Table Tennis Robots - Opinions
Carey Murray
Newgy, TTmatic or Butterfly. I would like to hear anybodies opinions in
these robots. Thanks in advance for any info.
Andrew Gooding
fewer option, but it depends on what you want it for. For grooving strokes
and getting a workout it works fine.
For playing patterns or having a mixture of different spins one of the other
two would be better. I've used the Butterfly and it has a lot of options,
but takes some using to get it to do what you want. It's also more fragile
than the Newgy.
It depends whether its a supplement for human contact or a substitute for it.
Multi ball with a good partner can do what the more complex robots can do and
more.
-- Andrew
Carey Murray wrote:
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
sgordon
: I'm thinking of getting a table tennis robot with a recycling net - either
: Newgy, TTmatic or Butterfly. I would like to hear anybodies opinions in
: these robots. Thanks in advance for any info.
Here's a link with video footage ("Table Tennis WOW!") of
training with a robot:
http://www.hardbat.com/videos/vidIndex.html
Scott
:)
mmgnola
>
> I'm thinking of getting a table tennis robot with a recycling net - either
> Newgy, TTmatic or Butterfly. I would like to hear anybodies opinions in
Newgy, is good enough.
There is no substitute for real life player.
Chico
> I'm thinking of getting a table tennis robot with a recycling net - either
> Newgy, TTmatic or Butterfly. I would like to hear anybodies opinions in
> these robots. Thanks in advance for any info.
Hey dude, get the Newgy..end of story. Anyone who is serious about
table-tennis owns a robot; everyone else is just a pretender.
Chico Industries
rickchartrand
unrealistically great. Unless you're playing mostly players rated above
2000, 95% of the shots you face will have less spin. If you groove your
loop against Newgy underspin, in real games your loop will go two feet long
unless you face a heavy chopper.
That said, it's easier to adjust to lesser spin than to greater spin. And
the Newgy robots are so much cheaper. Best bet may be a Newgy supplemented
by multiball. If all your training will be against robot, spring for one
with adjustable spin.
"mmgnola" <mmg...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3EF1C3...@bellsouth.net...
Herbert Ward
between skill with the robot and applying that skill in real games
(for me anyhow).
I never did understand that gap well.
Many people with advanced robots (eg, dead ball capability) say their
robots are much better to train with.
My Newgy has been perfectly reliable, and answers from the factory
people have always been prompt and friendly.
Set-up time from car trunk is 10-20 minutes.
Herbert Ward
> unrealistically great.
That's true. Even its lobs are spinning like crazy.
Chico
> I've had a Newgy for 1 1/2 years. It helps, but there is a _big_ gap
> between skill with the robot and applying that skill in real games
> (for me anyhow).
>
> I never did understand that gap well.
It's because you dont practice MAINLY with the spin set to back spin
with one bounce on the other side and the oscillator on. Do that and
there will be no gap.
Chico On-Line Coaching Clinic
Cole Ely
variable.
"Andrew Gooding" <good...@marshall.edu> wrote in message
news:3EF10C58...@marshall.edu...
Nettadave1
robot up to 'serve' the ball to you rather than directly over the net - with
topspin.
I agree the underspin available with the newgy is too extreme.
The newgy is great for teaching corrrect top-spin strokes to new players.
But players using one at home - without some instruction on correct form, risk
developing bad habits or even injuries.
And players should progress from good basic strokes, learned with predictable
robot type spin and placement, to learning to apply these strokes to a variety
of spins, speeds and placements.
In fact, with most students, after they have learned decent form, I spend
part of each training session using 'junk' surfaces - pips-out sponge or
hardbat in particular, to teach the player to apply his strokes and footwork to
more varied shots.
It's easy with the robot to develope overly complex form or strokes that
only work against a narrow range of spin and speed.
And the risk of gradual injury exists for home robot use without some
instruction.
Most players 'naturally' use too much arm and shoulder, and hit the ball too
far in front or away from their body. This risks repetitive shoulder strain,
especially with extensive robot practice..
Players should be taught to hit the ball closer to the body and use legs
and upper body to create more of the spin and speed for forehand topspin.
This is not only 'safer' to reduce injuries, but results in a more powerful
and consistant stroke which is also more deceptive and easier to use against a
variety of incoming balls.
Damian Eloi
Hello Dave,
Welcome back.
I hope you are happy about the recent good news about the longpips about to
be banned at the AGM 2004.
As I remember you are a hero of the normal rubber players & your hatred for
longpips players is always etched in my mind.
I especially remember how you hated losing to that Asian bitch
Virginia Sung who suddenly flipped her racket without giving you
60 day advance notice.......at 20-20 I might add ..what an Asian slut
I hope your glue heart had healed from that painful hurt.
Anyway I thought I will give you the good news personally
"Nettadave1" <netta...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030620120303...@mb-m27.news.cs.com...
sgordon
: suddenly flipped her racket without giving you 60 day advance notice...
Gotta admit that is a pretty funny line.
Scott
Ken
But it should only be used in addition to good coaching and human
practice partners.
I've a Newgy 2040 for 1 year and it has been a great help in grooving
the strokes as well as footwork. It's cheap(er), effective, simple,
and very intuitive to use. It's so simple that I started to use it
within 10 minutes of opening the box and reading the one page setup
highlight. It's very predictable so there are no surprises and easier
to do drills with. But the same characteristic has a downside - cannot
do random spin, speed, and placement to help develop decision making
skills. That said, I don't expect a coffee machine to make me a soup.
Besides, I can see the Newgy serve my more basic training needs for
another 1-2 years. The 5 year warranty and good service is the best
too.
I've sold a TTMatics 302 to a client. (I'm a TT dealer.) It's so
complicated to setup and the instructions and documentation suck. The
website isn't much help either. A friend has the top model 500B with
two heads. It has spent more downtime than up. He rarely uses it now.
It's $2,500 down the tubes for him.
I don't have an Amicus 3000 but would 'trade up' one day when I can
afford it. It can be programmed for up to 4 feed-patterns to simulate
a rally sequence. It also has random features. But with more
functionality, the more complexity. I'm sure most owners are using it
for the same thing the Newgy can do 95% of the time. I'm fine with
that as I alway like to figure out all the functions of high tech
gizmos no matter the challange but it's not for everyone.
To start off though, Newgy is really enough.
Cole Ely
But that means I've gotta move my feet! :(
"Nettadave1" <netta...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030620120303...@mb-m27.news.cs.com...
sage
There is another robot out there and it is called Prakttismate. It can
be seen at http://prakttismate.com.
Bruce Lio
"DamienEloi" <dam_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3770efe7.03062...@posting.google.com...
> you shouldn't be allowed to play.
Do you even know how to read ?
That is the crux of the whole issue.
She was illegally banned at Matt Murad by Alan Willaiams & Richard Lee
kept the entry fees.
caccobio10
fees.
Last year I went to an NATT tournament, and somehow I got the times wrong
for my events. So they defaulted me. No problem there, right? My fault,
right?
The only problem was, that I was walking back and forth in front of the
control desk about 1000 times, as I casually was hanging out, catching up
with people, observing matches, etc. Many times Alan made eye contact with
me. Do you think just once he might have said something? Like, "hey marco,
why did you default? we called your name 3 times," etc. etc. Nope. Never
said a word. Neither did any of the staff.
And no, I didn't get a refund either.
Now don't get me wrong, I know that technically it was my fault. But the
funny thing is, I get better treatment at my bank than I do from NATT.
marco
"Bruce Lio" <brd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bd0gm6$nrd5j$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
Chico
R.ofl; Sjan, you are my personal hero. I will take you out to dine at
some Indian restaurant next time we meet
Chico Pataks
Larry Hodges
news:QORIa.77401$%42.26151@fed1read06...
> hmmm, I think it's fair to say that they should have refunded your entry
> fees.
Marco,
Why should someone who enters a tournament, announces in advance he will use
illegal equipment, shows up with the illegal equipment, refuses to change,
and then gets defaulted, get a refund?
-Larry Hodges
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Mark Kent
>> illegal equipment, shows up with the illegal equipment, refuses to change,
>> and then gets defaulted, get a refund?
because then it removes money from the equation,
which is almost always a good thing.
In this case, it appears to boil down to these two cases:
"You're an idiot... but we want your money."
vs
"You're an idiot... we don't even want your money."
I think the latter one would have been a better stance for NATT.
-mark
Bruce Lio
From my experience I have money refunded promptly if an event was cancelled
Also I know for a fact that many players who were kicked out of an event
for one
reason or another were always refunded the fees.
Also Larry Hodges whines about my equipment being illegal but the simple
fact is that it was not. As Neil Highams has correctly pointed out yesterday
rules can only be changed at the general meeting. Since Aspect ratio was
not,
it is not a valid rule.
More importantly we went thru the issue of visual inspection without proper
chemical inspection. There was no chemical inspection of anykind at
Matt Murad 2000 (or any other lower level tournaments I know of worldwide
to this day) . If chemical inspection had been used more than half the
players at
Matt Murad would have been disqualified for cheating, given that well known
glue cheats Tahl Leibowitz , Julian Waters, Larry Hodges, etc etc played at
that
tournament. But of course ITTF & USATT only uses visual inspection to
terrorize tactical players, while the robotNazis like Larry Hodges & Julian
Waters
cheat as they please.
"Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
news:3ef3f848$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
dickmartrand
this newsgroup not to show up and University of Maryland police had to be
called
"Bruce Lio" <brd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bd1tck$odrgc$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
Marc Kent
Let us assume she did have illegal equipment ( which is not true)
You admit that you knew in advance.
It that is the case why did you even take the money ?
Why could you not have refused her entry & not take the entry ?
Richard Lee's intent to deceive & keep the fees & punish a tactical
player is crystal clear at this point.
"Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
news:3ef3f848$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
> "caccobio10" <cacco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:QORIa.77401$%42.26151@fed1read06...
> > hmmm, I think it's fair to say that they should have refunded your entry
> > fees.
>
> Marco,
>
Marc Kent
"caccobio10" <cacco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:QORIa.77401
> And no, I didn't get a refund either.
>
> Now don't get me wrong, I know that technically it was my fault. But the
> funny thing is, I get better treatment at my bank than I do from NATT.
Why am I not surprised
Chico
> news:QORIa.77401$%42.26151@fed1read06...
> > hmmm, I think it's fair to say that they should have refunded your entry
> > fees.
>
> Marco,
>
> Why should someone who enters a tournament, announces in advance he will use
> illegal equipment, shows up with the illegal equipment, refuses to change,
> and then gets defaulted, get a refund?
>
> -Larry Hodges
To cultivate diplomacy; sadly, something lacking in the American psyche.
Chico
Gene Schwartz
I try to be objective, so...
I'd say that this is one of those issues where, while the NATT would be
legally in the right, I'd say that they should have given back the entry
fee. It's not an amount of money that will hurt the organization, there are
not many people like Sjan that would be enouraged to act similarly - it just
comes down to doing the right thing. You paid to play, we won't let you play
(for whatever the reason), so here's your entry fee back.
Now, I wouldn't call this an egregious crime, exactly...I can see why they
didn't give him his money back. But if it were me making the decision, I
would hope that I would be level headed enough to refund him his money.
Gym852
>kept the entry fe
I must have missed something here, who was banned and what was the reason?
the Old Duffer
Larry Hodges
Richard and Alan - did not keep him from playing. The referee defaulted him
for refusing to use a legal racket. No one else had anything to do with it.
At the U.S. Open, if I get defaulted for using illegal equipment, should I
get a refund on my entry fee?
-Larry Hodges
"Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:BB19E599.BB3E%impl...@pacbell.net...
Larry Hodges
news:20030621155124...@mb-m07.news.cs.com...
Sjan and his many sock puppets are misleading people. The referee defaulted
Sjan (Srinivas Janardhanan) for having an illegal racket (I believe it was
red on both sides, but it might have been illegal long pips - it's been a
while). Neither Alan nor Richard or anyone else had anything to do with it.
-Larry Hodges
Gene Schwartz
strictist ethicality, the latter being something that few of us can live up
to, admittedly.
Sure, I would say that they should have returned his entry fee under those
circumstances. "Here - you refuse to play by our rules, so here's your money
back." Again, I don't believe that this is a huge problem in general, so
it's not like they're going to go bankrupt by occasionally giving someone
like this their money back.
Chico
> I try to be objective, so...
>
> I'd say that this is one of those issues where, while the NATT would be
> legally in the right, I'd say that they should have given back the entry
> fee. It's not an amount of money that will hurt the organization, there are
> not many people like Sjan that would be enouraged to act similarly - it just
> comes down to doing the right thing. You paid to play, we won't let you play
> (for whatever the reason), so here's your entry fee back.
>
> Now, I wouldn't call this an egregious crime, exactly...I can see why they
> didn't give him his money back. But if it were me making the decision, I
> would hope that I would be level headed enough to refund him his money.
A Jew being level headed enough to give a refund!?; lol, I dont think so.
Chico Reality Break
DamienEloi
So when are you coming Gene?
Gene Schwartz <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<BB19E599.BB3E%impl...@pacbell.net>...
Marc Kent
First of all, if Richard Lee & Alan Williams knew in advance (by your own
admission).that the equipment was illegal . then why did they take the
money.
They had the time to post on the USENET to threaten her repeatedly
(that police had to be called) but did not have the time to say "No thanks".
Secondly as it was explained clearly by Neil Highams yesterday, the Aspect
Ratio rule is not a valid rule since it was not passed by the ITTF general
vote.
Therefore she should not have been defaulted
How many more times do you want me to explain all this to you ?
"Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
news:3ef4baff$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
Marc Kent
Did you not post today that you knew in advance that she was going to use
illegal equipment (despite threats from you & Alan Williams & death threat
from Craig Oldfield and she had to call the University of Maryland police &
they showed up & were guarding Larry Hodges & Tim Boggan) ?
"Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
news:3ef4bb57$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
> "Gym852" <gym...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:20030621155124...@mb-m07.news.cs.com...
> > >She was illegally banned at Matt Murad by Alan Willaiams & Richard Lee
> > >kept the entry fe
> >
> > I must have missed something here, who was banned and what was the
reason?
> > the Old Duffer
>
> Sjan and his many sock puppets are misleading people. The referee
defaulted
Gene Schwarz
Even if all that is true I think Richard Lee should have refunded the fee
Either him or Alan Williams were the tournament directors or at least
in charge of NATT.
It is a disgrace that they not only harass tactical players but all rob them
while
the robotNazis continue to cheat using paint thinner, lighter fluid etc
endangering the
health of children.
"Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
news:3ef4bb57$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
Pete Namoli
Also imagine what would have happened if they had defaulted a
robotNazi for using say paint thinner or lighter fluid ?
All hell would break loose.
The oppressive behavior towards tactical players is nothing new. This kind
of abuse, harassment, ridicule & intimidation of tactical players has been
well institutionalized in the ITTF culture.
"Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:BB1A0C9C.BB68%impl...@pacbell.net...
Pete Namoli
>
> At the U.S. Open, if I get defaulted for using illegal equipment, should I
> get a refund on my entry fee?
From a strict legal standpoint maybe not .
But it is customary practice to refund the entry fee.
It is common courtesy & decent thing to do.
But who the hell am I to expect decency from robotNazi run USATT.
Pete Namoli
It is just a couple of bucks.
But she brought it up only to show how ruthlessly the USATT
& ITTF deals with tactical players.
"Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:BB1A0C9C.BB68%impl...@pacbell.net...
Pete Namoli
visual inspection ( without any chemical inspection whatsoever against any
other players) and deliberately banned a tactical player & pocketed the
entry fees.
"Gym852" <gym...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030621155124...@mb-m07.news.cs.com...
sgordon
: First of all, if Richard Lee & Alan Williams knew in advance (by your
: own admission).that the equipment was illegal . then why did they take
: the money.
You set them up with a Catch-22. Had they refused to take your
money, you would now be parading on the newsgroup saying they
don't let tactical players enter.
Scott
Pete Namoil
By their own admission they allegedly KNEW beforehand that her racket was
illegal.If she was refused for known valid reason then she has nothing to
complain.
Instead of refusing admission they chose to pose threats of physical
violence and
police had to be called
What do you have against me & tactical players ?
"sgordon" <sgo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dJ6Ja.4372$%3.24...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Larry Hodges
> Again, what I am trying to do is separate issues of legality, and the
> strictist ethicality, the latter being something that few of us can live
up
> to, admittedly.
>
> Sure, I would say that they should have returned his entry fee under those
> circumstances. "Here - you refuse to play by our rules, so here's your
money
> back."
This is where I disagree. The directors never said anything of the sort -
they were busy running the tournament. It was the referee, who's completely
independent of the tournament directors, who defaulted him for breaking the
rules. Do we really want to set a policy where players who break the rules
get a refund? But you may not have realized that the directors had nothing
to do with it.
-Larry Hodges, who has never been defaulted from a tournament, but could use
the money next time I'm on the verge of losing....
Larry Hodges
Bingo.
Isn't it fascinating watching this parade of sock puppets all agree with
each other using the same statements and phrases? Oh well, I'm sure a number
of other "new" people will now emerge to disagree with this statement. Hi,
Sjan!
-Larry Hodges
Larry Hodges
news:bd2oqt$oec2c$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
> Larry ,
>
> Did you not post today that you knew in advance that she was going to use
> illegal equipment
Earth to Sjan: I didn't run the tournament or have anything to do with it.
Regarding the directors, if they did know you were going to play with
illegal equipment, they would still have had to let you enter. You could
have sued them if they did not - our own bylaws make it clear that players
cannot be refused entry in USATT tournaments without due cause. It wasn't
until you broke the rules that the ***referee*** defaulted you, for due
cause, i.e. illegal equipment. Richard, Alan, myself, Area 51 - none of us
had anything to do with it. You brought it on yourself. Congrats.
-Larry Hodges
Larry Hodges
news:bd2p2o$ok5gn$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
> Larry,
> Even if all that is true I think Richard Lee should have refunded the fee
> Either him or Alan Williams were the tournament directors or at least
> in charge of NATT.
> It is a disgrace that they not only harass tactical players but all rob
them
> while
> the robotNazis continue to cheat using paint thinner, lighter fluid etc
> endangering the
> health of children.
Hi Sjan sock puppet. Don't you ever get tired of the same old silly and
mindless tricks? Try something new for a change.
-Larry Hodges
Gene Schwartz
> From: "Gene Schwarz" <GW_...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.table-tennis
> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 18:17:42 -0500
> Subject: Re: Table Tennis Robots - Opinions
>
Gene Schwartz
I never said that anyone actually said this. The implication was that this
is what they should have said. Who actually defaulted him is really
irrelevant.
yeah, I really don't think that it would be a disaster if players who were
not allowed to play for whatever reason, got their money back. Do you really
think that there would then be a flood of similar defaults?
caccobio10
start playing.
If you showed up to a local tournament, and broke your foot in the first
round, would they also keep your money?
What if you broke your paddle in the first round, and couldn't replace it.
This isn't a corporation, this is a local tournament. TD's can easily give
a refund. In the spirit of the sport (and actually of good business
practice), my opinion is that a refund is in order. It's like (before I
started this diet) I would go to Baskin Robbins and get some ice-cream. If
I accidentally dropped it on the floor (this actually happened more than
once) then they always gave me another one. They didn't "have" to. But
they did.
marco
"Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
news:3ef3f848$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
caccobio10
But for what it's worth, I would have refunded your money. (and then
escorted you out the door).
marco
"Bruce Lio" <brd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bd1tck$odrgc$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
> I played in close to 100s of tournaments.
> From my experience I have money refunded promptly if an event was
cancelled
> Also I know for a fact that many players who were kicked out of an event
> for one
> reason or another were always refunded the fees.
> Also Larry Hodges whines about my equipment being illegal but the simple
> fact is that it was not. As Neil Highams has correctly pointed out
yesterday
> rules can only be changed at the general meeting. Since Aspect ratio was
> not,
> it is not a valid rule.
> More importantly we went thru the issue of visual inspection without
proper
> chemical inspection. There was no chemical inspection of anykind at
> Matt Murad 2000 (or any other lower level tournaments I know of worldwide
> to this day) . If chemical inspection had been used more than half the
> players at
> Matt Murad would have been disqualified for cheating, given that well
known
> glue cheats Tahl Leibowitz , Julian Waters, Larry Hodges, etc etc played
at
> that
> tournament. But of course ITTF & USATT only uses visual inspection to
> terrorize tactical players, while the robotNazis like Larry Hodges &
Julian
> Waters
> cheat as they please.
caccobio10
marco
(we need more chicks on this forum)
"Pete Namoli" <PEDN...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bd2po0$oengk$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
Larry Hodges
> dude, I just passed the umpire exam. Trust me, your equipment is illegal.
> But for what it's worth, I would have refunded your money. (and then
> escorted you out the door).
You could have done one or the other. If you defaulted him, then you
couldn't refund the money. If you refunded the money, then you had no power
to default them. It's like mixing up the executive and judicial branches. No
connection.
Would you refund all players who are defaulted for breaking the rules, as a
policy?
Larry Hodges
> ?
> I never said that anyone actually said this. The implication was that this
> is what they should have said. Who actually defaulted him is really
> irrelevant.
Then every time a person is defaulted, they could ask for their money back,
even if they were at fault?
> yeah, I really don't think that it would be a disaster if players who were
> not allowed to play for whatever reason, got their money back. Do you
really
> think that there would then be a flood of similar defaults?
Probably not, but I see no reason to refund a person for breaking the rules,
especially if done so intentionally. The directors spend time putting people
into the draw, the opponents spent money to play, and now they have one less
person to play. The person at fault is the one who knowingly broke the
rules, and he doesn't deserve a refund. (The people in his RR, if anything,
deserve a refund - from the person defaulting out!)
-Larry Hodges
Larry Hodges
> I would. It is not honorable to keep people's money if they didn't even
> start playing.
Irrelevent. The question is whether a person should be refunded for breaking
the rules.
> If you showed up to a local tournament, and broke your foot in the first
> round, would they also keep your money?
No, because that is completely different then knowingly breaking the rules.
> What if you broke your paddle in the first round, and couldn't replace it.
Again, that is not knowingly breaking the rules. How can you compare
breaking a foot or racket to intentionally trying to break the rules, i.e.
cheat?
-Larry Hodges
Gene Schwartz
> From: "Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com>
> Organization: Uncensored-News.Com $9.95 Uncensored Newsgroups.
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.table-tennis
> Date: 22 Jun 2003 02:48:01 GMT
> Subject: Re: Table Tennis Robots - Opinions
>
> "Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:BB1A6041.BBA3%impl...@pacbell.net...
>> ?
>> I never said that anyone actually said this. The implication was that this
>> is what they should have said. Who actually defaulted him is really
>> irrelevant.
>
> Then every time a person is defaulted, they could ask for their money back,
> even if they were at fault?
>
Well, Larry, nothing prevents them from asking even now. I just don't see
anything wrong with giving the player's money back.
>> yeah, I really don't think that it would be a disaster if players who were
>> not allowed to play for whatever reason, got their money back. Do you
> really
>> think that there would then be a flood of similar defaults?
>
> Probably not, but I see no reason to refund a person for breaking the rules,
> especially if done so intentionally.
The money isn't being refunded BECAUSE he broke the rules, it is being
refunded despite the fact that he broke the rules.
> The directors spend time putting people
> into the draw, the opponents spent money to play, and now they have one less
> person to play. The person at fault is the one who knowingly broke the
> rules, and he doesn't deserve a refund. (The people in his RR, if anything,
> deserve a refund - from the person defaulting out!)
>
It's not a question of what Sjan, or a similar player deserves, and I never
claimed that he deserved a refund. What I said was that it was just the
right thing to do, to give him his money back. It seems to me that you have
twisted my argument by twisting my words, something that you accuse others
of doing to you.
Pete Namoil
> It seems to me that you have
> twisted my argument by twisting my words,
Welcome to the wonderful world of Larry Hodges
> something that you accuse others
> of doing to you.
Larry, REALLY :)
Pete Namoil
You can play bingo all you want but the simple fact remains.
If you knew by your own admission that the racket was illegal
Richard Lee could have prevented the player from entering
instead of threatening physical violence
"Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
news:3ef50312$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
Bernt JG Man
> I'm sure a number
> of other "new" people will now emerge
> to disagree with this statement.
And you can as usaul dismiss them as sock puppets instead of
admitting that Richard Lee knew the situation all along & still
pulled this scam
caccobio10
like him.
marco
"Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
news:3ef51850$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
caccobio10
> Probably not, but I see no reason to refund a person for breaking the
rules,
> especially if done so intentionally. The directors spend time putting
people
> into the draw, the opponents spent money to play, and now they have one
less
> person to play. The person at fault is the one who knowingly broke the
> rules, and he doesn't deserve a refund. (The people in his RR, if
anything,
> deserve a refund - from the person defaulting out!)
>
> -Larry Hodges
darn, you are now making some good sense. I might have to rethink my
position on this....
I'd probably still give him a refund, with a stern warning that "this is the
last time." More as a personal favor, and a show of good will. Same thing
like what happened to me, that I was defaulted despite that I was standing
around the playing hall all day making eye-contact with the NATT staff. A
show of good will would have been to give me a refund.
marco
Bernt JG Man
> "Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:BB1A0C9C.BB68%impl...@pacbell.net...
> > Again, what I am trying to do is separate issues of legality, and the
> > strictist ethicality, the latter being something that few of us can live
> up
> > to, admittedly.
> >
> > Sure, I would say that they should have returned his entry fee under
those
> > circumstances. "Here - you refuse to play by our rules, so here's your
> money
> > back."
>
> This is where I disagree. The directors never said anything of the sort -
> they were busy running the tournament. It was the referee, who's
completely
> independent of the tournament directors, who defaulted him for breaking
the
> rules.
How many tournaments tah tyou know of that the tournament director defaulted
a player. Maybe a few but definitely not as many.
Usually the tournament director is advised of the situtation and (s)he
promptly
refunds the player.
Of course all this is assuming that teh racket was indeed illegal
However Neil Highams clearly establisehed that it was not illegal
Also Larry Hodges continues to evade to answer 2 simple questions
1. If you knew beforehand by your own admission, why did you allow her to
enter ?
2. Was there any chemical inspection at thie tournament ?
> But you may not have realized that the directors had nothing
> to do with it
The director had everything to do with this.
Instead of protecting the players, the touranment director Richard Lee
in fact allowed Alan Williams to threaten a player on teh USENET
not to show up.
If you ask me that constitutes criminal conspiracy.
Bernt JG Man
> dude, I just passed the umpire exam.
Hee Hee Marco She WAS a Regional Umpire until USATT illegally
removed her name from both the coaches list & umpire list.
When I ask Larry Hodges about this he is not answering
> Trust me, your equipment is illegal.
Oh yeah just like I am supposed to trust that ALL the robotNazis
use legal equipment even though there is no chemical inspection
whatsoever at the lower levels ?
Thanks for the laughs
You see lots people don't seem to understand how the ITTF
operates with ruthless efficiency when it comes to punishing the
spineless cowards. They first try to backdoor a rule thru the
Equipment Committee.like the Aspect Ratio, Big Ball, Pip Density etc.
If they fail they take it the general vote or vice versa.
From what I understand the Aspect Ratio failed as a rule change
in the general vote at Tianjin BGM 1995.
What does the ITTF do ? They promptly pass it as a regulation
at Durban . So what is the Aspect Ratio ? Is it a rule or a regulation ?
You tell me newly crowned umpire ?
Bernt JG Man
USATT OFFICIALLY ridiculed longpips in its US Open
Brochure a few years ago ?
BTW she is very cute but you are not her type.
Thanks for asking
"caccobio10" <cacco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ml8Ja.77651$%42.16973@fed1read06...
Larry Hodges
> The money isn't being refunded BECAUSE he broke the rules, it is being
> refunded despite the fact that he broke the rules.
I don't see the reason for the refund in the first place. What is the
specific reason why he should be refunded the money? The player chose to
enter the tournament, and chose to deliberately break the rules.
> > The directors spend time putting people
> > into the draw, the opponents spent money to play, and now they have one
less
> > person to play. The person at fault is the one who knowingly broke the
> > rules, and he doesn't deserve a refund. (The people in his RR, if
anything,
> > deserve a refund - from the person defaulting out!)
> >
>
> It's not a question of what Sjan, or a similar player deserves, and I
never
> claimed that he deserved a refund. What I said was that it was just the
> right thing to do, to give him his money back. It seems to me that you
have
> twisted my argument by twisting my words, something that you accuse others
> of doing to you.
If you say he should get his money back, then that usually implies he
deserves it, but apparently that's not what you meant. Are you are saying he
doesn't deserve the refund, but should still get it? Is this an accurate
assessment? (If so, we'll have to agree to disagree.) If not accurate, then
what am I misinterpreting?
-Larry Hodges
Larry Hodges
Assuming this is correct, you did nothing wrong (other than not hearing your
name called?) and were defaulted. That's a better argument for getting money
back then wanting it back because you deliberately broke the rules and were
defaulted for it. Suppose I were in Sjan's shoes, and were defaulted for
breaking the rules. How would you react if I asked for a refund?
How would you react if Shashin asked for a refund of any entry fee paid for
the Olympic Trials (for the sake of this discussion, assume there was one).
After all, he too was defaulted. What's the distinction? That we'll refund
money if you are defaulted for breaking rules, but not for slapping someone?
Where do we draw the line? And why do tournament directors get penalyzed for
the player's actions?
-Larry Hodges
Bernt JG Man
>
> > Probably not, but I see no reason to refund a person for breaking the
> rules,
> > especially if done so intentionally. The directors spend time putting
> people
> > into the draw, the opponents spent money to play, and now they have one
> less
> > person to play. The person at fault is the one who knowingly broke the
> > rules, and he doesn't deserve a refund. (The people in his RR, if
> anything,
> > deserve a refund - from the person defaulting out!)
> >
> > -Larry Hodges
>
> darn, you are now making some good sense. I might have to rethink my
> position on this....
Except that Larry Hodges left out the important details.
They admit that they knew beforehand for sure that she was going to
use illegal equipment.
But instead of simply not taking the entry fee, what do Alan Williams &
Larry Hodges do ? They openly threaten the player on USENET not
to show up.
How civilized
Gene Schwartz
> From: "Pete Namoil" <___pn...@usa.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.table-tennis
> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:46:39 -0500
> Subject: Re: Table Tennis Robots - Opinions
>
>
Larry Hodges
I think it's hilarious, still another Sjan sock puppet! But since I'm taking
a break, I'll do the monumental mistake of actually responded to this.
> Also Larry Hodges continues to evade to answer 2 simple questions
> 1. If you knew beforehand by your own admission, why did you allow her to
> enter ?
Since I had nothing to do with the tournament other than doing an article on
it and playing in it, what action was I supposed to do? Only the referee can
stop a player from playing. Do you have the mistaken belief that I was the
referee?
> 2. Was there any chemical inspection at thie tournament ?
None that I saw, but then none is required that I know of. If you want to
argue this point, feel free (and quote the appropriate rule requirement),
but I have no interest in this argument since you will always turn it into
the usual profanity-laced discussion, and so discussion with you is
impossible. That's the consequences of your delinquent behaviour.
By the way, was your racket tested to make sure it had a high enough
percentage of wood fiber? If not, I demand that all rackets be tested at all
tournaments. Also, all palms must be tested to make sure they are flat.
Etc., etc.
Have fun, Sjan. I'll be ignoring you the rest of the way, unless you
actually respond in a civilized manner.
-Larry Hodges
sgordon
: If you showed up to a local tournament, and broke your foot in the first
: round, would they also keep your money?
I've played in many tournaments where I've had to withdraw from an
event, and have never asked for or expected a refund on the day of
an event. These days, running a tournament is a labor of love, and
just by my entering I am placing a burden of labor on the director.
By the time the tournament is running, the director has already done
a lot of work processing my entry, putting me in the draw, and now by
my withdrawing (or getting kicked out or whatever), the director is
probably going to have to do a bunch MORE work, redoing the draw or
placating players who suddenly have fewer matches for THEIR money.
Once you run a few tournaments, you start to appreciate how much work
goes into them and you tend to spend less time complaining... and
WORSE yet, SJan obviously pulled this stunt for the sole reason of
making the directors' life even more miserable. He was not the
victim, and HE was the one pulling a "scam", not the directors.
I probably would have refunded the money just to distance myself
from the situation as much as possible. But in spite of how much
I get a kick out of SJan's posts, I really can't fault the director
for not providing a refund for such a ridiculous, egregious,
premeditated, and intentionally disruptive stunt.
Scott
Erik Beverly
> "Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:BB1A717C.BBB1%impl...@pacbell.net...
>
>
> > The money isn't being refunded BECAUSE he broke the rules, it is being
> > refunded despite the fact that he broke the rules.
>
> I don't see the reason for the refund in the first place. What is the
> specific reason why he should be refunded the money? The player chose to
> enter the tournament, and chose to deliberately break the rules.
You keep saying in one post that he deliberately broke the rules & in
another post that you knew she will break the rules beforehand but did
nothing about it except threaten physical violence if she showed up
Erik Beverly
> How would you react if Shashin asked for a refund of any entry fee paid
for
> the Olympic Trials (for the sake of this discussion, assume there was
one).
Since both you Shahsin promote physical violence, Marco would
react accordingly I would assume :)
But as far me I would call the police on you as she did at Matt Murad 2000
Gene Schwartz
> From: "Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com>
> Organization: Uncensored-News.Com $9.95 Uncensored Newsgroups.
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.table-tennis
> Date: 22 Jun 2003 04:13:12 GMT
> Subject: Re: Table Tennis Robots - Opinions
>
> "Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:BB1A717C.BBB1%impl...@pacbell.net...
>
>
>> The money isn't being refunded BECAUSE he broke the rules, it is being
>> refunded despite the fact that he broke the rules.
>
> I don't see the reason for the refund in the first place. What is the
> specific reason why he should be refunded the money? The player chose to
> enter the tournament, and chose to deliberately break the rules.
>
Well, first of all, I was responding to YOUR reasoning. But lets forget you
ever said what you did...
There are some gaps in your thinking.
1. Yes, the player chose to enter the tournament.
2. Yes, chose to deliberately break the rules.
Neither of these were under contention.
I never said that Sjan DESERVED a refund. I never even claimed that the NATT
engaged in unethical behavior. All I said was that, if the NATT were to
adhere to the highest ethical standards, then they would refund money in a
situation like this. There are many situations in life where one may adhere
to the letter of the law, with some justifcation, but alternatively be big
about it and really do the right thing. I'm saying that this is one of those
situations.
You continue to distort what I say by first implying that I was saying that
Sjan should be refunded BECAUSE he broke the rules, and you distorted what I
was saying by implying that I said that he DESERVED a refund.
You repeatedly (with justification) complain that Marco misquotes and
distorts what you say, and then argues with these mythical positions. Marco
does that to anyone who disagrees with him, and exudes any subtlety.
I ask that you accord me the same careful reading that you expect for
yourself.
>>> The directors spend time putting people
>>> into the draw, the opponents spent money to play, and now they have one
> less
>>> person to play. The person at fault is the one who knowingly broke the
>>> rules, and he doesn't deserve a refund. (The people in his RR, if
> anything,
>>> deserve a refund - from the person defaulting out!)
>>>
>>
>> It's not a question of what Sjan, or a similar player deserves, and I
> never
>> claimed that he deserved a refund. What I said was that it was just the
>> right thing to do, to give him his money back. It seems to me that you
> have
>> twisted my argument by twisting my words, something that you accuse others
>> of doing to you.
>
> If you say he should get his money back, then that usually implies he
> deserves it, but apparently that's not what you meant. Are you are saying he
> doesn't deserve the refund, but should still get it? Is this an accurate
> assessment? (If so, we'll have to agree to disagree.) If not accurate, then
> what am I misinterpreting?
>
That's rather weak, to say that because A usually means B (and by usually,
we would probably mean here that usually the context itself would entaili
B), that you inferred that this is what I meant? Stop inferring where it
isn't warranted. I think that if you read my words carefully, the context
did not imply that he DESERVES a refund. He's an ass. Give him the refund
anyway. So I guess I am agreeing to agree to disagree with you, although, in
principle I disagree that agreeing to agree to disagree is usually
meaningful where it is contraindicated by the context.
Now that I've gotten that off my proverbial chest, why are we agreeing, or
disagreeing to disagree in the first place? Surely you admit that there are
situations in life where a person may not DESERVE to be treated well, but
that we do it anyway, just to take the high road? Maybe there have been
situations in your life where you did something BAAAAAD, but the other
person still treated you well even though you didn't deserve it. Isn't life
better that way?
Erik Beverly
> "Bernt JG Man" <___pjsd3...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
>
> I think it's hilarious, still another Sjan sock puppet! But since I'm
taking
> a break, I'll do the monumental mistake of actually responded to this.
>
> > Also Larry Hodges continues to evade to answer 2 simple questions
> > 1. If you knew beforehand by your own admission, why did you allow her
to
> > enter ?
>
> Since I had nothing to do with the tournament other than doing an article
on
> it and playing in it, what action was I supposed to do? Only the referee
can
> stop a player from playing. Do you have the mistaken belief that I was the
> referee?
However this was not the case.
Alan Williams clearly knew that she was going to use an allgedly illegal
racket & that is why he threatened the player not to show up rather than
simply refuse to accpet the entry.
You joined in the threats as well as Craig Oldfield who openly put a hit.
You were all also laughing taking bets saying she won't show up & of
course promptly failed to pay up your bets when she did indeed show up
with police protection.
.
Davis Cheng
>
> > 2. Was there any chemical inspection at thie tournament ?
> None that I saw, but then none is required that I know of.
Since you are the one who claim to know the rules
why don't you quote the rules that says chemical inspection is not
required.
Even if it is true, the more important question is : Is it fair ?
If the Olympic athletes are tested for window dressing, shouldn't the
lower level players be tested as well since it involves 1000s of children ?
I guess the health of a 1100 rated child is not as important as the precious
health of an Olympic athlete ?
Wait a minute what am I thinking ? Of course the Aspect Ratio difference
of 1.5 to 1.3 is harmful to 10000000 of grassroots players as you clearly
explained ( when you rationalized brilliantly as to why you support the
Aspect Ratio rule) & should be a much much higher priority on the ITTF
agenda
I understand now
Davis Cheng
>
> By the way, was your racket tested to make sure it had a high enough
> percentage of wood fiber? If not, I demand that all rackets be tested at
all
> tournaments. Also, all palms must be tested to make sure they are flat.
> Etc., etc.
Just when I thought you could not be any more illogical, you outdo
yourselves
Larry.
What an absurd post.
The blades are usually "manufactured" & modified.
If there is a doubt that a custom home-made blade may not meet the specs I
have no problem in being tested for any oteh rviolations of rules as well
As I said many times I have no problem getting tested .
It is the robotNazis that do not want to be tested.
What is hypocrtical is that we are supposed to take teh robotNazi;s at their
word and yet tactical players will be humiliated ruthlessly
Larry Hodges
We're going to have to agree to disagree both on the "refund policy"
discussion and the other issues you are bringing up.
-Larry Hodges
"Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:BB1A8371.BD9A%impl...@pacbell.net...
Gene Schwartz
happy?
Davis Cheng
> . He was not the victim, and HE was the one pulling
> a "scam", not the directors.
Scott I did not realize you hated tactical players this much.
All she did was enter a tournament and was not allowed to play
for whatever reason.
It is common courtesy to return the money though may be not legally.
Obviously Richard Lee doe snot have that decency.
It is not like she made a scene at teh tournament or resorted to
violence. I am amazed you want to twist this around
> I really can't fault the director
> for not providing a refund for such a ridiculous, egregious,
> premeditated, and intentionally disruptive stunt.
Again I don;t undrstand why this is a stunt.
She entered a tournament, was refused & she walked away
without incident .
What else did she do to make this a "stunt" ?
Davis Cheng
> : If you showed up to a local tournament, and broke your foot in the first
> : round, would they also keep your money?
>
> I've played in many tournaments where I've had to withdraw from an
> event, and have never asked for or expected a refund on the day of
> an event. These days, running a tournament is a labor of love, and
> just by my entering I am placing a burden of labor on the director.
> By the time the tournament is running, the director has already done
> a lot of work processing my entry, putting me in the draw, and now by
> my withdrawing (or getting kicked out or whatever), the director is
> probably going to have to do a bunch MORE work, redoing the draw or
> placating players who suddenly have fewer matches for THEIR money.
> Once you run a few tournaments, you start to appreciate how much work
> goes into them and you tend to spend less time complaining...
Blah blah blah
What the hell does this all have to do with common courtesy & decency
Davis Cheng
whole discussion.
The fee refund is not the issue but it points to a much bigger problems
Why are tactical players treated like garbage
Also why is a tactical player being punished by the USATT by having her
name removed from the coaches & umpire list simply because she
questions the validity & decency of some rules on the USENET
Why are you evading answering this question ?
"Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
news:3ef53...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
Davis Cheng
& apologize.
"Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:BB1A881F.BDA6%impl...@pacbell.net...
Larry Hodges
> Does that mean that you disagree. or are you just implying it to make me
> happy?
To a degree, both.
When someone regulary changes someone's words, that's distortion, and we all
know there are regulars who do that regulary. If you believe I
misinterpreted your words, then all you had to was point out where I
misinterpreted it, and go from there. I asked you specifically if I had
misinterpreted your words, and when I came back later, you basically
lambasted me. I don't think misinterpreting that Sjan should get a refund
for deserved a refund was worth any more than a correction. We've had few
fights in the past, and as far as I'm concerned, there's no reason to now.
-Larry Hodges
caccobio10
marco
"Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
news:3ef52dc4$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
caccobio10
have really lost it mentally bigtime. I just don't see how you've managed
to stay away from the game so long. I'm definitely addicted. I still
continue to play despite all the problems.
marco
"Bernt JG Man" <___pjsd3...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:bd3a79$oj3ts$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
caccobio10
asking the same questions twice.
marco
"Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
news:3ef52cd8$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
caccobio10
knows darn well what you said, as does anyone who can read. There is no
need to repeat yourself.
marco
"Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:BB1A8371.BD9A%impl...@pacbell.net...
caccobio10
But like you, I would have probably refunded him anyway, although with a
stern warning.
marco
"sgordon" <sgo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:6baJa.4411$%3.24...@typhoon.sonic.net...
caccobio10
about the individual players; unless they are so highly rated that they can
help to draw more business for him. NATT does make an effort to be able to
say that "everything was wonderful" so that they can make sure to get lots
of entries next time.
To date: NATT tournaments are generally overcrowded (no realistic cut-off in
entries), don't have enough space for each table, force players to play 4
matches in a row without even a 5-minute break, have questionable ratings
cut-offs (sometimes going to the last published magazine rating instead of
the generally-accepted 1 month cut-off), don't give refunds when they
should, put too much prize money into the 1rst place with not enough further
down the trough, often use crappy stiga balls instead of the more popular
Nittaku, have used white balls without printing it on the entry forms
(causing this poster to have to wear the same shirt throughout the whole
day), are run like a heartless corporation.
I know we need TT to become more corporate, but I don't think we need to
lose the TD-player relationship in the process. I think TD's should work to
keep that "small-town flavor" in their dealings with the players.
And before someone thinks that I'm trying to sabatoge NATT, I am not. I'm
just giving an honest appraisal. I appreciate their pioneering spirit. I'm
putting forth the above list of complaints as something that future
companies (or even NATT if they ever grow a brain or a heart) can try and
work on to make it even better.
marco
"Bernt JG Man" <___pjsd3...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:bd395a$oblb2$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
> news:3ef50312$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
>
> > I'm sure a number
> > of other "new" people will now emerge
> > to disagree with this statement.
>
> And you can as usaul dismiss them as sock puppets instead of
> admitting that Richard Lee knew the situation all along & still
> pulled this scam
>
>
>
>
>
>
sgordon
: What else did she do to make this a "stunt" ?
She admitted that she announced ahead of time that s/he was planning
to play with illegal equipment. It is clear that s/he entered solely
so s/he could get expelled for trying to use a 1-color raquet. That,
in my book, is a "stunt". The funny thing is, instead of using it as
some way of pressuring the ITTF (which is presumably where the real
gripe is), s/he is using it to lambast the local tournament directors,
who are bound by the same rules that s/he is. How is making life
miserable for a domestic tournament director going to help anything?
Scott
Larry Hodges
> I already answered this question. Why do you ask me twice?
> marco
Because 1) you didn't answer it, and 2) because why shouldn't I, since you
keep responding with the same repetitive responses in various places in this
thread, which I'm now ignoring.
-Larry Hodges
Larry Hodges
> To date: NATT tournaments are generally overcrowded (no realistic cut-off
in
> entries), don't have enough space for each table, force players to play 4
> matches in a row without even a 5-minute break, have questionable ratings
> cut-offs (sometimes going to the last published magazine rating instead of
> the generally-accepted 1 month cut-off), don't give refunds when they
> should, put too much prize money into the 1rst place with not enough
further
> down the trough, often use crappy stiga balls instead of the more popular
> Nittaku, have used white balls without printing it on the entry forms
> (causing this poster to have to wear the same shirt throughout the whole
> day), are run like a heartless corporation.
I'm not going to go over these point by point. Some I agree, others I don't.
I suggest you go over them critically, both from a players AND a tournament
director's point of view. For example, to get you started, are you saying
the Stiga-sponsored North American Tour should be using rival Nittaku balls?
And are you still complaining that they don't give refunds when they should,
presumably because they didn't refund Sjan when he was defaulted by the
referee, and ***he didn't ask for a refund***? To the point that you'd add
this in as one of the serious gripes? Regarding the white ball episode, I
believe that came about one time when they were sent the wrong color balls.
There's a difference between one-time problems and ongoing problems.
Disclosure: I help NATT set up and run a number of tournaments in recent
times.
Gene Schwartz
> From: "Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com>
> Organization: Uncensored-News.Com $9.95 Uncensored Newsgroups.
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.table-tennis
> Date: 22 Jun 2003 05:16:59 GMT
> Subject: Re: Table Tennis Robots - Opinions
>
> "Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:BB1A881F.BDA6%impl...@pacbell.net...
>> Does that mean that you disagree. or are you just implying it to make me
>> happy?
>
> To a degree, both.
>
Larry, that was a joke! For godssakes man, are you going to force me to use
smileys?
> When someone regulary changes someone's words, that's distortion, and we all
> know there are regulars who do that regulary.
"regularly" has nothing to do with it. One can distort another's words once,
or a thousand times.
> If you believe I
> misinterpreted your words, then all you had to was point out where I
> misinterpreted it, and go from there. I asked you specifically if I had
> misinterpreted your words, and when I came back later, you basically
> lambasted me.
I pointed out where I think that my arguments became distorted after they
entered Larry Hodges and emerged in another form and with different intent.
If you read what I said, I implied that you did it carelessly (I urged you
to use the same care in interpreting my words as you expected others to use
interpreting your words). One may distort as a result of misinterpretaion,
brought on by a careless reading.
To drag this out ad nauseum - you may misinterpret, but if you then restate
what I say incorrectly in order to refute it, then you have distorted it. Do
you disagree? Or are we agreeing to disagree again?
I think that "lambasted" is a little harsh here. But it seems there is a
degree to which you won't listen. As you say to Marco, kind of - I am not
lambasting you, but trying to have a careful discussion.
> I don't think misinterpreting that Sjan should get a refund
> for deserved a refund was worth any more than a correction. We've had few
> fights in the past, and as far as I'm concerned, there's no reason to now.
>
Agreed. Fighting evil is too important to get distracted by petty
philosophical disputes. Or is it?
Gene Schwartz
is an Sjan sockpuppet. I think that I deserve a refund!
> From: "Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com>
> Organization: Uncensored-News.Com $9.95 Uncensored Newsgroups.
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.table-tennis
> Date: 22 Jun 2003 01:18:34 GMT
> Subject: Re: Table Tennis Robots - Opinions
>
> "Gene Schwarz" <GW_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bd2p2o$ok5gn$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
>> Larry,
>> Even if all that is true I think Richard Lee should have refunded the fee
>> Either him or Alan Williams were the tournament directors or at least
>> in charge of NATT.
>> It is a disgrace that they not only harass tactical players but all rob
> them
>> while
>> the robotNazis continue to cheat using paint thinner, lighter fluid etc
>> endangering the
>> health of children.
>
> Hi Sjan sock puppet. Don't you ever get tired of the same old silly and
> mindless tricks? Try something new for a change.
>
> -Larry Hodges
>
>> "Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
>> news:3ef4bb57$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
>>> "Gym852" <gym...@cs.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20030621155124...@mb-m07.news.cs.com...
>>>>> She was illegally banned at Matt Murad by Alan Willaiams & Richard
> Lee
>>>>> kept the entry fe
>>>>
>>>> I must have missed something here, who was banned and what was the
>> reason?
>>>> the Old Duffer
>>>
>>> Sjan and his many sock puppets are misleading people. The referee
>> defaulted
>>> Sjan (Srinivas Janardhanan) for having an illegal racket (I believe it
> was
>>> red on both sides, but it might have been illegal long pips - it's been
> a
>>> while). Neither Alan nor Richard or anyone else had anything to do with
>> it.
Gene Schwartz
> From: "Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com>
> Organization: Uncensored-News.Com $9.95 Uncensored Newsgroups.
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.table-tennis
> Date: 22 Jun 2003 04:17:08 GMT
> Subject: Re: Table Tennis Robots - Opinions
>
>
> Suppose I were in Sjan's shoes, and were defaulted for
> breaking the rules. How would you react if I asked for a refund?
>
Well, Damn Larry, is it now against the law to wear Sjan's shoes, and why
would you be wearing them anyway?
But, to answer your question as I think you intended it, I would refund your
money no matter whose shoes you were wearing.
Larry Hodges
> How disconcerting it is to live one's entire life and not realize that one
> is an Sjan sockpuppet. I think that I deserve a refund!
I was responding to one of the Sjan sock puppets, "Bernt JG Man" to be
specific, not you. There are many, many identities on this newsgroup today,
but only about 4-5 actual people. The resident one-trick pony (sjan) still
only has one trick after all these years - lots of silly sock puppets.
-Larry Hodges
Neil S Highams
news:bd2oqt$oec2c$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
> Larry ,
>
> Did you not post today that you knew in advance that she was going to use
> illegal equipment (despite threats from you & Alan Williams & death threat
> from Craig Oldfield and she had to call the University of Maryland police
&
> they showed up & were guarding Larry Hodges & Tim Boggan) ?
>
Now this is really funny. How old is Tim Boggan? If you need the police to
protect you from a Senior Citizen you really are a sad individual. A death
threat from Craig Oldfield? You really think anybody cares enough to want
you dead? And would actually pay for it? Delusions of grandeur again!
--
Neil Highams
Neil S Highams
news:bd2ojt$mtvnq$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
> I thought we just discussed this Larry
> First of all, if Richard Lee & Alan Williams knew in advance (by your own
> admission).that the equipment was illegal . then why did they take the
> money.
As they are unfortunate enough not to share your superhuman psychic
abilities, they weren't able to know for definite what equipment you were
going to use. By entering the tournament you agreed to abide by the rules
and regluations in force at the event, and they no doubt took this in good
faith.
> They had the time to post on the USENET to threaten her repeatedly
> (that police had to be called) but did not have the time to say "No
thanks".
>
> Secondly as it was explained clearly by Neil Highams yesterday, the Aspect
> Ratio rule is not a valid rule since it was not passed by the ITTF general
> vote.
> Therefore she should not have been defaulted
>
I know I really shouldn't need to bother, but in case anybody can't spot a
sockpuppet, I said no such thing.
> How many more times do you want me to explain all this to you ?
>
>
How about 0? :-)
--
Neil Highams
>
> "Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com> wrote in message
> news:3ef4baff$1...@news4.uncensored-news.com...
> > You have to remember that, contrary to what Sjan wrote, the directors -
> > Richard and Alan - did not keep him from playing. The referee defaulted
> him
> > for refusing to use a legal racket. No one else had anything to do with
> it.
> >
> > At the U.S. Open, if I get defaulted for using illegal equipment, should
I
> > get a refund on my entry fee?
> >
> > -Larry Hodges
> >
> > "Gene Schwartz" <impl...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:BB19E599.BB3E%impl...@pacbell.net...
> > > hmmmm - an interesting question. Obviously I'm no fan of Marco or
Sjan,
> > but
> > > I try to be objective, so...
> > >
> > > I'd say that this is one of those issues where, while the NATT would
be
> > > legally in the right, I'd say that they should have given back the
entry
> > > fee. It's not an amount of money that will hurt the organization,
there
> > are
> > > not many people like Sjan that would be enouraged to act similarly -
it
> > just
> > > comes down to doing the right thing. You paid to play, we won't let
you
> > play
> > > (for whatever the reason), so here's your entry fee back.
> > >
> > > Now, I wouldn't call this an egregious crime, exactly...I can see why
> they
> > > didn't give him his money back. But if it were me making the decision,
I
> > > would hope that I would be level headed enough to refund him his
money.
> > >
> > > > From: "Larry Hodges" <la...@larrytt.com>
> > > > Organization: Uncensored-News.Com $9.95 Uncensored Newsgroups.
> > > > Newsgroups: rec.sport.table-tennis
> > > > Date: 21 Jun 2003 06:16:40 GMT
> > > > Subject: Re: Table Tennis Robots - Opinions
> > > >
> > > > "caccobio10" <cacco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:QORIa.77401$%42.26151@fed1read06...
> > > >> hmmm, I think it's fair to say that they should have refunded your
> > entry
> > > >> fees.
> > > >
> > > > Marco,
> > > >
> > > > Why should someone who enters a tournament, announces in advance he
> will
> > use
> > > > illegal equipment, shows up with the illegal equipment, refuses to
> > change,
> > > > and then gets defaulted, get a refund?
> > > >
> > > > -Larry Hodges
> > > >
> > > >> Last year I went to an NATT tournament, and somehow I got the times
> > wrong
> > > >> for my events. So they defaulted me. No problem there, right? My
> > fault,
> > > >> right?
> > > >>
> > > >> The only problem was, that I was walking back and forth in front of
> the
> > > >> control desk about 1000 times, as I casually was hanging out,
> catching
> > up
> > > >> with people, observing matches, etc. Many times Alan made eye
> contact
> > > > with
> > > >> me. Do you think just once he might have said something? Like,
"hey
> > > > marco,
> > > >> why did you default? we called your name 3 times," etc. etc.
Nope.
> > > > Never
> > > >> said a word. Neither did any of the staff.
> > > >>
> > > >> And no, I didn't get a refund either.
> > > >>
> > > >> Now don't get me wrong, I know that technically it was my fault.
But
> > the
> > > >> funny thing is, I get better treatment at my bank than I do from
> NATT.
> > > >>
> > > >> marco
> > > >>
> > > >> "Bruce Lio" <brd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:bd0gm6$nrd5j$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "DamienEloi" <dam_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >>> news:3770efe7.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> you shouldn't be allowed to play.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Do you even know how to read ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That is the crux of the whole issue.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> She was illegally banned at Matt Murad by Alan Willaiams &
Richard
> > Lee
> > > >>> kept the entry fees.
Neil S Highams
news:bd2pui$og8lu$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
> The Matt Murad 2000 organizers used arbitrarily & premeditated
> visual inspection ( without any chemical inspection whatsoever against any
> other players) and deliberately banned a tactical player & pocketed the
> entry fees.
>
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!
--
Neil Highams
P.S. A small prize to anyone who can name the TV show this quote came from.
Hint: British sit-com.
>
> "Gym852" <gym...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:20030621155124...@mb-m07.news.cs.com...
> > >She was illegally banned at Matt Murad by Alan Willaiams & Richard Lee
Craig Oldfield
neil_h...@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk burbled happily...
> Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!
>
I know it, I know it...
--
Craig Oldfield
Chico
> "Pete Namoli" <PEDN...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bd2pui$og8lu$1...@ID-158805.news.dfncis.de...
> > The Matt Murad 2000 organizers used arbitrarily & premeditated
> > visual inspection ( without any chemical inspection whatsoever against any
> > other players) and deliberately banned a tactical player & pocketed the
> > entry fees.
> >
>
>
> Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!
> --
> Neil Highams
>
> P.S. A small prize to anyone who can name the TV show this quote came from.
> Hint: British sit-com.
"Yes Minister"??
Chico Humphreys