rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com
Google Groups
Topic digest
View all topics
Republican math: 306 is greater than 332, 365, 370, 379, 426. - 6 Updates
(OT) Speech at Boeing - 4 Updates
TT, PeteWasLucky and Pelle -- Keep up the good work - 4 Updates
Laver on Federer - 3 Updates
Incoherent speech - 2 Updates
Defeating most defending slam champions in two consecutive slams - 1 Update
Donald Trump is a small man - 3 Updates
The alt-right guide to fielding conference questions - 1 Update
(OT) A President unhinged? - 1 Update
Republican math: 306 is greater than 332, 365, 370, 379, 426.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>: Feb 18 11:47PM +1100
On 18/02/2017 11:15 PM, stephenJ wrote:
> Not the point, which is despite breathless media claims of Trump
> administration "disarray", "dysfunction", etc., Trump has actually
> gotten a lot done in 28 days.
Hillary would have done zero by now.
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>: Feb 18 11:53PM +1100
On 18/02/2017 11:33 PM, TT wrote:
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> Yeah, signing executive orders which he doesn't even understand.
> Hardly a cause for celebration when they don't do good.
It shows he's a man of action & his word - the intention is to follow
through.
Hillary would have delivered zilch.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Feb 18 01:41PM +0100
>> It's a procedure with lethal outcome, how can it ever be safe. So
>> dumb.
> Unsafe for the mother. Keep on trolling.
It's not trolling. It's a bone I threw to you.
Abortion is a debated issue, so you can't criticize him for doing
something which is his expected policy, capsici?
Let alone to act from such a moral high ground, when it's very
easy to paint you as being totally immoral in this divisive
issue. In the eyes of those who see abortion as a murder you're
much more devious than they're in your eyes.
Besides, I believe he primarily stopped funding those NGO as
they're foreign NGO. America first.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Feb 18 01:10PM
On 18/02/2017 12:15, stephenJ wrote:
> Not the point, which is despite breathless media claims of Trump
> administration "disarray", "dysfunction", etc., Trump has actually
> gotten a lot done in 28 days.
That's another alternative fact though.
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders>
12 listed there, but how much tangible effect has been made by any of
them? It's mostly setting in motion a plan to do something, or to
review something or setting guidelines, establishing a task force, etc.
All of which may be worthwhile and which may provide action in due
course, but very little has changed. We wouldn't necessarily expect
much to change in a month though.
The EO on building the wall said, in part, "Sec. 2. Policy. It is the
policy of the executive branch to:
(a) secure the southern border of the United States through the
immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border,
monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal
immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism;"
"immediate construction" - dated 25 Jan, so how many bricks have been
laid in 24 days? How many personnel have been recruited so far?
Someone pointed out a couple of months back, if you build a 20 foot high
wall it won't keep out someone with a 25 foot ladder.
Things ARE starting to get clearer, but it's others who are providing
some clarity. Given time the White House might work around him, leaving
him more time for Twitter, TV watching and long weekends in Florida.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Feb 18 04:11PM +0200
18.2.2017, 14:41, *skriptis kirjoitti:
> It's not trolling. It's a bone I threw to you.
> Abortion is a debated issue, so you can't criticize him for doing
> something which is his expected policy, capsici?
Of course I can criticize a mad policy. And it's spelled 'capisce'.
> easy to paint you as being totally immoral in this divisive
> issue. In the eyes of those who see abortion as a murder you're
> much more devious than they're in your eyes.
I said 'unwanted' and 'unsafe', there's zero moral dilemma with that.
> Besides, I believe he primarily stopped funding those NGO as
> they're foreign NGO. America first.
You 'believe'... once again you're arguing about something you have no
idea about.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Feb 18 03:28PM +0100
>> Abortion is a debated issue, so you can't criticize him for doing
>> something which is his expected policy, capsici?
> Of course I can criticize a mad policy. And it's spelled 'capisce'.
Personal opinion. In some countries abortion is even illegal, and
somewhere is legal yes, but it's always a debated issue, as it's
a complex matter and nowhere it is unanimously settled with a
100% consensus even where it's legal.
Calling mad something because you simply disagree with it, tells
us you have a totalitarian mindset.
>> issue. In the eyes of those who see abortion as a murder you're
>> much more devious than they're in your eyes.
> I said 'unwanted' and 'unsafe', there's zero moral dilemma with that.
Again, to you. You can't impose your view on others. If some say
there is dilemma which they feel, then it's real.
>> they're foreign NGO. America first.
> You 'believe'... once again you're arguing about something you have no
> idea about.
Activate your brainy. Why would, a conservative and a nationalist
US president give away US tax payers' money to foreigners
pursuing liberal agenda?
It's 1+1=2
If you don't "believe" that, well, it's tough for you.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Back to top
(OT) Speech at Boeing
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Feb 18 01:42PM
In his introductory remarks he said, "Remember we came down -- all
together, we came down, and this was going to be a place that was tough
to win, and we won in a landslide. This was a good one. (Applause.)
So I want to thank the people of South Carolina and your governor --
tremendous guy. He supported us right from the beginning. So I'd like
to thank Governor McMaster for the incredible job. He's right here
someplace. Thank you very much. You have been fantastic."
South Carolina has voted Republican at every General Election since WW2
except for 1960 & 1976, so it should not have been tough to win. And all
of the polls showed him leading Clinton comfortably too.
He took 54.9% to Clinton's 40.7%, ~14%, majority in votes 300k.
Comfortable, but hardly a landslide.
I guess someone told him this.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Feb 18 02:53PM +0100
> He took 54.9% to Clinton's 40.7%, ~14%, majority in votes 300k.
> Comfortable, but hardly a landslide.
> I guess someone told him this.
Is there a mathematical definition of the term "landslide"
victory?
Copy paste.
"While the broad definition of landslide is pretty clear, the term
is trickier to define specifically. How big is a "resounding
victory?" for example. Is there a certain margin of victory that
qualifies as a landslide election? How many electoral votes do
you have to win to achieve a landslide? It turns out there is no
consensus on the specifics of a landslide definition.
There is no legal or constitutional definition of what a landslide
election is, or how wide an electoral victory margin must be in
order for a candidate to have won in a landslide.
"It usually means exceeding expectations and being somewhat
overwhelming," Gerald Hill, a political scientist and co-author
of The Facts on File Dictionary of American Politics, told The
Associated Press.
If that doesn't fit Trump then I'm an albatross.
You're such a lousy poster and a fake news source.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Bharath Purohit <acebharath@gmail.com>: Feb 18 06:08AM -0800
Brian , i just had a question for you ib another thread. Please throw some light on that.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Feb 18 04:28PM +0200
18.2.2017, 15:53, *skriptis kirjoitti:
> Is there a mathematical definition of the term "landslide"
> victory?
Hardly, but Trump isn't even in top 50% of victories. So he definitely
did not have one.
Back to top
TT, PeteWasLucky and Pelle -- Keep up the good work
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Feb 18 12:46PM
On 18/02/2017 12:01, *skriptis wrote:
> Everyone would have loved to see you writing exactly what's so bad
> with his speech?
> It's one of the best speeches ever.
It was a joke, and as such so entertaining. LOL.
Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_lawrence@msn.com>: Feb 18 12:50PM
On 18/02/2017 12:10, *skriptis wrote:
>> cares what his policies are?
> So why do you criticize him that much if you admit you're clueless
> about politics?
Because he's obviously unfit for the job.
>> isn't a policy. He gets asked about policy, but never has any meaningful
>> answer.
> And what was Obama's policy?
Deflection noted.
> What's Merkel's policy?
And again. More isn't necessarily better.
>>> He's so great, it's unbelievable.
>> Sycophant.
> Weirdo.
Oh I'm so offended!
I've been retired for 20 years so I have time to waste on this, what's
your excuse? Oh yeah, it's a job.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Feb 18 02:30PM +0100
> Deflection noted.
>> What's Merkel's policy?
> And again. More isn't necessarily better.
It's not a deflection. You say you don't understand Trump's
policy, but earlier you also said he was unfit for the
job.
I'd say it's you who's perhaps unfit for rst? Can you make up your
mind and finally name your objections?
You've yet to give us a valid comparisons. That's why I asked what
was Obama's policy.
I've yet to hear from you what is it that Obama had and Trump doesn't.
It's you who claims he has no policy. Then give us example of the
one that "has a policy".
> Oh I'm so offended!
> I've been retired for 20 years so I have time to waste on this, what's
> your excuse? Oh yeah, it's a job.
Does it matter in the end? Federer loves the game, Kyrgios does it
for the money.
They both play tennis. We watch it.
Focus on the facts and discussion, don't waste your energy on
thinking about others' motives.
In the end, it's you and the other posters that start these
threads around here. You, Pelle, TT. I merely reply. Logic would
suggest it's you who are being paid, no?
Of course, Trump haters suck at logical and critical thinking.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Feb 18 04:24PM +0200
18.2.2017, 9:08, Brian W Lawrence kirjoitti:
> Trump's policies? Does he have any? I must have missed them.
Trump was asked what will he DO to anti-semitism in USA... his answer
was 'I am the least anti semitic person, I am the least racist person'.
Back to top
Laver on Federer
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Feb 18 03:18PM +0200
On 18.2.2017 14:38, Whisper wrote:
>> play. It doesn't hurt to keep in mind that volleys are the easiest shots
>> in the game.
> Mac certainly made them look easy.
They actually are easier to hit than the modern groundies. Move arm,
racquet back in one piece, move it forward in one piece. Almost as easy
as the volley.
But hugely less effective. Don't you play?
> Today's guys make them look almost
> impossible to hit.
That's probably why McEnroe, with a trembling voice, says "I wish I
could play like him [Federer]".
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>: Feb 19 12:34AM +1100
On 19/02/2017 12:18 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> They actually are easier to hit than the modern groundies. Move arm,
> racquet back in one piece, move it forward in one piece. Almost as easy
> as the volley.
Again McEnroe\Edberg\Laver etc made them look simple.
For modern players you forgot to mention many other 'motions' when
volleying, like stomping heavily with one foot, looking around
cluelessly & trying to guess where the ball will come, bricking the ball
into net or 10 ft long and/or wide, & or sitting up for easy winner for
opponent etc...
> But hugely less effective. Don't you play?
How are groundies effective/efficient? It takes 40 strokes before
someone eventually makes an error due to fatigue. They are the most
ineffective part of modern tennis. The most effective are the point
enders, like ace, winner, & great volleying would be in their but
essentially obsolete in modern game due to lack of ability.
>> impossible to hit.
> That's probably why McEnroe, with a trembling voice, says "I wish I
> could play like him [Federer]".
McEnroe always promotes the game. That's his job. He's not going to
tell the world modern players are boring, mindless baseline bots is he?
That won't bring fans to the game. He has to make it sound interesting
the best he can.
Did you expect Steve Jobs to say I-phones are crap & go buy the old Nokia?
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Feb 18 04:14PM +0200
On 18.2.2017 15:34, Whisper wrote:
>> racquet back in one piece, move it forward in one piece. Almost as easy
>> as the volley.
> Again McEnroe\Edberg\Laver etc made them look simple.
Simple things often look simple.
> For modern players you forgot to mention many other 'motions' when
> volleying, like stomping heavily with one foot,
That "stomping" thing is an Iceyism. It's kinda cool, like the pizza,
but it's not meant to be taken at full face value. Only a fool would see
that as a real "weakness".
Some people actually encourage/teach "stomping" the volley. There's a
couple of good reasons for that.
> cluelessly & trying to guess where the ball will come, bricking the ball
> into net or 10 ft long and/or wide, & or sitting up for easy winner for
> opponent etc...
McEnroe bricked volleys too (I guess). He'd be bricking them a whole lot
more and looking around baffled against modern nucular groundies.
Perhaps would make the same decision Rogi made: "No more going to the
net for me!".
>> But hugely less effective. Don't you play?
> How are groundies effective/efficient?
That's the wrong question, you've been reading too many skriptis posts.
It was a comparison, see the word "less". A comparison between less
effective and more effective groundies.
> ineffective part of modern tennis. The most effective are the point
> enders, like ace, winner, & great volleying would be in their but
> essentially obsolete in modern game due to lack of ability.
That's a newbie view of tennis. It's the second to last stroke that wins
the point. Not the winner.
>> That's probably why McEnroe, with a trembling voice, says "I wish I
>> could play like him [Federer]".
> McEnroe always promotes the game.
Players don't lie about their craft. When somebody says anything like
the above, you know it comes from the soul.
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Back to top
Incoherent speech
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Feb 18 02:40PM +0100
Munich, security conference. Merkel says:
"Russia is not just a country that borders European Union, it's
also our neighbour."
So, any mainstream media to ridicule this incoherent ramblings
like they do with Trump? Will we be seeing headlines all over?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Feb 18 04:14PM +0200
18.2.2017, 15:40, *skriptis kirjoitti:
> So, any mainstream media to ridicule this incoherent ramblings
> like they do with Trump? Will we be seeing headlines all over?
Fake news, as expected from your posts.
Back to top
Defeating most defending slam champions in two consecutive slams
Bharath Purohit <acebharath@gmail.com>: Feb 18 06:07AM -0800
Was watching Wawrinka brilliant straight sets win against Murray in US Open 2013.
It made me realize that wawrinka had defeated 3 defending slam champions in two consecutive slams.
He defeated Murray (defending champion from us open 2012) in Us Open 2013 and then defeated Djokovic (2013 defending champ from ao 2013) and Nadal (defending champ from 2013 fo) in 2014 AO
Thats three defending slam champions he defeated in two consecutive slams.
Is there anyone who has done better? From the top of my head Del Potro comes to mind who defeated two defending slam champs (federer and nadal) in same slam. Anyone else who achieved this feat? Anyone? Brian Lawrence?
Back to top
Donald Trump is a small man
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>: Feb 18 11:52PM +1100
On 18/02/2017 11:29 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> and that is because he is a small man.
> http://www.avclub.com/article/donald-trump-small-man-250564
> Nice pics.
Taylor Swift called it right - haters gonna hate.
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr>: Feb 18 01:32PM +0100
> --
> ?Donald Trump is the weak man?s vision of a strong man.?
> -- Charles Cooke
Good tactics, move onto insulting his voters and supporters.
Guaranteed to pay off in the end.
lol
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
"Pelle Svanslös" <pelle@svans.com>: Feb 18 03:21PM +0200
On 18.2.2017 14:52, Whisper wrote:
>> http://www.avclub.com/article/donald-trump-small-man-250564
>> Nice pics.
> Taylor Swift called it right - haters gonna hate.
Every in the above spot on.
https://publiussays.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/morpheus.jpg?w=760
--
"Donald Trump is the weak man's vision of a strong man."
-- Charles Cooke
Back to top
The alt-right guide to fielding conference questions
Tim <firemonkey@gatty.co.uk>: Feb 18 12:54PM
After watching this interview between BBC Newsnight's Evan Davies and
Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to Donald Trump, I realised I'd been
handling conference questions all wrong. Gorka, who is a former editor
of Breitbart News, gives a virtuoso performance that illustrates every
trick in the book for coming out on top in an interview: smear the
questioner, distract from the question, deny the premises, and question
the motives behind a difficult question. Do everything, in fact, except
give a straight answer. Here's what a conference Q&A session might look
like if we all mastered these useful techniques.
ED: Dr Gorka, you claim that you can improve children's reading
development using a set of motor exercises. But the data you showed on
slide 3 don't seem to show that.
SG: That question is typical of the kind of bias from people working at
British Universities. You seem hell-bent on discrediting any view that
doesn't agree with your own preconceived position.
ED: Er, no. I just wondered about slide 3. Is the difference between
those two numbers statistically significant?
SG: Why are people like you so obsessed with trivial details? Here we
are showing marvellous improvements in children's reading, and all you
can do is to pick away at a minor point.
ED: Well, you could answer the question? Are those numbers significantly
different?
SG: It's not as if you and your colleagues have any expertise in
statistics. The last talk by your colleague Dr Smith was full of
mistakes. She actually did a parametric test in a situation that called
for a nonparametric test.
ED: But can we get back to the question of whether your intervention had
a significant effect.
SG: Of course it did. It's an enormous effect. And that's only part of
the data. I've got lots of other numbers that I haven't shown here. And
if we got to slide 3, just look at those bars: the red one is much
higher than the blue one.
ED: But where are the error bars?
SG: That's just typical of you. Always on the attack. Look at the
language you are using. I show you all the results in a nice bar chart,
and all you can do is talk about error. Don't you ever think of anything
else?
ED: Well, I can see we aren't going to get anywhere with that question,
so let me try another one. Your co-author, Dr Trump, said that the
children in your study all had dyslexia, whereas in your talk you said
they covered the whole range of reading ability. That's rather
confusing. Can you tell us which version is correct?
SG: There you go again. Always trying to pick holes in everything we do.
Seems you're just jealous because your own reading programs don't have
anything like this effect.
ED: But don't you think it discredits your study if you can't give a
straight answer to a simple question?
SG: So this is what we get, ladies and gentleman. All the time. Fake
challenges and attempts to discredit us.
ED: Well, it's a straightforward question. Were they dyslexic or not?
SG: Some of them were, and some of them weren't.
ED: How many? Dr Trump said all of them were dyslexic.
SG: You'll have to ask him. I've got parents falling over themselves to
get their children enrolled, and I really don't have time for this kind
of biased questioning.
Chair: Thank you Dr Gorka. We have no more time for questions.
http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-alt-right-guide-to-fielding.html
Back to top
(OT) A President unhinged?
calimero377@gmx.de: Feb 18 02:33AM -0800
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:56:41 AM UTC+1, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> international relations (#9), relations with Congress (#8), vision (#6),
> perf. in context (#8). He was weaker on economy, moral authority, admin
> & justice.
Considering that 80 % of those historians are liberals and many of them were fighting Reagan tooth and nails back in the day this is quite an achievement for Ronnie.
He was clearly the greatest US president of my lifetime. To compare the fascist orange clown with him is an unbelievable insult.
Max
Back to top
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.