Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Shakes...welcome

5 views
Skip to first unread message

bob

unread,
Oct 26, 2011, 8:13:51 PM10/26/11
to
..to tier I. you've well earned it.

bob

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Oct 26, 2011, 8:34:07 PM10/26/11
to
On Oct 26, 5:13 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> ..to tier I. you've well earned it.
>
> bob

Shakes IS tier #1 around here... he's one of the very few who is... we
can only dream of being that clear minded about tennis...

P

Gracchus

unread,
Oct 26, 2011, 8:43:28 PM10/26/11
to
On Oct 27, 8:13 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> ..to tier I. you've well earned it.
>
> bob

We all know what that means...the bobsie twins become the bobsie
triplets.

DavidW

unread,
Oct 26, 2011, 9:01:41 PM10/26/11
to
bob wrote:
> ..to tier I. you've well earned it.

The next and final level is Aussie expert (or tier 0).


Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Oct 26, 2011, 11:19:11 PM10/26/11
to
Shakes is very knowledgeable about tennis... I certainly don't agree
with everything he says, and yet he's a smart tennis guy...

P

John Liang

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 1:20:31 AM10/27/11
to
Tier 1 and tier 0 are not highly regarded in RST. It is the club for
very selective
tools.

Superdave

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 2:09:53 AM10/27/11
to
yes, tools for people like for whisper who can't even shit straight
and need them to make it "seem" as if they are saying something
when in fact they are dribbling shit all over rst like a sick puppy.

MBDunc

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 2:30:40 AM10/27/11
to
Shakes is great and he as fewer holes/contradictions in his plot than
most of tier1 wannabes.

.mikko

SliceAndDice

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 3:31:02 AM10/27/11
to
+1. Since bob is the one who has proclaimed Shakes tier 1, it is a
dubious honor at best. Shakes deserves better :)

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 12:46:29 PM10/27/11
to
I agree with tier 1 is nonsense... bit of fun there...

Shakes overall remains and intelligent and insightful poster here at
RST... you can disagree with his views but they have merit as argument
and assertion... unlike some... that's all I am saying...

P

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 12:46:51 PM10/27/11
to
Yes!

Well said...

P

reilloc

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 1:34:04 PM10/27/11
to
On 10/26/2011 7:13 PM, bob wrote:
> ..to tier I. you've well earned it.
>
> bob

Isn't this like Andy Murray saying, "welcome to the list of slam
winners"(?) To bestow an honor you first have to have it yourself.

LNC

bob

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 1:42:26 PM10/27/11
to
shakes knows very well the prestige of being proclaimed tier I by me.
:-)

bob

bob

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 1:41:07 PM10/27/11
to
i've got you at tier II mikko, not too shabby.

bob

Shakes

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 4:23:16 PM10/27/11
to
On 2011-10-26 17:13:51 -0700, bob said:

> ..to tier I. you've well earned it.
>
> bob

thanks, bob ! i'm flattered. :-)

i miss the real top guys though - blanders, michael lockhart, dudewaba,
even rupedski when he talks about tennis. they were very insightful.

bob

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 8:17:34 PM10/27/11
to
had rupedski stuck with it, he might've been tier I by now also.

bob

jdeluise

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 9:02:37 PM10/27/11
to

On 27-Oct-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> thanks, bob ! i'm flattered. :-)

You're flattered by a badge of dishonor, huh?

jdeluise

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 9:08:05 PM10/27/11
to

On 27-Oct-2011, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:

> Shakes overall remains and intelligent and insightful poster here at
> RST... you can disagree with his views but they have merit as argument
> and assertion... unlike some... that's all I am saying...

Yes, you're right. Shakes is definitely thoughtful and articulate. No
complaints there.

John Liang

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 9:20:04 PM10/27/11
to
On Oct 28, 4:41 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:30:40 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
>
> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
> >Shakes is great and he as fewer holes/contradictions in his plot than
> >most of tier1 wannabes.
>
> i've got you at tier II mikko, not too shabby.
>
> bob

I got you at 0.5 but that is just above the Aussie Expert level,
almost
2nd to non to you know who..

John Liang

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 9:23:00 PM10/27/11
to
I am surprised to see you feel honor for this invitation to join the
club of tools..

bob

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 9:41:28 PM10/27/11
to
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:08:05 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
not to mention usually correct.....

bob

PeteWasLucky

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 9:26:53 PM10/27/11
to
?ools?

bob

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 9:43:41 PM10/27/11
to
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:02:37 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>On 27-Oct-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> thanks, bob ! i'm flattered. :-)
>
>You're flattered by a badge of dishonor, huh?

shakes has been on a tear and when he decides to take a thread
seriously, he leaves jdeluise/joe/john shellshocked. let's be honest
about it.

bob

Giovanna

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 9:54:30 PM10/27/11
to

> >Yes, you're right.  Shakes is definitely thoughtful and articulate.  No
> >complaints there.
>
> not to mention usually correct.....
>
> bob

he's a fed fan no?

John Liang

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 11:16:56 PM10/27/11
to
No, he's the heir apparent to Whisper and foundation member of
Whsper's tool club..

John Liang

unread,
Oct 27, 2011, 11:39:11 PM10/27/11
to
On Oct 28, 12:43 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:02:37 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 27-Oct-2011, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> thanks, bob ! i'm flattered. :-)
>
> >You're flattered by a badge of dishonor, huh?
>
> shakes has been on a tear and when he decides to take a thread
> seriously, he leaves jdeluise/joe/john shellshocked. let's be honest
> about it.
>
> bob

Leave me shellshocked ? Let's be honest as I am still waiting for
Shake to counter
my argument on him using break points/match and break points/sets as
less
accurate measure of service return effectiveness compare to break
points/service games.
Shake was good in presenting a set of stats but it wasn't difficult
for me to see the flaws
of his statistics. Unlike you bob, Shake did use real statistics not
something like 2001 Sampras was 30% off his
best how did you measure that bob ?

Gracchus

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 12:52:53 AM10/28/11
to
On Oct 28, 9:43 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

> shakes has been on a tear and when he decides to take a thread
> seriously, he leaves jdeluise/joe/john shellshocked. let's be honest
> about it.

Translation: He's been agreeing with bob.

Shakes

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 1:05:09 AM10/28/11
to
yes, fed and sampras. like you, Gio. :-)

Shakes

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 1:04:06 AM10/28/11
to
It was just a compliment, the way I took it. My second sentence gives
away what I think. :-)

SliceAndDice

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 1:28:57 AM10/28/11
to
On Oct 28, 6:41 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:08:05 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 27-Oct-2011, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> Shakes overall remains and intelligent and insightful poster here at
> >> RST... you can disagree with his views but they have merit as argument
> >> and assertion... unlike some... that's all I am saying...
>
> >Yes, you're right.  Shakes is definitely thoughtful and articulate.  No
> >complaints there.
>
> not to mention usually correct.....
>
> bob

Translation: he favors Sampras.

Whisper

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 2:03:30 AM10/28/11
to
That's shorthand terminology used amongst tier 1's. Bottomfeeders
wouldn't understand. bob erred in using tier slang outside tier 1
group. He'll be more careful in future.

bob

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 7:06:54 AM10/28/11
to
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:03:30 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:
yeah, i never thought john could actually comprehend what he's seeing
on court, better to stick to the stats tables in the following days
paper.

bob

MBDunc

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 7:13:13 AM10/28/11
to
Applies to usual "gut feeling", "me thinks", "wouldacouldashoulda" as
well. Your tier1 perhaps should be more careful with these. Currenly
these
terms are badly inflated due the lack of real facts.

.mikko

John Liang

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 7:29:35 AM10/28/11
to
On Oct 28, 5:03 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> On 28/10/2011 2:39 PM, John Liang wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 28, 12:43 pm, bob<stein...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> shakes has been on a tear and when he decides to take a thread
> >> seriously, he leaves jdeluise/joe/john shellshocked. let's be honest
> >> about it.
>
> >> bob
>
> > Leave me shellshocked ?  Let's be honest as I am still waiting for
> > Shake to counter
> > my argument on him using break points/match and break points/sets as
> > less
> > accurate measure of service return effectiveness compare to break
> > points/service games.
> > Shake was good in presenting a set of stats but it wasn't difficult
> > for me to see the flaws
> > of his statistics.  Unlike you bob, Shake did use real statistics not
> > something like 2001 Sampras was 30% off his
> > best how did you measure that bob ?
>
> That's shorthand terminology used amongst tier 1's.

This shorthand terminology are used by fools who believe they are tier
1 analyst when
they can't produce a single fact to back up any of their arguments
convincingly.


> Bottomfeeders
> wouldn't understand.  bob erred in using tier slang outside tier 1
> group.  He'll be more careful in future.- Hide quoted text -

Bob and you erred in using tier 1 fool's slang and of course it is
quite
difficult to understand for people with normal intelligence.
>
> - Show quoted text -

John Liang

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 7:40:22 AM10/28/11
to
> .mikko- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You miss a few newly defined phrase from these tier 1 experts like

In absolute terms,

BOAT,

7543

Ability GOAT

You can't be serious expecting this self claimed tier 1 guys to
research or understand
any facts. gut feeling, me thinks, wouldacouldashoulda, in absolute
term, ability GOAT
made up 99% of their arguments in any of these threads.

Rodjk #613

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 8:01:03 AM10/28/11
to
It isn't as though there is anything wrong with favoring Sampras...

Rodjk #613

drew

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 8:52:36 AM10/28/11
to
On Oct 26, 8:13 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> ..to tier I. you've well earned it.
>
> bob

The only thing he has in common with you is that he was a Sampras
fan....as many here were.

For most men, an endorsement from bob is like an invitation to join
the Buggery Club of America.

Whisper

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 9:15:20 AM10/28/11
to
Yes, difficult for normal intelligence to uderstand, so impossible for you.


John Liang

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 11:35:26 AM10/28/11
to
Normal intelligence is beyond folk like you and bob.

John Liang

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 11:36:46 AM10/28/11
to
On Oct 29, 12:15 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
Of course, fools are alike in their thinkings just like you and bob.

bob

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 5:41:28 PM10/28/11
to
come in...and mess it up.

bob

bob

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 5:41:02 PM10/28/11
to
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 04:13:13 -0700 (PDT), MBDunc
<mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:

i love real facts as much as anyone but they must be interpreted
properly. that's where biases and misunderstandings come in.

bob

MBDunc

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 6:14:38 AM10/29/11
to
I am not saying "gut feelings", "me thinks", "wouldacouldashoulda" are
bad thing. Opposite infact.

But you must be careful when using those when push comes to shove.

.mikko

SliceAndDice

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 6:19:03 AM10/29/11
to
I do not think I ever said that? All I am saying is that, whenever bob
says someone is "usually correct", that means that their arguments are
favouring Sampras, regardless of their being correct or not.

John Liang

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 6:36:41 AM10/29/11
to
> favouring Sampras, regardless of their being correct or not.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, that is correct. When bob said he loves facts what he actually
meant was as long
as fact support his standing position on sampras or support his
uninform opinion of any
players he would treat them as correct otherwise they are been seen by
bob as bias
or poorly interpret facts. Bob usually put up his argment base on his
opinions while bob
says he loves fact he never able to provide any fact to back up his
opinion.

Superdave

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 7:49:57 AM10/29/11
to
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:01:03 -0700 (PDT), "Rodjk #613" <rjk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
what's his 7543? oh wait !

bob

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 8:34:14 AM10/29/11
to
is it possible that an argument can be correct and also show something
favorable to sampras?

bob

bob

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 8:37:43 AM10/29/11
to
some people understand tennnis.
some people understand numbers.
some people understand both.

john understands neither.

bob

SliceAndDice

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 9:58:33 AM10/29/11
to
On Oct 29, 5:34 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 03:19:03 -0700 (PDT), SliceAndDice
>
>
>
> <visha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 28, 5:01 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 28, 12:28 am, SliceAndDice <visha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 28, 6:41 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:08:05 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> > > >On 27-Oct-2011, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > >> Shakes overall remains and intelligent and insightful poster here at
> >> > > >> RST... you can disagree with his views but they have merit as argument
> >> > > >> and assertion... unlike some... that's all I am saying...
>
> >> > > >Yes, you're right.  Shakes is definitely thoughtful and articulate.  No
> >> > > >complaints there.
>
> >> > > not to mention usually correct.....
>
> >> > > bob
>
> >> > Translation: he favors Sampras.
>
> >> It isn't as though there is anything wrong with favoring Sampras...
>
> >> Rodjk #613
>
> >I do not think I ever said that? All I am saying is that, whenever bob
> >says someone is "usually correct", that means that their arguments are
> >favouring Sampras, regardless of their being correct or not.
>
> is it possible that an argument can be correct and also show something
> favorable to sampras?
>
> bob

Yes.

John Liang

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 10:13:04 AM10/29/11
to
> bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

John understand one thing that is bob is a fool and whatever he posted
can't be trusted.or taken seriously

bob

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 10:29:26 AM10/29/11
to
cool! for a minute, i didn't think anybody would admit that!

bob

John Liang

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 10:21:25 AM10/29/11
to
On Oct 29, 11:37 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bob,

I don't understand number because number is for kid and maths and
statistic are for adults, kids and fools do understand number but
they don't understand maths and stats. You are fool that is why you
are on a kid level and only understand number. While people
with superior knowledge understand maths and statistics. Kids know
the number by counting their fingers and toes that extend
to you as well bob.

bob

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 10:34:28 AM10/29/11
to
and what's your excuse for not understanding tennis? ;-)

bob

John Liang

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 12:10:22 PM10/29/11
to
Who said I don't understand tennis ? I said that before we can't
trust judgement of people with kid level intelligence.

pltr...@xhost.org

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 12:19:56 PM10/29/11
to
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 07:21:25 -0700 (PDT), John Liang <jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't understand number because number is for kid and maths and
>statistic are for adults....

OK, try doing math and statistics without numbers. Let me know how you make out.

-- Larry (BS, MS mathematics)

John Liang

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 7:33:41 PM10/29/11
to
On Oct 30, 3:19 am, pltrg...@xhost.org wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 07:21:25 -0700 (PDT), John Liang <jlian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I don't understand number because number is for kid and maths and
> >statistic are for adults....
>
> OK, try doing math and statistics without numbers. Let me know how you make out.
>
> -- Larry (BS, MS mathematics)

If your level is only extend to counting numbers with your feet and
fingers like bob you are going
to do much in maths and statistics even you know the number to that
level. I hope you are not
at bob's level.

bob

unread,
Oct 30, 2011, 10:20:07 AM10/30/11
to
shakes presented the relevant #s. you need to understand both tennis
*and* numbers to understand the whole picture john. you understand
neither unfortunately.

bob (BS Engineering, MS Computer Science, PhD Tennis Analysis)

John Liang

unread,
Oct 30, 2011, 4:59:27 PM10/30/11
to
On Oct 31, 1:20 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 16:33:41 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
>
Shake could not come up with any more meaningful argment when I
exposed his flaws in his relevant #s. It needs a higher level of
intelligence to understand both tennis and numbers that is something
neither you annd whisper have. Otherwise how the hell we had both you
and whisper predict something as stupid as Roddick on steroid.

John Liang

unread,
Oct 30, 2011, 5:05:30 PM10/30/11
to
On Oct 31, 1:20 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 16:33:41 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
>
bob ( Bull Shitting Enginering, PHD Tennis Analysis (from Whisper
university)

Gracchus

unread,
Oct 30, 2011, 9:52:54 PM10/30/11
to
On Oct 30, 10:20 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:

> bob (BS Engineering, MS Computer Science, PhD Tennis Analysis)

I would think this is fully tongue-in-cheek if you hadn't recently
told the group that you have a high salary and are surrounded in the
workplace by people seeking to emulate you. I really hope it is done
in a lighthearted spirit. If one needs to list degrees (or IQ claims)
in a forum like this, it usually means their argument is not standing
well on its own.

bob

unread,
Oct 31, 2011, 6:30:57 AM10/31/11
to
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:52:54 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 30, 10:20 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> bob (BS Engineering, MS Computer Science, PhD Tennis Analysis)
>
>I would think this is fully tongue-in-cheek

of course it is. i can't resist poking at john.

>if you hadn't recently
>told the group that you have a high salary and are surrounded in the
>workplace by people seeking to emulate you. I really hope it is done
>in a lighthearted spirit.

for my profession i'm mediocre at best, but happened upon a very lucky
niche tailor made to my lone skill.

> If one needs to list degrees (or IQ claims)
>in a forum like this, it usually means their argument is not standing
>well on its own.

IMO IQ is meaningless. it's what you do with that IQ that counts.

bob

Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Oct 31, 2011, 12:31:38 PM10/31/11
to
> and whisper predict something as stupid as Roddick on steroid.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

1. It's 'Shakes' not Shake...

2. You are in a very small club around RST if you don't believe/think
that Shakes knows tennis on a high level... sorry about that...

P

TT

unread,
Oct 31, 2011, 1:29:05 PM10/31/11
to
31.10.2011 18:31, Patrick Kehoe kirjoitti:

> 1. It's 'Shakes' not Shake...
>

For Goodness' sake
I got the Hippy Hippy Shakes
I got the Shakes
I got the Hippy Hippy Shakes

Ooh, I can't sit still
With the Hippy Hippy Shakes
I get my fill, now
With the Hippy Hippy Shakes
Yeah, it's in the bag
Ooh, the Hippy Hippy Shake

Well, now, you shake it to the left
You shake it to the right
Do the Hippy Shake Shake
With all of your might

Ooh, baby
Ooh, yeah come on and shake
Ooh, it's in the bag
Oh,The Hippy Hippy Shake

Shakes

unread,
Oct 31, 2011, 2:21:07 PM10/31/11
to
On 2011-10-30 13:59:27 -0700, John Liang said:

> On Oct 31, 1:20 am, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 16:33:41 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
>>
>> <jlian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 3:19 am, pltrg...@xhost.org wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 07:21:25 -0700 (PDT), John Liang
>>>> <jlian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I don't understand number because number is for kid and maths and
>>>>> statistic are for adults....
>>
>>>> OK, try doing math and statistics without numbers. Let me know how you
>>>> make out.
>>
>>>> -- Larry (BS, MS mathematics)
>>
>>> If your level is only extend to counting numbers with your feet and
>>> fingers like bob you are going to do much in maths and statistics even
>>> you know the number to that
>>> level.  I hope you are not at bob's level.
>>
>> shakes presented the relevant #s. you need to understand both tennis
>> *and* numbers to understand the whole picture john. you understand
>> neither unfortunately.
>>
>> bob (BS Engineering, MS Computer Science, PhD Tennis Analysis)
>
> Shake could not come up with any more meaningful argment when I
> exposed his flaws in his relevant #s.

John, I did reply to your post in that other thread.


felangey

unread,
Oct 31, 2011, 3:09:54 PM10/31/11
to
2. You are in a very small club around RST if you don't believe/think
that Shakes knows tennis on a high level... sorry about that...

And you know this because.....of the poll we just had? Or something?
.


Patrick Kehoe

unread,
Oct 31, 2011, 3:18:54 PM10/31/11
to
well... what do you think about Shakes?

I think he's a good, intelligent contributor to this board... what you
thinkin'?

P

John Liang

unread,
Nov 1, 2011, 9:09:15 PM11/1/11
to
> John, I did reply to your post in that other thread.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You rely was a match lost by Hewitt will tilt that argument the other
way which is
fine in itself but I said the break points/service games served was
more accurate
than break points/matches or sets played in determining the
effectiveness of returns.
I also said during 2000-2002 Hewitt's return of Sampras serve was
growing in its
effictiveness while Agassi's return was going the other way.

John Liang

unread,
Nov 1, 2011, 9:12:45 PM11/1/11
to
> P- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My post was addressed to bob and it has nothing to do with what I
think of shake. I just don't
think bob and whisper are on a high level...

John Liang

unread,
Nov 1, 2011, 9:14:36 PM11/1/11
to
While does this has anything to do what I think of bob and whisper ?
0 new messages