam, just regular tournament, at his peak he could not defend any non clay court event that spoke volume about his credential as a GOAT/BOAT potential, yes, shitting his pants all the time in defending non clay court events with far superior regularity than both Fed and Djok who are his main rivals.
 
 
> I also think Fed 'could have' been Rafa's master if he had a better net
> game & played a bit smarter, but then my aunt would be my uncle if she
> had a dick.
 
So you have a transgender person as your uncle I see.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 04 09:44PM +1000


>> Exactly. And as little clothing as possible.
 
> Well there was way too much clothing there. I prefer my Wonder woman in bikini.
 
I prefer mine out of one.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jul 04 12:37PM +0100

On 03/07/2017 23:45, The Iceberg wrote:
>> like, and he isn't going to change anytime soon, so let him stumble on
>> from one chaotic situation to the next.
 
> it's so chaotic! the stock market rallying, the economy is BOOMING with Trump as President!
 
He's not in control of the stock market nor the 'economy'. His
incumbency has some affect on those of course, but they might have been
doing even better with someone else as president - and I don't mean
Clinton, although who knows?
 
'The economy is BOOMING' - is it? By what measure?
 
I note that the IMF has reduced its forecast to 2.1% growth in 2017 and
2018. It no longer assumes the the 'tax cuts' will boost growth.
 
"The IMF in April had forecast US growth of 2.3% for 2017 and 2.5% for
2018, based partly on gains from expected tax cuts and new federal
spending. But given the lack of details on the US administration's
"still evolving policy plans" the IMF said it had decided to remove the
assumed stimulus from its forecasts."
 
'Still evolving policy plans' - that is there are no policy plans yet.
 
"United States GDP Growth Rate
 
The US economy expanded an annualized 1.4 percent on quarter in the
first three months of 2017, better than 1.2 percent in the second
estimate, as consumer spending and exports increased more than
previously anticipated. On the other hand, non-residential investment
was revised lower and the drag from inventories was higher than
initially estimated. GDP Growth Rate in the United States averaged 3.22
percent from 1947 until 2017, reaching an all time high of 16.90 percent
in the first quarter of 1950 and a record low of -10 percent in the
first quarter of 1958."
 
In 2015 the GDP growth was above 3% in 2 Quarters. Much of the fairly
small rise in the first half of 2017 is a result of actions taken
before Trump was inaugurated - also true of the 'jobs, jobs, jobs'.
 
The chaos isn't in the markets or the economy, it's inside the
administration, and particularly inside the White House.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
kaennorsing <ljubitsis@hotmail.com>: Jul 04 02:42AM -0700

Op maandag 3 juli 2017 00:22:15 UTC+2 schreef jdeluise:
> 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.
 
Perhaps you need to watch this (or any of the other) presentation of why the official story is wrong as it is simply physically impossible. Perhaps you should argue against these findings. If you keep ignoring evidence like this I'm done arguing as it's a true waste of time.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg&list=LLKisql1vbes-h1PaR2DNP2w&t=1531s&index=1
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 04 09:26PM +1000

On 4/07/2017 7:42 PM, kaennorsing wrote:
 
> Perhaps you need to watch this (or any of the other) presentation of why the official story is wrong as it is simply physically impossible. Perhaps you should argue against these findings. If you keep ignoring evidence like this I'm done arguing as it's a true waste of time.
 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg&list=LLKisql1vbes-h1PaR2DNP2w&t=1531s&index=1
 
This is flogging a dead horse & I'm bored.
 
I found a new one for you - even uses term 'smoking gun' etc;
 
http://www.anonews.co/nasa-ufo-mars/
 
 
This is far more interesting. First go & find what the 'official story'
is, & then beat us over the head explaining why it defies the 'of physics'.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 04 02:06AM -0700

> Freakin hilarious to see trump trolls defy logic here - just as moronic as their Dear Leader is. Sadly, this country is outnumbered 2:1 by the morons.
 
you Hillary fans invaded and destroyed Libya and Syria and caused the world's biggest refugee crisis since WW2, yet Trump is the danger man LOL
OW <bjmet1@aol.com>: Jul 03 05:30PM -0700

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-5, Court_1 wrote:
 
> > Seriously? She killed someone, old or not. If that doesn't affect her, she's cringe material as a person. Hopefully not...
 
> > P
 
> It's affecting her. Did you see her press conference after her match today? She fell apart. It was heartbreaking.
 
It's one thing to be involved in a fatal car crash, but it's quite another to have the police conclude that you're the one who's at fault. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they'll change their minds, but that appears to be their initial judgment. So the question is, would Venus break down in the press conference like that if she knew she was not at fault? I'm beginning to question the wisdom of her playing at Wimbledon. If she thinks this issue is going to go away as the tournament goes on, she's sadly mistaken. I don't think she fully realizes what she's getting herself into.
Patrick Kehoe <pkehoe@telus.net>: Jul 03 05:48PM -0700

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 5:30:49 PM UTC-7, OW wrote:
 
> > > P
 
> > It's affecting her. Did you see her press conference after her match today? She fell apart. It was heartbreaking.
 
> It's one thing to be involved in a fatal car crash, but it's quite another to have the police conclude that you're the one who's at fault. Maybe they're wrong, maybe they'll change their minds, but that appears to be their initial judgment. So the question is, would Venus break down in the press conference like that if she knew she was not at fault? I'm beginning to question the wisdom of her playing at Wimbledon. If she thinks this issue is going to go away as the tournament goes on, she's sadly mistaken. I don't think she fully realizes what she's getting herself into.
 
If you kill someone while driving a car, regardless of the circumstances or legal culpability, it 'normatively' sends you into a mental/psychological spiral /crisis to some degree or another. Totally bizarre (in my view) of her to have decided to play Wimbledon; not sure what kind of advice she has available to her (legal&emotional), but, people close to her let her down big time. Just my view, of course.
 
P
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com>: Jul 04 12:56AM

On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 17:48:08 -0700, Patrick Kehoe wrote:
 
> bizarre (in my view) of her to have decided to play Wimbledon; not sure
> what kind of advice she has available to her (legal&emotional), but,
> people close to her let her down big time. Just my view, of course.
 
I suppose one could ask Edberg.
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