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

Monday, July 3, 2017

heyguys00@gmail.com: Jul 03 07:46AM -0700

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 2:21:14 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:
 
> >> I rate it 5 out of 10... no more.
 
> > I haven't seen it. I suppose all the weak reviews these films got on RST deterred me. Maybe I'll fast forward through and only pause to zoom in on Gadot's legs and ass. :)
 
> That's a good tactic on second viewing.
 
I thought the movie was refreshing in the sense that she wasn't conflicted, angst-ridden, confused about her role in the world, motivated by pain, etc like Batman and Superman always are. She wanted to take out evil and she relished the fight. She was fine with killing the bad guys--no indecision or "the burden of having power." There's a certain pleasure in watching confident, pure heroes do their thing (same as with Captain America and Reeve's Superman), especially when it's done with some charm and warmth.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jul 03 01:56PM +0200

>> aren't diminishing the office. Times have simply changed and now
>> Trump says it himself in this tweet.
 
> So it took you six rambling, superfluous paragraphs to convey the same thing Trump did in one tweet? Doesn't say much for you, does it?
 
 
Of course. That's why he's there where he is and I'm among you here.
Trump meets Putin in a couple of days, will shake his hand, meet
some glorious G20 leaders and I reply to raja on rst.

 
I'm pathetic really.
 
 
 
>His tweet was really stupid anyway, basically saying that beginning with his presidency, being an obnoxious, thin-skinned boor with a tiny repertoire of unimaginative insults is the new definition of "presidential." Profound, Donald, very profound. In a Slovenian kind of way.
 
 
I don't think that saying "His tweet is stupid" is an argument.
Even if you say it more than once it's still a meaningless
opinion.
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Jul 03 01:08PM +0100

On 03/07/2017 11:06, The Iceberg wrote:
 
> wow what an original criticism of Trump, must've taken such analysis and thought to
> come up with that and how surprising, not a single post/word about Hillary, what a
> good example of sour grapes that TRUMP WON!!!
 
And your needless reply is as unoriginal as usual.
Who's Hillary? The guy who climbed Everest?
 
You assume I was criticising Trump - I wonder why.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 03 05:28AM -0700

On Monday, 3 July 2017 13:08:25 UTC+1, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
 
> And your needless reply is as unoriginal as usual.
> Who's Hillary? The guy who climbed Everest?
 
> You assume I was criticising Trump - I wonder why.
 
well, cos you *always* do.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Jul 03 02:05PM +0200


>> My use of social media is not Presidential - it?s MODERN DAY
>> PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!
 
> It's not up to him to define what presidential means.
 
 
So it's up to whom?
 
Raja on rst is to decide what's presidential, but not the
president himself? That's kinda lame don't you think
so?
 
Do you even understand that these "not presidential" attacks on
trump are just a part of smear fake news campaign?
 
Some silly jurnos resorting to this as they have nothing else to
go,after him?
 
And I'd say common sense suggests "presidential" is what ever
president usually does. What ever becomes tradition.
 
We're not talking about standalone words like "dignity" or such.
 
 
Take e.g. Oscar hosts from the 1930s and most recent one and
compare them. Times change.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com>: Jul 03 05:30AM -0700

On Monday, 3 July 2017 13:01:03 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:
 
> I don't think that saying "His tweet is stupid" is an argument.
> Even if you say it more than once it's still a meaningless
> opinion.
 
Grachus thought Obama was absolutely wonderful and everything he did was absolutely brilliant, he never did anything wrong and then Hillary was going to be exactly the same, then this awful Trump fellow turned up.
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Jul 03 07:44AM -0700

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 3:07:26 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
> > > Trump says it himself in this tweet.
 
> > So it took you six rambling, superfluous paragraphs to convey the same thing Trump did in one tweet? Doesn't say much for you, does it? His tweet was really stupid anyway, basically saying that beginning with his presidency, being an obnoxious, thin-skinned boor with a tiny repertoire of unimaginative insults is the new definition of "presidential." Profound, Donald, very profound. In a Slovenian kind of way.
 
> he should've just written Presidential is when you WIN, like when I gave Saudi-backed Hillary a GOOD THRASHING in the election! HAAHAHHAH!
 
See Ice, even you can do a Trump tweet better than Trump. Now even the janitorial closet at Burger King is presidential.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 03 09:28AM -0400

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/a
rts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/06/27/let-serena-williams-naked-preg
nancy-photo-shoot-be-the-last-of-its-kind/
--
 
 
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Carey <carey_1959@yahoo.com>: Jul 03 06:55AM -0700

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 6:28:39 AM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> --
 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
 
 
SW naked at any time is not something I've wanted to imagine.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 03 06:58AM -0700

> SW naked at any time is not something I've wanted to imagine
 
You don't need to imagine when you are about to see :)
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 03 09:59PM +1000

On 3/07/2017 8:44 AM, Gracchus wrote:
 
>> 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.
 
I've done nothing but praise Fed for his AO heroics. Was he down 1-3 in
5th? Yes, but that doesn't mean Rafa deserved to win. It just means it
was one of those matches that could have gone either way. You can't
have a draw in tennis so one guy will get the breaks & win on the day.
That's the kind of matches we all want to see - 2 guys evenly matched on
the day, so anything can happen.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 03 05:34AM -0700

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 9:02:11 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
> then held his next service game to love. It was just nerves of winning
> Wimbledon for the 1st time that prolonged the match. Rafa also has 2
> mp's in 4th set.
 
Would have means zilch, nada, nothing and it does not go into any record book. Save the bandwidth stay with fact not woulda, coulda, shoulda type rubbish. Then again 90% of your post are rubbish.
 
> This time Rafa doesn't have the pressure of never having won Wimbledon &
> will seal the deal quickly.
 
By going out quickly.
 
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 03 05:34AM -0700

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 9:46:16 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> > That's true. Anything can happen in sports. However, it's still possible to make dumb predictions, which you seem to be excellent at... Don't make me type them out, please. It's embarrassing, even for me.
 
> You have to look at my analysis in totality, not just the wrong ones.
> Would you judge Federer on the slams he lost only?
 
I am sure that is what you do all day when it comes to Federer.
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Jul 03 06:02AM -0700

> You have to look at my analysis in totality, not just the wrong ones.
Would you judge Federer on the slams he lost only?
 
Why would we trust you if you predicted Federer winning one slam and he has 18 slams so far?
 
And you predicted Roddick to win tons of slams and he retired with one.
 
And did Tomic win Wimbledon yet?
 
Does this cover totality?
Pelle Svanslos <pelle@svans.los>: Jul 03 04:17PM +0300

On 03/07/2017 16.02, PeteWasLucky wrote:
 
> Why would we trust you if you predicted Federer winning one slam and he has 18 slams so far?
 
> And you predicted Roddick to win tons of slams and he retired with one.
 
> And did Tomic win Wimbledon yet?
 
 
Tomic is perhaps the fave to win this year. After all his 1st rnd
losses, he's had the most mileage on grass.
 
> Does this cover totality?
 
You forgot: H2H is the most important statistic in tennis.
John Liang <jliang70@gmail.com>: Jul 03 06:17AM -0700

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 9:46:16 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote:
 
> > That's true. Anything can happen in sports. However, it's still possible to make dumb predictions, which you seem to be excellent at... Don't make me type them out, please. It's embarrassing, even for me.
 
> 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 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.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 03 09:50PM +1000

On 3/07/2017 8:09 AM, Court_1 wrote:
 
>> She'll play free & easy. Watch.
 
> She has a wrongful death lawsuit filed against her and she could be charged with reckless driving or even worse vehicular homicide and you think she will play freely and as if nothing has happened? If she's a human being and doesn't have alien blood running through her veins, that's unlikely IMO.
 
Like at FO the women's field is full of basket cases. In those
situations you go with the experienced players. That's why I tipped
Halep v Stosur final there, & would have been correct if not for
darkhorse Ostapenko.
 
This Wimbledon is ripe for another darkhorse win, but Venus v Woz is as
good as any.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 03 09:54PM +1000

On 3/07/2017 8:27 AM, soccerfan777 wrote:
> Whisper kicked his dog to death. He didn't feel a thing. If her ran over a 80 year old git, he wouldn't feel a thing either.
 
Probably did the old git a favor. Saved him from going into a nursing
home & he's free from a nagging wife.
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 03 10:05PM +1000

On 3/07/2017 9:38 PM, stephenJ wrote:
 
> Even though serious criminal charges (vehicular homicide) are extremely
> unlikely, sure, it is likely that the whole episode will be weighing on
> her mind during Wimbledon.
 
She'll be fine. She's been a pro for 20 yrs & has experienced more
traumatic situations (eg sister murdered).
 
Sure it'll be on her mind, but she'll be able to put it to one side &
get on with the job. I see her as the fave.
 
 
 
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
stephenJ <sjaros3@cox.net>: Jul 03 07:40AM -0500

On 7/3/2017 7:05 AM, Whisper wrote:
> traumatic situations (eg sister murdered).
 
> Sure it'll be on her mind, but she'll be able to put it to one side &
> get on with the job. I see her as the fave.
 
On paper, I agree she's as good a pick to win as anyone. But my sense is
that Venus has lost some mojo the last couple of months, she isn't
playing at the same level she was at the AO. I think she's sliding back
again and is ripe for an early-round upset.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 03 09:51PM +1000

Glad I completely discounted his chances last week.
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Pelle Svanslos <pelle@svans.los>: Jul 03 03:01PM +0300

On 03/07/2017 14.51, Whisper wrote:
 
> Glad I completely discounted his chances last week.
 
What tournament was he playing?
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk: Jul 03 07:16AM -0500

In article <18idnSDnmNhBssfEnZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@westnet.com.au>,
 
> Glad I completely discounted his chances last week.
 
"Out in straight sets" is not quite accurate. He retired from the match
because of his ongoing hip injury, which was known before the tournament
began.
 
wg
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com>: Jul 03 10:21PM +1000

> because of his ongoing hip injury, which was known before the tournament
> began.
 
> wg
 
Like we keep saying he needs to get serious about his fitness training
to minimize these situations.
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Jul 03 03:56AM -0700

On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 3:14:04 AM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 6:55:28 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
 
> IMO, you might not like it as much as "The Big City".
 
I watched The World of Apu and liked it. It's very different than The Big City but both focused on different aspects of human relationships. Ray was great at exploring that.
 
 
> Did you see the first part of this trilogy, "Pather Panchali" ? If you haven't watched that one, you might not get the full context of this movie.
 
No, not yet. The World of Apu was stand-alone though. I want to watch the first two parts of the trilogy now.
 
 

> I would also suggest Ray's "Charulata", if you haven't already seen it.
 
Nope, haven't seen it. The only two Ray films I've seen thus far are The Big City and The World of Apu.
 

> I know you are not much into Indian movies,
 
Sure I am. I'll watch films produced in any country.
 
> but you could try "Bombai ka Babu". It tackles a relationship theme rarely explored (and for good reason), but does so delicately.
 
I'll try and check it out.
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