tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 09 Feb 2009 15:56:23
From:
Subject: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
Many other have won more AO+FO.

Just to name a few

Borg won 6
Lendl won 5
Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
Courier won 4
Agassi won 5
Kuerten won 3
Nadal won 5

Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?




 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 09:27:47
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 11, 2:42=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >>>>>> Just to name a few
> >>>>>> Borg won 6
> >>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >>>>>> Courier won 4
> >>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> >>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
> >>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
> >>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
> >>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
> >>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve=
.
> >>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
> >>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
> >> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO =
is only 1
> >> pt more than FO.
>
> > then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
> > so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>
> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given his talent & won a
> combined 3 titles

Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?

.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  
Date: 13 Feb 2009 04:26:17
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 4:14=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 12, 7:31=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 1:29=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 12, 6:28=A0am, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 12, 5:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > > > <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> > > > > >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > > > >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.co=
m > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > > > >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail=
.com > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@o=
zemail.com.au >
> > > > > >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au=
> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> w=
rote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-c=
om.hr > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO a=
re 4 and 3
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in whic=
h of the 4 slams did
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, beca=
use h went down
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is=
that Rafa confirmed
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the pa=
st year, things
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Feder=
er hoping to achieve.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO d=
ont matter. Shouldnt
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a=
moron or what?
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pt=
s respectively. USO is only 1
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5=
USOs. If they are
> > > > > >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal effor=
ts to both.
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should =
be focussed in that
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well give=
n his talent & won a
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he =
wants to be the
> > > > > >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> > > > > >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your p=
owers of persuasion
> > > > > >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 grea=
t & Sampras not
> > > > > >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> > > > > >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> > > > > >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> > > > > >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot la=
tely??
> > > > > >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> > > > > >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> > > > > >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> > > > > >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically de=
formed
> > > > > >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to di=
e out.
>
> > > > > >Yet you say you do charity work?
> > > > > >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> > > > > >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> > > > > >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> > > > > >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them=
'die
> > > > > >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> > > > > >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> > > > > >What about Transexuals?
> > > > > >or just Transvestites??
>
> > > > > >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> > > > > not all of them.
>
> > > > > bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
> > > > yep. It is perfectly normal for an attractive girl to be attractive=
to
> > > > another. And it is amazing too ;-)-
>
> > > Agree.
>
> > yup, just like it's normal for me to find attractive guys and girls
> > attractive.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No it is not. I do not find attractive guys attractive. For guys it
> doesnt matter. I become friends with guys who have similar tastes in
> life. But I am not attracted to them. I am attracted to hot chicks.
> Normal chicks are nothing more sisters to me.

In a sense then you are actually more homo than me if we phrase our
tastes like this:

Raja only finds HOT girls attractive.... (guess you can't have had a
girlfriend yet then)

I however, find nearly all women attractive

Makes me seem straighter than you when I phrase it like that (just b/c
I like some guys too.)


  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 09:14:26
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 4:46=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> On Feb 12, 8:31=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > yup, just like it's normal for me to find attractive guys and girls
> > attractive.
>
> Do you "like" Rafa?

I would, yes. But not Fed.


  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 08:46:49
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 8:31=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
> yup, just like it's normal for me to find attractive guys and girls
> attractive.

Do you "like" Rafa?


  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 08:14:06
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 7:31=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 12, 1:29=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 6:28=A0am, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 12, 5:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > > <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> > > > >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > > >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com>=
wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > > >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.c=
om > wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@oze=
mail.com.au >
> > > > >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> =
wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wro=
te:
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com=
.hr > wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are=
4 and 3
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which =
of the 4 slams did
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, becaus=
e h went down
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is t=
hat Rafa confirmed
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past=
year, things
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer=
hoping to achieve.
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO don=
t matter. Shouldnt
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a m=
oron or what?
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts =
respectively. USO is only 1
> > > > >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> > > > >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 U=
SOs. If they are
> > > > >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts=
to both.
> > > > >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be=
focussed in that
> > > > >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given =
his talent & won a
> > > > >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> > > > >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wa=
nts to be the
> > > > >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> > > > >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> > > > >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your pow=
ers of persuasion
> > > > >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great =
& Sampras not
> > > > >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> > > > >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> > > > >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> > > > >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot late=
ly??
> > > > >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> > > > >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> > > > >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> > > > >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically defo=
rmed
> > > > >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die =
out.
>
> > > > >Yet you say you do charity work?
> > > > >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> > > > >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> > > > >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> > > > >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them '=
die
> > > > >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> > > > >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> > > > >What about Transexuals?
> > > > >or just Transvestites??
>
> > > > >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> > > > not all of them.
>
> > > > bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
> > > yep. It is perfectly normal for an attractive girl to be attractive t=
o
> > > another. And it is amazing too ;-)-
>
> > Agree.
>
> yup, just like it's normal for me to find attractive guys and girls
> attractive.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No it is not. I do not find attractive guys attractive. For guys it
doesnt matter. I become friends with guys who have similar tastes in
life. But I am not attracted to them. I am attracted to hot chicks.
Normal chicks are nothing more sisters to me.


  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 05:31:27
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 1:29=A0pm, Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> On Feb 12, 6:28=A0am, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 5:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> > > >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> w=
rote:
> > > >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com=
> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozema=
il.com.au >
> > > >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wr=
ote:
> > > >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote=
:
> > > >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.h=
r > wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4=
and 3
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of=
the 4 slams did
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because =
h went down
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is tha=
t Rafa confirmed
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past y=
ear, things
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer h=
oping to achieve.
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont =
matter. Shouldnt
> > > >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a mor=
on or what?
> > > >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts re=
spectively. USO is only 1
> > > >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> > > >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USO=
s. If they are
> > > >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts t=
o both.
> > > >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be f=
ocussed in that
> > > >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given hi=
s talent & won a
> > > >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> > > >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he want=
s to be the
> > > >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> > > >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> > > >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your power=
s of persuasion
> > > >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & =
Sampras not
> > > >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> > > >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> > > >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> > > >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately=
??
> > > >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> > > >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> > > >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> > > >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deform=
ed
> > > >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die ou=
t.
>
> > > >Yet you say you do charity work?
> > > >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> > > >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> > > >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> > > >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'di=
e
> > > >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> > > >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> > > >What about Transexuals?
> > > >or just Transvestites??
>
> > > >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> > > not all of them.
>
> > > bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
> > yep. It is perfectly normal for an attractive girl to be attractive to
> > another. And it is amazing too ;-)-
>
> Agree.

yup, just like it's normal for me to find attractive guys and girls
attractive.


  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 05:29:08
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 6:28=A0am, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wro=
te:
> > >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail=
.com.au >
> > >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrot=
e:
> > >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr>=
wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 a=
nd 3
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of t=
he 4 slams did
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h =
went down
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that =
Rafa confirmed
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past yea=
r, things
> > >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hop=
ing to achieve.
> > >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont ma=
tter. Shouldnt
> > >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron=
or what?
> > >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts resp=
ectively. USO is only 1
> > >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> > >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs.=
If they are
> > >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to =
both.
> > >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be foc=
ussed in that
> > >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given his =
talent & won a
> > >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> > >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants =
to be the
> > >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> > >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> > >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your powers =
of persuasion
> > >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sa=
mpras not
> > >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> > >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> > >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> > >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
> > >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> > >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> > >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> > >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deformed
> > >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out.
>
> > >Yet you say you do charity work?
> > >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> > >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> > >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> > >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'die
> > >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> > >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> > >What about Transexuals?
> > >or just Transvestites??
>
> > >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> > not all of them.
>
> > bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
> yep. It is perfectly normal for an attractive girl to be attractive to
> another. And it is amazing too ;-)-


Agree.


  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 11:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.c=
om.au >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> w=
rote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and=
3
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the=
4 slams did
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h we=
nt down
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Ra=
fa confirmed
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year,=
things
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hopin=
g to achieve.
> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matt=
er. Shouldnt
> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron o=
r what?
> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respec=
tively. USO is only 1
> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. I=
f they are
> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to bo=
th.
> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focus=
sed in that
> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given his ta=
lent & won a
> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to=
be the
> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your powers of=
persuasion
> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Samp=
ras not
> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
> >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deformed
> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out.
>
> >Yet you say you do charity work?
> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'die
> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> >What about Transexuals?
> >or just Transvestites??
>
> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> not all of them.
>
> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.

You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on a
religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerate
lesbians!
Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Nadal?

I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die out.
Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'






   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 11:59:31
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 12, 11:26 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>>
>>
>> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 12, 10:50 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
>> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
>> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
>> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats.  Lendl did well given his talent & won a
>> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
>> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic.  You can't seriously believe your powers of persuasion
>> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras not
>> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>>
>> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>>
>> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>>
>> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
>> >> >> >Gay and single?
>>
>> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>>
>> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>>
>> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deformed
>> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out.
>>
>> >Yet you say you do charity work?
>> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
>> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
>> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>>
>> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'die
>> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>>
>> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
>> >What about Transexuals?
>> >or just Transvestites??
>>
>> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>>
>> not all of them.
>>
>> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
>You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
>I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on a
>religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerate
>lesbians!
>Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
>Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Nadal?
>
>I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
>criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die out.
>Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
>


calm down already.

i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individual
fag.

in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g >.

but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.

what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to be
taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then and
only than can man be all he was meant to be.

i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.

well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
from now the difference will be just as incredible.

and, there won't be any fags either.

got it ?


  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 03:28:48
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 5:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.c=
om.au >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> w=
rote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and=
3
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the=
4 slams did
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h we=
nt down
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Ra=
fa confirmed
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year,=
things
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hopin=
g to achieve.
> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matt=
er. Shouldnt
> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron o=
r what?
> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respec=
tively. USO is only 1
> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. I=
f they are
> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to bo=
th.
> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focus=
sed in that
> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given his ta=
lent & won a
> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to=
be the
> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your powers of=
persuasion
> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Samp=
ras not
> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
> >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deformed
> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out.
>
> >Yet you say you do charity work?
> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'die
> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> >What about Transexuals?
> >or just Transvestites??
>
> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> not all of them.
>
> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.

yep. It is perfectly normal for an attractive girl to be attractive to
another. And it is amazing too ;-)



  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
Raja wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
>>>> pt more than FO.
>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
>> direction for would-be goats. Lendl did well given his talent & won a
>> combined 3 titles
>
> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> .- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>



You're a lunatic. You can't seriously believe your powers of persuasion
are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras not
the goat....?

You have a lot of room for improvement.



   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 00:58:28
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Raja wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
>>>>> pt more than FO.
>>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
>>> direction for would-be goats. Lendl did well given his talent & won a
>>> combined 3 titles
>>
>> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
>> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>>
>> .- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>
>
>
>You're a lunatic. You can't seriously believe your powers of persuasion
>are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras not
>the goat....?
>
>You have a lot of room for improvement.

he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.


 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 09:26:59
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 11, 2:44=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Superdave wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:17:04 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided>
> > wrote:
>
> >> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> >>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> >>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> >>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> >>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams
> >>>>>>> did Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
> >>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa
> >>>>>> confirmed his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year,
> >>>>>> things wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping
> >>>>>> to achieve.
> >>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter.
> >>>>> Shouldnt he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or
> >>>>> what?
> >>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively.
> >>>> USO is only 1 pt more than FO.
> >>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
> >>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
> >> He couldn't win FO. Hopeless on clay. Most years he wouldn't have got =
through FO
> >> qualifying if he'd had to play it.
>
> > why can't whisper be as honest and truthful about sampras lameness ?
>
> Because he beat 7 FO champs on clay, won Italian Open, DC final etc.
> Not many lame ducks have achieved that on clay.

Yet he never made the finals, why?

>
> But even if he was totally lame on clay & never won a match he'd still
> be goat based on his overall record.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 05:58:55
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
Raja wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2:44 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Superdave wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:17:04 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided>
>>> wrote:
>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams
>>>>>>>>> did Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa
>>>>>>>> confirmed his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year,
>>>>>>>> things wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping
>>>>>>>> to achieve.
>>>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter.
>>>>>>> Shouldnt he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or
>>>>>>> what?
>>>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively.
>>>>>> USO is only 1 pt more than FO.
>>>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>>>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>>>> He couldn't win FO. Hopeless on clay. Most years he wouldn't have got through FO
>>>> qualifying if he'd had to play it.
>>> why can't whisper be as honest and truthful about sampras lameness ?
>> Because he beat 7 FO champs on clay, won Italian Open, DC final etc.
>> Not many lame ducks have achieved that on clay.
>
> Yet he never made the finals, why?
>



That's like asking a guy who won 10 Olympic gold medals why he never won
a Commonwealth gold? ie trolling & attracts no interest in the real
world. You'll note Sampras is considered goat by most so cease the idiocy.


   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 05:59:46
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:49931ff2$0$23910$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Raja wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 2:44 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> Superdave wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:17:04 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>>>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>>>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>>>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>>>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams
>>>>>>>>>> did Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>>>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa
>>>>>>>>> confirmed his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year,
>>>>>>>>> things wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping
>>>>>>>>> to achieve.
>>>>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter.
>>>>>>>> Shouldnt he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or
>>>>>>>> what?
>>>>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively.
>>>>>>> USO is only 1 pt more than FO.
>>>>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>>>>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>>>>> He couldn't win FO. Hopeless on clay. Most years he wouldn't have got
>>>>> through FO
>>>>> qualifying if he'd had to play it.
>>>> why can't whisper be as honest and truthful about sampras lameness ?
>>> Because he beat 7 FO champs on clay, won Italian Open, DC final etc.
>>> Not many lame ducks have achieved that on clay.
>>
>> Yet he never made the finals, why?
>>
>
>
>
> That's like asking a guy who won 10 Olympic gold medals why he never won a
> Commonwealth gold? ie trolling & attracts no interest in the real world.
> You'll note Sampras is considered goat by most so cease the idiocy.

Great comparison.




 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 00:20:14
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 11, 2:10=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> > Just to name a few
>
> > Borg won 6
> > Lendl won 5
> > Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> > Courier won 4
> > Agassi won 5
> > Kuerten won 3
> > Nadal won 5
>
> > Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>
> No, because excellent WUFA 7543 accumulation is the goal in tennis, &
> Sampras is comfortably on top of the heap.
>
> No player who ranks No.1 for as long as Lendl wants to end up with his
> 33 pts total.

You are delusional to think anyone cares about 7543 except yourself
and some your fans in rst...


 
Date: 11 Feb 2009 19:10:44
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> Just to name a few
>
> Borg won 6
> Lendl won 5
> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> Courier won 4
> Agassi won 5
> Kuerten won 3
> Nadal won 5
>
> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?


No, because excellent WUFA 7543 accumulation is the goal in tennis, &
Sampras is comfortably on top of the heap.

No player who ranks No.1 for as long as Lendl wants to end up with his
33 pts total.


 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 14:15:53
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 9, 10:17=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> >>>>>> Just to name a few
>
> >>>>>> Borg won 6
> >>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >>>>>> Courier won 4
> >>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >>>>>> Nadal won 5
>
> >>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>
> >>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> >>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams
> >>>>> did Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>
> >>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
> >>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa
> >>>> confirmed his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year,
> >>>> things wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping
> >>>> to achieve.
>
> >>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter.
> >>> Shouldnt he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or
> >>> what?
>
> >> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively.
> >> USO is only 1 pt more than FO.
>
> > then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
> > so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>
> He couldn't win FO. Hopeless on clay. Most years he wouldn't have got thr=
ough FO
> qualifying if he'd had to play it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The first sensible post you made. It would be quite a feat if you can
convince Whisper about this.


  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 10:26:53
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
Raja wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:17 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>
>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>
>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>
>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>
>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams
>>>>>>> did Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>
>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa
>>>>>> confirmed his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past
>>>>>> year, things wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer
>>>>>> hoping to achieve.
>>
>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter.
>>>>> Shouldnt he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron
>>>>> or what?
>>
>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively.
>>>> USO is only 1 pt more than FO.
>>
>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they
>>> are so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>>
>> He couldn't win FO. Hopeless on clay. Most years he wouldn't have
>> got through FO qualifying if he'd had to play it.
>
> The first sensible post you made. It would be quite a feat if you can
> convince Whisper about this.

Sadly, that's beyond even my super capabilities.




 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 20:08:24
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 9, 9:57=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> >>>> Just to name a few
>
> >>>> Borg won 6
> >>>> Lendl won 5
> >>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >>>> Courier won 4
> >>>> Agassi won 5
> >>>> Kuerten won 3
> >>>> Nadal won 5
>
> >>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>
> >>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> >>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
> >>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>
> >> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
> >> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
> >> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
> >> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>
> > why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
> > he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>
> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is =
only 1
> pt more than FO.

then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.



  
Date: 11 Feb 2009 19:42:12
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
>> pt more than FO.
>
> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>


Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
direction for would-be goats. Lendl did well given his talent & won a
combined 3 titles.



   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.=
au >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrot=
e:
> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 =
slams did
> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went =
down
> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa =
confirmed
> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, th=
ings
> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping t=
o achieve.
> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter.=
Shouldnt
> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or w=
hat?
> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectiv=
ely. USO is only 1
> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If t=
hey are
> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed=
in that
> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given his talen=
t & won a
> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be=
the
> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your powers of pe=
rsuasion
> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras=
not
> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
> >> >Gay and single?
>
> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deformed
> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out.

Yet you say you do charity work?
I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
charity - their are plenty of those about.

Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'die
out' sorry to break it to you.

What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
What about Transexuals?
or just Transvestites??

Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?



    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 08:47:37
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 9:14=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:

>
> Just for the record I am a really average Joe and not hot at all !



We already knew that. Brad Pitt you aint....


     
Date: 13 Feb 2009 01:40:56
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:47:37 -0800 (PST), Arancione@selin.com wrote:

>On Feb 12, 9:14 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Just for the record I am a really average Joe and not hot at all !
>
>
>
>We already knew that. Brad Pitt you aint....


hey look do you think i want that homo "thing" chasing me ?


      
Date: 13 Feb 2009 19:22:59
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
Superdave wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:47:37 -0800 (PST), Arancione@selin.com wrote:
>
>> On Feb 12, 9:14 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just for the record I am a really average Joe and not hot at all !
>>
>>
>> We already knew that. Brad Pitt you aint....
>
>
> hey look do you think i want that homo "thing" chasing me ?


You've already experienced chicks with dicks so not such a stretch no?



    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 08:14:47
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 8:14=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:22:39 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 12, 12:14=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:09:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 12, 11:59=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 12, 11:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com>=
wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.c=
om > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmai=
l.com > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@=
ozemail.com.au >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.a=
u > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> =
wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-=
com.hr > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO =
are 4 and 3
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in whi=
ch of the 4 slams did
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, bec=
ause h went down
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing i=
s that Rafa confirmed
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the p=
ast year, things
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Fede=
rer hoping to achieve.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO =
dont matter. Shouldnt
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he =
a moron or what?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 p=
ts respectively. USO is only 1
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win =
5 USOs. If they are
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal effo=
rts to both.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should=
be focussed in that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well giv=
en his talent & won a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he=
wants to be the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your =
powers of persuasion
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 gre=
at & Sampras not
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot l=
ately??
> >> >> >> >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> >> >> >> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> >> >> >> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically d=
eformed
> >> >> >> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to d=
ie out.
>
> >> >> >> >Yet you say you do charity work?
> >> >> >> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> >> >> >> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutte=
r
> >> >> >> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> >> >> >> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see the=
m 'die
> >> >> >> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> >> >> >> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> >> >> >> >What about Transexuals?
> >> >> >> >or just Transvestites??
>
> >> >> >> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> >> >> >> not all of them.
>
> >> >> >> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
> >> >> >You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
> >> >> >I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on =
a
> >> >> >religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerat=
e
> >> >> >lesbians!
> >> >> >Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
> >> >> >Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Na=
dal?
>
> >> >> >I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
> >> >> >criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die =
out.
> >> >> >Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
>
> >> >> calm down already.
>
> >> >> i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individ=
ual
> >> >> fag.
>
> >> >> in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g>.
>
> >> >> but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
> >> >> those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.
>
> >> >> what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to b=
e
> >> >> taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
> >> >> that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then a=
nd
> >> >> only than can man be all he was meant to be.
>
> >> >> i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
> >> >> thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.
>
> >> >> well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
> >> >> from now the difference will be just as incredible.
>
> >> >> and, there won't be any fags either.
>
> >> >> got it ?
>
> >> >Not really, how on earth is the end of homosexuality connected the
> >> >survival of the human race?? I didn't realise we were all gay.
>
> >> >A lot of animals in the animal kingdom have been shown to engage in
> >> >gay activity as well; you know dave, and we are not neccessarilly
> >> >talking about 'endangered' animals here.
> >> >Maybe it is as natural as being straight?
>
> >> Let's go back a few steps now and .....
>
> >> Let me say that you are the one who sounds VERY GAY and VERY SINGLE
> >> and VERY DEFENSIVE.
>
> >> Correct ?
> >No i'm bi dude.
> >I love the communal showers at the gym.
> >but do have a preferance for women.
>
> >IE I am only sexually attracted to really really hot guys (not average
> >joes)
> >but with girls anythings game.
>
> Just for the record I am a really average Joe and not hot at all !- Hide =
quoted text -

Is that why you try for Giovanna?


    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 06:26:40
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 2:13=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:22:39 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 12, 12:14=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:09:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 12, 11:59=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 12, 11:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com>=
wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.c=
om > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmai=
l.com > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@=
ozemail.com.au >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.a=
u > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> =
wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-=
com.hr > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO =
are 4 and 3
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in whi=
ch of the 4 slams did
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, bec=
ause h went down
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing i=
s that Rafa confirmed
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the p=
ast year, things
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Fede=
rer hoping to achieve.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO =
dont matter. Shouldnt
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he =
a moron or what?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 p=
ts respectively. USO is only 1
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win =
5 USOs. If they are
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal effo=
rts to both.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should=
be focussed in that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well giv=
en his talent & won a
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he=
wants to be the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your =
powers of persuasion
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 gre=
at & Sampras not
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot l=
ately??
> >> >> >> >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> >> >> >> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> >> >> >> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically d=
eformed
> >> >> >> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to d=
ie out.
>
> >> >> >> >Yet you say you do charity work?
> >> >> >> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> >> >> >> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutte=
r
> >> >> >> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> >> >> >> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see the=
m 'die
> >> >> >> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> >> >> >> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> >> >> >> >What about Transexuals?
> >> >> >> >or just Transvestites??
>
> >> >> >> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> >> >> >> not all of them.
>
> >> >> >> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
> >> >> >You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
> >> >> >I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on =
a
> >> >> >religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerat=
e
> >> >> >lesbians!
> >> >> >Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
> >> >> >Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Na=
dal?
>
> >> >> >I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
> >> >> >criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die =
out.
> >> >> >Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
>
> >> >> calm down already.
>
> >> >> i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individ=
ual
> >> >> fag.
>
> >> >> in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g>.
>
> >> >> but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
> >> >> those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.
>
> >> >> what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to b=
e
> >> >> taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
> >> >> that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then a=
nd
> >> >> only than can man be all he was meant to be.
>
> >> >> i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
> >> >> thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.
>
> >> >> well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
> >> >> from now the difference will be just as incredible.
>
> >> >> and, there won't be any fags either.
>
> >> >> got it ?
>
> >> >Not really, how on earth is the end of homosexuality connected the
> >> >survival of the human race?? I didn't realise we were all gay.
>
> >> >A lot of animals in the animal kingdom have been shown to engage in
> >> >gay activity as well; you know dave, and we are not neccessarilly
> >> >talking about 'endangered' animals here.
> >> >Maybe it is as natural as being straight?
>
> >> Let's go back a few steps now and .....
>
> >> Let me say that you are the one who sounds VERY GAY and VERY SINGLE
> >> and VERY DEFENSIVE.
>
> >> Correct ?
> >No i'm bi dude.
> >I love the communal showers at the gym.
> >but do have a preferance for women.
>
> >IE I am only sexually attracted to really really hot guys (not average
> >joes)
> >but with girls anythings game.
>
> That's SICK !

Do you tell that to your 'gay friends,' I doubt it. Anyhow i'm not
gay, so i'm not a threat to human survival, so i'm ok no?


    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 11:26:56
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 12, 10:50 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>>
>>
>> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 12, 10:31 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Raja wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
>> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
>> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
>> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats.  Lendl did well given his talent & won a
>> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>>
>> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
>> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>>
>> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >You're a lunatic.  You can't seriously believe your powers of persuasion
>> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras not
>> >> >> >the goat....?
>>
>> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>>
>> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>>
>> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
>> >> >Gay and single?
>>
>> >> YUCKs !!!
>>
>> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>>
>> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deformed
>> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out.
>
>Yet you say you do charity work?
>I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
>Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
>charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
>Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'die
>out' sorry to break it to you.
>
>What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
>What about Transexuals?
>or just Transvestites??
>
>Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?


not all of them.

bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g >.


   
Date: 11 Feb 2009 20:08:53
From: john
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:49928f67$0$23914$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is
>>> only 1
>>> pt more than FO.
>>
>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>>
>
>
> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
> direction for would-be goats. Lendl did well given his talent & won a
> combined 3 titles.

So the conclusion for the current Rafa and Federer rivalvry is that Federer
was only half
assed about FO/AO but only focus in the direction of Wim/USO. Was that
correct Whisper?

>




  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 15:17:04
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>
>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>
>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>
>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>
>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams
>>>>> did Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>
>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa
>>>> confirmed his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year,
>>>> things wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping
>>>> to achieve.
>>
>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter.
>>> Shouldnt he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or
>>> what?
>>
>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively.
>> USO is only 1 pt more than FO.
>
> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.

He couldn't win FO. Hopeless on clay. Most years he wouldn't have got through FO
qualifying if he'd had to play it.




   
Date: 10 Feb 2009 04:21:59
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:17:04 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided >
wrote:

>zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>>
>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>>
>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>>
>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>>
>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams
>>>>>> did Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>>
>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa
>>>>> confirmed his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year,
>>>>> things wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping
>>>>> to achieve.
>>>
>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter.
>>>> Shouldnt he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or
>>>> what?
>>>
>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively.
>>> USO is only 1 pt more than FO.
>>
>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>
>He couldn't win FO. Hopeless on clay. Most years he wouldn't have got through FO
>qualifying if he'd had to play it.
>


why can't whisper be as honest and truthful about sampras lameness ?


    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 19:44:42
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
Superdave wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:17:04 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
> wrote:
>
>> zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams
>>>>>>> did Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa
>>>>>> confirmed his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year,
>>>>>> things wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping
>>>>>> to achieve.
>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter.
>>>>> Shouldnt he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or
>>>>> what?
>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively.
>>>> USO is only 1 pt more than FO.
>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>> He couldn't win FO. Hopeless on clay. Most years he wouldn't have got through FO
>> qualifying if he'd had to play it.
>>
>
>
> why can't whisper be as honest and truthful about sampras lameness ?


Because he beat 7 FO champs on clay, won Italian Open, DC final etc.
Not many lame ducks have achieved that on clay.

But even if he was totally lame on clay & never won a match he'd still
be goat based on his overall record.



 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 19:46:28
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 9, 9:48=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> >>>> Just to name a few
>
> >>>> Borg won 6
> >>>> Lendl won 5
> >>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >>>> Courier won 4
> >>>> Agassi won 5
> >>>> Kuerten won 3
> >>>> Nadal won 5
>
> >>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>
> >>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> >>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
> >>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>
> >> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
> >> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
> >> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
> >> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>
> > why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
> > he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>
> Tough to win Wim/USO when you're playing AO final...

Why is he playing AO final when no one cares about it? Should it be
all about Wim/USO. Sampras has won 12 slams there. He shld be chasing
that.



  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 03:51:02
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:46:28 -0800 (PST), zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Feb 9, 9:48 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> jdeluise wrote:
>> >>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>
>> >>>> Just to name a few
>>
>> >>>> Borg won 6
>> >>>> Lendl won 5
>> >>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>> >>>> Courier won 4
>> >>>> Agassi won 5
>> >>>> Kuerten won 3
>> >>>> Nadal won 5
>>
>> >>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>
>> >>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>> >>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>> >>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>
>> >> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>> >> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>> >> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>> >> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>>
>> > why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>> > he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>>
>> Tough to win Wim/USO when you're playing AO final...
>
>Why is he playing AO final when no one cares about it? Should it be
>all about Wim/USO. Sampras has won 12 slams there. He shld be chasing
>that.


that's true. just like Borg did.


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 04:56:02
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:48 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>
>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>
>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>
>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>
>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams
>>>>> did Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>
>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa
>>>> confirmed his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year,
>>>> things wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping
>>>> to achieve.
>>
>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter.
>>> Shouldnt he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or
>>> what?
>>
>> Tough to win Wim/USO when you're playing AO final...
>
> Why is he playing AO final when no one cares about it? Should it be
> all about Wim/USO. Sampras has won 12 slams there. He shld be chasing
> that.

AO is good too, 3 pts, especially when it's not July yet.




   
Date: 10 Feb 2009 03:53:13
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:56:02 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 9:48 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>>
>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>>>
>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>>>
>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>>
>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams
>>>>>> did Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>>
>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa
>>>>> confirmed his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year,
>>>>> things wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping
>>>>> to achieve.
>>>
>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter.
>>>> Shouldnt he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or
>>>> what?
>>>
>>> Tough to win Wim/USO when you're playing AO final...
>>
>> Why is he playing AO final when no one cares about it? Should it be
>> all about Wim/USO. Sampras has won 12 slams there. He shld be chasing
>> that.
>
>AO is good too, 3 pts, especially when it's not July yet.
>


they kick field goals at the ao ?


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 19:36:39
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 9, 9:01=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
> > On =A09-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> >> Just to name a few
>
> >> Borg won 6
> >> Lendl won 5
> >> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >> Courier won 4
> >> Agassi won 5
> >> Kuerten won 3
> >> Nadal won 5
>
> >> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>
> > Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> > respectively on 7543. =A0Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
> > Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>
> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down meekly in
> the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed his #1 status.
> With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things wouldn't be so clear, an=
d
> that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.

why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?



  
Date: 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Raja wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 sla=
ms did
> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went dow=
n
> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa con=
firmed
> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, thing=
s
> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to a=
chieve.
> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Sh=
ouldnt
> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what=
?
> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively=
. USO is only 1
> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they=
are
> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in=
that
> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given his talent &=
won a
> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be th=
e
> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your powers of persu=
asion
> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras no=
t
> >> >the goat....?
>
> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
> >Gay and single?
>
> YUCKs !!!

YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"


   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 08:12:17
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 7:22=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 12, 12:14=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:09:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Feb 12, 11:59=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Feb 12, 11:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wro=
te:
> > >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.co=
m > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > >> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail=
.com > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@o=
zemail.com.au >
> > >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au=
> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> w=
rote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-c=
om.hr > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO a=
re 4 and 3
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in whic=
h of the 4 slams did
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, beca=
use h went down
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is=
that Rafa confirmed
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the pa=
st year, things
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Feder=
er hoping to achieve.
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO d=
ont matter. Shouldnt
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a=
moron or what?
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pt=
s respectively. USO is only 1
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5=
USOs. If they are
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal effor=
ts to both.
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should =
be focussed in that
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well give=
n his talent & won a
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he =
wants to be the
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> > >> >> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your p=
owers of persuasion
> > >> >> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 grea=
t & Sampras not
> > >> >> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> > >> >> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot la=
tely??
> > >> >> >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> > >> >> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> > >> >> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> > >> >> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically de=
formed
> > >> >> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to di=
e out.
>
> > >> >> >Yet you say you do charity work?
> > >> >> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> > >> >> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> > >> >> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> > >> >> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them=
'die
> > >> >> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> > >> >> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> > >> >> >What about Transexuals?
> > >> >> >or just Transvestites??
>
> > >> >> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> > >> >> not all of them.
>
> > >> >> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
> > >> >You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
> > >> >I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on a
> > >> >religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerate
> > >> >lesbians!
> > >> >Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
> > >> >Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Nad=
al?
>
> > >> >I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
> > >> >criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die o=
ut.
> > >> >Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
>
> > >> calm down already.
>
> > >> i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individu=
al
> > >> fag.
>
> > >> in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g>.
>
> > >> but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
> > >> those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.
>
> > >> what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to be
> > >> taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
> > >> that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then an=
d
> > >> only than can man be all he was meant to be.
>
> > >> i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
> > >> thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.
>
> > >> well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
> > >> from now the difference will be just as incredible.
>
> > >> and, there won't be any fags either.
>
> > >> got it ?
>
> > >Not really, how on earth is the end of homosexuality connected the
> > >survival of the human race?? I didn't realise we were all gay.
>
> > >A lot of animals in the animal kingdom have been shown to engage in
> > >gay activity as well; you know dave, and we are not neccessarilly
> > >talking about 'endangered' animals here.
> > >Maybe it is as natural as being straight?
>
> > Let's go back a few steps now and .....
>
> > Let me say that you are the one who sounds VERY GAY and VERY SINGLE
> > and VERY DEFENSIVE.
>
> > Correct ?
>
> No i'm bi dude.
> I love the communal showers at the gym.
> but do have a preferance for women.
>
> IE I am only sexually attracted to really really hot guys (not average
> joes)
> but with girls anythings game.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So I guess you will do Barbara Bush too


   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 05:22:39
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 12:14=A0pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:09:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 12, 11:59=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 12, 11:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com>=
wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.c=
om > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@oze=
mail.com.au >
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> =
wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wro=
te:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com=
.hr > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are=
4 and 3
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which =
of the 4 slams did
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, becaus=
e h went down
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is t=
hat Rafa confirmed
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past=
year, things
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer=
hoping to achieve.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO don=
t matter. Shouldnt
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a m=
oron or what?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts =
respectively. USO is only 1
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 U=
SOs. If they are
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts=
to both.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be=
focussed in that
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given =
his talent & won a
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wa=
nts to be the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your pow=
ers of persuasion
> >> >> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great =
& Sampras not
> >> >> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> >> >> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot late=
ly??
> >> >> >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> >> >> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> >> >> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> >> >> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically defo=
rmed
> >> >> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die =
out.
>
> >> >> >Yet you say you do charity work?
> >> >> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> >> >> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> >> >> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> >> >> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them '=
die
> >> >> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> >> >> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> >> >> >What about Transexuals?
> >> >> >or just Transvestites??
>
> >> >> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> >> >> not all of them.
>
> >> >> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
> >> >You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
> >> >I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on a
> >> >religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerate
> >> >lesbians!
> >> >Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
> >> >Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Nadal=
?
>
> >> >I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
> >> >criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die out=
.
> >> >Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
>
> >> calm down already.
>
> >> i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individual
> >> fag.
>
> >> in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g>.
>
> >> but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
> >> those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.
>
> >> what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to be
> >> taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
> >> that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then and
> >> only than can man be all he was meant to be.
>
> >> i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
> >> thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.
>
> >> well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
> >> from now the difference will be just as incredible.
>
> >> and, there won't be any fags either.
>
> >> got it ?
>
> >Not really, how on earth is the end of homosexuality connected the
> >survival of the human race?? I didn't realise we were all gay.
>
> >A lot of animals in the animal kingdom have been shown to engage in
> >gay activity as well; you know dave, and we are not neccessarilly
> >talking about 'endangered' animals here.
> >Maybe it is as natural as being straight?
>
> Let's go back a few steps now and .....
>
> Let me say that you are the one who sounds VERY GAY and VERY SINGLE
> and VERY DEFENSIVE.
>
> Correct ?
No i'm bi dude.
I love the communal showers at the gym.
but do have a preferance for women.

IE I am only sexually attracted to really really hot guys (not average
joes)
but with girls anythings game.


    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 14:14:06
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:22:39 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 12, 12:14 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:09:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>>
>>
>> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 12, 11:59 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 12, 11:26 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:50 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats.  Lendl did well given his talent & won a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic.  You can't seriously believe your powers of persuasion
>> >> >> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras not
>> >> >> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
>> >> >> >> >> >Gay and single?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>>
>> >> >> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>>
>> >> >> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deformed
>> >> >> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out.
>>
>> >> >> >Yet you say you do charity work?
>> >> >> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
>> >> >> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
>> >> >> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>>
>> >> >> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'die
>> >> >> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>>
>> >> >> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
>> >> >> >What about Transexuals?
>> >> >> >or just Transvestites??
>>
>> >> >> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>>
>> >> >> not all of them.
>>
>> >> >> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>>
>> >> >You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
>> >> >I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on a
>> >> >religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerate
>> >> >lesbians!
>> >> >Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
>> >> >Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Nadal?
>>
>> >> >I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
>> >> >criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die out.
>> >> >Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
>>
>> >> calm down already.
>>
>> >> i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individual
>> >> fag.
>>
>> >> in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g>.
>>
>> >> but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
>> >> those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.
>>
>> >> what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to be
>> >> taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
>> >> that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then and
>> >> only than can man be all he was meant to be.
>>
>> >> i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
>> >> thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.
>>
>> >> well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
>> >> from now the difference will be just as incredible.
>>
>> >> and, there won't be any fags either.
>>
>> >> got it ?
>>
>> >Not really, how on earth is the end of homosexuality connected the
>> >survival of the human race?? I didn't realise we were all gay.
>>
>> >A lot of animals in the animal kingdom have been shown to engage in
>> >gay activity as well; you know dave, and we are not neccessarilly
>> >talking about 'endangered' animals here.
>> >Maybe it is as natural as being straight?
>>
>> Let's go back a few steps now and .....
>>
>> Let me say that you are the one who sounds VERY GAY and VERY SINGLE
>> and VERY DEFENSIVE.
>>
>> Correct ?
>No i'm bi dude.
>I love the communal showers at the gym.
>but do have a preferance for women.
>
>IE I am only sexually attracted to really really hot guys (not average
>joes)
>but with girls anythings game.


Just for the record I am a really average Joe and not hot at all !


    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 14:13:00
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:22:39 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 12, 12:14 pm, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:09:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>>
>>
>> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 12, 11:59 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 12, 11:26 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:50 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats.  Lendl did well given his talent & won a
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic.  You can't seriously believe your powers of persuasion
>> >> >> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras not
>> >> >> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
>> >> >> >> >> >Gay and single?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>>
>> >> >> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>>
>> >> >> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deformed
>> >> >> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out.
>>
>> >> >> >Yet you say you do charity work?
>> >> >> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
>> >> >> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
>> >> >> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>>
>> >> >> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'die
>> >> >> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>>
>> >> >> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
>> >> >> >What about Transexuals?
>> >> >> >or just Transvestites??
>>
>> >> >> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>>
>> >> >> not all of them.
>>
>> >> >> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>>
>> >> >You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
>> >> >I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on a
>> >> >religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerate
>> >> >lesbians!
>> >> >Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
>> >> >Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Nadal?
>>
>> >> >I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
>> >> >criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die out.
>> >> >Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
>>
>> >> calm down already.
>>
>> >> i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individual
>> >> fag.
>>
>> >> in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g>.
>>
>> >> but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
>> >> those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.
>>
>> >> what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to be
>> >> taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
>> >> that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then and
>> >> only than can man be all he was meant to be.
>>
>> >> i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
>> >> thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.
>>
>> >> well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
>> >> from now the difference will be just as incredible.
>>
>> >> and, there won't be any fags either.
>>
>> >> got it ?
>>
>> >Not really, how on earth is the end of homosexuality connected the
>> >survival of the human race?? I didn't realise we were all gay.
>>
>> >A lot of animals in the animal kingdom have been shown to engage in
>> >gay activity as well; you know dave, and we are not neccessarilly
>> >talking about 'endangered' animals here.
>> >Maybe it is as natural as being straight?
>>
>> Let's go back a few steps now and .....
>>
>> Let me say that you are the one who sounds VERY GAY and VERY SINGLE
>> and VERY DEFENSIVE.
>>
>> Correct ?
>No i'm bi dude.
>I love the communal showers at the gym.
>but do have a preferance for women.
>
>IE I am only sexually attracted to really really hot guys (not average
>joes)
>but with girls anythings game.


That's SICK !


   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 10:50:38
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 12, 10:31 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>>
>>
>> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 12, 12:58 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Raja wrote:
>> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
>> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
>> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
>> >> >>> direction for would-be goats.  Lendl did well given his talent & won a
>> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>>
>> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
>> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>>
>> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >You're a lunatic.  You can't seriously believe your powers of persuasion
>> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras not
>> >> >the goat....?
>>
>> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>>
>> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>>
>> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
>> >Gay and single?
>>
>> YUCKs !!!
>
>YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"


everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deformed
and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out.


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 14:57:15
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>
>>>> Just to name a few
>>
>>>> Borg won 6
>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>> Courier won 4
>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>> Nadal won 5
>>
>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>
>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>
>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>
> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?

The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
pt more than FO.




   
Date: 10 Feb 2009 16:38:01
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:57:15 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided >
wrote:

>The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
>pt more than FO.

You honestly don't feel silly when you write that?





    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 07:55:11
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:57:15 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
> wrote:
>
>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively.
>> USO is only 1 pt more than FO.
>
> You honestly don't feel silly when you write that?

A little. :-)




     
Date: 11 Feb 2009 16:16:19
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:55:11 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided >
wrote:

>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:57:15 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively.
>>> USO is only 1 pt more than FO.
>>
>> You honestly don't feel silly when you write that?
>
>A little. :-)

Aha, I knew it. I am sure you are smarter than Whisper and friends :-)



  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 04:48:35
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>
>>>> Just to name a few
>>
>>>> Borg won 6
>>>> Lendl won 5
>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>>> Courier won 4
>>>> Agassi won 5
>>>> Kuerten won 3
>>>> Nadal won 5
>>
>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>
>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>
>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>
> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?


Tough to win Wim/USO when you're playing AO final...




 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 17:49:42
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 10, 1:44=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 10, 12:51=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 9, 7:32 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> > >> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> > >>> Just to name a few
>
> > >>> Borg won 6
> > >>> Lendl won 5
> > >>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> > >>> Courier won 4
> > >>> Agassi won 5
> > >>> Kuerten won 3
> > >>> Nadal won 5
>
> > >>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>
> > >> Uh, which were the two?
>
> > >> RA was not "slow".
>
> > > RA was slower than plexicushion.
>
> > Even that I'm not sure about. The 2008 AO was the first on Plexicushion=
and the
> > initial response from the players was that it was slower than they expe=
cted. If
> > it's faster than RA I wouldn't have expected that response.
>
> Eh? What did they play on last year then?

Oops - is it 2009 already?

Though I thought that last year the initial impression was that the
court was faster than RA.



 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 17:44:46
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 10, 12:51=A0am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 7:32 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> >>> Just to name a few
>
> >>> Borg won 6
> >>> Lendl won 5
> >>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >>> Courier won 4
> >>> Agassi won 5
> >>> Kuerten won 3
> >>> Nadal won 5
>
> >>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>
> >> Uh, which were the two?
>
> >> RA was not "slow".
>
> > RA was slower than plexicushion.
>
> Even that I'm not sure about. The 2008 AO was the first on Plexicushion a=
nd the
> initial response from the players was that it was slower than they expect=
ed. If
> it's faster than RA I wouldn't have expected that response.

Eh? What did they play on last year then?



 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 17:09:05
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 9, 7:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 7:32 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> >>> Just to name a few
>
> >>> Borg won 6
> >>> Lendl won 5
> >>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >>> Courier won 4
> >>> Agassi won 5
> >>> Kuerten won 3
> >>> Nadal won 5
>
> >>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>
> >> Uh, which were the two?
>
> >> RA was not "slow".
>
> > RA was slower than plexicushion.
>
> Even that I'm not sure about. The 2008 AO was the first on Plexicushion a=
nd the
> initial response from the players was that it was slower than they expect=
ed. If
> it's faster than RA I wouldn't have expected that response.


The plexicushion got faster this year.



  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 01:16:16
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:09:05 -0800 (PST), Arancione@selin.com wrote:

>On Feb 9, 7:51 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> Aranci...@selin.com wrote:
>> > On Feb 9, 7:32 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> >> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>
>> >>> Just to name a few
>>
>> >>> Borg won 6
>> >>> Lendl won 5
>> >>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>> >>> Courier won 4
>> >>> Agassi won 5
>> >>> Kuerten won 3
>> >>> Nadal won 5
>>
>> >>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>
>> >> Uh, which were the two?
>>
>> >> RA was not "slow".
>>
>> > RA was slower than plexicushion.
>>
>> Even that I'm not sure about. The 2008 AO was the first on Plexicushion and the
>> initial response from the players was that it was slower than they expected. If
>> it's faster than RA I wouldn't have expected that response.
>
>
>The plexicushion got faster this year.


no wonder rafa didn't have time to pick his ass as much this year.


 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 00:43:57
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:56:23 -0800 (PST), zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:

>Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
>Just to name a few
>
>Borg won 6
>Lendl won 5
>Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>Courier won 4
>Agassi won 5
>Kuerten won 3
>Nadal won 5
>
>Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?


damn straight it is.


 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 16:41:28
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 9, 7:32=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> > Just to name a few
>
> > Borg won 6
> > Lendl won 5
> > Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> > Courier won 4
> > Agassi won 5
> > Kuerten won 3
> > Nadal won 5
>
> > Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>
> Uh, which were the two?
>
> RA was not "slow".


RA was slower than plexicushion.


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 11:51:20
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
Arancione@selin.com wrote:
> On Feb 9, 7:32 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>
>>> Just to name a few
>>
>>> Borg won 6
>>> Lendl won 5
>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>>> Courier won 4
>>> Agassi won 5
>>> Kuerten won 3
>>> Nadal won 5
>>
>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>>
>> Uh, which were the two?
>>
>> RA was not "slow".
>
>
> RA was slower than plexicushion.

Even that I'm not sure about. The 2008 AO was the first on Plexicushion and the
initial response from the players was that it was slower than they expected. If
it's faster than RA I wouldn't have expected that response.




 
Date: 09 Feb 2009 16:41:02
From:
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 9, 6:56=A0pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> Just to name a few
>
> Borg won 6
> Lendl won 5
> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> Courier won 4
> Agassi won 5
> Kuerten won 3
> Nadal won 5
>
> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?

Your forgot Fed on your list, he won 3.


 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 11:32:04
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> Just to name a few
>
> Borg won 6
> Lendl won 5
> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> Courier won 4
> Agassi won 5
> Kuerten won 3
> Nadal won 5
>
> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?

Uh, which were the two?

RA was not "slow".




  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 00:39:22
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts

> Uh, which were the two?
>
> RA was not "slow".

:)


 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 00:04:01
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts

On 9-Feb-2009, zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:

> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>
> Just to name a few
>
> Borg won 6
> Lendl won 5
> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> Courier won 4
> Agassi won 5
> Kuerten won 3
> Nadal won 5
>
> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?

Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3 respectively on
7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did Fed cry publicly after
losing in the final?


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 04:01:38
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
jdeluise wrote:
> On 9-Feb-2009, zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>>
>> Just to name a few
>>
>> Borg won 6
>> Lendl won 5
>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>> Courier won 4
>> Agassi won 5
>> Kuerten won 3
>> Nadal won 5
>>
>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>
> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?

He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down meekly in
the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed his #1 status.
With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things wouldn't be so clear, and
that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.




   
Date: 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Raja wrote:
> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams =
did
> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confir=
med
> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achi=
eve.
> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shoul=
dnt
> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. U=
SO is only 1
> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they ar=
e
> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in th=
at
> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given his talent & wo=
n a
> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your powers of persuasi=
on
> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras not
> >the goat....?
>
> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.

What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
Gay and single?


    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 05:28:21
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 12:15 pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 12, 6:09 am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 11:59 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Feb 12, 11:26 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >On Feb 12, 10:50 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > > >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> > > >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
> > > >> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
> > > >> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
> > > >> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. Lendl did well given his talent & won a
> > > >> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
> > > >> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> > > >> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. You can't seriously believe your powers of persuasion
> > > >> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras not
> > > >> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> > > >> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> > > >> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> > > >> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
> > > >> >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> > > >> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> > > >> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> > > >> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deformed
> > > >> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out.
>
> > > >> >Yet you say you do charity work?
> > > >> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> > > >> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> > > >> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> > > >> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'die
> > > >> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> > > >> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> > > >> >What about Transexuals?
> > > >> >or just Transvestites??
>
> > > >> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> > > >> not all of them.
>
> > > >> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
> > > >You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
> > > >I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on a
> > > >religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerate
> > > >lesbians!
> > > >Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
> > > >Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Nadal?
>
> > > >I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
> > > >criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die out.
> > > >Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
>
> > > calm down already.
>
> > > i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individual
> > > fag.
>
> > > in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g>.
>
> > > but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
> > > those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.
>
> > > what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to be
> > > taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
> > > that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then and
> > > only than can man be all he was meant to be.
>
> > > i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
> > > thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.
>
> > > well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
> > > from now the difference will be just as incredible.
>
> > > and, there won't be any fags either.
>
> > > got it ?
>
> > Not really, how on earth is the end of homosexuality connected the
> > survival of the human race?? I didn't realise we were all gay.
>
> > A lot of animals in the animal kingdom have been shown to engage in
> > gay activity as well; you know dave, and we are not neccessarilly
> > talking about 'endangered' animals here.
> > Maybe it is as natural as being straight?
>
> Not at all. What bullshit. Asshole is supposed to be a place where
> shits comes out of. Not a place to stick your dick in.

I forgot to mention that assholes are also a place for bobs and
skriptises to live.


    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 04:15:29
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 6:09=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 12, 11:59=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Feb 12, 11:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wro=
te:
> > >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> > >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.co=
m > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozem=
ail.com.au >
> > >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> w=
rote:
> > >> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrot=
e:
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.=
hr > wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are =
4 and 3
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which o=
f the 4 slams did
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because=
h went down
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is th=
at Rafa confirmed
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past =
year, things
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer =
hoping to achieve.
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont=
matter. Shouldnt
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a mo=
ron or what?
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts r=
espectively. USO is only 1
> > >> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> > >> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 US=
Os. If they are
> > >> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts =
to both.
> > >> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be =
focussed in that
> > >> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given h=
is talent & won a
> > >> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wan=
ts to be the
> > >> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> > >> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> > >> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your powe=
rs of persuasion
> > >> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great &=
Sampras not
> > >> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> > >> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> > >> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> > >> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot latel=
y??
> > >> >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> > >> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> > >> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> > >> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically defor=
med
> > >> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die o=
ut.
>
> > >> >Yet you say you do charity work?
> > >> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> > >> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> > >> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> > >> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'd=
ie
> > >> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> > >> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> > >> >What about Transexuals?
> > >> >or just Transvestites??
>
> > >> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> > >> not all of them.
>
> > >> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
> > >You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
> > >I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on a
> > >religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerate
> > >lesbians!
> > >Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
> > >Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Nadal?
>
> > >I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
> > >criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die out.
> > >Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
>
> > calm down already.
>
> > i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individual
> > fag.
>
> > in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g>.
>
> > but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
> > those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.
>
> > what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to be
> > taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
> > that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then and
> > only than can man be all he was meant to be.
>
> > i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
> > thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.
>
> > well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
> > from now the difference will be just as incredible.
>
> > and, there won't be any fags either.
>
> > got it ?
>
> Not really, how on earth is the end of homosexuality connected the
> survival of the human race?? I didn't realise we were all gay.
>
> A lot of animals in the animal kingdom have been shown to engage in
> gay activity as well; you know dave, and we are not neccessarilly
> talking about 'endangered' animals here.
> Maybe it is as natural as being straight?

Not at all. What bullshit. Asshole is supposed to be a place where
shits comes out of. Not a place to stick your dick in.



    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 04:09:50
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Feb 12, 11:59=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
>
>
> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 12, 11:26=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 12, 10:50=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>
> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com>=
wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemai=
l.com.au >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wro=
te:
> >> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr=
> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 =
and 3
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of =
the 4 slams did
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h=
went down
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that=
Rafa confirmed
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past ye=
ar, things
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer ho=
ping to achieve.
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont m=
atter. Shouldnt
> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moro=
n or what?
> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts res=
pectively. USO is only 1
> >> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> >> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs=
. If they are
> >> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to=
both.
> >> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be fo=
cussed in that
> >> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats. =A0Lendl did well given his=
talent & won a
> >> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants=
to be the
> >> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic. =A0You can't seriously believe your powers=
of persuasion
> >> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & S=
ampras not
> >> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>
> >> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>
> >> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
> >> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately?=
?
> >> >> >> >Gay and single?
>
> >> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>
> >> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>
> >> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deforme=
d
> >> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out=
.
>
> >> >Yet you say you do charity work?
> >> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> >> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> >> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>
> >> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'die
> >> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>
> >> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> >> >What about Transexuals?
> >> >or just Transvestites??
>
> >> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>
> >> not all of them.
>
> >> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>
> >You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
> >I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on a
> >religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerate
> >lesbians!
> >Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
> >Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Nadal?
>
> >I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
> >criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die out.
> >Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
>
> calm down already.
>
> i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individual
> fag.
>
> in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g>.
>
> but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
> those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.
>
> what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to be
> taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
> that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then and
> only than can man be all he was meant to be.
>
> i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
> thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.
>
> well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
> from now the difference will be just as incredible.
>
> and, there won't be any fags either.
>
> got it ?

Not really, how on earth is the end of homosexuality connected the
survival of the human race?? I didn't realise we were all gay.

A lot of animals in the animal kingdom have been shown to engage in
gay activity as well; you know dave, and we are not neccessarilly
talking about 'endangered' animals here.
Maybe it is as natural as being straight?


     
Date: 12 Feb 2009 12:14:55
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:09:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 12, 11:59 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>>
>>
>> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 12, 11:26 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 12, 10:50 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
>>
>> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>> >> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>> >> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
>> >> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats.  Lendl did well given his talent & won a
>> >> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
>> >> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
>> >> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic.  You can't seriously believe your powers of persuasion
>> >> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras not
>> >> >> >> >> >the goat....?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>>
>> >> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
>> >> >> >> >Gay and single?
>>
>> >> >> >> YUCKs !!!
>>
>> >> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
>>
>> >> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically deformed
>> >> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die out.
>>
>> >> >Yet you say you do charity work?
>> >> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
>> >> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
>> >> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
>>
>> >> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them 'die
>> >> >out' sorry to break it to you.
>>
>> >> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
>> >> >What about Transexuals?
>> >> >or just Transvestites??
>>
>> >> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
>>
>> >> not all of them.
>>
>> >> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
>>
>> >You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
>> >I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on a
>> >religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerate
>> >lesbians!
>> >Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
>> >Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Nadal?
>>
>> >I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
>> >criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die out.
>> >Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
>>
>> calm down already.
>>
>> i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individual
>> fag.
>>
>> in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g>.
>>
>> but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
>> those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.
>>
>> what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to be
>> taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
>> that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then and
>> only than can man be all he was meant to be.
>>
>> i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
>> thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.
>>
>> well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
>> from now the difference will be just as incredible.
>>
>> and, there won't be any fags either.
>>
>> got it ?
>
>Not really, how on earth is the end of homosexuality connected the
>survival of the human race?? I didn't realise we were all gay.
>
>A lot of animals in the animal kingdom have been shown to engage in
>gay activity as well; you know dave, and we are not neccessarilly
>talking about 'endangered' animals here.
>Maybe it is as natural as being straight?


Let's go back a few steps now and .....

Let me say that you are the one who sounds VERY GAY and VERY SINGLE
and VERY DEFENSIVE.

Correct ?



      
Date: 12 Feb 2009 23:37:48
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts

On 12-Feb-2009, Superdave <the.big.rst.kahuna@gmail.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:09:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
> <suebokaian@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 12, 11:59 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:33:50 -0800 (PST), Professor X
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 12, 11:26 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:20:24 -0800 (PST), Professor X
> >>
> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:50 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:35:01 -0800 (PST), Professor X
> >>
> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 10:31 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
> >>
> >> >> >> >> <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:58 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper
> >> >> ><beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >Raja wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis"
> >> >> ><skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are
> >> >> >4 and 3
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which
> >> >> >of the 4 slams did
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because
> >> >> >h went down
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is
> >> >> >that Rafa confirmed
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past
> >> >> >year, things
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer
> >> >> >hoping to achieve.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont
> >> >> >matter. Shouldnt
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a
> >> >> >moron or what?
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts
> >> >> >respectively. USO is only 1
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> pt more than FO.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5
> >> >> >USOs. If they are
> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts
> >> >> >to both.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be
> >> >> >focussed in that
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> direction for would-be goats.  Lendl did well given his
> >> >> >talent & won a
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> combined 3 titles
> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he
> >> >> >wants to be the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> .- Hide quoted text -
> >> >> >> >> >> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >You're a lunatic.  You can't seriously believe your powers
> >> >> >of persuasion
> >> >> >> >> >> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great &
> >> >> >Sampras not
> >> >> >> >> >> >the goat....?
> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
> >>
> >> >> >> >> >What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot
> >> >> >lately??
> >> >> >> >> >Gay and single?
> >>
> >> >> >> >> YUCKs !!!
> >>
> >> >> >> >YUCKS! sounds closer to "YESSSS!" than "NOOOO!"
> >>
> >> >> >> everybody here knows that i consider fags to be genetically
> >> >> >deformed
> >> >> >> and while i have pity for them i can't wait for them all to die
> >> >> >out.
> >>
> >> >> >Yet you say you do charity work?
> >> >> >I'd hate to imagine what charity you might work for.
> >> >> >Mind you guess it must just be some evangelical christian nutter
> >> >> >charity - their are plenty of those about.
> >>
> >> >> >Nonetheless, i'm afraid, dear dave, that you never will see them
> >> >> >'die
> >> >> >out' sorry to break it to you.
> >>
> >> >> >What about bisexuals do they have to die too?
> >> >> >What about Transexuals?
> >> >> >or just Transvestites??
> >>
> >> >> >Why not change your name to Dave Hazelreich?
> >>
> >> >> not all of them.
> >>
> >> >> bisexual females and lesbians are alright <g>.
> >>
> >> >You just dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole!
> >> >I guess that you can no longer justify a dislike of gay people on a
> >> >religious or moral basis then, because you are prepared to tolerate
> >> >lesbians!
> >> >Any other groups in society you don't like while we are at it?
> >> >Nadal-fans, I guess you'd love to see them all die out, or even Nadal?
> >>
> >> >I honestly don't know how can you tirade and tirade against "war
> >> >criminal bush" and then start saying you want to see all gays die out.
> >> >Talk about trying and failing to take the 'moral high-ground.'
> >>
> >> calm down already.
> >>
> >> i was not wishing nor hoping for anything ill to befall any individual
> >> fag.
> >>
> >> in fact, some of my best friends are fags <g>.
> >>
> >> but, homosexuality is not natural and nature will eventually weed
> >> those genes out because otherwise the species will not survive.
> >>
> >> what i meant by " i can't wait for them all to die out" is not to be
> >> taken literally as if i wanted to kill them or anything. it's just
> >> that once nature rids the species of all its "abnormalities" then and
> >> only than can man be all he was meant to be.
> >>
> >> i believe man has a long way to go. if you compare a neandrathal
> >> thousands of years ago with man today the difference is incredible.
> >>
> >> well i believe if you compare man today with man thousands of years
> >> from now the difference will be just as incredible.
> >>
> >> and, there won't be any fags either.
> >>
> >> got it ?
> >
> >Not really, how on earth is the end of homosexuality connected the
> >survival of the human race?? I didn't realise we were all gay.
> >
> >A lot of animals in the animal kingdom have been shown to engage in
> >gay activity as well; you know dave, and we are not neccessarilly
> >talking about 'endangered' animals here.
> >Maybe it is as natural as being straight?
>
>
> Let's go back a few steps now and .....
>
> Let me say that you are the one who sounds VERY GAY and VERY SINGLE
> and VERY DEFENSIVE.
>
> Correct ?

Are you guys trying to get a threesome going in this thread?


    
Date: 12 Feb 2009 10:31:26
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:31:43 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 12, 12:58 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +1100, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Raja wrote:
>> >> On Feb 11, 2:42 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Feb 9, 9:57 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> >>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 9:01 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On 9-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>> >>>>>>>>> Just to name a few
>> >>>>>>>>> Borg won 6
>> >>>>>>>>> Lendl won 5
>> >>>>>>>>> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>> >>>>>>>>> Courier won 4
>> >>>>>>>>> Agassi won 5
>> >>>>>>>>> Kuerten won 3
>> >>>>>>>>> Nadal won 5
>> >>>>>>>>> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>> >>>>>>>> Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>> >>>>>>>> respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>> >>>>>>>> Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>> >>>>>>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down
>> >>>>>>> meekly in the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed
>> >>>>>>> his #1 status. With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things
>> >>>>>>> wouldn't be so clear, and that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>> >>>>>> why does he care about 14th slam when AO and FO dont matter. Shouldnt
>> >>>>>> he be trying to break 12 Wim/USO instead? Is he a moron or what?
>> >>>>> The AO and FO do matter: they are worth 3 and 4 pts respectively. USO is only 1
>> >>>>> pt more than FO.
>> >>>> then why Sampras chose not to win any FOs and win 5 USOs. If they are
>> >>>> so close in points, he should have give equal efforts to both.
>> >>> Because Wim/USO are the top 2 so all efforts should be focussed in that
>> >>> direction for would-be goats.  Lendl did well given his talent & won a
>> >>> combined 3 titles
>>
>> >> Then why has Rafa won 5 AO/FO. Is he an idiot? Or he wants to be the
>> >> third tier Lendl who also won 5 AO/FO?
>>
>> >> .- Hide quoted text -
>> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >You're a lunatic.  You can't seriously believe your powers of persuasion
>> >are good enough to convince people Lendl is tier 2 great & Sampras not
>> >the goat....?
>>
>> >You have a lot of room for improvement.
>>
>> he's right on both counts. you are wrong as always.
>
>What's up Dave, you seem to be sucking up to Raja a lot lately??
>Gay and single?


YUCKs !!!


   
Date: 10 Feb 2009 18:46:22
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts

On 9-Feb-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 9-Feb-2009, zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Many other have won more AO+FO.
> >>
> >> Just to name a few
> >>
> >> Borg won 6
> >> Lendl won 5
> >> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
> >> Courier won 4
> >> Agassi won 5
> >> Kuerten won 3
> >> Nadal won 5
> >>
> >> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
> >
> > Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
> > respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
> > Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>
> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down meekly in
> the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed his #1 status.
> With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things wouldn't be so clear, and
>
> that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.

So you have Mirka's cell # too?


    
Date: 11 Feb 2009 02:04:15
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Not many know Sampras won only 2 slams on slow courts

"jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:6Yjkl.20649$Sj1.5954@newsfe09.iad...
>
> On 9-Feb-2009, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>> > On 9-Feb-2009, zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> Many other have won more AO+FO.
>> >>
>> >> Just to name a few
>> >>
>> >> Borg won 6
>> >> Lendl won 5
>> >> Wilander won 4 (1 AO on Rebound Ace)
>> >> Courier won 4
>> >> Agassi won 5
>> >> Kuerten won 3
>> >> Nadal won 5
>> >>
>> >> Isnt that a weakness for Sampras?
>> >
>> > Of course, it's no coincidence that FO and AO are 4 and 3
>> > respectively on 7543. Strangely enough, in which of the 4 slams did
>> > Fed cry publicly after losing in the final?
>>
>> He cried because he failed to win his 14th, because h went down meekly in
>> the fifth, but most important thing is that Rafa confirmed his #1 status.
>> With 2-2 in slams won over the past year, things wouldn't be so clear,
>> and
>>
>> that is what was Federer hoping to achieve.
>
> So you have Mirka's cell # too?


No, Dave's.