Joe Ramirez
bob
simply an adding machine.
bob
number_six
Jeebus, as Jaros would say, read the man's posts.
Joe's posts reflect interests in music, history, philosophy, science,
sports other than tennis, current affairs, etc.
Just because he sometimes resorts to arguments that employ -- gasp!!
-- logic or statistics, does not make him an adding machine.
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs...or,
if you prefer, cogito ergo sum.
kaboom
**I concur. Joe is one of the best posters in this NG.
jdeluise
On 8-Jun-2011, kaboom <kaboo...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> **I concur. Joe is one of the best posters in this NG.
Yes, as is number_six.
DavidW
> say something that makes me believe you're a thinking individual, not
> simply an adding machine.
I've always wanted to do a Turing test. You think Joe would fail?
Rodjk #613
Joe is one of, if not the best poster here...
It is really annoying to have you trolls denigrate real posters like
Joe.
Rodjk #613
TennisGuy
+1
Carey
This.
Katya
You'll know if you receive, in quadgesimal: SW19H2H10
Joe Ramirez
Why do you think Joe would fail a Turing test?
DavidW
Looks like bob's onto something.
jdeluise
That almost sounded like an Eliza response :)
Pedro Dias
I'll ask him to comply on the day that you manage to prove you are not
an alter-Whispy.
For the record, I'm inclined to believe you are not. But I *know* Joe
is a far more thoughtful poster than any of your crowd, yourself very
much included. Particularly choice is the suggestion of "adding
machine": remember the "7543" imbecility, and the argument that the
only question worth asking was a matter of simple arithmetic? Not
Joe's position, as I recall.
Patrick Kehoe
Yes... Joe's smart, funny, insightful, rational...
Yep... great guy!
P
John Liang
You can't even add so don't call others adding machine.
GOYLE
Why do YOU people give JOE so much credit. From what I understand Joe
is an attorney. Most attorneys in the US average about $50,000 to
$60,000 a year. Also, to become an attorney you must score between 160
to 170 on your LSAT, My wife took the LSAT and scored in the 160's,
also her GPA was a 4.0. THEN after you obtain a degree in something
you go to law school 2 or 3 years. Yes, you can get a law degree in 2
years if you choose to go in the summer. It's not a big deal. My wife
chose not to go to law school because she wanted to persue something
else. She has 2 graduate degrees and a doctoral degree and is working
on a 2nd doctoral degree which is really easy work for her, so she
says. Anyway, I hope your not basing Joes intelect on the fact he is a
JD because in the US they hand out JD's like candy.
Superdave
a hobby horse?
TT
GOYLE
> Is this topic a follow up to the thread about Pancho Gonzales?
Well, i doubt it, however, I feel like I wished I could retract the
last post I made because it was mean.
TT
Well, Joe does have some trouble with maths and logical thinking. On the
other hand he's linguistically talented and interested in various
topics...and not afraid to show it, hehehe.
Superdave
For 60k a year I wouldn't even bother to get out of bed in the morning.
How can anybody live on so little?
Superdave
what do you mean ? rst loves mean posts that foster hatred !
we need lawyers afterall. somebody has to make the criminals look good.
Iceberg
yes, well as tennis Joe's interested in things from Oscar music to the
gay air steward!
Iceberg
> On 8-Jun-2011, kaboom <kaboomi...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > **I concur. Joe is one of the best posters in this NG.
>
> Yes, as is number_six.
best posters if you're a Fedfan!
Iceberg
he also comes out with some amusing and clever jokes too :)
ahonkan
This post is more a reflection on you rather
than Joe, undoubtedly one of the best and
most logical & rational posters on rst.
That Iceberg, TT et al would join you in
putting him down just goes to prove the
small-mindedness of the anti-Fed crowd
who can't set aside their biases long enough
to opine independently about anyone
and color it solely by that person's views
on Fed.
It's great that Fed-Rafa-Djoker-Murray get
along 100 times better than Dave, TT,
Vlado & late Dr Groundaxe get along.
Not so sure Agssi-Sampras-Lendl get along
much better than Jaros-Whisper-Raja, though!
Iceberg
oh pls, since when has the wonderful Joe said anything pro-Nadal
without gritted teeth???
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
For me, Joe being a lawyer has nothing to do with my respect for
him... he could be a retired pest controller for that matter... he's
intelligent and funny, great bonus that he's rational as well! He
doesn't always give Rafa the credit he deserves, however... no one is
perfect! :))
Joe's often a reasoned voice OR a voice of reason, as the rhetorical
tempest writhes about us... :))
P
uly...@mscomm.com
excellent, intelligent poster like Joe. He's one of the few people
here with brains, tennis knowledge and the ability to spell and
punctuate correctly. You're the Einstein who posted one of the all-
time memorable comments on RST: "Nadal is a better volleyer than
Federer," and you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Pedro Dias
Always? You are probably confusing arguments over the Usual Idiocies
with arguments about Nadal.
Iceberg
All I know is that Fed's fh stomp volley can wreck grass/hard courts
better than an awol JCB!
bob
and yet john mcenroe, who knows a thing about volleying, agrees.
bob
bob
<rjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 8, 8:01 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> say something that makes me believe you're a thinking individual, not
>> simply an adding machine.
>>
>> bob
>
>Joe is one of, if not the best poster here...
>It is really annoying to have you trolls denigrate real posters like
>Joe.
didn't denigrate him, asked him to spout more than #s cause i think
he's more capable than the simple 16>10 he repeats over and over.
notice i didn't bother to ask you to prove you can think?
bob
bob
<pke...@telus.net> wrote:
joe is an underachiever: he has capability to think for himself yet
refuses to do so. his love and knowledge of music is not relevant to
the task at hand here.
bob
bob
wrote:
every argument i have with joe ends with "16 > 10". i'm prodding him
to do better. if he cannot, he's just an adding machine in sheep's
clothing. don't be fooled.......
bob
pltr...@xhost.org
>.... Most attorneys in the US average about $50,000 to $60,000 a year.
Chortle.
>.... My wife chose not to go to law school because she wanted to persue something
>else. .... Anyway, I hope your not basing Joes intelect on the fact he is a
>JD because in the US they hand out JD's like candy.
How does your wife handle being married to someone who can't spell or punctuate
properly? And who doesn't classify a doctorate as a graduate degree?
-- Larry (just retired -- all my degrees are now officially worthless. 8;) )
Pedro Dias
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 19:13:56 -0700 (PDT), "Rodjk #613"
>
Sez the man who for years could find absolutely nothing to say other
than "14>(rapidly rising Slam totals)". Until that went away, and now
you're asking us to accept you as an apostle of the opposing credo? Do
your penitence first, bobbsie-girl!
jdeluise
On 9-Jun-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> joe is an underachiever: he has capability to think for himself yet
> refuses to do so
Now that is irony at its best, whisper :)
jdeluise
On 9-Jun-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> didn't denigrate him, asked him to spout more than #s cause i think
> he's more capable than the simple 16>10 he repeats over and over.
Something tells me 83 > 80 smarts even more.
Joe Ramirez
> On 9-Jun-2011, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > joe is an underachiever: he has capability to think for himself yet
> > refuses to do so
>
> Now that is irony at its best, whisper :)
bob complains in this thread that I don't think for myself, while in
all the other threads he whines about my various "theories" and tries
to bait me into a neverending argument with him about them. :)
GOYLE
You assume many things.
I'll take a minute out of my busy day to correct you.
I don't know how she feels about my inability to spell, punctuate
correctly.
I choose not to use spellcheck or the APA foremat though she has the
2011 version of the APA manual.
As for a doctorate being a graduate degree of course it is. I just
prefer to emphasize doctorate or terminal degree to differentiate
between a masters and a doctorate so the reader will know she is a
doctor. The percentage of people in the US with a terminal degree is
about 5% and to have two terminal degrees drops below 1% which puts
her in a special group or category of people. I hope that helps.
drew
> As for a doctorate being a graduate degree of course it is. I just
> prefer to emphasize doctorate or terminal degree to differentiate
> between a masters and a doctorate so the reader will know she is a
> doctor. The percentage of people in the US with a terminal degree is
> about 5% and to have two terminal degrees drops below 1% which puts
> her in a special group or category of people.
That's special.
*skriptis
"uly...@msomm.com" <uly...@mscomm.com> wrote in message
news:37e5587a-86ad-4507...@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
He isn't worse volleyer than Federer, no way you can say that.
I also said several times he was better than Federer, because on the net, he
plays gutsy, and doesn't look uncomfortable when he comes there...not that
he's great on the net per se.
*skriptis
"Rodjk #613" <rjk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6068934-5250-4ead...@w10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 8, 8:01 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> say something that makes me believe you're a thinking individual, not
> simply an adding machine.
>
> bob
>Joe is one of, if not the best poster here...
>It is really annoying to have you trolls denigrate real posters like
>Joe.
The best, in what way?
True, he has a relatively big rst acheivement in his "launch theory" but
rest rest is mostly mild fedfuckering.
He isn't bad, but to call him best is a bit too much imo.
He's also connected with Javier Gonzalez in a weird way...I get the feeling
they communicate outside rst.
Sao Paulo Swallow
>
> He's also connected with Javier Gonzalez in a weird way...I get the feeling
> they communicate outside rst.
Horrors!
bob
the problem is that your theories lack thought. they simply count.your
only explanation on "why" things happen to day is "topspinner VS
multispinner VS smasher". don't be an underachiever, try to give
thought to your theories, then see if you can shoot holes in them
yourself, before posting them.
bob
bob
i have a master's degree, and IMO, there should only be bachelor's
degrees (knowledge enough to feel educated and also worthwhile to
society and the workplace) and PHd's (true experts in their field).
this middle ground master's is kind of lame, IMO. :-)
bob
bob
no - i coudl do more than add, i could multiply too (7x7 + 5x5,
etc...) .
seriously, do you not see that i try to find logic and WHY behind
every number achieved by any player?
bob
bob
joe, pedro and javier. the 3 amigos.
bob
TT
> It's great that Fed-Rafa-Djoker-Murray get
> along 100 times better than Dave, TT,
WTF...
I and Dave have no problem at all. If I chose a guy here to have a beer
with it would be Dave.
I just hope he wouldn't cheat me.
TT
> On Jun 9, 5:52 am, Pedro Dias<pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 9:01 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> say something that makes me believe you're a thinking individual, not
>>> simply an adding machine.
>>
>>> bob
>>
>> an alter-Whispy.
>>
>> For the record, I'm inclined to believe you are not. But I *know* Joe
>> is a far more thoughtful poster than any of your crowd, yourself very
>> much included. Particularly choice is the suggestion of "adding
>> machine": remember the "7543" imbecility, and the argument that the
>> only question worth asking was a matter of simple arithmetic? Not
>> Joe's position, as I recall.
>
>
> yes, well as tennis Joe's interested in things from Oscar music to the
> gay air steward!
What's the difference?
jdeluise
On 9-Jun-2011, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> no - i coudl do more than add, i could multiply too (7x7 + 5x5,
> etc...) .
er, multiplication is a form of repeated addition.
Pedro Dias
No. Do not forget I was there for your and Whispiy's little reign of
Stupid.
Pedro Dias
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:45:04 +0200, "*skriptis"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:e6068934-5250-4ead...@w10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> >On Jun 8, 8:01 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> say something that makes me believe you're a thinking individual, not
> >> simply an adding machine.
>
> >> bob
>
> >>Joe is one of, if not the best poster here...
> >>It is really annoying to have you trolls denigrate real posters like
> >>Joe.
>
> >The best, in what way?
>
> >True, he has a relatively big rst acheivement in his "launch theory" but
> >rest rest is mostly mild fedfuckering.
> >He isn't bad, but to call him best is a bit too much imo.
>
> >He's also connected with Javier Gonzalez in a weird way...I get the feeling
> >they communicate outside rst.
>
> joe, pedro and javier. the 3 amigos.
>
> bob
Wrong, bobbsie-girl - it's you and me. Stupid is stupid, a lie is a
lie. Not so interested in the pretext, especially since in your case
there's usually not that much to worry about, meaningful-content-wise.
Iceberg
it would be good having a beer with Dave, because he probably owns a
brewery.
TT
Hahaha.
You'd be my 2nd choice. We could go out and have a pizza maybe? :)
Superdave
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:
He Joe can you post some good lawyer jokes ;)
Javier González
> "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Maldición! Han descubierto la vasta conspiración mexicana!
/epic facepalm is epic
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
More like the Mexican Drug Cartel or International Syndicate. :)
Joe Ramirez
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
Lawyer No. 1, to colleague on courthouse steps: "Good luck with your
case. I hope justice is done."
Lawyer No. 2: "Well if it is, I plan to appeal!"
Superdave
LOL
This policeman was being cross-examined by a defence attorney during a felony
trial.
The lawyer was trying to undermine the police officer's credibility...
Q: 'Officer, did you see my client fleeing the scene?'
A: 'No sir. But I subsequently observed a person matching the description of
the offender, running several blocks away.'
Q: 'Officer -- who provided this description?'
A: 'The officer who responded to the scene.'
Q: 'A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do
you trust your fellow officers?'
A: 'Yes, sir. With my life.'
Q: 'With your life? Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a room
where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?'
A: 'Yes sir, we do!'
Q: 'And do you have a locker in the room?'
A: 'Yes sir, I do.'
Q: 'And do you have a lock on your locker?'
A: 'Yes sir.'
Q: 'Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life,
you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with these same
officers?'
A: 'You see, sir -- we share the building with the court complex, and
sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room.'
The courtroom EXPLODED with laughter, and a prompt recess was called.
The officer on the stand has been nominated for this year's 'Best Comeback'
line.
Thomas R. Kettler
Superdave <the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
How about the following:
The Lord and the Devil agreed to not interfere in the life of one
gentlemen and even wrote a contract. However, the Devil reneged and
interfered anyway. The Lord told the Devil, "I'll sue you for breach of
contract." The Devil laughed and said, "Where will you find a lawyer in
heaven to take the case."
What do a lawyer and a sperm have in common?
Both have an one-in-a-million chance of resulting in a human being.
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
TT
LOL
The 2nd one was especially good! Hahahaha
Thomas R. Kettler
Whisper
> On Jun 8, 8:01 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> say something that makes me believe you're a thinking individual, not
>> simply an adding machine.
>>
>> bob
>
> Joe is one of, if not the best poster here...
> It is really annoying to have you trolls denigrate real posters like
> Joe.
>
Joe is pretty good for a casual tennis fan. Maybe you can learn
something from him? All you seem to do is accuse others of trolling
without ever posting anything substantial.
Whisper
> On Jun 8, 9:01 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> say something that makes me believe you're a thinking individual, not
>> simply an adding machine.
>>
>> bob
>
> an alter-Whispy.
>
> For the record, I'm inclined to believe you are not. But I *know* Joe
> is a far more thoughtful poster than any of your crowd, yourself very
> much included. Particularly choice is the suggestion of "adding
> machine": remember the "7543" imbecility, and the argument that the
> only question worth asking was a matter of simple arithmetic? Not
> Joe's position, as I recall.
Ah Pedro's back. What did you do with Rupedski's body?
TT
But he also goes around performing fellatio to fedfans of RST. So surely
there's a purpose for him?
Whisper
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 07:15:08 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Kehoe
> <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 9, 12:26 am, GOYLE<jameshollowa...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 1:11 am, Patrick Kehoe<pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 8, 7:13 pm, "Rodjk #613"<rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Jun 8, 8:01 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> say something that makes me believe you're a thinking individual, not
>>>>>> simply an adding machine.
>>>
>>>>>> bob
>>>
>>>>> Joe is one of, if not the best poster here...
>>>>> It is really annoying to have you trolls denigrate real posters like
>>>>> Joe.
>>>
>>>>> Rodjk #613
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yep... great guy!
>>>
>>>> P
>>>
>>> Why do YOU people give JOE so much credit. From what I understand Joe
>>> is an attorney. Most attorneys in the US average about $50,000 to
>>> $60,000 a year. Also, to become an attorney you must score between 160
>>> to 170 on your LSAT, My wife took the LSAT and scored in the 160's,
>>> also her GPA was a 4.0. THEN after you obtain a degree in something
>>> you go to law school 2 or 3 years. Yes, you can get a law degree in 2
>>> years if you choose to go in the summer. It's not a big deal. My wife
>>> chose not to go to law school because she wanted to persue something
>>> on a 2nd doctoral degree which is really easy work for her, so she
>>> says. Anyway, I hope your not basing Joes intelect on the fact he is a
>>> JD because in the US they hand out JD's like candy.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> him... he could be a retired pest controller for that matter... he's
>> intelligent and funny, great bonus that he's rational as well! He
>> doesn't always give Rafa the credit he deserves, however... no one is
>> perfect! :))
>>
>> Joe's often a reasoned voice OR a voice of reason, as the rhetorical
>> tempest writhes about us... :))
>
> joe is an underachiever: he has capability to think for himself yet
> the task at hand here.
>
> bob
I think he just doesn't have an in depth knowledge of the game. Nothing
wrong with that. Like I said he's ok for a casual tennis fan.
Whisper
Yeah you kinda get the impression Joe is holding back, but I think there
are a few clues he just doesn't have a deep undertsanding of the game -
'multispinner' theory I thought was a joke - very amateurish.
I'm always suspect about people who can't even answer a straight forward
question like 'Is Rafa better than Federer?'. Now this kind of question
can be loaded, but it's straight forward when the context is set. ie
I'm not asking who achieved more against the field, better no.1 ranking
etc - if I was I would ask that. I'm asking who is better on the court
between Fed & Rafa. Now for people to struggle with this question &
answer a different one altogether tells me a few things - none of them
are consistent with being a 'good poster'.
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whisper it depends on the defenition of casual tennis fan or as some
say weekend warrior. I consider myself a casual tennis fan but a day
doesn't go by I include it in my everyday life. As for being a good
poster, I don't. There are plenty of posters better then me and that's
ok because I learn a lot from these posters as well.
Pedro Dias
> On 10/06/2011 8:08 AM, bob wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
Are you really this dumb? "Good" at *what*, exactly? Nadal clearly has
the edge head-to-head, but that's nowhere near the only measure of
quality. Even if you try your old trick of ruling out some of them a
priori, which is bullshit.
For the record, I think Federer is better than Nadal: he can do more
things better than Nadal. Like beating Djokovic on clay.
Joe Ramirez
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
> >> On Jun 9, 12:59 pm, "jdeluise"<jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 9-Jun-2011, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> joe is an underachiever: he has capability to think for himself yet
> >>>> refuses to do so
>
> >>> Now that is irony at its best, whisper :)
>
> >> bob complains in this thread that I don't think for myself, while in
> >> all the other threads he whines about my various "theories" and tries
> >> to bait me into a neverending argument with him about them. :)
>
> > the problem is that your theories lack thought. they simply count.your
> > only explanation on "why" things happen to day is "topspinner VS
> > multispinner VS smasher". don't be an underachiever, try to give
> > thought to your theories, then see if you can shoot holes in them
> > yourself, before posting them.
>
> > bob
>
> Yeah you kinda get the impression Joe is holding back, but I think there
> are a few clues he just doesn't have a deep undertsanding of the game -
> 'multispinner' theory I thought was a joke - very amateurish.
I was aiming for the sophistication of "bumrooter," but fell a little
short, I admit. :)
*skriptis
"Pedro Dias" <pedr...@snip.net> wrote in message
news:b64df932-2886-4e8c...@k13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
Federer lost 3 times to Djokovc in slams.
Nadal never.
GOYLE
> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
True but I believe Nadal would have lost to Novak in the final of the
FO this year had it not been for Federer.
*skriptis
"GOYLE" <jamesho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9940cdfe-eca6-4429...@x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
I believe Sampras would have beaten Muster in the final of the FO had he
made it.
Joe Ramirez
> "GOYLE" <jameshollowa...@aol.com> wrote in message
Unfortunately, the mighty Gilbert Schaller, unwilling to see his
countryman denied the sweet taste of victory in his -- and Austria's
-- one chance for glory, recognized the mortal danger of Sampras
rising and snuffed out the threat in the first round. Pete was only 19
sets from triumph -- so close he could smell it.
GOYLE
> "GOYLE" <jameshollowa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
smartass :)
*skriptis
"Joe Ramirez" <josephm...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:a34c020b-e756-42a0...@e14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Sure, but why not post this rubish after his post which is even more
ridicioulus.
Djokovic beating Nadal in the FO final....
Joe Ramirez
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
Right. Because a player who has beaten the finalist four straight
times, including twice on the same surface, but who loses in the
semifinal in four sets to a former champ, is somehow less plausible as
a potential champion than a player who loses in the first round to a
nobody.
No one knows whether Djokovic *would* have beaten Nadal in the final,
had he made it. But to suggest that a Djoker victory was totally far-
fetched -- when everyone on Team Nadal was pissing in their paella
about the possible matchup -- is absurdly biased.
Pedro Dias
> "Pedro Dias" <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote in message
I said "is". Not "was".
Pedro Dias
And he'd have breathed vacuum if he'd ever gotten to the moon. Yes,
absolutely, it *is* a stupid supposition. So's the notion of Sampras
making it to the FO final.
Whereas Djokovic making it this year... not so much.
bob
wrote:
the old saying if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them
with bullshit hits joe - and as an attorney, it makes sense. joe has
outside interests, likes music and dinosaurs, likes to blabber on,
etc., but when you get to the true meat of an argument, he lacks
understanding of what makes tennis tick. perhaps he is a good fan, but
never a high level player himself, could be. he's not dumb, just lacks
indepth tennis comprehension.
i'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, like i'm giving fed, to turn
it around in next yr or so.
bob
Pedro Dias
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:21:13 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 10/06/2011 8:08 AM, bob wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
Heh. When you have nothing to say, say it to yo Daddy. Prolly a sound
strategy, given your miserable tactical situation.
bob
<pedr...@snip.net> wrote:
>On Jun 9, 6:13 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:45:04 +0200, "*skriptis"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>> >"Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:e6068934-5250-4ead...@w10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> >On Jun 8, 8:01 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> say something that makes me believe you're a thinking individual, not
>> >> simply an adding machine.
>>
>> >> bob
>>
>> >>Joe is one of, if not the best poster here...
>> >>It is really annoying to have you trolls denigrate real posters like
>> >>Joe.
>>
>> >The best, in what way?
>>
>> >True, he has a relatively big rst acheivement in his "launch theory" but
>> >rest rest is mostly mild fedfuckering.
>> >He isn't bad, but to call him best is a bit too much imo.
>>
>> >He's also connected with Javier Gonzalez in a weird way...I get the feeling
>> >they communicate outside rst.
>>
>> joe, pedro and javier. the 3 amigos.
>>
>> bob
>
>Wrong, bobbsie-girl - it's you and me.
lol. don't be so pissed, take a joke petey.
> Stupid is stupid, a lie is a
>lie. Not so interested in the pretext, especially since in your case
>there's usually not that much to worry about, meaningful-content-wise.
i get to the root of the matter in short notice - no B.S. maybe that's
what you hate.
bob
Pedro Dias
"Pissed"? You've seen me pissed. No way I believe you think this is
it.
> > Stupid is stupid, a lie is a
> >lie. Not so interested in the pretext, especially since in your case
> >there's usually not that much to worry about, meaningful-content-wise.
>
> i get to the root of the matter in short notice - no B.S. maybe that's
> what you hate.
Haven't seen you do anything other than bullshit in a long time,
bobbsie-girl. At one point, you were a decent poster with a Whispy-
sized blind spot. Now you're Daddy's bitch, and I find it very sad.
I'd like to take the comfortable road and think that bob left a long
time ago, and that bobbsie-girl, the sad-sack decayed cadaver of a
once worthwhile human being we've been left with, is actually just a
Whispy sock. But I fear the worst.
number_six
It's just 99% of the lawyers who give the others a bad name.
Superdave
yes. let's get back to the substantial and discuss 7543 and who is the goat.
Superdave
wrote:
>I always liked this one --
>
>It's just 99% of the lawyers who give the others a bad name.
>
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
true ya know.
bob
you're just bothered that i believe fed won 10 slams VS clowns, and
gets beat pretty regularly since 1-2 good playes came along, even
though fed still played peak level. that's my pt in a nutshell, and
lots of #s back it up. if whisper agrees with it, cool.
that plus the fact fed got whupped again last wk and you're still
stewing. cool down dias.
bob
Pedro Dias
Actually, I thought it was a pretty damn good match - from both
players. And no, bobbsie, I do *not* believe you can back your cracked
little theories. At least you never have.
In any case, if you haven't noticed, *every* player gets beaten pretty
regularly. Sampras most definitely did, Borg did, Nadal, off clay, did
and does, one year aside. Federer didn't, for quite a while, and
*that*, you silly child, is why your knickers have ridden up the crack.
drew
> the old saying if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them
> with bullshit hits joe - and as an attorney, it makes sense. joe has
> outside interests, likes music and dinosaurs, likes to blabber on,
> etc., but when you get to the true meat of an argument, he lacks
> understanding of what makes tennis tick.
If I had to choose between Joe's bullshit and your own, I think I'd
choose
Joe's in a nanosecond.
Sure, it's pretty obvious that he's a lawyer and he seldom removes
that hat
but the only reason you dislike him is because you are an
argumentative
bullshitter and as a lawyer Joe can eat your arguments up for
breakfast and
shit them out before lunch.
Most of us won't even give you the time of day ya bastard, so just be
happy that
somebody is willing to even engage you in discussion. I'd rather not
get my
hands that dirty.
bob
sure, but this 1 guy gets beat by 1 specific other guy all the time at
teh biggest matches. that's not regular.
> Sampras most definitely did, Borg did, Nadal, off clay, did
>and does, one year aside. Federer didn't, for quite a while, and
>*that*, you silly child, is why your knickers have ridden up the crack.
stick to the pt pedro, your comedy is weak.
bob
Patrick Kehoe
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:21:13 +1000, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 10/06/2011 8:08 AM, bob wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
You 2 can be so pathetic...
Always put people down, mock others intelligence, etc...
Bafflingly ironic as that is...
P
Patrick Kehoe
> On Jun 10, 7:46 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > the old saying if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them
> > with bullshit hits joe - and as an attorney, it makes sense. joe has
> > outside interests, likes music and dinosaurs, likes to blabber on,
> > etc., but when you get to the true meat of an argument, he lacks
> > understanding of what makes tennis tick.
>
> If I had to choose between Joe's bullshit and your own, I think I'd
> choose
> Joe's in a nanosecond.
Joe also has a lot of great things to say about tennis and other
matters...
> Sure, it's pretty obvious that he's a lawyer and he seldom removes
> that hat
> but the only reason you dislike him is because you are an
> argumentative
> bullshitter and as a lawyer Joe can eat your arguments up for
> breakfast and
> shit them out before lunch.
Ya, no kidding... Joe doesn't suffer fools or foolish babble gladly...
> Most of us won't even give you the time of day ya bastard, so just be
> happy that
> somebody is willing to even engage you in discussion. I'd rather not
> get my
> hands that dirty.
What's odd is that bob was a person you could debate about all sorts
of issues, right up until (I seem to remember) the time when Federer
won his last AO (Jan. 2010) and after that he sort of just went off
the proverbial rails... he was always a W clone with a difference...
it's as if Feds getting to 16 majors has been too much for him... not
really sure why, other than the FO/W/AO run from 14 to 16 put the
great Sampras in Feds rearview mirror for good... must be as simple as
that... the question of their historical ranking a done deal with Feds
above Pete for all time...
P
jdeluise
On 14-Jun-2011, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> You 2 can be so pathetic...
>
> Always put people down, mock others intelligence, etc...
>
> Bafflingly ironic as that is...
Yes, that was one of bob's more mean-spirited posts about Joe. He belittles
Joe's intelligence while simultaneously using poor grammar and punctuation.
I know ... I know, he doesn't have time for *that*...lol
Pedro Dias
No, it isn't, but that's not really that notable. Every player loses
in their own way. Federer just does it less, so the specifics are more
obvious.
> > Sampras most definitely did, Borg did, Nadal, off clay, did
> >and does, one year aside. Federer didn't, for quite a while, and
> >*that*, you silly child, is why your knickers have ridden up the crack.
>
> stick to the pt pedro, your comedy is weak.
>
> bob
Not comedy: I find your current incarnation pathetic, not comic.
Pedro Dias
>
>
> What's odd is that bob was a person you could debate about all sorts
> of issues, right up until (I seem to remember) the time when Federer
> won his last AO (Jan. 2010) and after that he sort of just went off
> the proverbial rails... he was always a W clone with a difference...
> it's as if Feds getting to 16 majors has been too much for him... not
> really sure why, other than the FO/W/AO run from 14 to 16 put the
> great Sampras in Feds rearview mirror for good... must be as simple as
> that... the question of their historical ranking a done deal with Feds
> above Pete for all time...
>
before he came back in this greatly diminished form. It was, and is,
the main reason I suspect this may not be the same person, one way or
another.
bob
lol. job travel for about a yr. got it ironed out now.
the only thing that makes you think i'm diiminished is that nadal has
quickly narrowed the gap with fed and it's got you nervous, not
thinking straight.
bob
bob
wrote:
hell i like joe and joe's a smart guy but he can't cut through the
bullshit and use his brain in tennis analysis, he resorts to the
adding machine and 10x the wordage necessary to make a pt.
he needs to be baited to give more effort and dare to test his own
logic. but it seems he won't.
bob
bob
aww, c'mon pedro, you're better than that.
> Federer just does it less, so the specifics are more
>obvious.
>
>> > Sampras most definitely did, Borg did, Nadal, off clay, did
>> >and does, one year aside. Federer didn't, for quite a while, and
>> >*that*, you silly child, is why your knickers have ridden up the crack.
>>
>> stick to the pt pedro, your comedy is weak.
>>
>> bob
>
>Not comedy: I find your current incarnation pathetic, not comic.
bob