tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 26 Jan 2009 08:08:17
From: Scott
Subject: can Roger take Del Potro?
Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. He's playing a young pup
in Del Potro. This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
last summer.

I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. However,
Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
well. Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
handling it.

Can Roger survive Del Potro?





 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 21:17:57
From:
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 27, 10:11=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 9:43 pm, GuyTen...@ymail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> > > Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>
> > OK *skriptis, I've thought about this long and hard.
>
> > I promise not to bother you again with this
> > issue if you promise to answer the following question *honestly and to
> > the best of your ability*.
>
> > As of today (wherever you live in this world),
> > is Federer closer to his 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th or 30th
> > birthday?
>
> Depends on his religion. =A0If Feds believes in reincarnation, he could
> be any one of those.
>
> Most of us have only one birthday. =A0The rest are anniversaries. =A0:-)

Technically, you are correct of course Drew. I would change that to
'birthday celebration' but it's become painfully apparent that
*skriptis is the type of person who never admits he's wrong about
anything. :)

So I'll let him be happy with the last word.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:38:56
From:
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 27, 9:38=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:48=A0am, Gerry <gesunel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 3:08=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> handling it.
>
> > > Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>
> > We found that out tonight but what a way to answer your question!!
>
> yeah, let's say the score caught me by surprise.


Wow, Roger dragged his 27 year old (and 5.75 month) old bones out
there and managed to quell the young lion's vigor. Who would've
thought a man that age could bounce back so well?


  
Date: 28 Jan 2009 03:40:35
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:38:56 -0800 (PST), cernunnos1@hotmail.com
wrote:

>On Jan 27, 9:38 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 7:48 am, Gerry <gesunel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 27, 3:08 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> handling it.
>>
>> > > Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>>
>> > We found that out tonight but what a way to answer your question!!
>>
>> yeah, let's say the score caught me by surprise.
>
>
>Wow, Roger dragged his 27 year old (and 5.75 month) old bones out
>there and managed to quell the young lion's vigor. Who would've
>thought a man that age could bounce back so well?


me


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:22:50
From: drew
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 27, 10:07 am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 9:35 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > GuyTen...@ymail.com wrote:
> > > On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > >> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
> > >> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>
> > >> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
> > >> one year old
> > >> *skriptis?
>
> > >> ***
>
> > >> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>
> > > Sorry, I guess Math wasn't your best subject in school *skriptis.
> > > Yes, you do say the baby is 0 years old.
> > > To be more precise, you'd say 0 years and 5 months.
>
> > 'The baby isn't 1 yet' or 'is in it's 1st yr of life' is even more
> > correct. Saying it's zero is idiotic if it's walking around & talking at 0.
>
> You numnuts. In a child's first year you specify the age in months as
> it should be clear that a baby at one month of age is a lot different
> from a baby at 5 months or 10 months of age in appearance and
> development.
>
> The only person one could refer to as '0' or zero is Whisper, as it
> matters not how many years he has, he remains as insightful as a
> zygote.



Actually we could refer to Del Potro as zero after the first set
against Federer.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:11:26
From: drew
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 9:43 pm, GuyTen...@ymail.com wrote:
> On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> > Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>
> OK *skriptis, I've thought about this long and hard.
>
> I promise not to bother you again with this
> issue if you promise to answer the following question *honestly and to
> the best of your ability*.
>
> As of today (wherever you live in this world),
> is Federer closer to his 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th or 30th
> birthday?


Depends on his religion. If Feds believes in reincarnation, he could
be any one of those.

Most of us have only one birthday. The rest are anniversaries. :-)


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:07:24
From: drew
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 9:35 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> GuyTen...@ymail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
> >> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>
> >> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
> >> one year old
> >> *skriptis?
>
> >> ***
>
> >> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>
> > Sorry, I guess Math wasn't your best subject in school *skriptis.
> > Yes, you do say the baby is 0 years old.
> > To be more precise, you'd say 0 years and 5 months.
>
> 'The baby isn't 1 yet' or 'is in it's 1st yr of life' is even more
> correct. Saying it's zero is idiotic if it's walking around & talking at 0.


You numnuts. In a child's first year you specify the age in months as
it should be clear that a baby at one month of age is a lot different
from a baby at 5 months or 10 months of age in appearance and
development.

The only person one could refer to as '0' or zero is Whisper, as it
matters not how many years he has, he remains as insightful as a
zygote.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:38:44
From: Scott
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 27, 7:48=A0am, Gerry <gesunel...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 27, 3:08=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. =A0He's playing a young pup
> > in Del Potro. =A0This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
> > last summer.
>
> > I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. =A0However,
> > Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
> > well. =A0Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
> > handling it.
>
> > Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>
> We found that out tonight but what a way to answer your question!!
>

yeah, let's say the score caught me by surprise.



 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:48:35
From: Gerry
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 27, 3:08=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. =A0He's playing a young pup
> in Del Potro. =A0This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
> last summer.
>
> I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. =A0However,
> Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
> well. =A0Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
> handling it.
>
> Can Roger survive Del Potro?

We found that out tonight but what a way to answer your question!!

Gerry


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 21:10:30
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 10:50=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Rodjk #613 wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 11:55 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com..=
.
>
> >>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com=
...
> >>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roge=
r
> >>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
> >>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug=
.
> >>>> 8, 2009).
> >>>> ***
> >>>> 2009 -1981 =3D 28.
> >>> You are a god damn retard.
> >> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who=
would
> >> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
> >> Pathetic
>
> > If a friend borrowed $50 from you, he only has to pay you back $49?
> > (Sorry, I really don't understand your POV and am trying to get it)
>
> > Rodjk #613
>
> It boils down to 'Roger is 27' being an incorrect statement every day of
> his life except for 1 day (27th b'day).
>
> Joe seems to think it's ok to say 'Roger is 27' to cover another 364
> days, just because it's in his culture/custom to express it that way.

It's your custom too, you goofball. Don't pretend this is an open
question in Australia -- age is expressed the same way throughout the
entire English-speaking world. "I am 27" =3D "I am 27 years old" =3D
"I have completed my 27th year." All mean the same thing, although
only the first two are normally used by non-android people. All are
correct statements in Federer's case. And don't pretend that "I am in
my 28th year" is somehow a superior formuation that everyone would use
if only they were more logical. It provides exactly *zero* additional
information, since it doesn't state exactly where in that year the
person actually is.

Your jumping into this in your typically disingenuous style has made a
silly but mildly interesting discussion completely ridiculous, as
usual. If you really must pay *skriptis back for his years of loyal
devotion to you and 7543, at least find a debate that involves an open
question.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:20:22
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"Joe Ramirez" <josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote in message
news:3d579121-5385-4fd6-a498-6a1da50184c5@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 10:50 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Rodjk #613 wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 11:55 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
> >>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
> >>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> >>>> 8, 2009).
> >>>> ***
> >>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
> >>> You are a god damn retard.
> >> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who
> >> would
> >> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
> >> Pathetic
>
> > If a friend borrowed $50 from you, he only has to pay you back $49?
> > (Sorry, I really don't understand your POV and am trying to get it)
>
> > Rodjk #613
>
> It boils down to 'Roger is 27' being an incorrect statement every day of
> his life except for 1 day (27th b'day).
>
> Joe seems to think it's ok to say 'Roger is 27' to cover another 364
> days, just because it's in his culture/custom to express it that way.

It's your custom too, you goofball. Don't pretend this is an open
question in Australia -- age is expressed the same way throughout the
entire English-speaking world. "I am 27" = "I am 27 years old" =
"I have completed my 27th year." All mean the same thing, although
only the first two are normally used by non-android people. All are
correct statements in Federer's case. And don't pretend that "I am in
my 28th year" is somehow a superior formuation that everyone would use
if only they were more logical. It provides exactly *zero* additional
information, since it doesn't state exactly where in that year the
person actually is.

Your jumping into this in your typically disingenuous style has made a
silly but mildly interesting discussion completely ridiculous, as
usual. If you really must pay *skriptis back for his years of loyal
devotion to you and 7543, at least find a debate that involves an open
question.

***

Sorry Joe but this insults me.
Are you saying I've been loyal to 7543 only so that one day Whisper could
pay me back?
Wouldn't that be pointless?

I support 7543 because I am a firm believer.
It has nothing to do with its creator.




 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:16:17
From: PeteWasLucky
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 9:34=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> GuyTen...@ymail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
> >> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>
> >> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
> >> one year old
> >> *skriptis?
>
> >> ***
>
> >> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>
> > Sorry, I guess Math wasn't your best subject in school *skriptis.
> > Yes, you do say the baby is 0 years old.
> > To be more precise, you'd say 0 years and 5 months.
>
> '0 yrs old' could imply just that - zero. =A0Is the baby zero when it's 1=
1
> months old & walking?
>
> skriptis' concept is correct, it's just the english language lacks the
> appropriate terminology to define it. =A0Is it really correct to say
> Federer is 27 in a few months time when he'll be 27 & 10 months?
> Clearly it's misleading.
>
> The correct way is to say some one is in their 'xth yr of life', which
> is a mouthful - but that's what it in fact is, Roger is indeed in his
> 28th yr of life.
>
> When you consider the 9 months gestation it further strengthens
> skriptis' position. =A0If Roger was 'alive' from the moment of conception
> then it is 28 yrs & 3 months since that point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nice story.
Normal people:
Q: How old are you?
A: I'm xx years old (or he is xx months old).

Tier-1:
Q: How old are you?
A: I'm in the xx year of my life and precisely xx years & xx months
since conception based on my dad/mom statement.



 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:07:36
From:
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 9:55=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> As of today (wherever you live in this world),
> is Federer closer to his 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th or 30th
> birthday?
>
> ***
>
> You know the answer but it makes no difference for our debate.

Yes, I know the answer but do you?
What is it?


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:11:20
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

<GuyTennis@ymail.com > wrote in message
news:b19f5342-3160-4b21-a7dd-6ab52714a61c@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 9:55 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> As of today (wherever you live in this world),
> is Federer closer to his 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th or 30th
> birthday?
>
> ***
>
> You know the answer but it makes no difference for our debate.

Yes, I know the answer but do you?
What is it?

***

What you're suggesting is basically rounding. Mathematically maybe it makes
sense, but that approach would put more weight on someone's "half-birthday"
than birthday itself.




 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 18:59:43
From: dbrowne
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 9:49=A0pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
>
> Every human being would be 'in their 1st yr of life' yes. =A0It sounds
> dumb to say a 0 yr old is walking/talking.

That's why we say the baby is, for example, "13 weeks old" or "11
months old", not "in their first year of life". (At least those of us
in the northern hemisphere that speak English say it that way.)


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:07:37
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"dbrowne" <dbrowne1234@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:7aa6719a-f80c-4688-b0d3-9e24d9ced9ca@l42g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 9:49 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
>
> Every human being would be 'in their 1st yr of life' yes. It sounds
> dumb to say a 0 yr old is walking/talking.

That's why we say the baby is, for example, "13 weeks old" or "11
months old", not "in their first year of life". (At least those of us
in the northern hemisphere that speak English say it that way.)

***

OK, but he didn't say Federer was 27 years, 5 months old.

He said 27. Is that factual for you?




   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:15:02
From: TT
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
*skriptis wrote:
> "dbrowne" <dbrowne1234@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7aa6719a-f80c-4688-b0d3-9e24d9ced9ca@l42g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 9:49 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Every human being would be 'in their 1st yr of life' yes. It sounds
>> dumb to say a 0 yr old is walking/talking.
>
> That's why we say the baby is, for example, "13 weeks old" or "11
> months old", not "in their first year of life". (At least those of us
> in the northern hemisphere that speak English say it that way.)
>
> ***
>
> OK, but he didn't say Federer was 27 years, 5 months old.
>
> He said 27. Is that factual for you?
>
>

It's much more factual than saying he's 28.

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


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 18:43:31
From:
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 1:38=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?


OK *skriptis, I've thought about this long and hard.

I promise not to bother you again with this
issue if you promise to answer the following question *honestly and to
the best of your ability*.

As of today (wherever you live in this world),
is Federer closer to his 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th or 30th
birthday?


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 15:52:26
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
GuyTennis@ymail.com wrote:
> On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>
>
> OK *skriptis, I've thought about this long and hard.
>
> I promise not to bother you again with this
> issue if you promise to answer the following question *honestly and to
> the best of your ability*.
>
> As of today (wherever you live in this world),
> is Federer closer to his 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th or 30th
> birthday?


But that's not the question. Obviously that can have only 1 answer.



  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 03:55:54
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

<GuyTennis@ymail.com > wrote in message
news:9777abe7-37bb-4eb8-b7ab-2787063c5705@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?


OK *skriptis, I've thought about this long and hard.

I promise not to bother you again with this
issue if you promise to answer the following question *honestly and to
the best of your ability*.

As of today (wherever you live in this world),
is Federer closer to his 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th or 30th
birthday?

***

You know the answer but it makes no difference for our debate.




 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 15:39:22
From: Scott
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 3:59=A0pm, Jason Catlin <jason-cat...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:54=A0pm, Quake <qu...@xyz.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:926f4fcd-30e1-41a4-97b4-
> > f35b2cb7a...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>
> > I'd be suprised if Del Potro took a set off Federer.
> > Djokovic in the semi would be a different poposition though.
>
> Also, the OP described Fed's match as a "grueling" five setter. How
> grueling was it really though?
>

maybe the OP should have used a different word, like "stressful."





 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:34:14
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 4:10=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f0e5fedf-a6e4-4d7b-9bdd-3d1cc885d2ca@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 2:46 pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>
> > > <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> > > ><andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.co=
m...
> > > >> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > > >>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.=
com...
> > > >>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for
> > > >>> > Roger
> > > >>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> > > >>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year,
> > > >>> (Aug.
> > > >>> 8, 2009).
>
> > > >>> ***
>
> > > >>> 2009 -1981 =3D 28.
>
> > > >> You are a god damn retard.
>
> > > >And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy w=
ho
> > > >would
> > > >say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
> > > >Pathetic
>
> > > Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
> > > surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
> > > if you say so...
>
> > I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
> > the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
> > western "completed".
>
> > 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
> > OR 4 years completed.
>
> > 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
> > years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>
> > If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
> > use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
> > born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>
> > I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
> > at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
> > googling it..
>
> As it happens, I did look at the link he posted -- before this
> response from you, by the way -- and found that it did not support his
> claim. I didn't bother to post a further rebuttal because, frankly,
> this thread isn't worth it. But if you want to create an issue about
> responsible debate, then fine.
>
> This is the section relevant to what *skriptis has argued:
> "In some cultures (for example Serbian and Russian) there are two ways
> to express age: by counting years with or without including current
> year. For example, it could be said about the same person that he is
> twenty years old or that he is in the twenty-first year of his life.
> In Russian the former expression is generally used, the latter one has
> restricted usage: it is used for age of a deceased person in
> obituaries and for the age of a child when it is desired to show him/
> her older than he/she is. (Psychologically, a boy in his 4th year
> seems older than one who is 3 years old.)"
>
> Notice that this is exactly the same point that I made earlier: saying
> that a person is 28 years old is *different from* saying that he is in
> his 28th year. As applied to Federer, only the latter is correct. What
> *skriptis was trying to argue is that it's OK to say that Federer is
> 28 years old, but that's wrong. Federer is 27 years old.
>
> Satisfied?
>
> ***
>
> Huh, not the point.
> You're forgetting the translation factor and that the fraseology that's
> being used in english isn't neccessarily used in other languages.

Has a language other than English been used in this thread? Perhaps I
overlooked that posting.

> Because you probably understand the question "how old are you" as a quest=
ion
> to answer how "many completed years do you have".
> How old are you, some others might understand as a question "in which yea=
r
> of your life are you". And the answers would be different.
>
> And when you look at it more closesly, it's not weird at all since the
> question "how old are you" is a rather subjective one in its nature. How
> old, very old, not so old, etc.
> It's not an question that requires a quantity answer. So it's understanda=
ble
> that it can be interpreted in two ways.
>
> For us, when exact age is required it's a norm to use compeleted years +
> months. But that always includes months, even days.
> For example, determining whether somone is a minor, or not, youngest slam
> winner, 16 years and 6 months vs someone who's 16 years and 3 months etc.
> Just like in English.
>
> However, in cases like this, when days and months are irrelevant, especia=
lly
> considering completed calendar year 2008, the number asssociated with
> Federer, unless specifically stating his
> exact age (months included), would be 28.

Nice try. Here's the original post to which you responded:
"Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
8, 2009)."

Pretty clear about the days and months, if you ask me. No doubt about
what is being counted, and how. Also seems to be in English.

And here's the non sequitur you issued in reply:
"2009 -1981 =3D 28."

Joe Ramirez



  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 18:19:33
From: pltrgyst
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:34:14 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
<josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:


>> You're forgetting the translation factor and that the fraseology that's
>> being used in english isn't neccessarily used in other languages.
>
>Has a language other than English been used in this thread? Perhaps I
>overlooked that posting....

No, it's right there above you -- note use of the foreign term "fraseology." I
can't identify the language, but it's undoubtedly foreign, since cryptic
reference to an ancient NBC comedy series would seem out of place in this
context.

-- Larry (just trying to help...)


   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 00:30:00
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"pltrgyst" <pltrgyst@spamlessxhost.org > wrote in message
news:e1hsn49lguevb8mnv21aupuipeh9drdmib@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:34:14 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> <josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> You're forgetting the translation factor and that the fraseology that's
>>> being used in english isn't neccessarily used in other languages.
>>
>>Has a language other than English been used in this thread? Perhaps I
>>overlooked that posting....
>
> No, it's right there above you -- note use of the foreign term
> "fraseology." I
> can't identify the language, but it's undoubtedly foreign, since cryptic
> reference to an ancient NBC comedy series would seem out of place in this
> context.


Something like this perhaps?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phraseology




  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 23:10:14
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"Joe Ramirez" <josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote in message
news:306e14bf-7161-4577-88af-a189266e0fd0@s14g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 4:10 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f0e5fedf-a6e4-4d7b-9bdd-3d1cc885d2ca@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 2:46 pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>
> > > <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> > > ><andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > >> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > > >>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > > >>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for
> > > >>> > Roger
> > > >>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> > > >>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year,
> > > >>> (Aug.
> > > >>> 8, 2009).
>
> > > >>> ***
>
> > > >>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>
> > > >> You are a god damn retard.
>
> > > >And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy
> > > >who
> > > >would
> > > >say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
> > > >Pathetic
>
> > > Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
> > > surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
> > > if you say so...
>
> > I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
> > the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
> > western "completed".
>
> > 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
> > OR 4 years completed.
>
> > 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
> > years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>
> > If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
> > use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
> > born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>
> > I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
> > at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
> > googling it..
>
> As it happens, I did look at the link he posted -- before this
> response from you, by the way -- and found that it did not support his
> claim. I didn't bother to post a further rebuttal because, frankly,
> this thread isn't worth it. But if you want to create an issue about
> responsible debate, then fine.
>
> This is the section relevant to what *skriptis has argued:
> "In some cultures (for example Serbian and Russian) there are two ways
> to express age: by counting years with or without including current
> year. For example, it could be said about the same person that he is
> twenty years old or that he is in the twenty-first year of his life.
> In Russian the former expression is generally used, the latter one has
> restricted usage: it is used for age of a deceased person in
> obituaries and for the age of a child when it is desired to show him/
> her older than he/she is. (Psychologically, a boy in his 4th year
> seems older than one who is 3 years old.)"
>
> Notice that this is exactly the same point that I made earlier: saying
> that a person is 28 years old is *different from* saying that he is in
> his 28th year. As applied to Federer, only the latter is correct. What
> *skriptis was trying to argue is that it's OK to say that Federer is
> 28 years old, but that's wrong. Federer is 27 years old.
>
> Satisfied?
>
> ***
>
> Huh, not the point.
> You're forgetting the translation factor and that the fraseology that's
> being used in english isn't neccessarily used in other languages.

Has a language other than English been used in this thread? Perhaps I
overlooked that posting.

> Because you probably understand the question "how old are you" as a
> question
> to answer how "many completed years do you have".
> How old are you, some others might understand as a question "in which year
> of your life are you". And the answers would be different.
>
> And when you look at it more closesly, it's not weird at all since the
> question "how old are you" is a rather subjective one in its nature. How
> old, very old, not so old, etc.
> It's not an question that requires a quantity answer. So it's
> understandable
> that it can be interpreted in two ways.
>
> For us, when exact age is required it's a norm to use compeleted years +
> months. But that always includes months, even days.
> For example, determining whether somone is a minor, or not, youngest slam
> winner, 16 years and 6 months vs someone who's 16 years and 3 months etc.
> Just like in English.
>
> However, in cases like this, when days and months are irrelevant,
> especially
> considering completed calendar year 2008, the number asssociated with
> Federer, unless specifically stating his
> exact age (months included), would be 28.

Nice try. Here's the original post to which you responded:
"Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
8, 2009)."

Pretty clear about the days and months, if you ask me. No doubt about
what is being counted, and how. Also seems to be in English.

And here's the non sequitur you issued in reply:
"2009 -1981 = 28."


***

That was not the first. Scott said Roger was 28, and GuyTennis said he was
27.
While in fact, his exact age is 27 years and 5.5 months old.

Nobody used the exact years-month-day form for his age, so for me using
"years" only, he'd be 28.

It's just matter of expression if we don't use the exact age. Whether to
refer completed years, or running years.
Like we said, in my culture, if specific age isn't stated, months included,
the norm is to express the year of your life you're living in.

So, using English I should have probably used the English expression.

The "2009-1981=28" was used to prove my point, running year.




 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:59:44
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 3:54=A0pm, Quake <qu...@xyz.com.invalid > wrote:
> Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:926f4fcd-30e1-41a4-97b4-
> f35b2cb7a...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>
> I'd be suprised if Del Potro took a set off Federer.
> Djokovic in the semi would be a different poposition though.

Also, the OP described Fed's match as a "grueling" five setter. How
grueling was it really though?

That's the thing about Fed. Even when he plays five sets, the match is
over in 3 hours and in this case the first two sets involved a lot of
watching winners whiz past him. I think Fed was on
court less time than Djoke was in his match against Baghdatis.

I think we can say with absolute certainty that Fed's match against
Berdych was less grueling than his match
last year against Tipsarevic, and he came back and won the next match
after that one in straight sets.


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 23:03:35
From: TT
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:54 pm, Quake <qu...@xyz.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:926f4fcd-30e1-41a4-97b4-
>> f35b2cb7a...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>> I'd be suprised if Del Potro took a set off Federer.
>> Djokovic in the semi would be a different poposition though.
>
> Also, the OP described Fed's match as a "grueling" five setter. How
> grueling was it really though?
>
> That's the thing about Fed. Even when he plays five sets, the match is
> over in 3 hours and in this case the first two sets involved a lot of
> watching winners whiz past him. I think Fed was on
> court less time than Djoke was in his match against Baghdatis.
>
> I think we can say with absolute certainty that Fed's match against
> Berdych was less grueling than his match
> last year against Tipsarevic, and he came back and won the next match
> after that one in straight sets.

And he was sick too!

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


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 20:54:19
From: Quake
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com > wrote in news:926f4fcd-30e1-41a4-97b4-
f35b2cb7a89f@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

> Can Roger survive Del Potro?

I'd be suprised if Del Potro took a set off Federer.
Djokovic in the semi would be a different poposition though.



 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:44:19
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 11:55=A0am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com..=
.
> >> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
> >> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> >> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> >> 8, 2009).
>
> >> ***
>
> >> 2009 -1981 =3D 28.
>
> > You are a god damn retard.
>
> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who wo=
uld
> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
> Pathetic

If a friend borrowed $50 from you, he only has to pay you back $49?
(Sorry, I really don't understand your POV and am trying to get it)

Rodjk #613


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:50:47
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:55 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>> ***
>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>> You are a god damn retard.
>> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>
>> Pathetic
>
> If a friend borrowed $50 from you, he only has to pay you back $49?
> (Sorry, I really don't understand your POV and am trying to get it)
>
> Rodjk #613


It boils down to 'Roger is 27' being an incorrect statement every day of
his life except for 1 day (27th b'day).

Joe seems to think it's ok to say 'Roger is 27' to cover another 364
days, just because it's in his culture/custom to express it that way.

As I've proven the correct way for Joe to express it is 'Roger has had
his 27th b'day', or 'Roger is in his 28th yr'. Don't expect him to
offer any logical reasons why his way is the logically correct way -
he'll say it's his custom.








   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 04:01:19
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:50:47 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Rodjk #613 wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 11:55 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>> ***
>>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>> You are a god damn retard.
>>> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>>> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>>
>>> Pathetic
>>
>> If a friend borrowed $50 from you, he only has to pay you back $49?
>> (Sorry, I really don't understand your POV and am trying to get it)
>>
>> Rodjk #613
>
>
>It boils down to 'Roger is 27' being an incorrect statement every day of
>his life except for 1 day (27th b'day).
>
>Joe seems to think it's ok to say 'Roger is 27' to cover another 364
>days, just because it's in his culture/custom to express it that way.
>
>As I've proven the correct way for Joe to express it is 'Roger has had
>his 27th b'day', or 'Roger is in his 28th yr'. Don't expect him to
>offer any logical reasons why his way is the logically correct way -
>he'll say it's his custom.
>

The correct way is to say that Roger is 27+ (pronounced Roger is 27
plus).

Whisper otoh is 0 +

It works for me.


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 22:11:32
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Rodjk #613 wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:55 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>> ***
>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>> You are a god damn retard.
>> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>
>> Pathetic
>
> If a friend borrowed $50 from you, he only has to pay you back $49?
> (Sorry, I really don't understand your POV and am trying to get it)
>
> Rodjk #613

Once *skriptis is willing to accept 49 for 50, offer 48! ;-)

--
Cheers,

vc


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 22:30:38
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"Rodjk #613" <rjkardo@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:b7c09bb6-9501-4ab8-86c1-6f5b9423f284@r41g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 11:55 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
> >> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> >> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> >> 8, 2009).
>
> >> ***
>
> >> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>
> > You are a god damn retard.
>
> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who
> would
> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
> Pathetic

If a friend borrowed $50 from you, he only has to pay you back $49?
(Sorry, I really don't understand your POV and am trying to get it)


No, if I lend you ?49 you must pay me back ?50.




 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:27:47
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 7:25=A0pm, Richard Eich <richard.e...@domain.invalid > wrote:
> jason-cat...@hotmail.com wrote...
> > On Jan 26, 11:08=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. =A0He's playing a young p=
up
> > > in Del Potro. =A0This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
> > > last summer.
>
> > > I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. =A0However,
> > > Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
> > > well. =A0Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
> > > handling it.
>
> > > Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>
> > Don't you think your question is a bit odd?
>
> > Can a 13-time Slam champion, arguably one of the top 2 or 3 greatest
> > players of all time, beat a guy who's in his second Slam quarterfinal?
>
> Are you talking about that Sampras-Federer W matchup that Fed won?
>
> --
> A fight starts when a man reaches the limits of his intelligence.- Hide q=
uoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL, great post.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 11:59:23
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 2:46=A0pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2:14=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>
> > <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> > ><andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com.=
..
> > >> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > >>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.co=
m...
> > >>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Ro=
ger
> > >>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> > >>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Au=
g.
> > >>> 8, 2009).
>
> > >>> ***
>
> > >>> 2009 -1981 =3D 28.
>
> > >> You are a god damn retard.
>
> > >And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who=
would
> > >say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
> > >Pathetic
>
> > Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
> > surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
> > if you say so...
>
> I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. =A0In some parts of
> the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
> western "completed".
>
> 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
> OR 4 years completed.
>
> 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. =A04
> years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>
> If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
> use one system over the other. =A0I can understand how a baby that's
> born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>
> I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
> at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
> googling it..

As it happens, I did look at the link he posted -- before this
response from you, by the way -- and found that it did not support his
claim. I didn't bother to post a further rebuttal because, frankly,
this thread isn't worth it. But if you want to create an issue about
responsible debate, then fine.

This is the section relevant to what *skriptis has argued:
"In some cultures (for example Serbian and Russian) there are two ways
to express age: by counting years with or without including current
year. For example, it could be said about the same person that he is
twenty years old or that he is in the twenty-first year of his life.
In Russian the former expression is generally used, the latter one has
restricted usage: it is used for age of a deceased person in
obituaries and for the age of a child when it is desired to show him/
her older than he/she is. (Psychologically, a boy in his 4th year
seems older than one who is 3 years old.)"

Notice that this is exactly the same point that I made earlier: saying
that a person is 28 years old is *different from* saying that he is in
his 28th year. As applied to Federer, only the latter is correct. What
*skriptis was trying to argue is that it's OK to say that Federer is
28 years old, but that's wrong. Federer is 27 years old.

Satisfied?

Joe Ramirez



  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:22:01
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2:46 pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>>> ***
>>>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>>> You are a god damn retard.
>>>> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>>>> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>>> Pathetic
>>> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
>>> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
>>> if you say so...
>> I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
>> the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
>> western "completed".
>>
>> 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
>> OR 4 years completed.
>>
>> 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
>> years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>>
>> If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
>> use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
>> born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>>
>> I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
>> at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
>> googling it..
>
> As it happens, I did look at the link he posted -- before this
> response from you, by the way -- and found that it did not support his
> claim. I didn't bother to post a further rebuttal because, frankly,
> this thread isn't worth it. But if you want to create an issue about
> responsible debate, then fine.
>
> This is the section relevant to what *skriptis has argued:
> "In some cultures (for example Serbian and Russian) there are two ways
> to express age: by counting years with or without including current
> year. For example, it could be said about the same person that he is
> twenty years old or that he is in the twenty-first year of his life.
> In Russian the former expression is generally used, the latter one has
> restricted usage: it is used for age of a deceased person in
> obituaries and for the age of a child when it is desired to show him/
> her older than he/she is. (Psychologically, a boy in his 4th year
> seems older than one who is 3 years old.)"
>
> Notice that this is exactly the same point that I made earlier: saying
> that a person is 28 years old is *different from* saying that he is in
> his 28th year. As applied to Federer, only the latter is correct. What
> *skriptis was trying to argue is that it's OK to say that Federer is
> 28 years old, but that's wrong. Federer is 27 years old.
>
> Satisfied?
>
> Joe Ramirez
>


He's neither 27 nor 28, rather 'in his 28th yr'.

If you say someone is 27 then that means today is their b'day - if you
say they are 'in their 28th yr' then we know 27 b'day is in their past.



  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 22:10:48
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"Joe Ramirez" <josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote in message
news:f0e5fedf-a6e4-4d7b-9bdd-3d1cc885d2ca@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 2:46 pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>
> > <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> > ><andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > >>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > >>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for
> > >>> > Roger
> > >>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> > >>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year,
> > >>> (Aug.
> > >>> 8, 2009).
>
> > >>> ***
>
> > >>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>
> > >> You are a god damn retard.
>
> > >And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who
> > >would
> > >say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
> > >Pathetic
>
> > Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
> > surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
> > if you say so...
>
> I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
> the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
> western "completed".
>
> 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
> OR 4 years completed.
>
> 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
> years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>
> If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
> use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
> born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>
> I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
> at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
> googling it..

As it happens, I did look at the link he posted -- before this
response from you, by the way -- and found that it did not support his
claim. I didn't bother to post a further rebuttal because, frankly,
this thread isn't worth it. But if you want to create an issue about
responsible debate, then fine.

This is the section relevant to what *skriptis has argued:
"In some cultures (for example Serbian and Russian) there are two ways
to express age: by counting years with or without including current
year. For example, it could be said about the same person that he is
twenty years old or that he is in the twenty-first year of his life.
In Russian the former expression is generally used, the latter one has
restricted usage: it is used for age of a deceased person in
obituaries and for the age of a child when it is desired to show him/
her older than he/she is. (Psychologically, a boy in his 4th year
seems older than one who is 3 years old.)"

Notice that this is exactly the same point that I made earlier: saying
that a person is 28 years old is *different from* saying that he is in
his 28th year. As applied to Federer, only the latter is correct. What
*skriptis was trying to argue is that it's OK to say that Federer is
28 years old, but that's wrong. Federer is 27 years old.

Satisfied?


***

Huh, not the point.
You're forgetting the translation factor and that the fraseology that's
being used in english isn't neccessarily used in other languages.


Because you probably understand the question "how old are you" as a question
to answer how "many completed years do you have".
How old are you, some others might understand as a question "in which year
of your life are you". And the answers would be different.

And when you look at it more closesly, it's not weird at all since the
question "how old are you" is a rather subjective one in its nature. How
old, very old, not so old, etc.
It's not an question that requires a quantity answer. So it's understandable
that it can be interpreted in two ways.


For us, when exact age is required it's a norm to use compeleted years +
months. But that always includes months, even days.
For example, determining whether somone is a minor, or not, youngest slam
winner, 16 years and 6 months vs someone who's 16 years and 3 months etc.
Just like in English.


However, in cases like this, when days and months are irrelevant, especially
considering completed calendar year 2008, the number asssociated with
Federer, unless specifically stating his
exact age (months included), would be 28.

When you're interested in somone's age, whitout specific details of months
and day, you're interested in which year of his life he's in, even though in
most cases the expression "in xy year of life" is not used. But it's
implied.




 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 11:46:38
From: Voice of Reason
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 2:14=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>
>
>
> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> ><andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roge=
r
> >>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> >>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> >>> 8, 2009).
>
> >>> ***
>
> >>> 2009 -1981 =3D 28.
>
> >> You are a god damn retard.
>
> >And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who w=
ould
> >say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
> >Pathetic
>
> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
> if you say so...

I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
western "completed".

4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
OR 4 years completed.

4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.

If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.

I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
googling it..


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 16:56:10
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Voice of Reason <sasidharpv@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>
>>
>>
>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>> ><andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>> >>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>
>> >>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>> >>> 8, 2009).
>>
>> >>> ***
>>
>> >>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>
>> >> You are a god damn retard.
>>
>> >And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>> >say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>
>> >Pathetic
>>
>> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
>> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
>> if you say so...
>
> I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
> the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
> western "completed".
>
> 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
> OR 4 years completed.
>
> 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
> years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>
> If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
> use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
> born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.

It is in the first year of its life - it is not 1 years old ;)


   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:18:21
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> Voice of Reason <sasidharpv@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>>> ***
>>>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>>> You are a god damn retard.
>>>> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>>>> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>>> Pathetic
>>> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
>>> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
>>> if you say so...
>> I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
>> the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
>> western "completed".
>>
>> 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
>> OR 4 years completed.
>>
>> 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
>> years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>>
>> If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
>> use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
>> born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>
> It is in the first year of its life - it is not 1 years old ;)


It's not zero either.



    
Date: 27 Jan 2009 03:33:01
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:18:21 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> Voice of Reason <sasidharpv@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>>>> You are a god damn retard.
>>>>> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>>>>> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>>>> Pathetic
>>>> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
>>>> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
>>>> if you say so...
>>> I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
>>> the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
>>> western "completed".
>>>
>>> 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
>>> OR 4 years completed.
>>>
>>> 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
>>> years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>>>
>>> If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
>>> use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
>>> born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>>
>> It is in the first year of its life - it is not 1 years old ;)
>
>
>It's not zero either.


Roger is 27 +

Whisper is 0+

That is the most terse most accurate way of expressing the truth.


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 21:58:34
From: TT
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Voice of Reason wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>
>>
>>
>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>> ***
>>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>> You are a god damn retard.
>>> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>>> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>> Pathetic
>> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
>> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
>> if you say so...
>
> I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
> the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
> western "completed".
>
> 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
> OR 4 years completed.
>
> 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
> years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>
> If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
> use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
> born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>
> I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
> at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
> googling it..

I have read it in the past, so I was aware of this. I don't know which
country skriptis is from but he would still be wrong or really ignorant
not knowing how most of the world speaks. Especially having spent quite
some time in rst.

I used to use comma as a separator for decimals in the past...and still
often am tempted to...must be in blood or something. However after
learning that actually dot is the one used in SI system, the
international system...I have lately began to use dot in these
international forums(well it took me looooong time to accept that I had
been kind of wrong using the comma)


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


   
Date: 26 Jan 2009 21:26:21
From: Bonaf
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"TT" wrote:

(...)
> I used to use comma as a separator for decimals in the past...and still
> often am tempted to...must be in blood or something. However after
> learning that actually dot is the one used in SI system, the international
> system...I have lately began to use dot in these international forums(well
> it took me looooong time to accept that I had been kind of wrong using the
> comma)

"The 10th resolution of CGPM in 2003 declared that "the symbol for the
decimal marker shall be either the point on the line or the comma on the
line." In practice, the decimal point is used in English and the comma in
most other European languages."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI

So you haven't been "kind of wrong" in absolute, even though in practice if
English is your 1st language the dot seems favored.

David



    
Date: 26 Jan 2009 22:26:41
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"Bonaf" <david.bonafonte@free.fr > wrote in message
news:497e1c6a$0$10072$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>
> "TT" wrote:
>
> (...)
>> I used to use comma as a separator for decimals in the past...and still
>> often am tempted to...must be in blood or something. However after
>> learning that actually dot is the one used in SI system, the
>> international system...I have lately began to use dot in these
>> international forums(well it took me looooong time to accept that I had
>> been kind of wrong using the comma)
>
> "The 10th resolution of CGPM in 2003 declared that "the symbol for the
> decimal marker shall be either the point on the line or the comma on the
> line." In practice, the decimal point is used in English and the comma in
> most other European languages."
> from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI
>


Oh the Brits...

The European Union has a directive[22] banning non-SI markings after 31
December 2009 on any goods imported into the European Union. This applies to
all markings on products, enclosed directions and papers, packaging and
advertisements. On September 11, 2007, the EU announced that the United
Kingdom would be exempted from this directive and imperial measurements
would still be permitted indefinitely alongside with the metric system as
supplementary indications.[23]




    
Date: 26 Jan 2009 23:00:34
From: TT
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Bonaf wrote:
>
> "TT" wrote:
>
> (...)
>> I used to use comma as a separator for decimals in the past...and
>> still often am tempted to...must be in blood or something. However
>> after learning that actually dot is the one used in SI system, the
>> international system...I have lately began to use dot in these
>> international forums(well it took me looooong time to accept that I
>> had been kind of wrong using the comma)
>
> "The 10th resolution of CGPM in 2003 declared that "the symbol for the
> decimal marker shall be either the point on the line or the comma on the
> line." In practice, the decimal point is used in English and the comma
> in most other European languages."
> from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI
>
> So you haven't been "kind of wrong" in absolute, even though in practice
> if English is your 1st language the dot seems favored.
>
> David

Not sure what you're saying here. Do you think both would be ok?

Imo since this is international and English speaking newsgroup, the dot
should be the correct choice regardless of my language.

...As well as meter and kilogram should be used here.

However, as that page tells us, the use of Kelvin's is not a must but
use of Celsius is acceptable.

And in future I would like betting odds posted here using decimals...not
fricking fractions thank you! :)



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


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 21:51:13
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:46:38 -0800 (PST), Voice of Reason
<sasidharpv@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>
>>
>>
>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>> ><andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>> >>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>
>> >>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>> >>> 8, 2009).
>>
>> >>> ***
>>
>> >>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>
>> >> You are a god damn retard.
>>
>> >And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>> >say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>
>> >Pathetic
>>
>> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
>> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
>> if you say so...
>
>I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
>the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
>western "completed".
>
>4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
>OR 4 years completed.
>
>4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
>years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>
>If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
>use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
>born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>
>I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
>at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
>googling it..

I thought there was no reason he would argue about a thing like that,
unless it is so in his culture.



 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 10:51:16
From: Patrick Kehoe
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 10:04=A0am, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Stapler wrote:
> > "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
> >news:glkt8g$2gj$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>
> >> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
> >>news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
> >>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
> >>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com=
...
>
> >>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roge=
r
> >>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> >>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug=
.
> >>>> 8, 2009).
>
> >>>> ***
>
> >>>> 2009 -1981 =3D 28.
>
> >>> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
> >>> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
> >>> birthday?
>
> >> ***
>
> >> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your
> >> life, in shorter, you're 28.
> >> Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"
>
> > Only an idiot would say Roger is 28. He's 27 and 6 months.
>
> This was supposed to be a thread about Roger's upcoming match against
> Del Potro, right? Please.
>
> PS.

++ Last time they played Del Potro started out serving well and looked
solid... when Fed began to return him those slicing, short, cross
court backhands that skid low Del Potro didn't like 'picking them up'
on the backhand... he either netted them or popped them up and Fed
just swatted them away... and he ran Del Potro more and more from one
corner to the other... and at that point DP's serving percentages
dipped and Fed was comfortable from there...

P



 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 10:47:04
From:
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 1:38=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
>
> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>
> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
> one year old
> *skriptis?
>
> ***
>
> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?

Sorry, I guess Math wasn't your best subject in school *skriptis.
Yes, you do say the baby is 0 years old.
To be more precise, you'd say 0 years and 5 months.


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:35:45
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
GuyTennis@ymail.com wrote:
> On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
>> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>>
>> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
>> one year old
>> *skriptis?
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>
> Sorry, I guess Math wasn't your best subject in school *skriptis.
> Yes, you do say the baby is 0 years old.
> To be more precise, you'd say 0 years and 5 months.


'The baby isn't 1 yet' or 'is in it's 1st yr of life' is even more
correct. Saying it's zero is idiotic if it's walking around & talking at 0.



  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:34:08
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
GuyTennis@ymail.com wrote:
> On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
>> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>>
>> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
>> one year old
>> *skriptis?
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>
> Sorry, I guess Math wasn't your best subject in school *skriptis.
> Yes, you do say the baby is 0 years old.
> To be more precise, you'd say 0 years and 5 months.


'0 yrs old' could imply just that - zero. Is the baby zero when it's 11
months old & walking?

skriptis' concept is correct, it's just the english language lacks the
appropriate terminology to define it. Is it really correct to say
Federer is 27 in a few months time when he'll be 27 & 10 months?
Clearly it's misleading.

The correct way is to say some one is in their 'xth yr of life', which
is a mouthful - but that's what it in fact is, Roger is indeed in his
28th yr of life.

When you consider the 9 months gestation it further strengthens
skriptis' position. If Roger was 'alive' from the moment of conception
then it is 28 yrs & 3 months since that point.



   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 03:59:12
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:497e72a2$0$14874$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> GuyTennis@ymail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
>>> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>>>
>>> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
>>> one year old
>>> *skriptis?
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>>
>> Sorry, I guess Math wasn't your best subject in school *skriptis.
>> Yes, you do say the baby is 0 years old.
>> To be more precise, you'd say 0 years and 5 months.
>
>
> '0 yrs old' could imply just that - zero. Is the baby zero when it's 11
> months old & walking?
>
> skriptis' concept is correct, it's just the english language lacks the
> appropriate terminology to define it. Is it really correct to say Federer
> is 27 in a few months time when he'll be 27 & 10 months? Clearly it's
> misleading.
>
> The correct way is to say some one is in their 'xth yr of life', which is
> a mouthful - but that's what it in fact is, Roger is indeed in his 28th yr
> of life.
>
> When you consider the 9 months gestation it further strengthens skriptis'
> position. If Roger was 'alive' from the moment of conception then it is
> 28 yrs & 3 months since that point.


29th year on the run since he's been conceived.





    
Date: 27 Jan 2009 15:53:55
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
*skriptis wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:497e72a2$0$14874$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> GuyTennis@ymail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
>>>> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>>>>
>>>> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
>>>> one year old
>>>> *skriptis?
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>>> Sorry, I guess Math wasn't your best subject in school *skriptis.
>>> Yes, you do say the baby is 0 years old.
>>> To be more precise, you'd say 0 years and 5 months.
>>
>> '0 yrs old' could imply just that - zero. Is the baby zero when it's 11
>> months old & walking?
>>
>> skriptis' concept is correct, it's just the english language lacks the
>> appropriate terminology to define it. Is it really correct to say Federer
>> is 27 in a few months time when he'll be 27 & 10 months? Clearly it's
>> misleading.
>>
>> The correct way is to say some one is in their 'xth yr of life', which is
>> a mouthful - but that's what it in fact is, Roger is indeed in his 28th yr
>> of life.
>>
>> When you consider the 9 months gestation it further strengthens skriptis'
>> position. If Roger was 'alive' from the moment of conception then it is
>> 28 yrs & 3 months since that point.
>
>
> 29th year on the run since he's been conceived.
>
>
>


It's agreed then - Roger is 29.

Glad it's settled.



    
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:08:05
From: TT
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
*skriptis wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:497e72a2$0$14874$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> GuyTennis@ymail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
>>>> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>>>>
>>>> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
>>>> one year old
>>>> *skriptis?
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>>> Sorry, I guess Math wasn't your best subject in school *skriptis.
>>> Yes, you do say the baby is 0 years old.
>>> To be more precise, you'd say 0 years and 5 months.
>>
>> '0 yrs old' could imply just that - zero. Is the baby zero when it's 11
>> months old & walking?
>>

Is baby one year old when it's born yesterday, as Dave has.

Usually when people talk about only few months old babies they talk
about months not years.



>> skriptis' concept is correct, it's just the english language lacks the
>> appropriate terminology to define it. Is it really correct to say Federer
>> is 27 in a few months time when he'll be 27 & 10 months? Clearly it's
>> misleading.
>>
>> The correct way is to say some one is in their 'xth yr of life', which is
>> a mouthful - but that's what it in fact is, Roger is indeed in his 28th yr
>> of life.
>>
>> When you consider the 9 months gestation it further strengthens skriptis'
>> position. If Roger was 'alive' from the moment of conception then it is
>> 28 yrs & 3 months since that point.
>
>
> 29th year on the run since he's been conceived.
>
>

So he's close to his 4th decade. Quit already old man.



   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 02:40:52
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:34:08 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>GuyTennis@ymail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
>>> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>>>
>>> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
>>> one year old
>>> *skriptis?
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>>
>> Sorry, I guess Math wasn't your best subject in school *skriptis.
>> Yes, you do say the baby is 0 years old.
>> To be more precise, you'd say 0 years and 5 months.
>
>
>'0 yrs old' could imply just that - zero. Is the baby zero when it's 11
>months old & walking?
>
>skriptis' concept is correct, it's just the english language lacks the
>appropriate terminology to define it. Is it really correct to say
>Federer is 27 in a few months time when he'll be 27 & 10 months?
>Clearly it's misleading.
>
>The correct way is to say some one is in their 'xth yr of life', which
>is a mouthful - but that's what it in fact is, Roger is indeed in his
>28th yr of life.
>
>When you consider the 9 months gestation it further strengthens
>skriptis' position. If Roger was 'alive' from the moment of conception
>then it is 28 yrs & 3 months since that point.


do you make all this up yourself or do the inmates help you ?


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:56:51
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

<GuyTennis@ymail.com > wrote in message
news:66879b8b-da91-48c6-b6a1-363368e2b5df@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 1:38 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
>
> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>
> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
> one year old
> *skriptis?
>
> ***
>
> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?

Sorry, I guess Math wasn't your best subject in school *skriptis.
Yes, you do say the baby is 0 years old.

***

lol 0 years




 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 10:35:35
From:
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 1:26=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> Links?

You are wrong on this issue. Accept it.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 10:35:16
From:
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 1:11=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> > Only an idiot would say Roger is 28. He's 27 and 6 months.
>
> Then say so, 27 years and 6 months. Not 27.
>
> Saying he's 28 is more accurate than saying he's 27.

I hate to belabor a point, but you have proved once again that you
can't count.
There are 365 days in a year, (the last time I checked). Or perhaps
you contend this isn't true either?

171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!

When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
one year old
*skriptis?





  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:38:13
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

<GuyTennis@ymail.com > wrote in message
news:3f97e533-2488-4183-9460-d07e06c47658@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 1:11 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

> > Only an idiot would say Roger is 28. He's 27 and 6 months.
>
> Then say so, 27 years and 6 months. Not 27.
>
> Saying he's 28 is more accurate than saying he's 27.

I hate to belabor a point, but you have proved once again that you
can't count.
There are 365 days in a year, (the last time I checked). Or perhaps
you contend this isn't true either?

171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!

When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
one year old
*skriptis?

***

Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?




   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:14:16
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
*skriptis wrote:
> <GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f97e533-2488-4183-9460-d07e06c47658@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 1:11 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>>> Only an idiot would say Roger is 28. He's 27 and 6 months.
>> Then say so, 27 years and 6 months. Not 27.
>>
>> Saying he's 28 is more accurate than saying he's 27.
>
> I hate to belabor a point, but you have proved once again that you
> can't count.
> There are 365 days in a year, (the last time I checked). Or perhaps
> you contend this isn't true either?
>
> 171 days have passed since Roger's last birthday.
> Roger still isn't 27.5 years old!
>
> When a baby is 5 months old, do you say the baby is 5 months old, or
> one year old
> *skriptis?
>
> ***
>
> Do you say baby is 0 year old or 1 year old?
>
>


The baby is enjoying it's 1st yr of life - Roger his 28th.



 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 10:12:27
From: PeteWasLucky
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 12:18=A0pm, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:09=A0pm, cernunn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 11:54=A0am, GuyTen...@ymail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 26, 11:48=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > yes, but the age difference is key. =A0At 28, it takes longer for R=
oger
> > > > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> > > Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> > > 8, 2009).
>
> > In either case, the effect of the age difference is negligible.
> > Federer has had few injuries in his career, and has a style that does
> > not quickly break down the body. He is nowhere close to being an "old"
> > athlete.
>
> it is a fact that young people recover faster than older people. =A0So,
> if Roger is 27 this year, and Del Potro is (what, 21?), =A0then Del
> Potro still has the better chance of recovering than Roger does. =A0This
> has nothing to do with Roger's style of play.

Oh man! Sure at my age it will take me a month to recover after a
similar match but you guys are making 27 year old to look like being
above 35. Plus Roger is a great athelete, I didn't say that, it's the
other atp players that say so including Sampras.





 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 09:59:42
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 12:52=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
> > <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >><GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com..=
.
> >>On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
> >>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> >>Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> >>8, 2009).
>
> >>***
>
> >>2009 -1981 =3D 28.
>
> > Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
> > who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
> > birthday?
>
> ***
>
> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life, i=
n
> shorter, you're 28.

No. "In the 28th year of your life" does not mean you are 28 years
old, just that you're beyond 27. You are not 28 years old until you
have *reached* your 28th birthday. Age refers to years completed, not
years begun. Why argue this basic point that everyone around the world
understands?

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 00:41:00
From: Tom Joad
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:59:42 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
<josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:


>No. "In the 28th year of your life" does not mean you are 28 years
>old, just that you're beyond 27. You are not 28 years old until you
>have *reached* your 28th birthday. Age refers to years completed, not
>years begun. Why argue this basic point that everyone around the world
>understands?
>
>Joe Ramirez

Not around the world. Koreans, for instance, do not think this way.


Tommy


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:17:03
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"Joe Ramirez" <josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote in message
news:5800f09b-3a20-4741-9b27-ed7e46d88047@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 12:52 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
> > <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >><GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> >>On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
> >>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> >>Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> >>8, 2009).
>
> >>***
>
> >>2009 -1981 = 28.
>
> > Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
> > who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
> > birthday?
>
> ***
>
> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life, in
> shorter, you're 28.

No. "In the 28th year of your life" does not mean you are 28 years
old, just that you're beyond 27. You are not 28 years old until you
have *reached* your 28th birthday. Age refers to years completed, not
years begun. Why argue this basic point that everyone around the world
understands?

***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging#Cultural_variations




 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 09:46:52
From:
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 12:18=A0pm, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:09=A0pm, cernunn...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > In either case, the effect of the age difference is negligible.
> > Federer has had few injuries in his career, and has a style that does
> > not quickly break down the body. He is nowhere close to being an "old"
> > athlete.
>
> it is a fact that young people recover faster than older people. =A0So,
> if Roger is 27 this year, and Del Potro is (what, 21?), =A0then Del
> Potro still has the better chance of recovering than Roger does. =A0This
> has nothing to do with Roger's style of play.


Yes, it is true that recovery time increases with age. My point is
that the six years between two players in their 20s is negligible
because the decline in resilience will not be significant yet. The
difference between 27 and 33 is much bigger than 21 vs. 27--even
though both are a matter of six years.

I only mentioned playing style because players who show a sharp
decline in their 20s are usually players who ran themselves ragged
early in their career (ala Hewitt).


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 09:36:38
From: andrew.reys@gmail.com
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> 8, 2009).
>
> ***
>
> 2009 -1981 = 28.

You are a god damn retard.


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:27:56
From: Richard Eich
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
andrew.reys@gmail.com wrote...
> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> > <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
> > > > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
> >
> > > Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> > > 8, 2009).
>
> > 2009 -1981 = 28.
>
> You are a god damn retard.

I usually don't laugh at insults, but that one was so well deserved
that I LMAO.

--
A fight starts when a man reaches the limits of his intelligence.


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

<andrew.reys@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>
>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>> 8, 2009).
>>
>> ***
>>
>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>
> You are a god damn retard.


And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.

Pathetic




   
Date: 26 Jan 2009 21:14:25
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>
><andrew.reys@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>
>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>> 8, 2009).
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>
>> You are a god damn retard.
>
>
>And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
>Pathetic

Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
if you say so...





    
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:53:41
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> <andrew.reys@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>> You are a god damn retard.
>>
>> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>
>> Pathetic
>
> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
> if you say so...
>
>
>


You're in your 50th yr, + gestation makes it > 50.



 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 09:27:23
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 12:18=A0pm, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 12:09=A0pm, cernunn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 11:54=A0am, GuyTen...@ymail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 26, 11:48=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > yes, but the age difference is key. =A0At 28, it takes longer for R=
oger
> > > > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> > > Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> > > 8, 2009).
>
> > In either case, the effect of the age difference is negligible.
> > Federer has had few injuries in his career, and has a style that does
> > not quickly break down the body. He is nowhere close to being an "old"
> > athlete.
>
> it is a fact that young people recover faster than older people. =A0So,
> if Roger is 27 this year, and Del Potro is (what, 21?), =A0then Del
> Potro still has the better chance of recovering than Roger does. =A0This
> has nothing to do with Roger's style of play.

What you say is correct in the abstract, but as applied to this match
it is purely speculative, and certainly doesn't justify your
declaration that the age difference is "key." The question is not
whether a 27-year-old may take longer to recover than a 21-year-old;
the question is whether Federer, two days after a five-set match (not
a particularly long one, as five-setters go) will be fully recovered,
or not. If he is fully recovered, than the age difference is
irrelevant.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 09:24:33
From: suckyasimple
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
The Fed of yesterday will fall to DP.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 18:21:23
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Scott wrote:
> Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. He's playing a young pup
> in Del Potro. This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
> last summer.
>
> I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. However,
> Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
> well. Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
> handling it.
>
> Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>

Actually I haven't been that impressed by Del Potro yet. Against Cilic
he didn't play well at all, at least not during the first two sets I
watched. He is a tall guy and has naturally some mobility issues. His
major strength is his consistent first serve. He very rarely has a
percentage below 60. And because of his height he can make it bounce
really high and make it difficult for the returner even though the speed
itself is quite normal. If Federer just can keep the ball in play and
make Del Potro move a little bit, I am pretty sure this will be a
comfortable victory for him. Del Potro is not like Berdych who can make
winners from anywhere on a good day. He is just solid from the baseline
and can handle rally speed very well. But as you say Fed normally
doesn't get affected by pace and manage to get his opponent out of the
stationary comfort zone. I say normally - because we all remember what
happened to him in the Olympics against Blake.

My guess is a straight set victory. At least Del Potro will not get more
than a set.

PS.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 09:18:02
From: Scott
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 12:09=A0pm, cernunn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:54=A0am, GuyTen...@ymail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 11:48=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > yes, but the age difference is key. =A0At 28, it takes longer for Rog=
er
> > > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> > Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> > 8, 2009).
>
> In either case, the effect of the age difference is negligible.
> Federer has had few injuries in his career, and has a style that does
> not quickly break down the body. He is nowhere close to being an "old"
> athlete.

it is a fact that young people recover faster than older people. So,
if Roger is 27 this year, and Del Potro is (what, 21?), then Del
Potro still has the better chance of recovering than Roger does. This
has nothing to do with Roger's style of play.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 09:09:17
From:
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 11:54=A0am, GuyTen...@ymail.com wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:48=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > yes, but the age difference is key. =A0At 28, it takes longer for Roger
> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
> 8, 2009).

In either case, the effect of the age difference is negligible.
Federer has had few injuries in his career, and has a style that does
not quickly break down the body. He is nowhere close to being an "old"
athlete.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 09:07:21
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 5:02 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:13 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:08:17 -0800 (PST), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. He's playing a young pup
> > >in Del Potro. This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
> > >last summer.
>
> > >I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. However,
> > >Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
> > >well. Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
> > >handling it.
>
> > >Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>
> > no problem. compared to berdych, del potro is a "pussy".
>
> Del Potro is a great player.
> So is Berdych. Why not give them some respect?
>
> Rodjk #613

Er, I would hardly call either of them a 'great player'. But good
pros, yes.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 09:02:43
From: Rodjk #613
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 10:13=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:08:17 -0800 (PST), Scott <scott...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. =A0He's playing a young pup
> >in Del Potro. =A0This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
> >last summer.
>
> >I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. =A0However,
> >Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
> >well. =A0Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
> >handling it.
>
> >Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>
> no problem. compared to berdych, del potro is a "pussy".

Del Potro is a great player.
So is Berdych. Why not give them some respect?

Rodjk #613


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 08:54:55
From:
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 11:48=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
> yes, but the age difference is key. =A0At 28, it takes longer for Roger
> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.

Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
8, 2009).


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:02:07
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On 26 jan, 21:27, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
>
> Why did GroundAxe cling to his bizarre explanation of odds/probability
> even though it made him look like a fool and everyone told him he was
> in error?

It was his ego. He couldn't detach from his ego ;)

> I don't know, but I don't think the answer is to assume
> there must have been some hidden merit in his perspective. The
> difference between "28 years old" and "in his 28th year" has been made
> plain in this thread, is clear from the Wikipedia article, and should
> be apparent to anyone who can count. Local culture can explain a
> preference for one verbal formulation over the other, but can't prove
> that they are equivalent, because they are not.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Yes, it is clear anyone or anything that existed or was born less than
28 years ago can not be considered 28 years old, by usage of basic
English anyway. The fact this can be argued may be considered
spectacularly stupid, though it doesn't necessarily make *skripter
stupid. But it does show his attachments to his ego, similarly to the
Groundass probability argument. The ego doesn't like to lose an
argument, even if its host knows its lost already ;)


   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:58:43
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
kaennorsing wrote:
> On 26 jan, 21:27, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> Why did GroundAxe cling to his bizarre explanation of odds/probability
>> even though it made him look like a fool and everyone told him he was
>> in error?
>
> It was his ego. He couldn't detach from his ego ;)
>
>> I don't know, but I don't think the answer is to assume
>> there must have been some hidden merit in his perspective. The
>> difference between "28 years old" and "in his 28th year" has been made
>> plain in this thread, is clear from the Wikipedia article, and should
>> be apparent to anyone who can count. Local culture can explain a
>> preference for one verbal formulation over the other, but can't prove
>> that they are equivalent, because they are not.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
> Yes, it is clear anyone or anything that existed or was born less than
> 28 years ago can not be considered 28 years old, by usage of basic
> English anyway. The fact this can be argued may be considered
> spectacularly stupid, though it doesn't necessarily make *skripter
> stupid. But it does show his attachments to his ego, similarly to the
> Groundass probability argument. The ego doesn't like to lose an
> argument, even if its host knows its lost already ;)



It's just as incorrect to say 'Roger is 27', because that happened in
August 2008. The correct phrase would be 'Roger has had his 27th
b'day'. You know it makes sense so stop beating a dead horse.





  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:39:47
From:
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 3:31=A0pm, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:

> > I don't see what would be his point to argue it. The old Whisper trick
> > is to say "Sampras was 32" when he was in fact 30, to show how he
> > could do great things in old age. But here skriptis clearly showed
> > from the beginning that he knows Federer was born in 1981, so I don't
> > know why he would argue that he is 28, and make himself look fool,
> > unless he really says it that way in his culture. Another explanation
> > is that he wants to look like a fool. =A0
>
> I will give *skriptis the benefit of the doubt here.
>
> He probably doesn't *want* to look like a fool.
>
> :-)

Not necessarily. Maybe in his culture, fools are highly valued.


   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 16:21:55
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:39:47 -0800 (PST), cernunnos1@hotmail.com
wrote:

>On Jan 26, 3:31 pm, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Sakari Lund wrote:
>
>> > I don't see what would be his point to argue it. The old Whisper trick
>> > is to say "Sampras was 32" when he was in fact 30, to show how he
>> > could do great things in old age. But here skriptis clearly showed
>> > from the beginning that he knows Federer was born in 1981, so I don't
>> > know why he would argue that he is 28, and make himself look fool,
>> > unless he really says it that way in his culture. Another explanation
>> > is that he wants to look like a fool.  
>>
>> I will give *skriptis the benefit of the doubt here.
>>
>> He probably doesn't *want* to look like a fool.
>>
>> :-)
>
>Not necessarily. Maybe in his culture, fools are highly valued.

LOL


   
Date: 26 Jan 2009 22:31:18
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

<cernunnos1@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:8c06990c-d594-4074-8aa5-0cfe97b7d6ff@a39g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 3:31 pm, "Vari L. Cinicke" <cini...@netscape.net > wrote:
> Sakari Lund wrote:

> > I don't see what would be his point to argue it. The old Whisper trick
> > is to say "Sampras was 32" when he was in fact 30, to show how he
> > could do great things in old age. But here skriptis clearly showed
> > from the beginning that he knows Federer was born in 1981, so I don't
> > know why he would argue that he is 28, and make himself look fool,
> > unless he really says it that way in his culture. Another explanation
> > is that he wants to look like a fool.
>
> I will give *skriptis the benefit of the doubt here.
>
> He probably doesn't *want* to look like a fool.
>
> :-)

Not necessarily. Maybe in his culture, fools are highly valued.

***

Nice one, I must admit. :)




  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:27:17
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 3:17=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:00:09 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
>
>
>
>
>
> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 26, 2:51=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:46:38 -0800 (PST), Voice of Reason
>
> >> <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 26, 2:14=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>
> >> >> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >> >> ><andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.=
com...
> >> >> >> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> >> >>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroup=
s.com...
> >> >> >>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer fo=
r Roger
> >> >> >>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> >> >> >>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year,=
(Aug.
> >> >> >>> 8, 2009).
>
> >> >> >>> ***
>
> >> >> >>> 2009 -1981 =3D 28.
>
> >> >> >> You are a god damn retard.
>
> >> >> >And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy=
who would
> >> >> >say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
> >> >> >Pathetic
>
> >> >> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
> >> >> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, b=
ut
> >> >> if you say so...
>
> >> >I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. =A0In some parts of
> >> >the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
> >> >western "completed".
>
> >> >4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
> >> >OR 4 years completed.
>
> >> >4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. =A04
> >> >years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>
> >> >If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms t=
o
> >> >use one system over the other. =A0I can understand how a baby that's
> >> >born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>
> >> >I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
> >> >at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
> >> >googling it..
>
> >> I thought there was no reason he would argue about a thing like that,
> >> unless it is so in his culture.
>
> >There is no evidence that "it is so in his culture," at least not in
> >this thread. Don't back off so easily.
>
> I don't see what would be his point to argue it. The old Whisper trick
> is to say "Sampras was 32" when he was in fact 30, to show how he
> could do great things in old age. But here skriptis clearly showed
> from the beginning that he knows Federer was born in 1981, so I don't
> know why he would argue that he is 28, and make himself look fool,
> unless he really says it that way in his culture. Another explanation
> is that he wants to look like a fool.

Why did GroundAxe cling to his bizarre explanation of odds/probability
even though it made him look like a fool and everyone told him he was
in error? I don't know, but I don't think the answer is to assume
there must have been some hidden merit in his perspective. The
difference between "28 years old" and "in his 28th year" has been made
plain in this thread, is clear from the Wikipedia article, and should
be apparent to anyone who can count. Local culture can explain a
preference for one verbal formulation over the other, but can't prove
that they are equivalent, because they are not.

Joe Ramirez


   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:39:09
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:17 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>
> Why did GroundAxe cling to his bizarre explanation of odds/probability
> even though it made him look like a fool and everyone told him he was
> in error? I don't know, but I don't think the answer is to assume
> there must have been some hidden merit in his perspective. The
> difference between "28 years old" and "in his 28th year" has been made
> plain in this thread, is clear from the Wikipedia article, and should
> be apparent to anyone who can count. Local culture can explain a
> preference for one verbal formulation over the other, but can't prove
> that they are equivalent, because they are not.
>
> Joe Ramirez



It's also incorrect to say Roger is 27 for the similar reasons. It's
only correct on his b'day. If you really want to be correct you have to
say Roger has had his 27th b'day.




  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

<GuyTennis@ymail.com > wrote in message
news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.

Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
8, 2009).

***

2009 -1981 = 28.




   
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:17:27
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>
><GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
>Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>8, 2009).
>
>***
>
>2009 -1981 = 28.

Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
birthday?



    
Date: 26 Jan 2009 18:52:14
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message
news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>>
>><GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>
>>Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>8, 2009).
>>
>>***
>>
>>2009 -1981 = 28.
>
> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
> birthday?

***

When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life, in
shorter, you're 28.
Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"




     
Date: 26 Jan 2009 16:00:26
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
>
> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>
>>>Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>8, 2009).
>>>
>>>***
>>>
>>>2009 -1981 = 28.
>>
>> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
>> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
>> birthday?
>
> ***
>
> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life, in
> shorter, you're 28.
> Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"

I guess that means every human being is 1 the day he/she is born.

(hint: no, they aren't)


      
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:49:49
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Javier Gonzalez wrote:
> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>> news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
>>> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
>>> birthday?
>> ***
>>
>> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life, in
>> shorter, you're 28.
>> Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"
>
> I guess that means every human being is 1 the day he/she is born.
>
> (hint: no, they aren't)



Every human being would be 'in their 1st yr of life' yes. It sounds
dumb to say a 0 yr old is walking/talking.



       
Date: 27 Jan 2009 03:30:13
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:49:49 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Javier Gonzalez wrote:
>> *skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>>
>>>>> ***
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
>>>> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
>>>> birthday?
>>> ***
>>>
>>> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life, in
>>> shorter, you're 28.
>>> Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"
>>
>> I guess that means every human being is 1 the day he/she is born.
>>
>> (hint: no, they aren't)
>
>
>
>Every human being would be 'in their 1st yr of life' yes. It sounds
>dumb to say a 0 yr old is walking/talking.


why not ? you are.


     
Date: 26 Jan 2009 21:11:21
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:52:14 +0100, "*skriptis"
<skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote:

>
>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>
>>>Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>8, 2009).
>>>
>>>***
>>>
>>>2009 -1981 = 28.
>>
>> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
>> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
>> birthday?
>
>***
>
>When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life, in
>shorter, you're 28.
>Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"

This is clearly a cultural thing, reading the whole thread. You seem
to do this differently than the rest of the world. Weird.






      
Date: 27 Jan 2009 13:52:37
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:52:14 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>> news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
>>> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
>>> birthday?
>> ***
>>
>> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life, in
>> shorter, you're 28.
>> Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"
>
> This is clearly a cultural thing, reading the whole thread. You seem
> to do this differently than the rest of the world. Weird.
>
>
>
>


It is a cultural thing yes, but it also makes sense.



     
Date: 26 Jan 2009 18:00:03
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
"*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote in message
news:glkt8g$2gj$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>
> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>
>>>Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>8, 2009).
>>>
>>>***
>>>
>>>2009 -1981 = 28.
>>
>> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
>> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
>> birthday?
>
> ***
>
> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life, in
> shorter, you're 28.
> Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"
>


Only an idiot would say Roger is 28. He's 27 and 6 months.



      
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:11:47
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"Stapler" <d@d.com > wrote in message
news:DSmfl.2182$Aw2.2078@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
> news:glkt8g$2gj$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>>
>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>> news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>
>>>>Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>8, 2009).
>>>>
>>>>***
>>>>
>>>>2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>
>>> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
>>> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
>>> birthday?
>>
>> ***
>>
>> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life,
>> in shorter, you're 28.
>> Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"
>>
>
>
> Only an idiot would say Roger is 28. He's 27 and 6 months.


Then say so, 27 years and 6 months. Not 27.

Saying he's 28 is more accurate than saying he's 27.




       
Date: 26 Jan 2009 20:20:50
From: TT
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
*skriptis wrote:
> "Stapler" <d@d.com> wrote in message
> news:DSmfl.2182$Aw2.2078@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
>> news:glkt8g$2gj$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>>
>>>>> ***
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
>>>> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
>>>> birthday?
>>> ***
>>>
>>> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life,
>>> in shorter, you're 28.
>>> Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"
>>>
>>
>> Only an idiot would say Roger is 28. He's 27 and 6 months.
>
>
> Then say so, 27 years and 6 months. Not 27.
>
> Saying he's 28 is more accurate than saying he's 27.
>
>

No it is not.

If one has no idea they'll generally think that he would be 27.5 years
old when referred to as 27 year old. If referred as 28 year old...people
would in average think he would be 28.5...

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


        
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:26:32
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?

"TT" <gold@Olympics.org > wrote in message
news:7anfl.124455$_03.67835@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> *skriptis wrote:
>> "Stapler" <d@d.com> wrote in message
>> news:DSmfl.2182$Aw2.2078@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
>>> news:glkt8g$2gj$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>>>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>>> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
>>>>> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
>>>>> birthday?
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your life,
>>>> in shorter, you're 28.
>>>> Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only an idiot would say Roger is 28. He's 27 and 6 months.
>>
>>
>> Then say so, 27 years and 6 months. Not 27.
>>
>> Saying he's 28 is more accurate than saying he's 27.
>>
>>
>
> No it is not.
>
> If one has no idea they'll generally think that he would be 27.5 years old
> when referred to as 27 year old. If referred as 28 year old...people would
> in average think he would be 28.5...


Links?




      
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:04:58
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Stapler wrote:
> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
> news:glkt8g$2gj$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>>
>> "Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message
>> news:6srrn4dn035199uku8jpg22sh6mctdb44c@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>
>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>
>>> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
>>> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
>>> birthday?
>>
>> ***
>>
>> When you pass your 27th birthday, you're in the 28th year of your
>> life, in shorter, you're 28.
>> Our obituaries are like that. "Died in the 28th year (of his life)"
>>
>
>
> Only an idiot would say Roger is 28. He's 27 and 6 months.

This was supposed to be a thread about Roger's upcoming match against
Del Potro, right? Please.

PS.


    
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:27:03
From: TT
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:07:06 +0100, "*skriptis"
> <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
>> <GuyTennis@ymail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>> 8, 2009).
>>
>> ***
>>
>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>
> Are you one of those people who on January 1 2009 says that a person
> who was born December 31 1981 is 28 years old? One day after his 27th
> birthday?
>

Skriptis clearly has some issues with thinking. (look "7543")

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


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 08:48:14
From: Scott
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 11:19=A0am, dbrowne <dbrowne1...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:08=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. =A0He's playing a young pup
> > in Del Potro. =A0This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
> > last summer.
>
> Not a huge difference in time spent on court:
> Del Potro's 4th round match vs. Cilic lasted 185 mins.
> Federer's 4th round match vs. Berdych lasted 209 mins.

yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.



 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:20:34
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. He's playing a young pup
> in Del Potro. This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
> last summer.
>
> I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. However,
> Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
> well. Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
> handling it.
>
> Can Roger survive Del Potro?

I say yes. I believe Federer will see and exploit Del Potro's mobility issues
(I have to say, I find his bh, when the ball is somewhat close to the body or
low, very awkward - like he doesn't do the final step of footwork preparation
almost)


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 08:28:45
From: Jason Catlin
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 11:08=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. =A0He's playing a young pup
> in Del Potro. =A0This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
> last summer.
>
> I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. =A0However,
> Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
> well. =A0Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
> handling it.
>
> Can Roger survive Del Potro?

Don't you think your question is a bit odd?

Can a 13-time Slam champion, arguably one of the top 2 or 3 greatest
players of all time, beat a guy who's in his second Slam quarterfinal?


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 06:58:03
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Jason Catlin wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:08 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. He's playing a young pup
>> in Del Potro. This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
>> last summer.
>>
>> I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. However,
>> Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
>> well. Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
>> handling it.
>>
>> Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>
> Don't you think your question is a bit odd?
>
> Can a 13-time Slam champion, arguably one of the top 2 or 3 greatest
> players of all time, beat a guy who's in his second Slam quarterfinal?


Sounds as idiotic as Haze predicting Rafa's easy demise in last 2 matches.



  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 19:25:26
From: Richard Eich
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
jason-catlin@hotmail.com wrote...
> On Jan 26, 11:08=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. =A0He's playing a young pup
> > in Del Potro. =A0This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
> > last summer.
> >
> > I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. =A0However,
> > Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
> > well. =A0Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
> > handling it.
> >
> > Can Roger survive Del Potro?
>=20
> Don't you think your question is a bit odd?
>=20
> Can a 13-time Slam champion, arguably one of the top 2 or 3 greatest
> players of all time, beat a guy who's in his second Slam quarterfinal?

Are you talking about that Sampras-Federer W matchup that Fed won?

--=20
A fight starts when a man reaches the limits of his intelligence.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 08:19:43
From: dbrowne
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 11:08=A0am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. =A0He's playing a young pup
> in Del Potro. =A0This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
> last summer.

Not a huge difference in time spent on court:
Del Potro's 4th round match vs. Cilic lasted 185 mins.
Federer's 4th round match vs. Berdych lasted 209 mins.


  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:00:09
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Jan 26, 2:51=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:46:38 -0800 (PST), Voice of Reason
>
>
>
>
>
> <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 26, 2:14=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>
> >> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>
> >> ><andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com=
...
> >> >> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
> >> >>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.c=
om...
> >> >>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for R=
oger
> >> >>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>
> >> >>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (A=
ug.
> >> >>> 8, 2009).
>
> >> >>> ***
>
> >> >>> 2009 -1981 =3D 28.
>
> >> >> You are a god damn retard.
>
> >> >And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy wh=
o would
> >> >say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>
> >> >Pathetic
>
> >> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
> >> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
> >> if you say so...
>
> >I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. =A0In some parts of
> >the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
> >western "completed".
>
> >4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
> >OR 4 years completed.
>
> >4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. =A04
> >years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>
> >If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
> >use one system over the other. =A0I can understand how a baby that's
> >born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>
> >I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
> >at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
> >googling it..
>
> I thought there was no reason he would argue about a thing like that,
> unless it is so in his culture.

There is no evidence that "it is so in his culture," at least not in
this thread. Don't back off so easily.

Joe Ramirez


   
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:25:23
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2:51 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:46:38 -0800 (PST), Voice of Reason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>>>> You are a god damn retard.
>>>>> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>>>>> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>>>> Pathetic
>>>> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
>>>> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
>>>> if you say so...
>>> I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
>>> the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
>>> western "completed".
>>> 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
>>> OR 4 years completed.
>>> 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
>>> years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>>> If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
>>> use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
>>> born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>>> I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
>>> at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
>>> googling it..
>> I thought there was no reason he would argue about a thing like that,
>> unless it is so in his culture.
>
> There is no evidence that "it is so in his culture," at least not in
> this thread. Don't back off so easily.
>
> Joe Ramirez


It is in his culture, but it also makes sense.

'Roger is 27' is misleading because it literally means he is 27 today.
It's more correct to say 'Roger has had his 27th b'day', or 'he is in
his 28th yr'.

Yes it's easier to say 'Roger is 27', even though the 2 other terms are
more correct.





    
Date: 27 Jan 2009 16:23:26
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:25:23 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Jan 26, 2:51 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:46:38 -0800 (PST), Voice of Reason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>>>>> You are a god damn retard.
>>>>>> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>>>>>> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>>>>> Pathetic
>>>>> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
>>>>> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
>>>>> if you say so...
>>>> I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
>>>> the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
>>>> western "completed".
>>>> 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
>>>> OR 4 years completed.
>>>> 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
>>>> years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>>>> If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
>>>> use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
>>>> born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>>>> I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
>>>> at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
>>>> googling it..
>>> I thought there was no reason he would argue about a thing like that,
>>> unless it is so in his culture.
>>
>> There is no evidence that "it is so in his culture," at least not in
>> this thread. Don't back off so easily.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
>
>It is in his culture, but it also makes sense.

And in your culture originally too, which is why you agree with him.
The rest of the world sees it differently.



   
Date: 26 Jan 2009 22:17:35
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:00:09 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
<josephmramirez@netzero.com > wrote:

>On Jan 26, 2:51 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:46:38 -0800 (PST), Voice of Reason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>
>> >> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>> >> ><andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> >> >>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>>news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> > yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>> >> >>> > to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>
>> >> >>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>> >> >>> 8, 2009).
>>
>> >> >>> ***
>>
>> >> >>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>
>> >> >> You are a god damn retard.
>>
>> >> >And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>> >> >say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>
>> >> >Pathetic
>>
>> >> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
>> >> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
>> >> if you say so...
>>
>> >I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right.  In some parts of
>> >the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
>> >western "completed".
>>
>> >4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
>> >OR 4 years completed.
>>
>> >4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life.  4
>> >years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>>
>> >If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
>> >use one system over the other.  I can understand how a baby that's
>> >born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>>
>> >I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
>> >at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
>> >googling it..
>>
>> I thought there was no reason he would argue about a thing like that,
>> unless it is so in his culture.
>
>There is no evidence that "it is so in his culture," at least not in
>this thread. Don't back off so easily.

I don't see what would be his point to argue it. The old Whisper trick
is to say "Sampras was 32" when he was in fact 30, to show how he
could do great things in old age. But here skriptis clearly showed
from the beginning that he knows Federer was born in 1981, so I don't
know why he would argue that he is 28, and make himself look fool,
unless he really says it that way in his culture. Another explanation
is that he wants to look like a fool.



    
Date: 26 Jan 2009 20:31:45
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:00:09 -0800 (PST), Joe Ramirez
> <josephmramirez@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 26, 2:51 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:46:38 -0800 (PST), Voice of Reason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 26, 2:14 pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:55:15 +0100, "*skriptis"
>>>>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>> <andrew.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fc00179e-73fa-4e83-b534-58511fffb088@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On Jan 26, 9:07 am, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <GuyTen...@ymail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:f8ef2e47-cd52-4910-86bf-a021cc0dbdfd@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Scott <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> yes, but the age difference is key. At 28, it takes longer for Roger
>>>>>>>>> to recover from his matches than the Del Potro kid.
>>>>>>>> Roger is actually 27 and won't be 28 for more than half a year, (Aug.
>>>>>>>> 8, 2009).
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>> 2009 -1981 = 28.
>>>>>>> You are a god damn retard.
>>>>>> And you're not at peace with your own age, you're that type of guy who would
>>>>>> say he's 49 even though his birthday is within a week.
>>>>>> Pathetic
>>>>> Well, that's how it is. You are 49 until you turn 50. I am really
>>>>> surprised if you call that differently in your part of the world, but
>>>>> if you say so...
>>>> I hate to say it - but skriptis is kind of right. In some parts of
>>>> the world, age is said as "running" rather than the traditional
>>>> western "completed".
>>>> 4 years old, in some parts of the world, could mean - 4 years running
>>>> OR 4 years completed.
>>>> 4 years running means you are in the fourth year of your life. 4
>>>> years completed means you completed the fourth year of your life.
>>>> If you think about it - there is no real reason save societal norms to
>>>> use one system over the other. I can understand how a baby that's
>>>> born can be considered to be in the first year of its life.
>>>> I can't believe people, except Sakari, laugh and ridicule it without
>>>> at least reading the wikipedia entry that skriptis posted or even
>>>> googling it..
>>> I thought there was no reason he would argue about a thing like that,
>>> unless it is so in his culture.
>> There is no evidence that "it is so in his culture," at least not in
>> this thread. Don't back off so easily.
>
> I don't see what would be his point to argue it. The old Whisper trick
> is to say "Sampras was 32" when he was in fact 30, to show how he
> could do great things in old age. But here skriptis clearly showed
> from the beginning that he knows Federer was born in 1981, so I don't
> know why he would argue that he is 28, and make himself look fool,
> unless he really says it that way in his culture. Another explanation
> is that he wants to look like a fool.
>

I will give *skriptis the benefit of the doubt here.

He probably doesn't *want* to look like a fool.

:-)

--
Cheers,

vc


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 16:13:14
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: can Roger take Del Potro?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:08:17 -0800 (PST), Scott <scottl44@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>Roger is coming off a grueling 5-set match. He's playing a young pup
>in Del Potro. This same young pup was one of the hottest men on HC
>last summer.
>
>I've seen Del Potro live and he hits unbelievably hard. However,
>Roger has always played the guys who hit with incredible pace very
>well. Somehow Roger feeds off of pace; never has had a problem
>handling it.
>
>Can Roger survive Del Potro?


no problem. compared to berdych, del potro is a "pussy".