The only way to beat Djoker
TT
RzR
"TT" <as...@usenet.org> wrote in message
news:W5W1q.68336$mX5...@uutiset.elisa.fi...
> KNIFE?
federer...attacking tennis...maybe fish...not chickenshit moonballing for
sure
Court_1
LOL.
TT
Fish not winning...
And the correct tactic is exactly rallying those long rallies, not
pulling the trigger too early.
Court_1
No the correct tactic is NOT getting into long rallies with Djokovic.
You will NOT beat him that way. Fish had the right idea for sure.
Fish came closer to defeating Djokovic than Nadal has in a long while.
TT
> On Aug 14, 5:34 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 15.8.2011 0:08, RzR kirjoitti:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "TT"<as...@usenet.org> wrote in message
>>> news:W5W1q.68336$mX5...@uutiset.elisa.fi...
>>>> KNIFE?
>>
>>> federer...attacking tennis...maybe fish...not chickenshit moonballing
>>> for sure
>>
>> Fish not winning...
>>
>> And the correct tactic is exactly rallying those long rallies, not
>> pulling the trigger too early.
>
> No the correct tactic is NOT getting into long rallies with Djokovic.
> You will NOT beat him that way. Fish had the right idea for sure.
Nope.
You have to play those long rallies, you can't hit all quick winners
past him. Fish played many long rallies, Djoker even appeared tired
running left&right.
And it helps having big serve and getting free points with it. That's
probably best bet against Djoker right now.
uly...@mscomm.com
is a young 24, which equates to this:
Federer: 16 slams (GOAT)
Djoker: 11 slams (and possibly a CYGS)
Nadal: 10 slams... bringing up the rear (figuratively if we're talkin'
Feli and Almagro, literally if we're talking Bjorn, Laver, Pete, etc)
Reach copiously for those hankies with "RF" emblazoned on the fabric.
drew
>
> > No the correct tactic is NOT getting into long rallies with Djokovic.
> > You will NOT beat him that way. Fish had the right idea for sure.
>
> Nope.
>
> You have to play those long rallies, you can't hit all quick winners
> past him. Fish played many long rallies, Djoker even appeared tired
> running left&right.
There's only one other player who thrives more on long points than
Djokovic and
that's Nadal....and we know what kind of success he's had against
Djokovic lately.
I think that you have to recognize that most players don't have the
kind of baseline abilities that
Djokovic has....he's going to win the long points most of the time.
Best strategy is to show him
different pace and spin and depth within as many points as you can.
He's not superman. His groundstrokes have been known to break down
and when he starts to
miss his bread and butter shots a few times, the belief gets shaken.
I'd give him slice. And I'd feed
the balls to the centre of the court instead of creating these angles
that he loves. I doubt that's going
to win a whole lot right now as he's playing his best tennis and the
best of anybody in the world at the
moment but it's better than trying these crosscourt bishop moves.
bob
>What does it matter in the long run? Rafa is an ancient 25 and Djoker
>is a young 24, which equates to this:
>
>Federer: 16 slams (GOAT)
>Djoker: 11 slams (and possibly a CYGS)
>Nadal: 10 slams... bringing up the rear (figuratively if we're talkin'
the chance of djok ending with more slams than rafa is literally 0.
the chance of rafa ending with more slams than fed is around 10%.
i.e., according to javier g, "infinitely more."
bob
Iceberg
he didn't get anywhere near to defeating him as Murray did, what
tactic do you reckon Murray used?? yep, lob it back.
Iceberg
yes, that's why Murray (bar Djoker's loss to Fed due to his worry
about hitting #1) has been to closest this year to beating gluten free
Djoker. The long rallies are the way unless you can s/v Sampras level.
Would like to see Roddick on a good day play him though.
Iceberg
yes, exactly, that's why (baring FO loss when Djoker was worried about
hitting #1) Murray has been closest to beating gluten free Djoker.
Rallies are the way unless you can s/v Sampras level. would like to
see Roddick on good day play him though.
Iceberg
Fed: 14 slams
Iceberg
Murray had the right idea in Rome this year, nearest to beating peak
Djoker this year - served for the match remember.
RzR
"Iceberg" <iceber...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a09c6e9a-4328-4e90...@h14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Fed: 14 slams
----
stay off the drugs
RzR
---
its gonna be funny as fuck when fed is the only player that was able to beat
djoker this year
RzR
dahahaha
felangey
Djoker this year - served for the match remember.<
Yeah, bottled it, I remember. There was another guy though....Swiss chap. I
think he got it done.
Iceberg
yes, credit to Fed for being lucky enough to be in a match where
Djoker was nervous about the #1 spot and played just well enough. In a
regular match, Murray has been the nearest.
Iceberg
> "Iceberg" <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm just glad Fed did it to be honest, well done to him, he wasn't
playing a fair opponent, gluten free etc.
felangey
Match of the year baybee. By all accounts.
uly...@mscomm.com
know Djoker's ROS is seriously awesome, but no one returned Pete's
serve down the tee.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Comeback of the month...lol
Iceberg
good post.
Superdave
i suspect this djocker might. he's way better than agassi atm who was probably
the best ros sampras faced.
Court_1
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:55:14 -0700 (PDT), "ulys...@msomm.com"
>
> <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
> >Peak Sampras would beat Djoker, assuming his serve was dialed in. I
> >know Djoker's ROS is seriously awesome, but no one returned Pete's
> >serve down the tee.
>
> i suspect this djocker might. he's way better than agassi atm who was probably
> the best ros sampras faced.
Yeah, that is a real tough one to call in terms of prime Djokovic vs
prime Sampras.
Agassi had a great ROS but Djokovic's may be a little better and he
has better defense overall. Could go either way I think. It would be
close between Djokovic and Sampras IMO. I think Sampras would probably
have the slight edge.
felangey
No shit. :)
>and he has better defense overall<
Ohreally? :)
>I think Sampras would probably have the slight edge.<
I think Sampras wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell. Call it
ceibs...call it whatever you like, but the game has moved on. Pete was one
of the true greats of the game and the best of his generation...let's leave
him there where he shone.
Patrick Kehoe
Ya, gotta love Ice saying that Murray was closest to beating Nole this
year, even as he rules out Federer having actually BEATEN Nole this
season, the only one to do so... classic RST!! Right up there with
W...
P
Court_1
I am not as certain as you are on this one. I think it would be close
between them if all things were equalized in today's game.
Shakes
Okay, I'll call it CEIBS. :-)
Iceberg
ceibs of the most stupid case. Tomic nearly took 2 sets off Djoker at
Wimbledon - we're expected to believe an 18 year old Tomic is way way
better than Sampras ever was, that's hilarious.
Iceberg
would you deny then that OTHER THAN Fed, Murray has been closest to
beating Djoker this year? the problem is, the Fed match wasn't really
valid as Djoker has a history of choking matches against reasonable
players when the number 1 spot or even number 2 spot is up for grabs.
He even choked against Jarko when about to overtake Fed at #2. Murray
was serving for the match against Djoker in a regular match where his
choking couldn't be said to be a factor, that's case proven, but
you're denying it.
Sakari Lund
<iceber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 16, 4:11 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 7:47 pm, "felangey" <th...@thisplace.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > >Agassi had a great ROS but Djokovic's may be a little better<
>>
>> > No shit. :)
>>
>> > >and he has better defense overall<
>>
>> > Ohreally? :)
>>
>> > >I think Sampras would probably have the slight edge.<
>>
>> > I think Sampras wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell. Call it
>> > ceibs...call it whatever you like, but the game has moved on. Pete was one
>> > of the true greats of the game and the best of his generation...let's leave
>> > him there where he shone.
>>
>> Ya, gotta love Ice saying that Murray was closest to beating Nole this
>> year, even as he rules out Federer having actually BEATEN Nole this
>> season, the only one to do so... classic RST!! Right up there with
>> W...
>
>would you deny then that OTHER THAN Fed, Murray has been closest to
>beating Djoker this year? the problem is, the Fed match wasn't really
>valid as Djoker has a history of choking matches against reasonable
>players when the number 1 spot or even number 2 spot is up for grabs.
Not the new Djokovic. He didn't choke at Wimbledon when he had the
chance for #1, and he didn't choke in the final when he had chance for
his big dream, the Wimbledon title. No way to accuse the new Djokovic
of choking.
But yes, other than the Fed match, Murray has been closest to beating
Djokovic. It was a very good performance by Murray, and it looks even
better after each Djokovic win.
Whisper
These 'tough calls' in rst are complete no-brainers in the real world.
Whisper
I honestly don't see Djoker as a much better player than Tod Martin.
Superdave
I think not. I think the Djokovic we saw at W and Montreal would have cold
cocked even Sampras.
Superdave
Sure. When did your beloved Pete ever go 50-1 against competition like
Federer and Nadal ?
NEVER !
Hell he'd lose 9 matches a year just on clay for Christ's sake.
I honestly don't see Sampras as a much better player than Galo Blanco.
Superdave
wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:32:24 -0700 (PDT), Court_1 <Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 15, 8:50�pm, Superdave <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:55:14 -0700 (PDT), "ulys...@msomm.com"
>>>
>>> <ulys...@mscomm.com> wrote:
>>> >Peak Sampras would beat Djoker, assuming his serve was dialed in. I
>>> >know Djoker's ROS is seriously awesome, but no one returned Pete's
>>> >serve down the tee.
>>>
>>> i suspect this djocker might. he's way better than agassi atm who was probably
>>> the best ros sampras faced.
>>
>>Yeah, that is a real tough one to call in terms of prime Djokovic vs
>>prime Sampras.
>>Agassi had a great ROS but Djokovic's may be a little better and he
>>has better defense overall. Could go either way I think. It would be
>>close between Djokovic and Sampras IMO. I think Sampras would probably
>>have the slight edge.
>
>
>I think not. I think the Djokovic we saw at W and Montreal would have cold
>cocked even Sampras.
On CLAY he would have DEMOLISHED Sampras 60 60 60 for sure.
Off clay in straight sets on average 63 62 63. And, this only because Djock
would be going for the single break to serve it out.
Yup.
TT
> KNIFE?
No, Robocop.
Wile E.
What will stop Djokovic is Kryptonite or Nadal of last year.
drew
>
> I honestly don't see Djoker as a much better player than Tod Martin
Even Todd would LOL at that one.
I guess that's why only the lunatic fringe of RST takes you
seriously. You
say the craziest things, man.
SliceAndDice
I think Djokovic of 2011 would handily beat the Nadal of last year.
Now, the Nadal of 2008..there, you might have a case.
Patrick Kehoe
I'm not... Murray was indeed close... Reality Check: the FO semi WAS
valid Ice... Don't try so hard to rationalize away EVERY Federer win,
they are so few and far between now... jezz... :)
P
Patrick Kehoe
Exactly... well said...
P
Patrick Kehoe
You wouldn't... man, you are seriously TRAPPED in the 1990s...
P
Patrick Kehoe
Well, W is sounding more 'desperate' as each year goes bye and the
1990s moves away from easy perceptable recognition... 15 years on and
he's not over the close of the Sampras Era YET...???
P
Whisper
Your views are clouded by the context of this era & it's calibre of players.
You do realize Martin led Agassi 2 sets to 1 in USO final right? That
was peak Agassi. You should also recall the struggles peak Fed had with
old Agassi in 2004/05 USOs.
SliceAndDice
And you are involved in cherry picking, as usual. The 2004 USO was
played in extreme windy conditions that made the match unpredictable.
Fed won the 2005 USO in 4 sets, 6-1 in the fourth. Are you saying that
Sampras has never lost a set at the US Open, let alone to Agassi?
Whisper
> On Aug 17, 3:22 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/08/2011 2:56 AM, drew wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 16, 6:33 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I honestly don't see Djoker as a much better player than Tod Martin
>>
>>> Even Todd would LOL at that one.
>>
>>> I guess that's why only the lunatic fringe of RST takes you
>>> seriously. You
>>> say the craziest things, man.
>>
>>
>> You do realize Martin led Agassi 2 sets to 1 in USO final right? That
>> was peak Agassi. You should also recall the struggles peak Fed had with
>> old Agassi in 2004/05 USOs.
>
> And you are involved in cherry picking, as usual. The 2004 USO was
> played in extreme windy conditions that made the match unpredictable.
> Fed won the 2005 USO in 4 sets, 6-1 in the fourth. Are you saying that
> Sampras has never lost a set at the US Open, let alone to Agassi?
Fed was in huge trouble in that final. Agassi led 36 62 42 & had break
point for 5-2 before age caught up with him. He was 35 & Fed peak 24 -
why didn't Fed whip the old man 61 62 63....?
SliceAndDice
Age caught up with him after one point? That's hugely dramatic, even
for you.
He was 35 & Fed peak 24 -
> why didn't Fed whip the old man 61 62 63....?
Because Agassi played a great match. Even players at his age 35 can
play a great match on a given day, and it was no coincidence that
Agassi made the final of the US Open. At his best, Agassi is one of
the greatest hardcourters of all time. The hugely partisan crowd
support at Arthur Ashe also cannot be discounted.
How about these matches? Why did you just decide to cherry pick those
two US Open matches?
2005 Australian Open QF Hard (O) R.FEDERER 6-3 6-4 6-4
2005 Dubai SF Hard (O) R.FEDERER 6-3 6-1
2005 Miami SF Hard (O) R.FEDERER 6-4 6-3
drew
> was peak Agassi. You should also recall the struggles peak Fed had with
> old Agassi in 2004/05 USOs.
Even YOU can do better than this Whisp. If you're going to prove a
player's excellence by cherry picking
a single match where a given player has given an all-time great a run
for his money, you'd have to include
a lot of players in your list of all-time greats.
I liked old big head Martin. He was a fine player but he didn't win a
single major. You can't seriously compare him to
a guy like Djokovic and expect people to respect your opinion.
Superdave
why didn't sampras whip Galo Blanco at the FO in R2 instead of losing with total
and absolute ignominy ?
oh yeah ! I forgot he couldn't be arsed !!!
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Vlado
Whisper is a desperate hater of Nole and I mean a real one and he
wants the
world to know about it so I say let him talk and sooner or later we
will get to the
root of this. Hey Whisp , Roddick and even Baghdatis were very much
leading Fed in the slam finals , does that make them the GOAT's in
their own right?
TT
> Hey Whisp , Roddick and even Baghdatis were very much
> leading Fed in the slam finals , does that make them the GOAT's in
> their own right?
They were?
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
For me if they had both played in their primes with all conditions
equalized the rivalry would have been close. I don't think one player
would have had a crazy dominancy over the other. JMO. I know your
opinion is that Sampras would have crushed Djokovic. That is very
unrealistic IMO.
Whisper
Of course it's not. Sampras is considered either the very best or 1 of
3 all time. Djoker is not on the radar. You're clouded by ceibs like
most here.
Vlado
>
> - Show quoted text -
thanks for letting us know, buddy. And only retards compare long
retired players to
active players let alone a #1.I guess you are always ready to
eat your words out.
felangey
>all time. Djoker is not on the radar. You're clouded by ceibs like most
>here.<
This Djoke would kick Sampy's cookie. Soz man.
Iceberg
lol, Djoke would get whooped, wouldn't know how to deal with serves
like that and such attacking s/v. Agassi would like playing Djoker too.
bob
good post. since djok has never really faced the likes of a great net
player we have no idea how he'd do, but history tells us that great
baseliners have big trouble with great net players on fast surfaces.
bob
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
First of all Djokovic is only 24 and his career is not over yet.
Secondly, even if Sampras is greater than Djokovic (and I absolutely
agree that he is now and probably always will be as I doubt Novak will
win 15 slams!), tennis is all about match ups. Just because one guy
may be greater than another overall does not mean he will have the
upper hand in a particular match up--i.e.Nadal/Djokovic or Nadal and
Federer are examples of bad match ups.
I think the match up would be tricky for Sampras because Djokovic has
one of the best ROS in the game and he defends like a beast. I think
the h2h would be fairly close. I do not think for a minute that
Sampras would crush Djokovic in the h2h. Not "this" Djokovic who we
have seen for the past 8 months.
Whisper
No way. Sampras would take complete control with his serve, & pull out
huge groundie winners when required. Djoker would be a spectator.
Superdave
You're a fucking LOON !
You are lost in the dark ages.
The game *has* changed.
Why do you think nobody fucking serves and volleys anymore?
Because they can't ????? Because nobody could be good at it ????
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Even an IDIOT knows it's because they would get MASSACRED !!!
And, Sampras is no exception.
Djokovic would make him out to be a real fool on court.
Patrick Kehoe
You do understand that the 1990s are over? The 20th Century is over...
Pete was great, no question... 14 majors... isn't that enough?
P
TT
> On Aug 18, 5:54 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/08/2011 7:44 PM, felangey wrote:
>>
>>>> Of course it's not. Sampras is considered either the very best or 1 of 3
>>>> all time. Djoker is not on the radar. You're clouded by ceibs like most
>>>> here.<
>>
>>> This Djoke would kick Sampy's cookie. Soz man.
>>
>> huge groundie winners when required. Djoker would be a spectator.
>
> You do understand that the 1990s are over? The 20th Century is over...
> Pete was great, no question... 14 majors... isn't that enough?
>
> P
And DC title.
drew
> You do understand that the 1990s are over? The 20th Century is over...
> Pete was great, no question... 14 majors... isn't that enough?
>
> P
Some people can never get past the things they loved in their youth.
I'm always surprised at how many people are still fascinated with the
Beatles, JFK,
Elvis, muscle cars and basically all things retro. And I'm talking
about people who
experienced these things/people while they were happening, not people
who pick
up a book and fantasize about what it might have been like.
To me getting old is when you can no longer continue to find something
in the present
that turns your crank. It happens to all of us to some extent just
because so much in the
present is derivative. It also happens because life in one's teens
and 20s is usually so
fresh and exciting that the times (and every aspect of that time in
history) shines a little
more brightly than life with the voltage turned down a little.
Guys like Whisper are tedious boring old guys with mindsets so fixed
in the past
that they can't see the present.
Shakes
To a large extent, I agree with what you say. But in things that
involve aesthetics, like music or even sports like tennis, it is less
to do with the past and more to do with what moves you or captivates
you. If what captivates you belongs to the past, then it is but natural
that you miss that.
For all it's worth, you may be totally in the present as far as other
things are concerned, like all the gizmo stuff, work etc., but
subjective aspects like movies, music, sport are different.
bob
wrote:
and yet, don't you find it kind of dumb that starbucks every day has
a line of 18yr old girls out the door who make <$25k/yr, charging
their cards for $5 coffee, and still they can't find the USA (let
alone canada) on a map? all i ask of the youngsters is get a clue.
bob
bob
can't you find a better excuse?
> Just because one guy
>may be greater than another overall does not mean he will have the
>upper hand in a particular match up--i.e.Nadal/Djokovic or Nadal and
>Federer are examples of bad match ups.
again, can't you find a better excuse? 18 month mono rang better.
>I think the match up would be tricky for Sampras because Djokovic has
>one of the best ROS in the game and he defends like a beast.
and yet djok never sees a guy at net.
> I think the h2h would be fairly close. I do not think for a minute that
>Sampras would crush Djokovic in the h2h. Not "this" Djokovic who we
>have seen for the past 8 months.
on clay djok. anywhere else, sampras.
bob
Whisper
> On Aug 18, 5:54 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/08/2011 7:44 PM, felangey wrote:
>>
>>>> Of course it's not. Sampras is considered either the very best or 1 of 3
>>>> all time. Djoker is not on the radar. You're clouded by ceibs like most
>>>> here.<
>>
>>> This Djoke would kick Sampy's cookie. Soz man.
>>
>> huge groundie winners when required. Djoker would be a spectator.
>
> You do understand that the 1990s are over? The 20th Century is over...
> Pete was great, no question... 14 majors... isn't that enough?
>
> P
I don't accept the game is better today. No evidence whatsoever. rst
blather is not evidence.
Vlado
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you really thought that, you wouldn't be posting here. In other
words you
would lose interest to post here. What you do instead is just plain
ego boosting and
you let your pride get the best of you.
Vlado
>
> - Show quoted text -
who wouldn't beat Sampras on clay ?
I guess you don't see much in Nole then.
Superdave
It may not be better but SV'ers can not survive in this era. That is mostly due
to surface and equipment "improvements" that have wiped out SV tennis.
Like it or not, Pete would be lucky, really lucky, to win 7 slams in this era.
Not to be seen as unreasonable, perhaps Fed would not have won more than
7 in the Sampras SV era as well.
We will NEVER know.
What we DO know is that the score is Federer 1 Sampras 0 at the World
Championships.
That, you have to live with.
And, dun gimme any shit about Henman !
Whisper
I can see the present, but it doesn't have much to offer when compared
to past eras. Is Justin Timberlake a better actor than Humphrey Bogart,
because he's of the modern era & has access to better technology?
Nicole Kidman > Natalie Wood?
Vlado
>
> - Show quoted text -
who cares ?
If it sucks you walk away, you don't waste your life
telling others how much it sucks. In nature there is
feast and famine and the developments are never
linear.
Vlado
>
> - Show quoted text -
of course serve and volleyrs can't survive today because they
are not athletic and talented enough.
drew
>
> and yet, don't you find it kind of dumb that starbucks every day has
> a line of 18yr old girls out the door who make <$25k/yr, charging
> their cards for $5 coffee, and still they can't find the USA (let
> alone canada) on a map? all i ask of the youngsters is get a clue.
Sure, but when I was 18 years old, I'd be plotting how to get into the
sack with
one of these girls.....can't find USA on the map?....nooo problem.
At any rate I'm not sure how this relates to living in the past vs.
living in the present...
but what the hey.
bob
wrote:
>On Aug 18, 7:44 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> and yet, don't you find it kind of dumb that starbucks every day has
>> a line of 18yr old girls out the door who make <$25k/yr, charging
>> their cards for $5 coffee, and still they can't find the USA (let
>> alone canada) on a map? all i ask of the youngsters is get a clue.
>
>Sure, but when I was 18 years old, I'd be plotting how to get into the
>sack with one of these girls.....can't find USA on the map?....nooo problem.
which is fine, but what happens when they get old and then serve no
purpose? ;-)
>At any rate I'm not sure how this relates to living in the past vs.
>living in the present...but what the hey.
it's just a partially related comment.
bob
bob
wrote:
lots of people care to comment and read on it. is it too much to ask
some of the younger generation to recognize a little quality here and
there?
bob
bob
wrote:
>On Aug 18, 7:48 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
maybe, then again who couldn't sampras beat at USO/Wim?
>I guess you don't see much in Nole then.
i was probably the 1st guy in RST who touted nole back when i claimed
he lost that 1st USO to fed solely on a choke. now i feel even more
that way. he had the talent, but wasn't that fit, and i questioned his
focus/desire. he's improved all those. but still, i don't see any
baseliner beating peak sampras/becker/mac at wimbledon, maybe not
today's USO.
bob
drew
> >> and yet, don't you find it kind of dumb that starbucks every day has
> >> a line of 18yr old girls out the door who make <$25k/yr, charging
> >> their cards for $5 coffee, and still they can't find the USA (let
> >> alone canada) on a map? all i ask of the youngsters is get a clue.
>
> >Sure, but when I was 18 years old, I'd be plotting how to get into the
> >sack with one of these girls.....can't find USA on the map?....nooo problem.
>
> which is fine, but what happens when they get old and then serve no
> purpose? ;-)
There are plenty of men who still like dumb women. The real problem
for dumb
women is when they get a little positive feedback, get a job as
assistant to the assistant
for the "Department of Bullshit, Bullshit, and Talkalot Policies",
and suddenly
they start to believe that they are indispensable corporate executive
material. Divorce
from the very average husband isn't far off for obvious reasons. Now
she's a pseudo
career woman who's ass is quickly becoming as large as her ego.
Fortunately she's
too dumb to realize that her job is a joke and the new romantic
interest is even more
useless than the husband she left.
That's what happens to some of them.
bob
wrote:
>On Aug 20, 9:10 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >> and yet, don't you find it kind of dumb that starbucks every day has
>> >> a line of 18yr old girls out the door who make <$25k/yr, charging
>> >> their cards for $5 coffee, and still they can't find the USA (let
>> >> alone canada) on a map? all i ask of the youngsters is get a clue.
>>
>> >Sure, but when I was 18 years old, I'd be plotting how to get into the
>> >sack with one of these girls.....can't find USA on the map?....nooo problem.
>>
>> which is fine, but what happens when they get old and then serve no
>> purpose? ;-)
>
>There are plenty of men who still like dumb women. The real problem
>for dumb
>women is when they get a little positive feedback, get a job as
>assistant to the assistant
>for the "Department of Bullshit, Bullshit, and Talkalot Policies",
>and suddenly
>they start to believe that they are indispensable corporate executive
>material.
such is the philosophy of everybody having high self esteem.
> Divorce
>from the very average husband isn't far off for obvious reasons. Now
>she's a pseudo
>career woman who's ass is quickly becoming as large as her ego.
>Fortunately she's
>too dumb to realize that her job is a joke and the new romantic
>interest is even more
>useless than the husband she left.
>That's what happens to some of them.
which is why i'm trying to specify something a little better.....
bob
Patrick Kehoe
:::)))))))))))))))))))))))
I am POSITIVE there is a 'racey' screenplay in there somewhere!!!
Jezzzzzzz D-man...
:))))))))))))))))
P
drew
You bring the bimbos. I'll bring the camera. We'll get a couple of
homeless artists from east Vancouver to write it if we can teach
them.
We'll send Whisper and bob to Moore's, get them a couple of
Italianesque
suits off the rack, buy some hair gel and let them pretend that
they're financing
the whole deal. They can deal with the puke and the STD's and getting
our 'talent' onto the set on time. I'm too old and lacking in
diplomacy
to deal with that shit. You want bullshit. Hire bullshitters, I
say.
Look out Bollywood.
bob
wrote:
>On Aug 20, 4:57 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
i've got the italian suit, and could finance it as long as the girls
accept promisory note - but hair gel is where i draw the line.
> They can deal with the puke and the STD's and getting
>our 'talent' onto the set on time. I'm too old and lacking in
>diplomacy
>to deal with that shit. You want bullshit. Hire bullshitters, I
>say.
>Look out Bollywood.
bob