tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23
From: jdeluise
Subject: If Federer wins...
Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing when
Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.




 
Date: 31 Jan 2009 22:42:07
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:2b3hl.16$Rr6.8@newsfe02.iad...
> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing
> when
> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.


Why would be hearing that?

2-2 in slams.




Remember you after Wimbledon people were saying that because it was 2-1 in
slams won.




  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 05:00:40
From: John Doe
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
"*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> Remember you after Wimbledon people were saying that because it
> was 2-1 in slams won.

I wonder what that might resemble in English.
Just curious.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:49:39
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
*skriptis wrote:
> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2b3hl.16$Rr6.8@newsfe02.iad...
>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing
>> when
>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
>
> Why would be hearing that?

No reason. Domdeluise is just trolling.

>
> 2-2 in slams.
>


   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 22:23:35
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> No reason. Domdeluise is just trolling.

Who me? I'd like to hear your definition of trolling?


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:28:23
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:Wb4hl.50$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
>
> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> No reason. Domdeluise is just trolling.
>
> Who me? I'd like to hear your definition of trolling?


Because the whole #1 talk last year was about the fact that Nadal held 2
slams, vs Fed's 1. Under new ranking system Nadal would have become number
1 after Wimbledon I believe. And that would be fair.



Your hypothetical (also most likely) scenario of Federer winning 2 slams in
row is not the same since Nadal would still hols 2 slams in the past 52
weeks, + bunch of MS titles. So no reason for Fed fans to claim "Fed
deserves #1". also means no reason to ask "how would nadal's fan react"




     
Date: 31 Jan 2009 22:54:01
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Wb4hl.50$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
> >
> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >
> >> No reason. Domdeluise is just trolling.
> >
> > Who me? I'd like to hear your definition of trolling?
>
>
> Because the whole #1 talk last year was about the fact that Nadal held 2
> slams, vs Fed's 1. Under new ranking system Nadal would have become
> number
> 1 after Wimbledon I believe. And that would be fair.
>
>
>
> Your hypothetical (also most likely) scenario of Federer winning 2 slams
> in
> row is not the same since Nadal would still hols 2 slams in the past 52
> weeks, + bunch of MS titles. So no reason for Fed fans to claim "Fed
> deserves #1". also means no reason to ask "how would nadal's fan react"

The people that were complaining about this were not doing so objectively,
it was as a result of either Fed hatred or Nadal worship. In my opinion,
the more objective posters weren't complaining about it at all.


      
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:05:51
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:sE4hl.58$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
>
> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Wb4hl.50$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
>> >
>> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> No reason. Domdeluise is just trolling.
>> >
>> > Who me? I'd like to hear your definition of trolling?
>>
>>
>> Because the whole #1 talk last year was about the fact that Nadal held 2
>> slams, vs Fed's 1. Under new ranking system Nadal would have become
>> number
>> 1 after Wimbledon I believe. And that would be fair.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your hypothetical (also most likely) scenario of Federer winning 2 slams
>> in
>> row is not the same since Nadal would still hols 2 slams in the past 52
>> weeks, + bunch of MS titles. So no reason for Fed fans to claim "Fed
>> deserves #1". also means no reason to ask "how would nadal's fan react"
>
> The people that were complaining about this were not doing so objectively,
> it was as a result of either Fed hatred or Nadal worship. In my opinion,
> the more objective posters weren't complaining about it at all.


Oh yes they objected, and even the ATP realized the ranking system sucked so
they changed it for 2009.

Very simple.


Nadal effectively became number 1 after he had won Wimbledon, and the
rankings should have expressed it.




       
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:34:03
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sE4hl.58$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
> >
> > On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >
> >> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Wb4hl.50$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
> >> >
> >> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> No reason. Domdeluise is just trolling.
> >> >
> >> > Who me? I'd like to hear your definition of trolling?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because the whole #1 talk last year was about the fact that Nadal held
> >> 2
> >> slams, vs Fed's 1. Under new ranking system Nadal would have become
> >> number
> >> 1 after Wimbledon I believe. And that would be fair.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your hypothetical (also most likely) scenario of Federer winning 2
> >> slams
> >> in
> >> row is not the same since Nadal would still hols 2 slams in the past 52
> >> weeks, + bunch of MS titles. So no reason for Fed fans to claim "Fed
> >> deserves #1". also means no reason to ask "how would nadal's fan react"
> >
> > The people that were complaining about this were not doing so
> > objectively,
> > it was as a result of either Fed hatred or Nadal worship. In my
> > opinion,
> > the more objective posters weren't complaining about it at all.
>
>
> Oh yes they objected, and even the ATP realized the ranking system sucked
> so
> they changed it for 2009.
>
> Very simple.
>
>
> Nadal effectively became number 1 after he had won Wimbledon, and the
> rankings should have expressed it.

The point is people were complaining that he should have been #1 after
Wimbledon despite what the points said. It really wasn't about 2-1 slams
and you know it, it was because Nadal had just beaten him in two consecutive
slams. So I see no reason why the same people couldn't make claims about
Fed for having beaten all the top players around him in slams recently.


        
Date: 01 Feb 2009 05:21:42
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:_d5hl.70$Rr6.31@newsfe02.iad...
>
>
> The point is people were complaining that he should have been #1 after
> Wimbledon despite what the points said. It really wasn't about 2-1 slams
> and you know it, it was because Nadal had just beaten him in two
> consecutive
> slams. So I see no reason why the same people couldn't make claims about
> Fed for having beaten all the top players around him in slams recently.

Yuore're just wrong




        
Date: 01 Feb 2009 01:57:06
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:sE4hl.58$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
>>> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Wb4hl.50$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No reason. Domdeluise is just trolling.
>>>>> Who me? I'd like to hear your definition of trolling?
>>>>
>>>> Because the whole #1 talk last year was about the fact that Nadal held
>>>> 2
>>>> slams, vs Fed's 1. Under new ranking system Nadal would have become
>>>> number
>>>> 1 after Wimbledon I believe. And that would be fair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your hypothetical (also most likely) scenario of Federer winning 2
>>>> slams
>>>> in
>>>> row is not the same since Nadal would still hols 2 slams in the past 52
>>>> weeks, + bunch of MS titles. So no reason for Fed fans to claim "Fed
>>>> deserves #1". also means no reason to ask "how would nadal's fan react"
>>> The people that were complaining about this were not doing so
>>> objectively,
>>> it was as a result of either Fed hatred or Nadal worship. In my
>>> opinion,
>>> the more objective posters weren't complaining about it at all.
>>
>> Oh yes they objected, and even the ATP realized the ranking system sucked
>> so
>> they changed it for 2009.
>>
>> Very simple.
>>
>>
>> Nadal effectively became number 1 after he had won Wimbledon, and the
>> rankings should have expressed it.
>
> The point is people were complaining that he should have been #1 after
> Wimbledon despite what the points said. It really wasn't about 2-1 slams
> and you know it, it was because Nadal had just beaten him in two consecutive
> slams. So I see no reason why the same people couldn't make claims about
> Fed for having beaten all the top players around him in slams recently.

Yes it was about slams.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


         
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:00:23
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >
> >> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:sE4hl.58$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
> >>> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:Wb4hl.50$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
> >>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> No reason. Domdeluise is just trolling.
> >>>>> Who me? I'd like to hear your definition of trolling?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because the whole #1 talk last year was about the fact that Nadal
> >>>> held
> >>>> 2
> >>>> slams, vs Fed's 1. Under new ranking system Nadal would have become
> >>>> number
> >>>> 1 after Wimbledon I believe. And that would be fair.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Your hypothetical (also most likely) scenario of Federer winning 2
> >>>> slams
> >>>> in
> >>>> row is not the same since Nadal would still hols 2 slams in the past
> >>>> 52
> >>>> weeks, + bunch of MS titles. So no reason for Fed fans to claim "Fed
> >>>> deserves #1". also means no reason to ask "how would nadal's fan
> >>>> react"
> >>> The people that were complaining about this were not doing so
> >>> objectively,
> >>> it was as a result of either Fed hatred or Nadal worship. In my
> >>> opinion,
> >>> the more objective posters weren't complaining about it at all.
> >>
> >> Oh yes they objected, and even the ATP realized the ranking system
> >> sucked
> >> so
> >> they changed it for 2009.
> >>
> >> Very simple.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nadal effectively became number 1 after he had won Wimbledon, and the
> >> rankings should have expressed it.
> >
> > The point is people were complaining that he should have been #1 after
> > Wimbledon despite what the points said. It really wasn't about 2-1
> > slams
> > and you know it, it was because Nadal had just beaten him in two
> > consecutive
> > slams. So I see no reason why the same people couldn't make claims
> > about
> > Fed for having beaten all the top players around him in slams recently.
>
> Yes it was about slams.

The 2-1 argument is a good one imo. But from my recollection that was
hardly the only argument being made by Nadal fanboys (don't remember your
take on it and this thread wasn't directed at you in particular by the way).


         
Date: 01 Feb 2009 01:58:24
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
TT wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
>> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sE4hl.58$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Wb4hl.50$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No reason. Domdeluise is just trolling.
>>>>>> Who me? I'd like to hear your definition of trolling?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the whole #1 talk last year was about the fact that Nadal held
>>>>> 2
>>>>> slams, vs Fed's 1. Under new ranking system Nadal would have become
>>>>> number
>>>>> 1 after Wimbledon I believe. And that would be fair.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your hypothetical (also most likely) scenario of Federer winning 2
>>>>> slams
>>>>> in
>>>>> row is not the same since Nadal would still hols 2 slams in the
>>>>> past 52
>>>>> weeks, + bunch of MS titles. So no reason for Fed fans to claim "Fed
>>>>> deserves #1". also means no reason to ask "how would nadal's fan
>>>>> react"
>>>> The people that were complaining about this were not doing so
>>>> objectively,
>>>> it was as a result of either Fed hatred or Nadal worship. In my
>>>> opinion,
>>>> the more objective posters weren't complaining about it at all.
>>>
>>> Oh yes they objected, and even the ATP realized the ranking system
>>> sucked
>>> so
>>> they changed it for 2009.
>>>
>>> Very simple.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nadal effectively became number 1 after he had won Wimbledon, and the
>>> rankings should have expressed it.
>>
>> The point is people were complaining that he should have been #1 after
>> Wimbledon despite what the points said. It really wasn't about 2-1 slams
>> and you know it, it was because Nadal had just beaten him in two
>> consecutive
>> slams. So I see no reason why the same people couldn't make claims about
>> Fed for having beaten all the top players around him in slams recently.
>
> Yes it was about slams.
>

And if it wouldn't have been about slams but h2h matches I don't see
federer beating Nadal a lot lately.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


          
Date: 01 Feb 2009 05:22:43
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"TT" <gold@Olympics.org > wrote in message
news:yA5hl.126970$_03.55228@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> TT wrote:
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:sE4hl.58$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Wb4hl.50$Rr6.26@newsfe02.iad...
>>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No reason. Domdeluise is just trolling.
>>>>>>> Who me? I'd like to hear your definition of trolling?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the whole #1 talk last year was about the fact that Nadal
>>>>>> held
>>>>>> 2
>>>>>> slams, vs Fed's 1. Under new ranking system Nadal would have become
>>>>>> number
>>>>>> 1 after Wimbledon I believe. And that would be fair.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your hypothetical (also most likely) scenario of Federer winning 2
>>>>>> slams
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> row is not the same since Nadal would still hols 2 slams in the past
>>>>>> 52
>>>>>> weeks, + bunch of MS titles. So no reason for Fed fans to claim "Fed
>>>>>> deserves #1". also means no reason to ask "how would nadal's fan
>>>>>> react"
>>>>> The people that were complaining about this were not doing so
>>>>> objectively,
>>>>> it was as a result of either Fed hatred or Nadal worship. In my
>>>>> opinion,
>>>>> the more objective posters weren't complaining about it at all.
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes they objected, and even the ATP realized the ranking system
>>>> sucked
>>>> so
>>>> they changed it for 2009.
>>>>
>>>> Very simple.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nadal effectively became number 1 after he had won Wimbledon, and the
>>>> rankings should have expressed it.
>>>
>>> The point is people were complaining that he should have been #1 after
>>> Wimbledon despite what the points said. It really wasn't about 2-1
>>> slams
>>> and you know it, it was because Nadal had just beaten him in two
>>> consecutive
>>> slams. So I see no reason why the same people couldn't make claims
>>> about
>>> Fed for having beaten all the top players around him in slams recently.
>>
>> Yes it was about slams.
>>
>
> And if it wouldn't have been about slams but h2h matches I don't see
> federer beating Nadal a lot lately.

A valid point.




 
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:25:19
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com >
wrote:

>Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
>he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
>seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing when
>Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.

We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).




  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 15:22:11
From: JTJ
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 6:15=A0pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net > wrote:
>
> ++ Nadalnutnuzzler?

"Nadlicker" is equally effective and as offensive as Fedf***er.



  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 15:20:54
From: Sao Paulo Swallow
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 3:17=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:

>
> We would need to know the stats for sure and for a longer time. I
> honestly have this feeling that Federer often has been favoured with the
> scheduling.
>

Maybe it's some bad food. Or a hangover.


   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 01:30:03
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
Sao Paulo Swallow wrote:
> On Jan 31, 3:17 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> We would need to know the stats for sure and for a longer time. I
>> honestly have this feeling that Federer often has been favoured with the
>> scheduling.
>>
>
> Maybe it's some bad food. Or a hangover.

Or maybe those toys that you swallowed?


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 15:15:02
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 1:39=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> TT wrote:
> > Sakari Lund wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
> >>> are aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
> >>> bitching that he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won
> >>> back-to-back slams and I seem to remember a number of posters
> >>> complaining about this very thing when Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> >> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
> >> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
> >> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would
> >> make no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>
> > You realized wrong. It's combination of scheduling and draw. If you
> > don't admit this you're probably a serious fedfucker...
>
> The draw is random. If you don't believe that then you're a serious
> Nadal-fucker. On the schedule, the only way it could have been "fair", re=
covery
> wise, given the SFs in retrospect, is if Nadal had played his match on Th=
ursday
> and Federer on Friday. But then you'd have to argue that Nadal should hav=
e been
> _favoured_ by the organizers in starting the tournament with his half of =
the
> draw. So is that what should have happened?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Nadalnutnuzzler?

P



  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 15:09:56
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 4:48=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 4:02=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 4:01=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > > > RahimAsif wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > > > >> When was the last time he played the latter semifinal at any sla=
m?
> > > > >> (not counting when he actually wanted to begin later)
>
> > > > > French Open last year against Monfils, and it was a long match
> > > > > IIRC...
>
> > > > Before that?
>
> > > > --
> > > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland=
"
>
> > > USO 2007...
>
> > So to summarize, in the last 6 slams he has played the latter semi 3
> > times (USO 2007 against Davydenko, FO 2008 against Monfils and AO 2008
> > by request). He has played the earlier semi 3 times (with USO 2008
> > being earlier by less than an hour). Yes, it smells like there is a
> > pro-Fed bias alright...
>
> I'm not going to hold my breath for TJT to thank you for informing him of
> this.

Neither am I. TJT tends to ignore posts when his arguments are taken
apart - as happened in this case. I see he is responding to other
posts in this thread while conveniently ignoring my response...


   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 01:17:48
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:48 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31-Jan-2009, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 4:02 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 31, 4:01 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>> RahimAsif wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> When was the last time he played the latter semifinal at any slam?
>>>>>>> (not counting when he actually wanted to begin later)
>>>>>> French Open last year against Monfils, and it was a long match
>>>>>> IIRC...
>>>>> Before that?
>>>>> --
>>>>> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
>>>>> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>>>> USO 2007...
>>> So to summarize, in the last 6 slams he has played the latter semi 3
>>> times (USO 2007 against Davydenko, FO 2008 against Monfils and AO 2008
>>> by request). He has played the earlier semi 3 times (with USO 2008
>>> being earlier by less than an hour). Yes, it smells like there is a
>>> pro-Fed bias alright...
>> I'm not going to hold my breath for TJT to thank you for informing him of
>> this.
>
> Neither am I. TJT tends to ignore posts when his arguments are taken
> apart - as happened in this case. I see he is responding to other
> posts in this thread while conveniently ignoring my response...

My arguments are never taken apart, although if that stat is true this
might be a close call.

I'm not certain though if that stat is correct. And if it were...that
would still mean it would be 4-2 for favouring Federer because of the
asked late start.

We would need to know the stats for sure and for a longer time. I
honestly have this feeling that Federer often has been favoured with the
scheduling.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 14:30:24
From: David W
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Feb 1, 9:24=A0am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Why no complaints from you about vicious Nadal fanboys like TJT? =A0How=
very
> > disappointing...
>
> What's there to complain?
> I always give him a warning when he says something silly like "Rafa would
> beat Sampras at Wimbledon".saying that it means all other Sampras era cha=
mps
> (Goran, Agassi, Becker, Edberg etc)

Well, yeah, because you have to defend Sampras, even against Nadal.


   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:34:53
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"David W" <dw7654@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:cc8c9f19-2c7f-4250-ae7d-68198b08333e@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 9:24 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Why no complaints from you about vicious Nadal fanboys like TJT? How
> > very
> > disappointing...
>
> What's there to complain?
> I always give him a warning when he says something silly like "Rafa would
> beat Sampras at Wimbledon".saying that it means all other Sampras era
> champs
> (Goran, Agassi, Becker, Edberg etc)

Well, yeah, because you have to defend Sampras, even against Nadal.

***


Well I don't think "defense" is needed in this case. It's quite laughable
statement. :)


Unless you think of course Nadal is a better grass court player than Becker,
Edberg, Ivanisevic, Rafter.....Sampras.




  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 14:10:22
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 4:02=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:01=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
> > RahimAsif wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > >> When was the last time he played the latter semifinal at any slam?
> > >> (not counting when he actually wanted to begin later)
>
> > > French Open last year against Monfils, and it was a long match IIRC..=
.
>
> > Before that?
>
> > --
> > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
>
> USO 2007...

So to summarize, in the last 6 slams he has played the latter semi 3
times (USO 2007 against Davydenko, FO 2008 against Monfils and AO 2008
by request). He has played the earlier semi 3 times (with USO 2008
being earlier by less than an hour). Yes, it smells like there is a
pro-Fed bias alright...


   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 22:48:22
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, RahimAsif <RahimAsif@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Jan 31, 4:02 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 4:01 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >
> > > RahimAsif wrote:
> > > > On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> > > >> When was the last time he played the latter semifinal at any slam?
> > > >> (not counting when he actually wanted to begin later)
> >
> > > > French Open last year against Monfils, and it was a long match
> > > > IIRC...
> >
> > > Before that?
> >
> > > --
> > > "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> > > singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"
> >
> > USO 2007...
>
> So to summarize, in the last 6 slams he has played the latter semi 3
> times (USO 2007 against Davydenko, FO 2008 against Monfils and AO 2008
> by request). He has played the earlier semi 3 times (with USO 2008
> being earlier by less than an hour). Yes, it smells like there is a
> pro-Fed bias alright...

I'm not going to hold my breath for TJT to thank you for informing him of
this.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 14:02:24
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 4:01=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> RahimAsif wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >> When was the last time he played the latter semifinal at any slam?
> >> (not counting when he actually wanted to begin later)
>
> > French Open last year against Monfils, and it was a long match IIRC...
>
> Before that?
>
> --
> "Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
> singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"

USO 2007...


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:49:46
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 3:46=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> When was the last time he played the latter semifinal at any slam?
> (not counting when he actually wanted to begin later)

French Open last year against Monfils, and it was a long match IIRC...



   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:01:24
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> When was the last time he played the latter semifinal at any slam?
>> (not counting when he actually wanted to begin later)
>
> French Open last year against Monfils, and it was a long match IIRC...
>

Before that?

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:55:54
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:49:46 -0800 (PST), RahimAsif
<RahimAsif@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> When was the last time he played the latter semifinal at any slam?
>> (not counting when he actually wanted to begin later)
>
>French Open last year against Monfils, and it was a long match IIRC...

And the USO SF's started at pretty much the same time. Nadal's match
slightly later, but I believe it was because of Nadal that it was a
little late. And then it was the case again that Fed won his match
quicker before the rain.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 22:42:38
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:o7g9o4he5dribv6lm3a4gdquj3e3k8meqr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>>aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
>>he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
>>seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing
>>when
>>Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
> no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>

You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.




   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 22:18:12
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message

> > We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
> > about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
> > totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
> > no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
> >
>
> You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.

Why no complaints from you about vicious Nadal fanboys like TJT? How very
disappointing...


    
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:32:39
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>
>>> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>>> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>>> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
>>> no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>>>
>> You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.
>
> Why no complaints from you about vicious Nadal fanboys like TJT? How very
> disappointing...

Get your act together dom.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:24:05
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:S64hl.47$Rr6.30@newsfe02.iad...
>
> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>
>> > We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>> > about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>> > totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
>> > no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>> >
>>
>> You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.
>
> Why no complaints from you about vicious Nadal fanboys like TJT? How very
> disappointing...


What's there to complain?
I always give him a warning when he says something silly like "Rafa would
beat Sampras at Wimbledon".saying that it means all other Sampras era champs
(Goran, Agassi, Becker, Edberg etc)

I see nothing wrong in his post now.


otoh your question was about merits of being #1 not about "scheduling".
that's why sakari is a fedfucker.




     
Date: 31 Jan 2009 22:47:24
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:S64hl.47$Rr6.30@newsfe02.iad...
> >
> > On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >
> >> Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> > We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
> >> > about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
> >> > totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would
> >> > make
> >> > no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
> >> >
> >>
> >> You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.
> >
> > Why no complaints from you about vicious Nadal fanboys like TJT? How
> > very
> > disappointing...
>
>
> What's there to complain?
> I always give him a warning when he says something silly like "Rafa would
> beat Sampras at Wimbledon".saying that it means all other Sampras era
> champs
> (Goran, Agassi, Becker, Edberg etc)
>
> I see nothing wrong in his post now.
>
>
> otoh your question was about merits of being #1 not about "scheduling".
> that's why sakari is a fedfucker.

TJT went on longer about scheduling and draws than Sakari did. Still, no
complaints from you?


      
Date: 01 Feb 2009 01:05:00
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:S64hl.47$Rr6.30@newsfe02.iad...
>>> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>>> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>>>>> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>>>>> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would
>>>>> make
>>>>> no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>>>>>
>>>> You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.
>>> Why no complaints from you about vicious Nadal fanboys like TJT? How
>>> very
>>> disappointing...
>>
>> What's there to complain?
>> I always give him a warning when he says something silly like "Rafa would
>> beat Sampras at Wimbledon".saying that it means all other Sampras era
>> champs
>> (Goran, Agassi, Becker, Edberg etc)
>>
>> I see nothing wrong in his post now.
>>
>>
>> otoh your question was about merits of being #1 not about "scheduling".
>> that's why sakari is a fedfucker.
>
> TJT went on longer about scheduling and draws than Sakari did. Still, no
> complaints from you?

You're a man on a mission to discredit me. Good luck for your noble cause.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


       
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:10:27
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>
> You're a man on a mission to discredit me. Good luck for your noble cause.

You've already discredited yourself... don't think you need any of my help.


        
Date: 01 Feb 2009 01:20:40
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> You're a man on a mission to discredit me. Good luck for your noble cause.
>
> You've already discredited yourself... don't think you need any of my help.

What made you so bitter all of a sudden? Something I said about fed?
Inability to handle pressure of feds losing?

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


         
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:27:53
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >
> >> You're a man on a mission to discredit me. Good luck for your noble
> >> cause.
> >
> > You've already discredited yourself... don't think you need any of my
> > help.
>
> What made you so bitter all of a sudden? Something I said about fed?
> Inability to handle pressure of feds losing?

No not really as I'm not as biased as you seem to think I am. It'll be an
amazing achievement to whoever wins it and it will be well deserved.
Looking forward to a good match and I hope both can deliver.


      
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:53:54
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:47:24 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com >
wrote:

>
>On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:S64hl.47$Rr6.30@newsfe02.iad...
>> >
>> > On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> > We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>> >> > about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>> >> > totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would
>> >> > make
>> >> > no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.
>> >
>> > Why no complaints from you about vicious Nadal fanboys like TJT? How
>> > very
>> > disappointing...
>>
>>
>> What's there to complain?
>> I always give him a warning when he says something silly like "Rafa would
>> beat Sampras at Wimbledon".saying that it means all other Sampras era
>> champs
>> (Goran, Agassi, Becker, Edberg etc)
>>
>> I see nothing wrong in his post now.
>>
>>
>> otoh your question was about merits of being #1 not about "scheduling".
>> that's why sakari is a fedfucker.
>
>TJT went on longer about scheduling and draws than Sakari did. Still, no
>complaints from you?

Forget it. It is not programmed to complain about anything Fed-haters
say.


       
Date: 01 Feb 2009 01:07:15
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:47:24 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:S64hl.47$Rr6.30@newsfe02.iad...
>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>>>>>> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>>>>>> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>>>>>>
>>>>> You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.
>>>> Why no complaints from you about vicious Nadal fanboys like TJT? How
>>>> very
>>>> disappointing...
>>>
>>> What's there to complain?
>>> I always give him a warning when he says something silly like "Rafa would
>>> beat Sampras at Wimbledon".saying that it means all other Sampras era
>>> champs
>>> (Goran, Agassi, Becker, Edberg etc)
>>>
>>> I see nothing wrong in his post now.
>>>
>>>
>>> otoh your question was about merits of being #1 not about "scheduling".
>>> that's why sakari is a fedfucker.
>> TJT went on longer about scheduling and draws than Sakari did. Still, no
>> complaints from you?
>
> Forget it. It is not programmed to complain about anything Fed-haters
> say.

Fed-haters?
I love Roger but despise fedfuckers.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


      
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:49:41
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:fy4hl.56$Rr6.24@newsfe02.iad...
>
> On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:S64hl.47$Rr6.30@newsfe02.iad...
>> >
>> > On 31-Jan-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> > We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whinin
>> >> > about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>> >> > totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would
>> >> > make
>> >> > no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.
>> >
>> > Why no complaints from you about vicious Nadal fanboys like TJT? How
>> > very
>> > disappointing...
>>
>>
>> What's there to complain?
>> I always give him a warning when he says something silly like "Rafa would
>> beat Sampras at Wimbledon".saying that it means all other Sampras era
>> champs
>> (Goran, Agassi, Becker, Edberg etc)
>>
>> I see nothing wrong in his post now.
>>
>>
>> otoh your question was about merits of being #1 not about "scheduling".
>> that's why sakari is a fedfucker.
>
> TJT went on longer about scheduling and draws than Sakari did. Still, no
> complaints from you?

No.




   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:52:53
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:42:38 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>
>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>news:o7g9o4he5dribv6lm3a4gdquj3e3k8meqr@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>>>aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
>>>he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
>>>seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing
>>>when
>>>Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>
>> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
>> no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>>
>
>You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.

Every time I hear that is when I try to make some sense to the claims
made here.



    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:00:56
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:6vh9o4d2usiseostf80mlncvumdk687ma1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:42:38 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>news:o7g9o4he5dribv6lm3a4gdquj3e3k8meqr@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>>>>aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching
>>>>that
>>>>he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and
>>>>I
>>>>seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing
>>>>when
>>>>Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>
>>> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>>> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>>> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
>>> no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>>>
>>
>>You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.
>
> Every time I hear that is when I try to make some sense to the claims
> made here.
>

You previous post was really lame. Shameless.
Honestly.

Just reread what you've writen. as a reply to "what".





     
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:14:25
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:00:56 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>
>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>news:6vh9o4d2usiseostf80mlncvumdk687ma1@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:42:38 +0100, "*skriptis"
>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>news:o7g9o4he5dribv6lm3a4gdquj3e3k8meqr@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>>>>>aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching
>>>>>that
>>>>>he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and
>>>>>I
>>>>>seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing
>>>>>when
>>>>>Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>>
>>>> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>>>> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>>>> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
>>>> no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>>>>
>>>
>>>You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.
>>
>> Every time I hear that is when I try to make some sense to the claims
>> made here.
>>
>
>You previous post was really lame. Shameless.
>Honestly.
>
>Just reread what you've writen. as a reply to "what".

I could have started with "No, we won't hear that". I just told what
we will hear for them.

But I really, really don't care what you think about my posts. I don't
know if you are Whisper's brother left in Croatia, or some kind of a
robot. But all these years I haven't seen anything from you except
"Yes Whisper, great post", "agreed", "well said", and endless
Fed-hating. Not a single post that shows some kind of independent
thinking. So you can be disappointed in me all you want.





      
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:21:13
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:lti9o4dk6u5e0m8og7h879q5lt9blds7s1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:00:56 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>news:6vh9o4d2usiseostf80mlncvumdk687ma1@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:42:38 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:o7g9o4he5dribv6lm3a4gdquj3e3k8meqr@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>>>>>>aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>I
>>>>>>seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing
>>>>>>when
>>>>>>Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>>>>> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>>>>> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
>>>>> no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You keep disapointing me...you truly are a vicious fedfucker.
>>>
>>> Every time I hear that is when I try to make some sense to the claims
>>> made here.
>>>
>>
>>You previous post was really lame. Shameless.
>>Honestly.
>>
>>Just reread what you've writen. as a reply to "what".
>
> I could have started with "No, we won't hear that". I just told what
> we will hear for them.
>
> But I really, really don't care what you think about my posts. I don't
> know if you are Whisper's brother left in Croatia, or some kind of a
> robot. But all these years I haven't seen anything from you except
> "Yes Whisper, great post", "agreed", "well said", and endless
> Fed-hating. Not a single post that shows some kind of independent
> thinking. So you can be disappointed in me all you want.


Another mindless acusation. "Fedhating"? Fedhating? Me hating Federer?
Where, how, when?
And you expect me to take you seriously?

Don't say now "I don't expect anything", since it's just an expression.


bottom tier




  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:44:57
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 3:38=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:

> Played twice, won 50%.

Doesn't matter how many times they played, if they wanted to rig the
draw they could have put him on Nadal's side most of the time instead
of on Fed's side. Its not Fed's problem that Djokovic got blown out by
Safin at Wim, he was still drawn to play Djoker in the semis at Wimby,
while Nadal got Roddick...

> I must have said it's "only fair" because Djokovic had been at that
> point around 70% on Nadal's side during all tournaments.

but he was on Fed's side 75% of the time in the slams last year. And
slams are all that Fed cares about at this point in his career...


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:32:26
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 3:28=A0pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> You realized wrong. It's combination of scheduling and draw. If you
> don't admit this you're probably a serious fedfucker...

Yes, amazing how Fed always gets the easy draws - last year he drew
Djokovic in 3 of the 4 slams, and that was again meant to ease the
path to the title for him, while Nadal had to play him just once at
the slams! And please don't say Nadal got Murray at teh USO, he wasn't
supposed to be a huge factor at the US Open - in fact, I remember
after the USO draw came out, you started a thread how the USO draw was
"fair"...


   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:38:12
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
RahimAsif wrote:
> On Jan 31, 3:28 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> You realized wrong. It's combination of scheduling and draw. If you
>> don't admit this you're probably a serious fedfucker...
>
> Yes, amazing how Fed always gets the easy draws - last year he drew
> Djokovic in 3 of the 4 slams,

Played twice, won 50%.

> and that was again meant to ease the
> path to the title for him, while Nadal had to play him just once at
> the slams! And please don't say Nadal got Murray at teh USO, he wasn't
> supposed to be a huge factor at the US Open - in fact, I remember
> after the USO draw came out, you started a thread how the USO draw was
> "fair"...

I must have said it's "only fair" because Djokovic had been at that
point around 70% on Nadal's side during all tournaments.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:28:22
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing when
>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
> no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>

You realized wrong. It's combination of scheduling and draw. If you
don't admit this you're probably a serious fedfucker...


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 08:39:22
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
TT wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
>>> are aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
>>> bitching that he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won
>>> back-to-back slams and I seem to remember a number of posters
>>> complaining about this very thing when Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>
>> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would
>> make no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>>
>
> You realized wrong. It's combination of scheduling and draw. If you
> don't admit this you're probably a serious fedfucker...

The draw is random. If you don't believe that then you're a serious
Nadal-fucker. On the schedule, the only way it could have been "fair", recovery
wise, given the SFs in retrospect, is if Nadal had played his match on Thursday
and Federer on Friday. But then you'd have to argue that Nadal should have been
_favoured_ by the organizers in starting the tournament with his half of the
draw. So is that what should have happened?





    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:46:43
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
DavidW wrote:
> TT wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
>>>> are aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
>>>> bitching that he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won
>>>> back-to-back slams and I seem to remember a number of posters
>>>> complaining about this very thing when Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>>> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>>> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would
>>> make no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>>>
>> You realized wrong. It's combination of scheduling and draw. If you
>> don't admit this you're probably a serious fedfucker...
>
> The draw is random. If you don't believe that then you're a serious
> Nadal-fucker. On the schedule, the only way it could have been "fair", recovery
> wise, given the SFs in retrospect, is if Nadal had played his match on Thursday
> and Federer on Friday. But then you'd have to argue that Nadal should have been
> _favoured_ by the organizers in starting the tournament with his half of the
> draw. So is that what should have happened?
>
>
>

Yes. Faderer has been favoured for long enough.

When was the last time he played the latter semifinal at any slam?
(not counting when he actually wanted to begin later)

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:36:44
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:28:22 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing when
>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>
>> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
>> no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>>
>
>You realized wrong. It's combination of scheduling and draw. If you
>don't admit this you're probably a serious fedfucker...

I know, I know. In every slam since 2003, the draw and schedule have
been fixed for Federer, and if I don't admit that I am a Fedfucker.


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:40:47
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:28:22 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:14:23 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing when
>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>> We will hear from them either complete silence, or endless whining
>>> about the scheduling (and I only today realized the scheduling is
>>> totally irrelevant, I wasn't thinking clearly yesterday. It would make
>>> no difference if Fed played his SF Thu or Fri).
>>>
>> You realized wrong. It's combination of scheduling and draw. If you
>> don't admit this you're probably a serious fedfucker...
>
> I know, I know. In every slam since 2003, the draw and schedule have
> been fixed for Federer, and if I don't admit that I am a Fedfucker.

fair enough. Good.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


 
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:23:55
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing when
> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.

When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
trophies at the time you miserable cunt.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 22:11:35
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
> > aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching
> > that
> > he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and
> > I
> > seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing
> > when
> > Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.

I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your emotions?
Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached the
limit of his wit and intelligence.

At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you should
have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is that much
harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you consider
the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him after the
FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last year)?.
But a troll is a troll I guess......


   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 04:57:23
From: John Doe
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote:

> TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:

>> you miserable cunt.
>
> I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached the
> limit of his wit and intelligence.

He had none to begin with.


   
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:27:06
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching
>>> that
>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and
>>> I
>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing
>>> when
>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>
> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your emotions?
> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached the
> limit of his wit and intelligence.

I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
with great joy.


>
> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you should
> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is that much
> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you consider
> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him after the
> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last year)?.
> But a troll is a troll I guess......

That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have to
know about you and failed cover of objectivity.


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 22:36:22
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
> >>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching
> >>> that
> >>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
> >>> and
> >>> I
> >>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing
> >>> when
> >>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
> >> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
> >> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
> >
> > I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
> > emotions?
> > Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached the
> > limit of his wit and intelligence.
>
> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
> with great joy.
>

Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence in
your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention to me.

>
> >
> > At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
> > should
> > have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
> > complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is that
> > much
> > harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
> > consider
> > the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him after
> > the
> > FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last year)?.
> >
> > But a troll is a troll I guess......
>
> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have to
> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.

What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread. If
Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he hasn't
yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if Fed
is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
(which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.


     
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:54:25
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching
>>>>> that
>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
>>>>> and
>>>>> I
>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing
>>>>> when
>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
>>> emotions?
>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached the
>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
>> with great joy.
>>
>
> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence in
> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention to me.
>
>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
>>> should
>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is that
>>> much
>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
>>> consider
>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him after
>>> the
>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last year)?.
>>>
>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have to
>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
>
> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread. If
> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he hasn't
> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if Fed
> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.

As Skriptis already pointed out the situation where both hold 2 slams is
entirely different to your hypothesis where both hold 2 slams plus
Nadal has couple MS and Olympics...so either you've made a calculus
mistake when starting the whole thread in the first place or you are
trolling. Probably both.

And it wasn't me complaining about 2-1 slams ranking scheme anyways you
miserable cunt. Get your act together, take a deep breath, accept loss
like a man.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


      
Date: 01 Feb 2009 08:11:18
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"TT" <gold@Olympics.org > wrote in message
news:AE4hl.126938$_03.93620@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> jdeluise wrote:
>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
>>>>>> thing
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
>>>> emotions?
>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached
>>>> the
>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
>>> with great joy.
>>>
>>
>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence in
>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention to
>> me.
>>
>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
>>>> should
>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is that
>>>> much
>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
>>>> consider
>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him after
>>>> the
>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
>>>> year)?.
>>>>
>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have to
>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
>>
>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread.
>> If
>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he hasn't
>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if
>> Fed
>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
>
> As Skriptis already

*skriptis actually....but ok.




      
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:40:17
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
> >>>>> are
> >>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
> >>>>> bitching
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> I
> >>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
> >>>>> thing
> >>>>> when
> >>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
> >>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
> >>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
> >>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
> >>> emotions?
> >>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached
> >>> the
> >>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
> >> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
> >> with great joy.
> >>
> >
> > Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence
> > in
> > your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention to
> > me.
> >
> >>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
> >>> should
> >>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
> >>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is
> >>> that
> >>> much
> >>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
> >>> consider
> >>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him after
> >>> the
> >>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
> >>> year)?.
> >>>
> >>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
> >> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
> >> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have to
> >> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
> >
> > What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread.
> > If
> > Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
> > hasn't
> > yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if
> > Fed
> > is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
> > (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
> > objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
>
> As Skriptis already pointed out the situation where both hold 2 slams is
> entirely different to your hypothesis where both hold 2 slams plus
> Nadal has couple MS and Olympics...so either you've made a calculus
> mistake when starting the whole thread in the first place or you are
> trolling. Probably both.
>
> And it wasn't me complaining about 2-1 slams ranking scheme anyways you
> miserable cunt. Get your act together, take a deep breath, accept loss
> like a man.

This evidence was probably an afterthought for the majority of people that
were making the claims. The funny thing is there were people so desperate
for Nadal to be #1 that they were actually proposing that the ranking system
itself be changed (not just point spread)... that we should only look back 6
months or even less for instance. Those people would probably be pretty
disappointed today if the changes they wanted had been made.


       
Date: 01 Feb 2009 01:48:54
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
>>>>>>> bitching
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
>>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
>>>>> emotions?
>>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached
>>>>> the
>>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
>>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
>>>> with great joy.
>>>>
>>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence
>>> in
>>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention to
>>> me.
>>>
>>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
>>>>> should
>>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
>>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is
>>>>> that
>>>>> much
>>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
>>>>> consider
>>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him after
>>>>> the
>>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
>>>>> year)?.
>>>>>
>>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
>>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
>>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have to
>>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
>>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread.
>>> If
>>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
>>> hasn't
>>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if
>>> Fed
>>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
>>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
>>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
>> As Skriptis already pointed out the situation where both hold 2 slams is
>> entirely different to your hypothesis where both hold 2 slams plus
>> Nadal has couple MS and Olympics...so either you've made a calculus
>> mistake when starting the whole thread in the first place or you are
>> trolling. Probably both.
>>
>> And it wasn't me complaining about 2-1 slams ranking scheme anyways you
>> miserable cunt. Get your act together, take a deep breath, accept loss
>> like a man.

>
> This evidence was probably an afterthought for the majority of people that
> were making the claims. The funny thing is there were people so desperate
> for Nadal to be #1 that they were actually proposing that the ranking system
> itself be changed (not just point spread)... that we should only look back 6
> months or even less for instance.

They had a point though, Nadal was clearly better at the moment and held
more slams.


>Those people would probably be pretty
> disappointed today if the changes they wanted had been made.

You make no sense. You're counting your chickens before they hatch...and
even if they would hatch your neighbour would have as many.



--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


        
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:57:52
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
> >>>>>>> bitching
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back
> >>>>>>>slams
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
> >>>>>>> thing
> >>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
> >>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
> >>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
> >>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
> >>>>> emotions?
> >>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
> >>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
> >>>> with great joy.
> >>>>
> >>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence
> >>> in
> >>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention
> >>> to
> >>> me.
> >>>
> >>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
> >>>>> should
> >>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
> >>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> much
> >>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
> >>>>> consider
> >>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
> >>>>> after
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
> >>>>> year)?.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
> >>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
> >>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have
> >>>> to
> >>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
> >>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread.
> >>> If
> >>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
> >>> hasn't
> >>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if
> >>> Fed
> >>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
> >>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
> >>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
> >> As Skriptis already pointed out the situation where both hold 2 slams
> >> is
> >> entirely different to your hypothesis where both hold 2 slams plus
> >> Nadal has couple MS and Olympics...so either you've made a calculus
> >> mistake when starting the whole thread in the first place or you are
> >> trolling. Probably both.
> >>
> >> And it wasn't me complaining about 2-1 slams ranking scheme anyways you
> >> miserable cunt. Get your act together, take a deep breath, accept loss
> >> like a man.
>
> >
> > This evidence was probably an afterthought for the majority of people
> > that
> > were making the claims. The funny thing is there were people so
> > desperate
> > for Nadal to be #1 that they were actually proposing that the ranking
> > system
> > itself be changed (not just point spread)... that we should only look
> > back 6
> > months or even less for instance.
>
> They had a point though, Nadal was clearly better at the moment and held
> more slams.

No, they wanted to change the ranking system to favor Nadal plain and
simple. Those same people would have been asking to change it back if
Federer wins.

>
>
> >Those people would probably be pretty
> > disappointed today if the changes they wanted had been made.
>
> You make no sense. You're counting your chickens before they hatch...and
> even if they would hatch your neighbour would have as many.

Not really since they wanted to look back just a few months in time. FO
wouldn't count anymore if we had listened to them.

Anyway you misunderstand me if you think I'm counting chickens before they
hatch. I never said Federer is going to win, I'm just asking a hypothetical
question. It was you who got so bent out of shape about it so this must
mean you're under some pressure?


         
Date: 01 Feb 2009 02:12:44
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
>>>>>>>>> bitching
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back
>>>>>>>>> slams
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
>>>>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>>>>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
>>>>>>> emotions?
>>>>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
>>>>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
>>>>>> with great joy.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence
>>>>> in
>>>>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention
>>>>> to
>>>>> me.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
>>>>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
>>>>>>> year)?.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
>>>>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
>>>>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
>>>>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread.
>>>>> If
>>>>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
>>>>> hasn't
>>>>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if
>>>>> Fed
>>>>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
>>>>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
>>>>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
>>>> As Skriptis already pointed out the situation where both hold 2 slams
>>>> is
>>>> entirely different to your hypothesis where both hold 2 slams plus
>>>> Nadal has couple MS and Olympics...so either you've made a calculus
>>>> mistake when starting the whole thread in the first place or you are
>>>> trolling. Probably both.
>>>>
>>>> And it wasn't me complaining about 2-1 slams ranking scheme anyways you
>>>> miserable cunt. Get your act together, take a deep breath, accept loss
>>>> like a man.
>>> This evidence was probably an afterthought for the majority of people
>>> that
>>> were making the claims. The funny thing is there were people so
>>> desperate
>>> for Nadal to be #1 that they were actually proposing that the ranking
>>> system
>>> itself be changed (not just point spread)... that we should only look
>>> back 6
>>> months or even less for instance.
>> They had a point though, Nadal was clearly better at the moment and held
>> more slams.
>
> No, they wanted to change the ranking system to favor Nadal plain and
> simple. Those same people would have been asking to change it back if
> Federer wins.

No. It was legitimate.


>
>>
>>> Those people would probably be pretty
>>> disappointed today if the changes they wanted had been made.
>> You make no sense. You're counting your chickens before they hatch...and
>> even if they would hatch your neighbour would have as many.
>
> Not really since they wanted to look back just a few months in time. FO
> wouldn't count anymore if we had listened to them.

Bullshit. What they? Dear doctor perhaps. I suggest you email him
personally and tell that if Federer wins he should claim Federer as #1.

However you're contradicting yourself here.

-First you claimed it was about slams (for "them")
-Then you claimed it was about recent h2h (So when has Fed beat Rada
last time?)
-Now you claim it's about counting rankings from shorter period

Sounds a bit desperate. A bit like Whisper, piling up arguments after
one another the result being the whole shit tumbling down in the end.


          
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:27:16
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that
> >>>>>>>they
> >>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
> >>>>>>>>> bitching
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back
> >>>>>>>>> slams
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
> >>>>>>>>> thing
> >>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
> >>>>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
> >>>>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
> >>>>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
> >>>>>>> emotions?
> >>>>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has
> >>>>>>>reached
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
> >>>>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable
> >>>>>> cunt
> >>>>>> with great joy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your
> >>>>> confidence
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
> >>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
> >>>>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
> >>>>>>> consider
> >>>>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
> >>>>>>> after
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
> >>>>>>> year)?.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
> >>>>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a
> >>>>>> very
> >>>>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we
> >>>>>> have
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
> >>>>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this
> >>>>> thread.
> >>>>> If
> >>>>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
> >>>>> hasn't
> >>>>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it
> >>>>> if
> >>>>> Fed
> >>>>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last
> >>>>> year
> >>>>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
> >>>>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
> >>>> As Skriptis already pointed out the situation where both hold 2 slams
> >>>> is
> >>>> entirely different to your hypothesis where both hold 2 slams plus
> >>>> Nadal has couple MS and Olympics...so either you've made a calculus
> >>>> mistake when starting the whole thread in the first place or you are
> >>>> trolling. Probably both.
> >>>>
> >>>> And it wasn't me complaining about 2-1 slams ranking scheme anyways
> >>>> you
> >>>> miserable cunt. Get your act together, take a deep breath, accept
> >>>> loss
> >>>> like a man.
> >>> This evidence was probably an afterthought for the majority of people
> >>> that
> >>> were making the claims. The funny thing is there were people so
> >>> desperate
> >>> for Nadal to be #1 that they were actually proposing that the ranking
> >>> system
> >>> itself be changed (not just point spread)... that we should only look
> >>> back 6
> >>> months or even less for instance.
> >> They had a point though, Nadal was clearly better at the moment and
> >> held
> >> more slams.
> >
> > No, they wanted to change the ranking system to favor Nadal plain and
> > simple. Those same people would have been asking to change it back if
> > Federer wins.
>
> No. It was legitimate.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>> Those people would probably be pretty
> >>> disappointed today if the changes they wanted had been made.
> >> You make no sense. You're counting your chickens before they
> >> hatch...and
> >> even if they would hatch your neighbour would have as many.
> >
> > Not really since they wanted to look back just a few months in time. FO
> > wouldn't count anymore if we had listened to them.
>
> Bullshit. What they? Dear doctor perhaps. I suggest you email him
> personally and tell that if Federer wins he should claim Federer as #1.

What was your take at the time by the way?

>
> However you're contradicting yourself here.
>
> -First you claimed it was about slams (for "them")
> -Then you claimed it was about recent h2h (So when has Fed beat Rada
> last time?)
> -Now you claim it's about counting rankings from shorter period

1 and 3 are actually the same. The argument was that Rafa was #1 at the
time because he had won 2 consecutive slams, and the solution that was
presented was to ignore older results (this fit in very well since Rafa had
not won the US Open nor the Australian Open in that timeframe). Since he
was deserving, why not wait until he earned it from a points perspective?
Wouldn't it have been a little unfair to change the ranking system
mid-season?

Where did I ever talk about H2H? I think you're mistaking me for yourself.
Links?

>
> Sounds a bit desperate. A bit like Whisper, piling up arguments after
> one another the result being the whole shit tumbling down in the end.

That's a stretch....lol.


           
Date: 01 Feb 2009 02:34:51
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
>>>>>>>>>>> bitching
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back
>>>>>>>>>>> slams
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
>>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>>>>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
>>>>>>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>>>>>>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
>>>>>>>>> emotions?
>>>>>>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has
>>>>>>>>> reached
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
>>>>>>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable
>>>>>>>> cunt
>>>>>>>> with great joy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your
>>>>>>> confidence
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
>>>>>>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
>>>>>>>>> year)?.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
>>>>>>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this
>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> Fed
>>>>>>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last
>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
>>>>>>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
>>>>>> As Skriptis already pointed out the situation where both hold 2 slams
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> entirely different to your hypothesis where both hold 2 slams plus
>>>>>> Nadal has couple MS and Olympics...so either you've made a calculus
>>>>>> mistake when starting the whole thread in the first place or you are
>>>>>> trolling. Probably both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it wasn't me complaining about 2-1 slams ranking scheme anyways
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> miserable cunt. Get your act together, take a deep breath, accept
>>>>>> loss
>>>>>> like a man.
>>>>> This evidence was probably an afterthought for the majority of people
>>>>> that
>>>>> were making the claims. The funny thing is there were people so
>>>>> desperate
>>>>> for Nadal to be #1 that they were actually proposing that the ranking
>>>>> system
>>>>> itself be changed (not just point spread)... that we should only look
>>>>> back 6
>>>>> months or even less for instance.
>>>> They had a point though, Nadal was clearly better at the moment and
>>>> held
>>>> more slams.
>>> No, they wanted to change the ranking system to favor Nadal plain and
>>> simple. Those same people would have been asking to change it back if
>>> Federer wins.
>> No. It was legitimate.
>>
>>
>>>>> Those people would probably be pretty
>>>>> disappointed today if the changes they wanted had been made.
>>>> You make no sense. You're counting your chickens before they
>>>> hatch...and
>>>> even if they would hatch your neighbour would have as many.
>>> Not really since they wanted to look back just a few months in time. FO
>>> wouldn't count anymore if we had listened to them.
>> Bullshit. What they? Dear doctor perhaps. I suggest you email him
>> personally and tell that if Federer wins he should claim Federer as #1.
>
> What was your take at the time by the way?
>
>> However you're contradicting yourself here.
>>
>> -First you claimed it was about slams (for "them")
>> -Then you claimed it was about recent h2h (So when has Fed beat Rada
>> last time?)
>> -Now you claim it's about counting rankings from shorter period
>
> 1 and 3 are actually the same. The argument was that Rafa was #1 at the
> time because he had won 2 consecutive slams, and the solution that was
> presented was to ignore older results (this fit in very well since Rafa had
> not won the US Open nor the Australian Open in that timeframe). Since he
> was deserving, why not wait until he earned it from a points perspective?
> Wouldn't it have been a little unfair to change the ranking system
> mid-season?
>
> Where did I ever talk about H2H? I think you're mistaking me for yourself.
> Links?

"It really wasn't about 2-1 slams
and you know it, it was because Nadal had just beaten him in two
consecutive slams."


>
>> Sounds a bit desperate. A bit like Whisper, piling up arguments after
>> one another the result being the whole shit tumbling down in the end.
>
> That's a stretch....lol.

Well I'm getting weary with the subject so I'll let you off the hook
this time and get some sleep before the final...
:)

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


            
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:42:50
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that
> >>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
> >>>>>>>>>>> bitching
> >>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back
> >>>>>>>>>>> slams
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this
> >>>>>>>very
> >>>>>>>>>>> thing
> >>>>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
> >>>>>>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2
> >>>>>>>slam
> >>>>>>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
> >>>>>>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
> >>>>>>>>> emotions?
> >>>>>>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has
> >>>>>>>>> reached
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
> >>>>>>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable
> >>>>>>>> cunt
> >>>>>>>> with great joy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your
> >>>>>>> confidence
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for
> >>>>>>>attention
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results
> >>>>>>>you
> >>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have
> >>>>>>>been
> >>>>>>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it
> >>>>>>>is
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when
> >>>>>>>you
> >>>>>>>>> consider
> >>>>>>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
> >>>>>>>>> after
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
> >>>>>>>>> year)?.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
> >>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a
> >>>>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we
> >>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
> >>>>>>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this
> >>>>>>> thread.
> >>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
> >>>>>>> hasn't
> >>>>>>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about
> >>>>>>>it
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>> Fed
> >>>>>>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last
> >>>>>>> year
> >>>>>>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call
> >>>>>>>you
> >>>>>>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
> >>>>>> As Skriptis already pointed out the situation where both hold 2
> >>>>>> slams
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>> entirely different to your hypothesis where both hold 2 slams
> >>>>>> plus
> >>>>>> Nadal has couple MS and Olympics...so either you've made a calculus
> >>>>>> mistake when starting the whole thread in the first place or you
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> trolling. Probably both.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And it wasn't me complaining about 2-1 slams ranking scheme anyways
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>> miserable cunt. Get your act together, take a deep breath, accept
> >>>>>> loss
> >>>>>> like a man.
> >>>>> This evidence was probably an afterthought for the majority of
> >>>>> people
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> were making the claims. The funny thing is there were people so
> >>>>> desperate
> >>>>> for Nadal to be #1 that they were actually proposing that the
> >>>>> ranking
> >>>>> system
> >>>>> itself be changed (not just point spread)... that we should only
> >>>>> look
> >>>>> back 6
> >>>>> months or even less for instance.
> >>>> They had a point though, Nadal was clearly better at the moment and
> >>>> held
> >>>> more slams.
> >>> No, they wanted to change the ranking system to favor Nadal plain and
> >>> simple. Those same people would have been asking to change it back if
> >>> Federer wins.
> >> No. It was legitimate.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> Those people would probably be pretty
> >>>>> disappointed today if the changes they wanted had been made.
> >>>> You make no sense. You're counting your chickens before they
> >>>> hatch...and
> >>>> even if they would hatch your neighbour would have as many.
> >>> Not really since they wanted to look back just a few months in time.
> >>> FO
> >>> wouldn't count anymore if we had listened to them.
> >> Bullshit. What they? Dear doctor perhaps. I suggest you email him
> >> personally and tell that if Federer wins he should claim Federer as #1.
> >
> > What was your take at the time by the way?
> >
> >> However you're contradicting yourself here.
> >>
> >> -First you claimed it was about slams (for "them")
> >> -Then you claimed it was about recent h2h (So when has Fed beat Rada
> >> last time?)
> >> -Now you claim it's about counting rankings from shorter period
> >
> > 1 and 3 are actually the same. The argument was that Rafa was #1 at the
> > time because he had won 2 consecutive slams, and the solution that was
> > presented was to ignore older results (this fit in very well since Rafa
> > had
> > not won the US Open nor the Australian Open in that timeframe). Since
> > he
> > was deserving, why not wait until he earned it from a points
> > perspective?
> > Wouldn't it have been a little unfair to change the ranking system
> > mid-season?
> >
> > Where did I ever talk about H2H? I think you're mistaking me for
> > yourself.
> > Links?
>
> "It really wasn't about 2-1 slams
> and you know it, it was because Nadal had just beaten him in two
> consecutive slams."
>

I thought you meant I had said something about overall H2H, so you can
understand the confusion. So you've just proven that all three
"contradictions" were actually related. Thank you.

>
> >
> >> Sounds a bit desperate. A bit like Whisper, piling up arguments after
> >> one another the result being the whole shit tumbling down in the end.
> >
> > That's a stretch....lol.
>
> Well I'm getting weary with the subject so I'll let you off the hook
> this time and get some sleep before the final...
> :)

Apology accepted.


             
Date: 01 Feb 2009 02:47:22
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bitching
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back
>>>>>>>>>>>>> slams
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2
>>>>>>>>> slam
>>>>>>>>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>>>>>>>>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
>>>>>>>>>>> emotions?
>>>>>>>>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has
>>>>>>>>>>> reached
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable
>>>>>>>>>> cunt
>>>>>>>>>> with great joy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your
>>>>>>>>> confidence
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for
>>>>>>>>> attention
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
>>>>>>>>>>> year)?.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a
>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this
>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
>>>>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>>>>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>> Fed
>>>>>>>>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last
>>>>>>>>> year
>>>>>>>>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
>>>>>>>> As Skriptis already pointed out the situation where both hold 2
>>>>>>>> slams
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> entirely different to your hypothesis where both hold 2 slams
>>>>>>>> plus
>>>>>>>> Nadal has couple MS and Olympics...so either you've made a calculus
>>>>>>>> mistake when starting the whole thread in the first place or you
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> trolling. Probably both.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And it wasn't me complaining about 2-1 slams ranking scheme anyways
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> miserable cunt. Get your act together, take a deep breath, accept
>>>>>>>> loss
>>>>>>>> like a man.
>>>>>>> This evidence was probably an afterthought for the majority of
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> were making the claims. The funny thing is there were people so
>>>>>>> desperate
>>>>>>> for Nadal to be #1 that they were actually proposing that the
>>>>>>> ranking
>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>> itself be changed (not just point spread)... that we should only
>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>> back 6
>>>>>>> months or even less for instance.
>>>>>> They had a point though, Nadal was clearly better at the moment and
>>>>>> held
>>>>>> more slams.
>>>>> No, they wanted to change the ranking system to favor Nadal plain and
>>>>> simple. Those same people would have been asking to change it back if
>>>>> Federer wins.
>>>> No. It was legitimate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Those people would probably be pretty
>>>>>>> disappointed today if the changes they wanted had been made.
>>>>>> You make no sense. You're counting your chickens before they
>>>>>> hatch...and
>>>>>> even if they would hatch your neighbour would have as many.
>>>>> Not really since they wanted to look back just a few months in time.
>>>>> FO
>>>>> wouldn't count anymore if we had listened to them.
>>>> Bullshit. What they? Dear doctor perhaps. I suggest you email him
>>>> personally and tell that if Federer wins he should claim Federer as #1.
>>> What was your take at the time by the way?
>>>
>>>> However you're contradicting yourself here.
>>>>
>>>> -First you claimed it was about slams (for "them")
>>>> -Then you claimed it was about recent h2h (So when has Fed beat Rada
>>>> last time?)
>>>> -Now you claim it's about counting rankings from shorter period
>>> 1 and 3 are actually the same. The argument was that Rafa was #1 at the
>>> time because he had won 2 consecutive slams, and the solution that was
>>> presented was to ignore older results (this fit in very well since Rafa
>>> had
>>> not won the US Open nor the Australian Open in that timeframe). Since
>>> he
>>> was deserving, why not wait until he earned it from a points
>>> perspective?
>>> Wouldn't it have been a little unfair to change the ranking system
>>> mid-season?
>>>
>>> Where did I ever talk about H2H? I think you're mistaking me for
>>> yourself.
>>> Links?
>> "It really wasn't about 2-1 slams
>> and you know it, it was because Nadal had just beaten him in two
>> consecutive slams."
>>
>
> I thought you meant I had said something about overall H2H, so you can
> understand the confusion. So you've just proven that all three
> "contradictions" were actually related. Thank you.
>
>>>> Sounds a bit desperate. A bit like Whisper, piling up arguments after
>>>> one another the result being the whole shit tumbling down in the end.
>>> That's a stretch....lol.
>> Well I'm getting weary with the subject so I'll let you off the hook
>> this time and get some sleep before the final...
>> :)
>
> Apology accepted.

lol

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


     
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:38:32
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:Vn4hl.52$Rr6.10@newsfe02.iad...
>
> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> jdeluise wrote:
>> >>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
>> >>> are
>> >>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching
>> >>> that
>> >>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
>> >>> and
>> >>> I
>> >>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
>> >>> thing
>> >>> when
>> >>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>> >> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
>> >> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>> >
>> > I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
>> > emotions?
>> > Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached
>> > the
>> > limit of his wit and intelligence.
>>
>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
>> with great joy.
>>
>
> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence in
> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention to
> me.
>
>>
>> >
>> > At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
>> > should
>> > have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
>> > complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is that
>> > much
>> > harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
>> > consider
>> > the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him after
>> > the
>> > FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
>> > year)?.
>> >
>> > But a troll is a troll I guess......
>>
>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have to
>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
>
> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread. If
> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he hasn't
> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if Fed
> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.


What are you really *talking about*?




      
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:59:43
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
*skriptis wrote:
> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Vn4hl.52$Rr6.10@newsfe02.iad...
>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
>>>>>> thing
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
>>>> emotions?
>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached
>>>> the
>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
>>> with great joy.
>>>
>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence in
>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention to
>> me.
>>
>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
>>>> should
>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is that
>>>> much
>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
>>>> consider
>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him after
>>>> the
>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
>>>> year)?.
>>>>
>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have to
>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread. If
>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he hasn't
>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if Fed
>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
>
>
> What are you really *talking about*?
>
>

He seems to be defending himself against his own hypothetical arguments
and somehow finds myself as guilty for not saying something that I
apparently should according to him if Federer wins tomorrow.

I think the pressure is too much for him...


       
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:03:20
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> *skriptis wrote:
> > "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Vn4hl.52$Rr6.10@newsfe02.iad...
> >> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
> >>>>>> bitching
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
> >>>>>> thing
> >>>>>> when
> >>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
> >>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
> >>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
> >>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
> >>>> emotions?
> >>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached
> >>>> the
> >>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
> >>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
> >>> with great joy.
> >>>
> >> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence
> >> in
> >> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention to
> >>
> >> me.
> >>
> >>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
> >>>> should
> >>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
> >>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is
> >>>> that
> >>>> much
> >>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
> >>>> consider
> >>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
> >>>> after
> >>>> the
> >>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
> >>>> year)?.
> >>>>
> >>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
> >>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
> >>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have
> >>> to
> >>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
> >> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread.
> >> If
> >> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
> >> hasn't
> >> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if
> >> Fed
> >> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
> >> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
> >> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
> >
> >
> > What are you really *talking about*?
> >
> >
>
> He seems to be defending himself against his own hypothetical arguments
> and somehow finds myself as guilty for not saying something that I
> apparently should according to him if Federer wins tomorrow.

What makes you think that?

> I think the pressure is too much for him...

Then why do you have to call me a "miserable cunt" every other thread?


        
Date: 01 Feb 2009 01:11:57
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> *skriptis wrote:
>>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Vn4hl.52$Rr6.10@newsfe02.iad...
>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
>>>>>>>> bitching
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
>>>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>>>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
>>>>>> emotions?
>>>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
>>>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
>>>>> with great joy.
>>>>>
>>>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence
>>>> in
>>>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention to
>>>>
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
>>>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
>>>>>> consider
>>>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
>>>>>> after
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
>>>>>> year)?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
>>>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
>>>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have
>>>>> to
>>>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
>>>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread.
>>>> If
>>>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
>>>> hasn't
>>>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if
>>>> Fed
>>>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
>>>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
>>>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
>>>
>>> What are you really *talking about*?
>>>
>>>
>> He seems to be defending himself against his own hypothetical arguments
>> and somehow finds myself as guilty for not saying something that I
>> apparently should according to him if Federer wins tomorrow.
>
> What makes you think that?

The text that you write

>
>> I think the pressure is too much for him...
>
> Then why do you have to call me a "miserable cunt" every other thread?

It brings me great joy and happiness. :) :)


--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


         
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:17:22
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >
> >> *skriptis wrote:
> >>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:Vn4hl.52$Rr6.10@newsfe02.iad...
> >>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that
> >>>>>>>they
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
> >>>>>>>> bitching
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back
> >>>>>>>slams
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
> >>>>>>>> thing
> >>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
> >>>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
> >>>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
> >>>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
> >>>>>> emotions?
> >>>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has
> >>>>>> reached
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
> >>>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
> >>>>> with great joy.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your
> >>>> confidence
> >>>> in
> >>>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention
> >>>> to
> >>>>
> >>>> me.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
> >>>>>> should
> >>>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
> >>>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> much
> >>>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
> >>>>>> consider
> >>>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
> >>>>>> after
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
> >>>>>> year)?.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
> >>>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
> >>>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
> >>>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this
> >>>> thread.
> >>>> If
> >>>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
> >>>> hasn't
> >>>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it
> >>>> if
> >>>> Fed
> >>>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last
> >>>> year
> >>>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
> >>>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
> >>>
> >>> What are you really *talking about*?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> He seems to be defending himself against his own hypothetical arguments
> >> and somehow finds myself as guilty for not saying something that I
> >> apparently should according to him if Federer wins tomorrow.
> >
> > What makes you think that?
>
> The text that you write
>
> >
> >> I think the pressure is too much for him...
> >
> > Then why do you have to call me a "miserable cunt" every other thread?
>
> It brings me great joy and happiness. :) :)

More likely you're still seething from yesterday :) Too bad you already
admitted to me that you willingly watched "Umbrellas of Cherbourg" once.
That kind of hurts your tough guy claims imo.


          
Date: 01 Feb 2009 01:43:26
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *skriptis wrote:
>>>>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Vn4hl.52$Rr6.10@newsfe02.iad...
>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
>>>>>>>>>> bitching
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back
>>>>>>>>> slams
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>>>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
>>>>>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>>>>>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
>>>>>>>> emotions?
>>>>>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has
>>>>>>>> reached
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
>>>>>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
>>>>>>> with great joy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your
>>>>>> confidence
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
>>>>>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
>>>>>>>> year)?.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
>>>>>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
>>>>>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this
>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>> If
>>>>>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> Fed
>>>>>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last
>>>>>> year
>>>>>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
>>>>>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
>>>>> What are you really *talking about*?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> He seems to be defending himself against his own hypothetical arguments
>>>> and somehow finds myself as guilty for not saying something that I
>>>> apparently should according to him if Federer wins tomorrow.
>>> What makes you think that?
>> The text that you write
>>
>>>> I think the pressure is too much for him...
>>> Then why do you have to call me a "miserable cunt" every other thread?
>> It brings me great joy and happiness. :) :)
>
> More likely you're still seething from yesterday :) Too bad you already
> admitted to me that you willingly watched "Umbrellas of Cherbourg" once.
> That kind of hurts your tough guy claims imo.

I never said I watched it willingly and furthermore I'm not trying to
pull of any tough guy image.

Sure you have taken your medication recently? Maybe you should double it
for the slams?


           
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:48:33
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> *skriptis wrote:
> >>>>> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:Vn4hl.52$Rr6.10@newsfe02.iad...
> >>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that
> >>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
> >>>>>>>>>> bitching
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back
> >>>>>>>>> slams
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this
> >>>>>>>very
> >>>>>>>>>> thing
> >>>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
> >>>>>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
> >>>>>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
> >>>>>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
> >>>>>>>> emotions?
> >>>>>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has
> >>>>>>>> reached
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
> >>>>>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable
> >>>>>>>cunt
> >>>>>>> with great joy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your
> >>>>>> confidence
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for
> >>>>>> attention
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results
> >>>>>>>you
> >>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
> >>>>>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it
> >>>>>>>is
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> much
> >>>>>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
> >>>>>>>> consider
> >>>>>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
> >>>>>>>> after
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
> >>>>>>>> year)?.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
> >>>>>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a
> >>>>>>>very
> >>>>>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we
> >>>>>>>have
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
> >>>>>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this
> >>>>>> thread.
> >>>>>> If
> >>>>>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
> >>>>>> hasn't
> >>>>>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it
> >>>>>> if
> >>>>>> Fed
> >>>>>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last
> >>>>>> year
> >>>>>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
> >>>>> What are you really *talking about*?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> He seems to be defending himself against his own hypothetical
> >>>> arguments
> >>>> and somehow finds myself as guilty for not saying something that I
> >>>> apparently should according to him if Federer wins tomorrow.
> >>> What makes you think that?
> >> The text that you write
> >>
> >>>> I think the pressure is too much for him...
> >>> Then why do you have to call me a "miserable cunt" every other thread?
> >> It brings me great joy and happiness. :) :)
> >
> > More likely you're still seething from yesterday :) Too bad you already
> > admitted to me that you willingly watched "Umbrellas of Cherbourg" once.
> >
> > That kind of hurts your tough guy claims imo.
>
> I never said I watched it willingly and furthermore I'm not trying to
> pull of any tough guy image.

Oh sorry, didn't realize you were *forced* to watch it :) What was that
talk of physical violence yesterday then?

>
> Sure you have taken your medication recently? Maybe you should double it
> for the slams?

Nope, my blood pressure is just fine regardless of what happens. What's
more, I don't have anything on the line for this match. Do you?


      
Date: 01 Feb 2009 00:55:16
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
*skriptis wrote:
> "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Vn4hl.52$Rr6.10@newsfe02.iad...
>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>
>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
>>>>>> thing
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
>>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
>>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
>>>> emotions?
>>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached
>>>> the
>>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
>>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
>>> with great joy.
>>>
>> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence in
>> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention to
>> me.
>>
>>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
>>>> should
>>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
>>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is that
>>>> much
>>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
>>>> consider
>>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him after
>>>> the
>>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
>>>> year)?.
>>>>
>>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
>>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
>>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have to
>>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
>> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread. If
>> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he hasn't
>> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if Fed
>> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
>> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
>> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
>
>
> What are you really *talking about*?
>
>

He needs a shrink. Can't afford that though.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


       
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:01:21
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...

On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

> *skriptis wrote:
> > "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Vn4hl.52$Rr6.10@newsfe02.iad...
> >> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>> On 31-Jan-2009, TT <gold@Olympics.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here)
> >>>>>> bitching
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very
> >>>>>> thing
> >>>>>> when
> >>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
> >>>>> When Nadal won 2 b2b slams he was the only player holding 2 slam
> >>>>> trophies at the time you miserable cunt.
> >>>> I see you haven't consulted with Yoda about how to control your
> >>>> emotions?
> >>>> Pity, but I guess this is the natural direction when one has reached
> >>>> the
> >>>> limit of his wit and intelligence.
> >>> I'm in perfect balance with my emotions. I called you miserable cunt
> >>> with great joy.
> >>>
> >> Just don't be surprised when your shrink doesn't share your confidence
> >> in
> >> your emotional state. You seem like a child desperate for attention to
> >>
> >> me.
> >>
> >>>> At any rate, since the rankings are based on a year of results you
> >>>> should
> >>>> have been very happy with Nadal's results and shouldn't have been
> >>>> complaining in the first place. What he did last year means it is
> >>>> that
> >>>> much
> >>>> harder for someone to overtake him this year, especially when you
> >>>> consider
> >>>> the points distribution changes will certainly greatly favor him
> >>>> after
> >>>> the
> >>>> FO (just getting to the final is worth relatively less than last
> >>>> year)?.
> >>>>
> >>>> But a troll is a troll I guess......
> >>> That has nothing to do with anything in this thread. You made a very
> >>> weak attempt at trolling starting this thread and that's all we have
> >>> to
> >>> know about you and failed cover of objectivity.
> >> What are you talking about? It has everything to do with this thread.
> >> If
> >> Fed wins you won't hear me complaining that he isn't #1 because he
> >> hasn't
> >> yet earned the points. We'll *never* hear you complaining about it if
> >> Fed
> >> is involved, even if Fed has the kind of year that Nadal had last year
> >> (which I'm not expecting by the way). So in what way can we call you
> >> objective? The answer is you aren't and you never will be.
> >
> >
> > What are you really *talking about*?
> >
> >
>
> He needs a shrink. Can't afford that though.

lol, you can't think of anything original so you lift from one of my other
posts in this thread.


 
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:16:51
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 3:14=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching tha=
t
> he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and=
I
> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing wh=
en
> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.

I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
never find out...


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 23:35:46
From: Shakes
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 1:58 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 3:55 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Sampras was so ticked off about losing (I imagine at least in part
> > because he knew he should have had the fitness edge) that it drove him
> > to be arguably the greatest of all time.
>
> History has a chance to repeat itself :)

I hope what you said here will come to pass, :-)


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 15:16:07
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 1:40=A0pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 1:34 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 4:16 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 3:14 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they =
are
> > > > aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitchi=
ng that
> > > > he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won back-to-back sla=
ms and I
> > > > seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very th=
ing when
> > > > Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> > > I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> > > never find out...
>
> > I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
> > it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
> > then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time hard-
> > court Slam champ in the next round.
>
> IMO, given Nadal's fitness, too big a deal is being made out of this.
> Nobody seems to recall Edberg's performance in the '92 USO. He beat
> krajicek in 5 sets in the 4th rd, beat Lendl 7-6 in the 5th in the QF,
> beat Chang in 5 hrs 26 mins in 5 sets in the SF, and then, with no
> rest day in between, beat Sampras in 4 sets in the final.
>
> And Edberg was never touted to be as fit or strong as Nadal is.- Hide quo=
ted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

++ Maybe not as strong but he certainly was super fit... no
question...

P


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 15:14:08
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 1:34=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:16=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 3:14=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they ar=
e
> > > aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching=
that
> > > he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won back-to-back slams=
and I
> > > seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thin=
g when
> > > Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> > I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> > never find out...
>
> I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
> it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
> then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time hard-
> court Slam champ in the next round.

++ That's true... but go Fed :)

P


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:58:29
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 3:55=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sampras was so ticked off about losing (I imagine at least in part
> because he knew he should have had the fitness edge) that it drove him
> to be arguably the greatest of all time.

History has a chance to repeat itself :)


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:56:13
From: Shakes
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 1:48 pm, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Shakes wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 1:34 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Jan 31, 4:16 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 31, 3:14 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
> >>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
> >>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
> >>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing when
> >>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
> >>> I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> >>> never find out...
> >> I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
> >> it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
> >> then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time hard-
> >> court Slam champ in the next round.
>
> > IMO, given Nadal's fitness, too big a deal is being made out of this.
> > Nobody seems to recall Edberg's performance in the '92 USO. He beat
> > krajicek in 5 sets in the 4th rd, beat Lendl 7-6 in the 5th in the QF,
> > beat Chang in 5 hrs 26 mins in 5 sets in the SF, and then, with no
> > rest day in between, beat Sampras in 4 sets in the final.
>
> > And Edberg was never touted to be as fit or strong as Nadal is.
>
> Edberg was a chip and dinker, shorter points.
>
>

He still had to play 5 hrs 26 mins of tennis. And he had to play three
5-set matches in a row.

Further, it's the sudden spurts and bursts of movement that are more
demanding on the body than a continuous run. That's what makes basket
ball so tiring.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:55:43
From:
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 4:52=A0pm, David W <dw7...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 8:40=A0am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 1:34 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 4:16 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 31, 3:14 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that the=
y are
> > > > > aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitc=
hing that
> > > > > he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won back-to-back s=
lams and I
> > > > > seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very =
thing when
> > > > > Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> > > > I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> > > > never find out...
>
> > > I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
> > > it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
> > > then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time har=
d-
> > > court Slam champ in the next round.
>
> > IMO, given Nadal's fitness, too big a deal is being made out of this.
> > Nobody seems to recall Edberg's performance in the '92 USO. He beat
> > krajicek in 5 sets in the 4th rd, beat Lendl 7-6 in the 5th in the QF,
> > beat Chang in 5 hrs 26 mins in 5 sets in the SF, and then, with no
> > rest day in between, beat Sampras in 4 sets in the final.
>
> Wow. That's a tough week.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sampras was so ticked off about losing (I imagine at least in part
because he knew he should have had the fitness edge) that it drove him
to be arguably the greatest of all time.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:54:37
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 3:40=A0pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> IMO, given Nadal's fitness, too big a deal is being made out of this.
> Nobody seems to recall Edberg's performance in the '92 USO. He beat
> krajicek in 5 sets in the 4th rd, beat Lendl 7-6 in the 5th in the QF,
> beat Chang in 5 hrs 26 mins in 5 sets in the SF, and then, with no
> rest day in between, beat Sampras in 4 sets in the final.
>
> And Edberg was never touted to be as fit or strong as Nadal is.

5 hours 26 minutes against Chang in the semi, and then he beat Sampras
in 4 sets to win the final? Wow, that is amazing - and Edberg was
nowhere near as fit as Rafa, and had no rest day in between, and if we
are to believe TJT/Whisper types Fed is no Sampras. So its fair to say
that fitness shouldn't be an issue at all...


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:53:04
From:
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 4:40=A0pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 1:34 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 4:16 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 3:14 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they =
are
> > > > aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitchi=
ng that
> > > > he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won back-to-back sla=
ms and I
> > > > seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very th=
ing when
> > > > Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> > > I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> > > never find out...
>
> > I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
> > it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
> > then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time hard-
> > court Slam champ in the next round.
>
> IMO, given Nadal's fitness, too big a deal is being made out of this.
> Nobody seems to recall Edberg's performance in the '92 USO. He beat
> krajicek in 5 sets in the 4th rd, beat Lendl 7-6 in the 5th in the QF,
> beat Chang in 5 hrs 26 mins in 5 sets in the SF, and then, with no
> rest day in between, beat Sampras in 4 sets in the final.
>
> And Edberg was never touted to be as fit or strong as Nadal is.-

You could be right and I definitely thought back to that match in
thinking what Nadal's fitness will be like, as well as Safin after
beating Fed in 05.

It's just that Nadal is going to have to run and run and run like a
madman
possibly for another 4 or 4 and a half hours yet again to beat Fed. I
also think being a bit heavy in the legs will affect
Nadal more than someone with a bigger serve who doesn't have to fight
so much to win every point.

I certainly give Nadal a chance but I see Fed as the clear fave.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:52:46
From: David W
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Feb 1, 8:40=A0am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 1:34 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 4:16 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 3:14 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they =
are
> > > > aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitchi=
ng that
> > > > he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won back-to-back sla=
ms and I
> > > > seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very th=
ing when
> > > > Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> > > I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> > > never find out...
>
> > I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
> > it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
> > then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time hard-
> > court Slam champ in the next round.
>
> IMO, given Nadal's fitness, too big a deal is being made out of this.
> Nobody seems to recall Edberg's performance in the '92 USO. He beat
> krajicek in 5 sets in the 4th rd, beat Lendl 7-6 in the 5th in the QF,
> beat Chang in 5 hrs 26 mins in 5 sets in the SF, and then, with no
> rest day in between, beat Sampras in 4 sets in the final.

Wow. That's a tough week.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:52:20
From: David W
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Feb 1, 8:48=A0am, TT <g...@Olympics.org > wrote:
> Shakes wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 1:34 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Jan 31, 4:16 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 31, 3:14 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they a=
re
> >>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitchin=
g that
> >>>> he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won back-to-back slam=
s and I
> >>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thi=
ng when
> >>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
> >>> I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> >>> never find out...
> >> I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
> >> it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
> >> then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time hard=
-
> >> court Slam champ in the next round.
>
> > IMO, given Nadal's fitness, too big a deal is being made out of this.
> > Nobody seems to recall Edberg's performance in the '92 USO. He beat
> > krajicek in 5 sets in the 4th rd, beat Lendl 7-6 in the 5th in the QF,
> > beat Chang in 5 hrs 26 mins in 5 sets in the SF, and then, with no
> > rest day in between, beat Sampras in 4 sets in the final.
>
> > And Edberg was never touted to be as fit or strong as Nadal is.
>
> Edberg was a chip and dinker, shorter points.

He chipped and dinked for 5 hours 26 minutes against Chang? That's a
lot of running.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:40:13
From: Shakes
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 1:34 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:16 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 3:14 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
> > > aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
> > > he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
> > > seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing when
> > > Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> > I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> > never find out...
>
> I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
> it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
> then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time hard-
> court Slam champ in the next round.

IMO, given Nadal's fitness, too big a deal is being made out of this.
Nobody seems to recall Edberg's performance in the '92 USO. He beat
krajicek in 5 sets in the 4th rd, beat Lendl 7-6 in the 5th in the QF,
beat Chang in 5 hrs 26 mins in 5 sets in the SF, and then, with no
rest day in between, beat Sampras in 4 sets in the final.

And Edberg was never touted to be as fit or strong as Nadal is.


   
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:48:10
From: TT
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
Shakes wrote:
> On Jan 31, 1:34 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 4:16 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 3:14 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing when
>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>> I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
>>> never find out...
>> I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
>> it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
>> then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time hard-
>> court Slam champ in the next round.
>
> IMO, given Nadal's fitness, too big a deal is being made out of this.
> Nobody seems to recall Edberg's performance in the '92 USO. He beat
> krajicek in 5 sets in the 4th rd, beat Lendl 7-6 in the 5th in the QF,
> beat Chang in 5 hrs 26 mins in 5 sets in the SF, and then, with no
> rest day in between, beat Sampras in 4 sets in the final.
>
> And Edberg was never touted to be as fit or strong as Nadal is.

Edberg was a chip and dinker, shorter points.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"


    
Date: 31 Jan 2009 23:51:09
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:48:10 +0200, TT <gold@Olympics.org > wrote:

>Shakes wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 1:34 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 31, 4:16 pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 3:14 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
>>>>> aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching that
>>>>> he isn't ranked #1? After all, he will have won back-to-back slams and I
>>>>> seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing when
>>>>> Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>>>> I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
>>>> never find out...
>>> I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
>>> it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
>>> then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time hard-
>>> court Slam champ in the next round.
>>
>> IMO, given Nadal's fitness, too big a deal is being made out of this.
>> Nobody seems to recall Edberg's performance in the '92 USO. He beat
>> krajicek in 5 sets in the 4th rd, beat Lendl 7-6 in the 5th in the QF,
>> beat Chang in 5 hrs 26 mins in 5 sets in the SF, and then, with no
>> rest day in between, beat Sampras in 4 sets in the final.
>>
>> And Edberg was never touted to be as fit or strong as Nadal is.
>
>Edberg was a chip and dinker, shorter points.

I was going to say that, but at least the Chang match was longer than
Nadal's match (see above).


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:39:35
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 3:34=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:16=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 3:14=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they ar=
e
> > > aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching=
that
> > > he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won back-to-back slams=
and I
> > > seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thin=
g when
> > > Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> > I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> > never find out...
>
> I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
> it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
> then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time hard-
> court Slam champ in the next round.

Never claimed I was a Nadal fan. I guess we all have this innate fear
that our guy is going to lose...


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:34:19
From:
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 4:16=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 3:14=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
> > aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching t=
hat
> > he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won back-to-back slams a=
nd I
> > seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing =
when
> > Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> never find out...

I think if you were a Nadal fan you'd be more aware of how difficult
it is for Rafa to play one of the most grueling Slam matches ever and
then, as his reward, have to face a 13-time Slam champ and 8-time hard-
court Slam champ in the next round.


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:22:26
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 3:20=A0pm, PeteWasLucky <Waleed.Kh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:16=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 3:14=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they ar=
e
> > > aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching=
that
> > > he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won back-to-back slams=
and I
> > > seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thin=
g when
> > > Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> > I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> > never find out...
>
> Would you answer the jdeluise's question?

I wasn't the one complaining about the rankings if I recall correctly.
I said at the time that its only a matter of time, and it was. And
yes, if Fed wins here, he is the locker room #1 - having beaten all 3
of the other big guns in the last two slams...


  
Date: 31 Jan 2009 13:20:48
From: PeteWasLucky
Subject: Re: If Federer wins...
On Jan 31, 4:16=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 31, 3:14=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Will we be hearing any of the Sampras/Nadal fanboys (now that they are
> > aligned together in fear of what Federer could achieve here) bitching t=
hat
> > he isn't ranked #1? =A0After all, he will have won back-to-back slams a=
nd I
> > seem to remember a number of posters complaining about this very thing =
when
> > Rafa won FO/Wimbledon.
>
> I was about the post the exact same thing :) Unfortunately, we will
> never find out...

Would you answer the jdeluise's question?