tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 15 Feb 2009 20:03:42
From: jdeluise
Subject: Why no wikipedia entry for...
7543?




 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 09:26:09
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote:
> 7543?

Because of the combination of these two facts:

A) Wikipedia won't let you post original content, i.e. you need to put the
proper references in the article, and
B) Usenet rantings of an aussie and a handful of acolytes does not qualify as
"source" or "reference".


 
Date: 16 Feb 2009 15:00:57
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
jdeluise wrote:
> 7543?

Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at Robert
Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claimed that
a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance too.





  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 08:19:05
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Feb 17, 12:44=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Yes - I've done extensive research & it's bulletproof. =A0I came up with
> it pre-Sampras era & it'll still be going strong 100 yrs from now,

The strangest thing about insane people is that they are so sure of
themselves.

> same as Einstein's theories.

Some day, we may find out that Whisper did not invent =937543=94 but stole
it from his wife :)))



  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 05:35:14
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Feb 17, 12:17 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 11:44 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >>> On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>> jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>> 7543?
> >>>> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
> >>>> Robert
> >>>> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claimed
> >>>> that
> >>>> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance
> >>>> too.
> >>> You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that with
> >>> 7543? Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate in the
> >>> future and always has been so in the past?
> >> Yes - I've done extensive research & it's bulletproof. I came up with
> >> it pre-Sampras era & it'll still be going strong 100 yrs from now, same
> >> as Einstein's theories.
>
> > can you show us evidence of this 'research' you are supposed to have
> > done?
>
> I can, but you'll have to wait for the book which is coming soon - Bodo
> is writing the forward.

and Skriptis will write the epilogue as he always like to follow you
from the rear.


  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 05:20:00
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...

>
> Yes - I've done extensive research & it's bulletproof. I came up with
> it pre-Sampras era & it'll still be going strong 100 yrs from now, same
> as Einstein's theories.

you're such a tool.


  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 04:07:31
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Feb 17, 11:44=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
> > On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >> jdeluise wrote:
> >>> 7543?
> >> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
> >> Robert
> >> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he cla=
imed
> >> that
> >> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptanc=
e
> >> too.
>
> > You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that with
> > 7543? =A0Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate in th=
e
> > future and always has been so in the past?
>
> Yes - I've done extensive research & it's bulletproof. =A0I came up with
> it pre-Sampras era & it'll still be going strong 100 yrs from now, same
> as Einstein's theories.

can you show us evidence of this 'research' you are supposed to have
done?


   
Date: 17 Feb 2009 23:17:24
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
Professor X wrote:
> On Feb 17, 11:44 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>> 7543?
>>>> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
>>>> Robert
>>>> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claimed
>>>> that
>>>> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance
>>>> too.
>>> You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that with
>>> 7543? Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate in the
>>> future and always has been so in the past?
>> Yes - I've done extensive research & it's bulletproof. I came up with
>> it pre-Sampras era & it'll still be going strong 100 yrs from now, same
>> as Einstein's theories.
>
> can you show us evidence of this 'research' you are supposed to have
> done?


I can, but you'll have to wait for the book which is coming soon - Bodo
is writing the forward.



    
Date: 17 Feb 2009 23:18:35
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
Whisper wrote:
> Professor X wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 11:44 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>> On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>>> 7543?
>>>>> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
>>>>> Robert
>>>>> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he
>>>>> claimed
>>>>> that
>>>>> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain
>>>>> acceptance
>>>>> too.
>>>> You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that with
>>>> 7543? Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate in the
>>>> future and always has been so in the past?
>>> Yes - I've done extensive research & it's bulletproof. I came up with
>>> it pre-Sampras era & it'll still be going strong 100 yrs from now, same
>>> as Einstein's theories.
>>
>> can you show us evidence of this 'research' you are supposed to have
>> done?
>
>
> I can, but you'll have to wait for the book which is coming soon - Bodo
> is writing the forward.
>


I won't be going by my real name but will use William Hisper.



  
Date: 16 Feb 2009 23:45:10
From: Bink B
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
DavidW wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
>> 7543?
>
> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at Robert
> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claimed that
> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance too.
>

What a wanker.


  
Date: 16 Feb 2009 16:07:00
From:
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Feb 16, 9:27=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > jdeluise wrote:
> > > 7543?
>
> > Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
> > Robert
> > Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he clai=
med
> > that
> > a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance
> > too.
>
> You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that with
> 7543? =A0Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate in the
> future and always has been so in the past?

yes, it's in the rst FAQ and Wimbledon's always been the most
presitigious tournament and that won't change.


   
Date: 17 Feb 2009 00:49:54
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...

On 16-Feb-2009, iceberg.rules@googlemail.com wrote:

> On Feb 16, 9:27 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >
> > > jdeluise wrote:
> > > > 7543?
> >
> > > Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
> > > Robert
> > > Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he
> > > claimed
> > > that
> > > a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain
> > > acceptance
> > > too.
> >
> > You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that with
> > 7543?  Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate in the
> > future and always has been so in the past?
>
> yes, it's in the rst FAQ and Wimbledon's always been the most
> presitigious tournament and that won't change.

So 5,4, and 3 aren't part of the calculation then?


  
Date: 16 Feb 2009 21:27:07
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...

On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <no@email.provided > wrote:

> jdeluise wrote:
> > 7543?
>
> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
> Robert
> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claimed
> that
> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance
> too.

You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that with
7543? Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate in the
future and always has been so in the past?


   
Date: 17 Feb 2009 22:44:12
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
jdeluise wrote:
> On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>>> 7543?
>> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
>> Robert
>> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claimed
>> that
>> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance
>> too.
>
> You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that with
> 7543? Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate in the
> future and always has been so in the past?


Yes - I've done extensive research & it's bulletproof. I came up with
it pre-Sampras era & it'll still be going strong 100 yrs from now, same
as Einstein's theories.






   
Date: 17 Feb 2009 01:29:27
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:27:07 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com >
wrote:

>
>On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> jdeluise wrote:
>> > 7543?
>>
>> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
>> Robert
>> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claimed
>> that
>> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance
>> too.
>
>You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that with
>7543? Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate in the
>future and always has been so in the past?


even a stopped clock is right for a minute a day.


    
Date: 17 Feb 2009 13:08:12
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
Superdave wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:27:07 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>> 7543?
>>>
>>> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
>>> Robert
>>> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he
>>> claimed that
>>> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain
>>> acceptance too.
>>
>> You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that
>> with 7543? Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate
>> in the future and always has been so in the past?
>
>
> even a stopped clock is right for a minute a day.

Only if the clock only shows minutes, and only if it's a 24hr clock (a 12hr
clock is right twice a day), but most 24hr clocks are electronic and digital and
don't simply stop and keep showing the same time. I think the usual saying is
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." I'm not making too much of this am
I?




     
Date: 17 Feb 2009 02:12:52
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:08:12 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided >
wrote:

>Superdave wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:27:07 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jdeluise wrote:
>>>>> 7543?
>>>>
>>>> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
>>>> Robert
>>>> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he
>>>> claimed that
>>>> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain
>>>> acceptance too.
>>>
>>> You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that
>>> with 7543? Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate
>>> in the future and always has been so in the past?
>>
>>
>> even a stopped clock is right for a minute a day.
>
>Only if the clock only shows minutes, and only if it's a 24hr clock (a 12hr
>clock is right twice a day), but most 24hr clocks are electronic and digital and
>don't simply stop and keep showing the same time. I think the usual saying is
>"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." I'm not making too much of this am
>I?
>


as usual, yes.


   
Date: 16 Feb 2009 21:32:47
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...

On 16-Feb-2009, "jdeluise" <jdeluise@gmail.com > wrote:

> On 15-Feb-2009, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > jdeluise wrote:
> > > 7543?
> >
> > Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at
> > Robert
> > Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he
> > claimed
> > that
> > a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance
> > too.
>
> You are being seriously comparing a scientific principle like that with
> 7543? Do you really feel that 7543 will always remain accurate in the
> future and always has been so in the past?

Ignore the word "being", obviously.


  
Date: 16 Feb 2009 19:42:04
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
DavidW wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
>> 7543?
>
> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at Robert
> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claimed that
> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance too.
>
>
>


Yes, everyone knows it makes sense - even the rst trolls.



  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 23:03:04
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Feb 15, 10:00=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
> > 7543?
>
> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at Robe=
rt
> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claime=
d that
> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance t=
oo.

Do you think Whisper is a scientist?



  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 21:29:56
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Feb 15, 11:00=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> jdeluise wrote:
> > 7543?
>
> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at Robe=
rt
> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claime=
d that
> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance t=
oo.

A Whisper puppet?


   
Date: 16 Feb 2009 05:47:50
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:29:56 -0800 (PST), wkhedr <wkhedr@my-deja.com >
wrote:

>On Feb 15, 11:00 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> jdeluise wrote:
>> > 7543?
>>
>> Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at Robert
>> Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claimed that
>> a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance too.
>
>A Whisper puppet?


7543 is for simple minds from a simple minded sampras fan fucker who
can't see tennis as something more than one player and one tournament.

pray for him.


  
Date: 16 Feb 2009 04:30:36
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:00:57 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided >
wrote:

>jdeluise wrote:
>> 7543?
>
>Some controversial concepts are ahead of their time. They laughed at Robert
>Goddard too, including a lampooning in the New York Times, when he claimed that
>a rocket would work in a vacuum. 7543 will take time to gain acceptance too.
>
>

yeah, the year will be eternity +1.

ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


 
Date: 15 Feb 2009 12:23:29
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Feb 15, 8:03=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> 7543?

Strange, this Australian fellow round here always writes as if it is
factual.... If it's not on wiki then I guess it must just be imaginary.


  
Date: 15 Feb 2009 16:25:32
From:
Subject: Re: Why no wikipedia entry for...
On Feb 15, 3:23=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 8:03=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 7543?
>
> Strange, this Australian fellow round here always writes as if it is
> factual.... If it's not on wiki then I guess it must just be imaginary.

Because they dont agree that Wimbledon should give you 7 pts. But the
USO should.......