On Nov 7, 2:06 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do you have a link to how Edberg Award nominees come about? I read
> that the ATP itself issues the nominees. The players vote based on the
> names the ATP provides. I don't have the time to look it up and
> research it now.
I tried to look it up but couldn't find one.
Yes, the ATP selects the nominees
but I don't know the criteria used. I can't
understand why Cilic, Ferrer and Delpo
were chosen in addition to Federer and
Djoker, Murray, Nadal et al were not.
BTW, Djoker, Nadal & Pakistan's
Aisam-al-Haq Qureishi were nominated
last year in addition to Fed.
> On Nov 7, 2:06 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Do you have a link to how Edberg Award nominees come about? I read
> > that the ATP itself issues the nominees. The players vote based on the
> > names the ATP provides. I don't have the time to look it up and
> > research it now.
> I tried to look it up but couldn't find one.
> Yes, the ATP selects the nominees
> but I don't know the criteria used. I can't
> understand why Cilic, Ferrer and Delpo
> were chosen in addition to Federer and
> Djoker, Murray, Nadal et al were not.
> BTW, Djoker, Nadal & Pakistan's
> Aisam-al-Haq Qureishi were nominated
> last year in addition to Fed.
That is why I am saying to some degree it is politically based if the
ATP itself selects the nominees. Who the heck is going to vote for
Cilic even though he is a very nice guy (or seems like one) or
Ferrer? The ATP wants Federer as the face of tennis globally, let's
be honest and that is who the face of tennis should be. I know it is
the players themselves who vote but again are they going to vote for
Ferrer as the ultimate Sportsman and face of tennis? The winner is
always going to be one of the most popular players globally.
The fan favorite is more telling imo because it is the fans who vote
and Federer received 57% of the votes apparently.
> On Nov 7, 2:28 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2:06 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Do you have a link to how Edberg Award nominees come about? I read
> > > that the ATP itself issues the nominees. The players vote based on the
> > > names the ATP provides. I don't have the time to look it up and
> > > research it now.
> > I tried to look it up but couldn't find one.
> > Yes, the ATP selects the nominees
> > but I don't know the criteria used. I can't
> > understand why Cilic, Ferrer and Delpo
> > were chosen in addition to Federer and
> > Djoker, Murray, Nadal et al were not.
> > BTW, Djoker, Nadal & Pakistan's
> > Aisam-al-Haq Qureishi were nominated
> > last year in addition to Fed.
> That is why I am saying to some degree it is politically based if the
> ATP itself selects the nominees. Who the heck is going to vote for
> Cilic even though he is a very nice guy (or seems like one) or
> Ferrer? The ATP wants Federer as the face of tennis globally, let's
> be honest and that is who the face of tennis should be. I know it is
> the players themselves who vote but again are they going to vote for
> Ferrer as the ultimate Sportsman and face of tennis? The winner is
> always going to be one of the most popular players globally.
> The fan favorite is more telling imo because it is the fans who vote
> and Federer received 57% of the votes apparently.
But you realize that Fed won last year too when they had Djoker
& Nadal in the fray and Djoker was the #1. I am still trying to
figure out if the ATP invites names from tournament directors,
randomly selected players etc for the Edberg award. I see nothing
common between the last year's nominees and this year's (except
for Fed, of course).
> On Nov 7, 6:12 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2:28 am, ahonkan <ahon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 2:06 am, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Do you have a link to how Edberg Award nominees come about? I read
> > > > that the ATP itself issues the nominees. The players vote based on the
> > > > names the ATP provides. I don't have the time to look it up and
> > > > research it now.
> > > I tried to look it up but couldn't find one.
> > > Yes, the ATP selects the nominees
> > > but I don't know the criteria used. I can't
> > > understand why Cilic, Ferrer and Delpo
> > > were chosen in addition to Federer and
> > > Djoker, Murray, Nadal et al were not.
> > > BTW, Djoker, Nadal & Pakistan's
> > > Aisam-al-Haq Qureishi were nominated
> > > last year in addition to Fed.
> > That is why I am saying to some degree it is politically based if the
> > ATP itself selects the nominees. Who the heck is going to vote for
> > Cilic even though he is a very nice guy (or seems like one) or
> > Ferrer? The ATP wants Federer as the face of tennis globally, let's
> > be honest and that is who the face of tennis should be. I know it is
> > the players themselves who vote but again are they going to vote for
> > Ferrer as the ultimate Sportsman and face of tennis? The winner is
> > always going to be one of the most popular players globally.
> > The fan favorite is more telling imo because it is the fans who vote
> > and Federer received 57% of the votes apparently.
> But you realize that Fed won last year too when they had Djoker
> & Nadal in the fray and Djoker was the #1. I am still trying to
> figure out if the ATP invites names from tournament directors,
> randomly selected players etc for the Edberg award. I see nothing
> common between the last year's nominees and this year's (except
> for Fed, of course).
>> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
>> what he speaks
> You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
> work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
There are countless examples of his silly utterings and there even was a recent an example of gamesmanship at Shangai against Murray with the 2 raindrops on court.
1+1=2 despite what people vote about it.
> Get over it wee man.
Could you be more condescending. You're a true keyboard warrior who would be slapped around in real life. You should be the last person to act condescending, a true dork.
> Gracchus wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 8:06 pm, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> it's fairly obvious, Fed says stuff like more people were upset that
> >> I lost than were happy that Nadal won, doesn't that give you a clue??
> >> Nadal, however, has been brought up to be modest by his uncle and
> >> family. They're almost polar opposite personalities.
> > The "modest" interpretation is feasible for a talented teenager rising
> > through the ranks. Not so for a seasoned pro who has dominated on clay
> > for years saying that his opponent is the "favorite" to win a match
> > against him on that surface. It is thoroughly disingenuous and
> > obviously intended to shift the burden of expectation to his opponent.
> > Only saps like you and bob are gullible enough to swallow that act.
> > Federer on the other hand makes tactless remarks, but often they are
> > true.
> Federer was seeded #1 so it's obvoious French considered him to be the
> favourite to win in those FO finals.
> Nadal didn't lie.
> >> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
> >> what he speaks
> > You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
> > work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not
players talking about how they may/will/intend to vote; it's the
actual voting. You are of course free to *disagree* with their
collective view, just as Republicans remain free to disgree with the
majority of Americans that Obama should be president, but you have no
basis to claim that the result of the voting does not accurately
reflect their view.
> On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 7.11.2012 3:32, felangey kirjoitti:
>>>> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
>>>> what he speaks
>>> You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
>>> work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
>> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
>> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
> Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not
I think it's a good analogy: Max tried to justify Rasmussen's results by claiming "prestige", same as fedfans try to justify his behaviour by claiming "Edberg Award". Exactly same thing.
And I didn't have the "correct" results at the time of debate with max either, I based my claim that they're wrong on common sense.
> players talking about how they may/will/intend to vote; it's the
> actual voting. You are of course free to *disagree* with their
> collective view, just as Republicans remain free to disgree with the
> majority of Americans that Obama should be president, but you have no
> basis to claim that the result of the voting does not accurately
> reflect their view.
But I see Federer engaging in clear cut gamesmaship and read his comments... it's same as 1+1=2, not up for debate.
> > On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >> 7.11.2012 3:32, felangey kirjoitti:
> >>>> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
> >>>> what he speaks
> >>> You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
> >>> work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
> >> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
> >> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
> > Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not
> I think it's a good analogy: Max tried to justify Rasmussen's results
Not results -- *predictions*. Max said Rasmussen was reliable -- i.e.,
would be proved correct -- because it's supposedly prestigious. But
it's been proved wrong by the actual election results. The Edberg
Award voting is not a prediction of anything. It won't be tested by a
subsequent election. It IS the election. And its result is as valid a
summary of the collective opinion of the voters as in any clean
election. You don't have to share that collective opinion, but you
can't deny that it exists.
>by
> claiming "prestige", same as fedfans try to justify his behaviour by
> claiming "Edberg Award". Exactly same thing.
> And I didn't have the "correct" results at the time of debate with max
> either, I based my claim that they're wrong on common sense.
> > players talking about how they may/will/intend to vote; it's the
> > actual voting. You are of course free to *disagree* with their
> > collective view, just as Republicans remain free to disgree with the
> > majority of Americans that Obama should be president, but you have no
> > basis to claim that the result of the voting does not accurately
> > reflect their view.
> But I see Federer engaging in clear cut gamesmaship and read his
> comments... it's same as 1+1=2, not up for debate.
It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. The Edberg Award
shows what the *players* think. All you can say is that you disagree
with them. You can't say that the award was invalidly bestowed.
> On Nov 7, 5:29 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 8.11.2012 0:17, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>> On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>> 7.11.2012 3:32, felangey kirjoitti:
>>>>>> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
>>>>>> what he speaks
>>>>> You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
>>>>> work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
>>>> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
>>>> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
>>> Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not
>> I think it's a good analogy: Max tried to justify Rasmussen's results
> Not results -- *predictions*. Max said Rasmussen was reliable -- i.e.,
> would be proved correct -- because it's supposedly prestigious.
I meant prediction of results aka polls.
> But
> it's been proved wrong by the actual election results.
Not relevant. We knew before yesterday that Rasmussen's polls were nonsense, they were too far off statistically and methodically (as in polling methods).
> The Edberg
> Award voting is not a prediction of anything. It won't be tested by a
> subsequent election. It IS the election.
No, my analogy was about polls therefore Edberg award here is also a "poll".
> And its result is as valid a
> summary of the collective opinion of the voters as in any clean
> election.
Yes it's a valid polling result, which doesn't mean that the poll is correct.
If you want to say that it's the final US election result... it certainly is not: Edberg Award is still an opinion of voters, not a fact about Fed's spotsmanship qualities.
> You don't have to share that collective opinion, but you
> can't deny that it exists.
It exists, as do Rasmussen polls.
> It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. The Edberg Award
> shows what the *players* think. All you can say is that you disagree
> with them. You can't say that the award was invalidly bestowed.
Yes I can. It was done by the rules and no doubt the vote is correct, but the evidence with Fed's poor behaviour are facts and no popularity award can change them.
> > On Nov 7, 5:29 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >> 8.11.2012 0:17, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> >>> On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >>>> 7.11.2012 3:32, felangey kirjoitti:
> >>>>>> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
> >>>>>> what he speaks
> >>>>> You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
> >>>>> work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
> >>>> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
> >>>> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
> >>> Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not
> >> I think it's a good analogy: Max tried to justify Rasmussen's results
> > Not results -- *predictions*. Max said Rasmussen was reliable -- i.e.,
> > would be proved correct -- because it's supposedly prestigious.
> I meant prediction of results aka polls.
> > But
> > it's been proved wrong by the actual election results.
> Not relevant. We knew before yesterday that Rasmussen's polls were
> nonsense, they were too far off statistically and methodically (as in
> polling methods).
> > The Edberg
> > Award voting is not a prediction of anything. It won't be tested by a
> > subsequent election. It IS the election.
> No, my analogy was about polls therefore Edberg award here is also a "poll".
> > And its result is as valid a
> > summary of the collective opinion of the voters as in any clean
> > election.
> Yes it's a valid polling result, which doesn't mean that the poll is
> correct.
> If you want to say that it's the final US election result... it
> certainly is not: Edberg Award is still an opinion of voters, not a fact
> about Fed's spotsmanship qualities.
> > You don't have to share that collective opinion, but you
> > can't deny that it exists.
> It exists, as do Rasmussen polls.
> > It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. The Edberg Award
> > shows what the *players* think. All you can say is that you disagree
> > with them. You can't say that the award was invalidly bestowed.
> Yes I can. It was done by the rules and no doubt the vote is correct,
> but the evidence with Fed's poor behaviour are facts and no popularity
> award can change them.
What poor behavior? The fact that Fed was using gamesmanship against
Murray in Shanghai when he said the courts were too wet to continue
play? What about all of Fed's overriding good behavior as the face of
tennis? Can you think of a player who is more popular globally than
Fed? It is a politically motivated award. The ATP picks the yearly
nominees and the players vote. Are they going to pick Marin Cilic as
best sportsmanship of the year and global face of tennis? Get over it.
Fed is not perfect but he is certainly the best ambassador for tennis
the game has ever seen and your obsessive idolatry of Nadal is not
going to change that.
> You're a true keyboard warrior who would be slapped around in real life. > You should be the last person to act condescending, a true dork.
You really seem to struggle with this dual personality disorder....you know the one....the one half of you that acts the ill-mannered, juvenille, hateful, obtuse, lying, racist, sexist, foul-mouthed little punk....and the other that acts incensed when anyone treats you with derision or condescension. I'd have thought that you would be pretty bullet-proof to such treatment by now....unless the latter persona really only exists online....in which case....it is thee that is the keyboard warrior, wee man! :)
> > On Nov 7, 5:29 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >> 8.11.2012 0:17, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> >>> On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
> >>>> 7.11.2012 3:32, felangey kirjoitti:
> >>>>>> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
> >>>>>> what he speaks
> >>>>> You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
> >>>>> work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
> >>>> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
> >>>> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
> >>> Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not
> >> I think it's a good analogy: Max tried to justify Rasmussen's results
> > Not results -- *predictions*. Max said Rasmussen was reliable -- i.e.,
> > would be proved correct -- because it's supposedly prestigious.
> I meant prediction of results aka polls.
> > But
> > it's been proved wrong by the actual election results.
> Not relevant. We knew before yesterday that Rasmussen's polls were
> nonsense, they were too far off statistically and methodically (as in
> polling methods).
> > The Edberg
> > Award voting is not a prediction of anything. It won't be tested by a
> > subsequent election. It IS the election.
> No, my analogy was about polls therefore Edberg award here is also a "poll".
> > And its result is as valid a
> > summary of the collective opinion of the voters as in any clean
> > election.
> Yes it's a valid polling result, which doesn't mean that the poll is
> correct.
> If you want to say that it's the final US election result... it
> certainly is not: Edberg Award is still an opinion of voters, not a fact
> about Fed's spotsmanship qualities.
But it DOES reflect the views of those that vote for the award and
they vote the way they do to pick the person that reflects/embodies
what the sportsmanship award represents/is awarded for and Federer, in
the view of the players, embodies those ideals/criteria... so the
players, at least, feel Federer does embody the kind of sportsmanship
that best represents the sport... IN THEIR OPINION(S)... and since
they ACTUALLY KNOW THE GUY, and it's the players award... that counts
for something, surely... :)))
> Yes I can. It was done by the rules and no doubt the vote is correct,
> but the evidence with Fed's poor behaviour are facts and no popularity
> award can change them.
I doubt the players are unaware of what the criteria of the award
entails... they are voting on the most sportsmanlike player, the guy
who represents the ideals of the award... in their view... he won't
win it forever... never fear!
> > You're a true keyboard warrior who would be slapped around in real life.
> > You should be the last person to act condescending, a true dork.
> You really seem to struggle with this dual personality disorder....you know
> the one....the one half of you that acts the ill-mannered, juvenille,
> hateful, obtuse, lying, racist, sexist, foul-mouthed little punk....and the
> other that acts incensed when anyone treats you with derision or
> condescension. I'd have thought that you would be pretty bullet-proof to
> such treatment by now....unless the latter persona really only exists
> online....in which case....it is thee that is the keyboard warrior, wee man!
> :)
TT throws a hissy fit when he gets attacked. He is Rudepski like in
that way.
> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:49:14 AM UTC+11, TT wrote:
>> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
>> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
> You are confusing a poll and a vote. The SE award is obtained by a vote, not a poll.
You're just not following my analogy which is...
Rasmussen polls vs facts
Edberg award vs facts
Indeed, the analogy has proven to be spot on; just as Max fowrwarded Rasmussen's prestige... at least 3 fedfans have now quoted Edberg award as proving Fed's good sportsmanship.
> On Nov 7, 6:29 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 8.11.2012 0:53, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>> On Nov 7, 5:29 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>> 8.11.2012 0:17, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>>>> 7.11.2012 3:32, felangey kirjoitti:
>>>>>>>> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
>>>>>>>> what he speaks
>>>>>>> You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
>>>>>>> work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
>>>>>> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
>>>>>> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
>>>>> Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not
>>>> I think it's a good analogy: Max tried to justify Rasmussen's results
>>> Not results -- *predictions*. Max said Rasmussen was reliable -- i.e.,
>>> would be proved correct -- because it's supposedly prestigious.
>> I meant prediction of results aka polls.
>>> But
>>> it's been proved wrong by the actual election results.
>> Not relevant. We knew before yesterday that Rasmussen's polls were
>> nonsense, they were too far off statistically and methodically (as in
>> polling methods).
>>> The Edberg
>>> Award voting is not a prediction of anything. It won't be tested by a
>>> subsequent election. It IS the election.
>> No, my analogy was about polls therefore Edberg award here is also a "poll".
>>> And its result is as valid a
>>> summary of the collective opinion of the voters as in any clean
>>> election.
>> Yes it's a valid polling result, which doesn't mean that the poll is
>> correct.
>> If you want to say that it's the final US election result... it
>> certainly is not: Edberg Award is still an opinion of voters, not a fact
>> about Fed's spotsmanship qualities.
>>> You don't have to share that collective opinion, but you
>>> can't deny that it exists.
>> It exists, as do Rasmussen polls.
>>> It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. The Edberg Award
>>> shows what the *players* think. All you can say is that you disagree
>>> with them. You can't say that the award was invalidly bestowed.
>> Yes I can. It was done by the rules and no doubt the vote is correct,
>> but the evidence with Fed's poor behaviour are facts and no popularity
>> award can change them.
> What poor behavior? The fact that Fed was using gamesmanship against
> Murray in Shanghai when he said the courts were too wet to continue
> play?
So you agree it was gamesmanship.
> What about all of Fed's overriding good behavior as the face of
> tennis?
Such as his self serving comments, racket breaking and wanting to turn hawkeye off, taking digs at other players etc?
Now surely there are other players that are exemplary with their sportsmanship, Fed certainly is not one of them...
> Can you think of a player who is more popular globally than
> Fed? It is a politically motivated award. The ATP picks the yearly
> nominees and the players vote. Are they going to pick Marin Cilic as
> best sportsmanship of the year and global face of tennis? Get over it.
> Fed is not perfect but he is certainly the best ambassador for tennis
> the game has ever seen and your obsessive idolatry of Nadal is not
> going to change that.
Sounds like you actually agree with me; "politically motivated". The award is obviously not granted on sportsmanship merits, but something else such as popularity etc...
>> You're a true keyboard warrior who would be slapped around in real
>> life. You should be the last person to act condescending, a true dork.
> You really seem to struggle with this dual personality disorder....you
> know the one....the one half of you that acts the ill-mannered,
> juvenille, hateful, obtuse, lying, racist, sexist, foul-mouthed little
> punk....and the other that acts incensed when anyone treats you with
> derision or condescension. I'd have thought that you would be pretty
> bullet-proof to such treatment by now....unless the latter persona
> really only exists online....in which case....it is thee that is the
> keyboard warrior, wee man! :)
Sounds like I hit the nail judging by your reply...
> On Nov 7, 3:29 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>> 8.11.2012 0:53, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>> On Nov 7, 5:29 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>> 8.11.2012 0:17, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>>>>>> 7.11.2012 3:32, felangey kirjoitti:
>>>>>>>> and even bragging with his sportsmanship awards when the guy speaks
>>>>>>>> what he speaks
>>>>>>> You mean the one voted for by people that actually know him and his
>>>>>>> work, rather than some little hater scroat on the internet?
>>>>>> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
>>>>>> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
>>>>> Bad analogy. The Edberg Award is an election, not a poll. It's not
>>>> I think it's a good analogy: Max tried to justify Rasmussen's results
>>> Not results -- *predictions*. Max said Rasmussen was reliable -- i.e.,
>>> would be proved correct -- because it's supposedly prestigious.
>> I meant prediction of results aka polls.
>>> But
>>> it's been proved wrong by the actual election results.
>> Not relevant. We knew before yesterday that Rasmussen's polls were
>> nonsense, they were too far off statistically and methodically (as in
>> polling methods).
>>> The Edberg
>>> Award voting is not a prediction of anything. It won't be tested by a
>>> subsequent election. It IS the election.
>> No, my analogy was about polls therefore Edberg award here is also a "poll".
>>> And its result is as valid a
>>> summary of the collective opinion of the voters as in any clean
>>> election.
>> Yes it's a valid polling result, which doesn't mean that the poll is
>> correct.
>> If you want to say that it's the final US election result... it
>> certainly is not: Edberg Award is still an opinion of voters, not a fact
>> about Fed's spotsmanship qualities.
> But it DOES reflect the views of those that vote for the award and
> they vote the way they do to pick the person that reflects/embodies
> what the sportsmanship award represents/is awarded for and Federer, in
> the view of the players, embodies those ideals/criteria... so the
> players, at least, feel Federer does embody the kind of sportsmanship
> that best represents the sport... IN THEIR OPINION(S)... and since
> they ACTUALLY KNOW THE GUY, and it's the players award... that counts
> for something, surely... :)))
That does count for something... but it still doesn't make his behaviour any better.
>> Yes I can. It was done by the rules and no doubt the vote is correct,
>> but the evidence with Fed's poor behaviour are facts and no popularity
>> award can change them.
> I doubt the players are unaware of what the criteria of the award
> entails... they are voting on the most sportsmanlike player, the guy
> who represents the ideals of the award... in their view... he won't
> win it forever... never fear!
> P
Well, it's possible that many actually don't know the meaning of word sportsmanship.
On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:04:10 AM UTC+11, TT wrote:
> 8.11.2012 2:56, phamq...@optusnet.com.au kirjoitti:
> > On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:49:14 AM UTC+11, TT wrote:
> >> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
> >> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
> > You are confusing a poll and a vote. The SE award is obtained by a vote, not a poll.
> You're just not following my analogy which is...
> Rasmussen polls vs facts
> Edberg award vs facts
> Indeed, the analogy has proven to be spot on; just as Max fowrwarded
> Rasmussen's prestige... at least 3 fedfans have now quoted Edberg award
> as proving Fed's good sportsmanship.
"Rasmussen polls vs facts": in this case the "facts" are the election results.
"Edberg award vs facts": in this case the Edberg award is the election results.
Therefore Edberg award = facts.
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:04:10 AM UTC+11, TT wrote:
>> 8.11.2012 2:56, phamq...@optusnet.com.au kirjoitti:
>>> On Thursday, November 8, 2012 8:49:14 AM UTC+11, TT wrote:
>>>> As proven, just because Max and million other republicans claim that
>>>> Rasmussen is prestigious doesn't make their polls more correct.
>>> You are confusing a poll and a vote. The SE award is obtained by a vote, not a poll.
>> You're just not following my analogy which is...
>> Rasmussen polls vs facts
>> Edberg award vs facts
>> Indeed, the analogy has proven to be spot on; just as Max fowrwarded
>> Rasmussen's prestige... at least 3 fedfans have now quoted Edberg award
>> as proving Fed's good sportsmanship.
> "Rasmussen polls vs facts": in this case the "facts" are the election results.
> "Edberg award vs facts": in this case the Edberg award is the election results.
> Therefore Edberg award = facts.
> See how bad your analogy is?
No, it's just that it's apparently too hard for you to follow...
Edberg award is not facts despite being a result of an election. The facts is Fed's actual behaviour.
