Is Steve Jobs dying of cancer?
Giovanna
Superdave
wrote:
>~~
sadly yes.
he has been for a long time but now it seems it's nearing the end.
still if it was anybody else but him they would have been gone long ago.
with his grit and his money he bought several more years of life than he should
have had.
he deserved it. he's a good guy. not one of those goldman sachs scumbags
who rob from the poor to benefit the rich.
bob
while a great artist, and the heart and soul of america's most
successful company, he is rumored to be a very mean rude jerk,
egomaniac, yells at others publicly, calls them stupid in meetings,
etc. i had 1000sh of apple stock bought around 82/sh and sold at 80/sh
2 yrs ago when he first took tiime off. still makes me sick.
bob
Superdave
i met him once on a plane when i was travelling with a prof from the university
of waterloo back in the 80's. we were both impressed by him.
TT
How did he impress you guys on a plane, sucked your cocks?
Superdave
No, with his mind. He was sharper than a tack. The UW prof was one of the
greatest minds in computing the world has ever known and I honestly never
heard him praise a single soul until he praised Steve Jobs (under his breath).
TT
Quit making up shit.
bob
<DaveHa...@remail-it.net> wrote:
i know a few people that went to U of Waterloo.
bob
bob
<DaveHa...@remail-it.net> wrote:
'sharper than a tack' is your description of jobs?
is that like saying freud had horse sense? :-)
bob
TennisGuy
> ~~
This has been a very sombre week for us in the Great White North.
First we lost a very notable politician (Jack Layton) to cancer.
Now it looks as though Steve Jobs won't be with us much longer.
It's been a time to take stock of what we have and count our
blessings. Live each day to the fullest and stop the childish rst
bickering/feuds.
Superdave
i don't. only raja does that shit.
Superdave
wrote:
you're right.
raja needs to apologize and seek forgiveness.
Superdave
my second home.
TennisLady
>
> It's been a time to take stock of what we have and count our
> blessings. Live each day to the fullest and stop the childish rst
> bickering/feuds.
I agree 100%. None of us know how long we have and all the money in
the world can't buy another day.
Superdave
actually it probably can. maybe even a few weeks, months or even years but not
indefinitely.
Jobs money bought him quite a few extra years in fact.
Not sure its worth it though.
I mean we all have to go and when that day comes does it matter whether it was
last year or next when the moment arrives?
I don't think so.
Vlado
> ~~
I guess all that money doesn't help him to understand what his
condition is
and what he should do to reverse this age old biological program. He
looks so
pathetic at this point that dying would be a graceful act. This week
the top canadian
politician died of bone cancer as well and for some reason they always
take the same
path and have the same results but never learn from it.
Cancer is a big scam I tell you as well as the biggest crime against
humanity ever .
This is a site that opened my eyes to the realities of cancer and any
other biological issue
that there is. Here is a clue, it's all related to the brain reaction
to the unforeseen , overwhelming
and isolating events that are chronic. Pretty much everything you've
been told about cancer
or any other health issue is wrong .
Court_1
picture of him in a newspaper or magazine before it was known publicly
that he was ill and I remember thinking right away that he must be
very ill and have cancer, or AIDS.
Sad.
Vlado
maybe the image of success out there is perverted
ocea naut
Whisper
As my dad always says (paraphrase) - 'Big whoop - others are being born'.
Whisper
In the great scheme of things (cosmic scales) it wouldn't matter at all
if the planet blew up killing everyone. Also wouldn't matter if earth
never existed in the 1st place. It's like saying 1 of the trillions of
planets out there we'll never see blowing up would be a big deal.
Javier González
Yep. How many people that need transplants can afford to register in
every state until they find one that will allow him to have the
transplant even as a recovering cancer patient? And have a private jet
to fly you in the minute the transplant beeper goes off?
Money can't stave off death, but it sure can bullshit it for a few
more days...
Superdave
wrote:
>Pancreatic cancer.
a very RARE form of it. He had a liver transplant a couple year ago without
which he would be dead long ago.
Superdave
wrote:
In Jobs case I think it bought him 5 years more or so with the liver transplant
responsible for half of that and the rest due to the best treatment and drugs
money can buy.
Me I wuda said fuck it. I'm outa here. Not gonna waste the money feeding
doctors. Rather leave a few more million to my loved ones than blow it on a
few more months here on earth.
felangey
every state until they find one that will allow him to have the
transplant even as a recovering cancer patient? And have a private jet
to fly you in the minute the transplant beeper goes off?
Money can't stave off death, but it sure can bullshit it for a few
more days...<
It must conjure some deep thought, the condition of being one of the richest
men on the planet....yet being betrayed by your body at a relatively young
age with a condition that no amount of money can fix.
Javier González
Yep. In the end, still as fucked as the poorest guy on earth who got
beaten by cancer.
drew
>
> In the great scheme of things (cosmic scales) it wouldn't matter at all
> if the planet blew up killing everyone. Also wouldn't matter if earth
> never existed in the 1st place.
In the great scheme of things there is no matter at all.
So....nothing worth talking about I guess...
Whisper
Or getting fucked by a poor guy living to 105 in reasonably good health,
plenty of beaver & happy.
TT
> I remember seeing a
> picture of him in a newspaper or magazine before it was known publicly
> that he was ill and I remember thinking right away that he must be
> very ill and have cancer, or AIDS.
Was it a beach pic by any chance?
bob
<DaveHa...@remail-it.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:19:19 -0700 (PDT), Javier González <jago...@gmail.com>
actually people like warren buffet (and i believe jobs also) prescribe
to the theory of leaving less to your loved ones and make them
understand how to earn some of their own...
bob
bob
wrote:
yes - that's the guy who *really* sticks it in steve jobs' arse.
bob
bob
the rare form is what allowed him to live so long. the common type
kills everybody much sooner.
bob
Shakes
+100.
jdeluise
On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +100.
LOL, you can't help but worship him can you?
jdeluise
On 26-Aug-2011, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> In the great scheme of things (cosmic scales) it wouldn't matter at all
> if the planet blew up killing everyone. Also wouldn't matter if earth
> never existed in the 1st place. It's like saying 1 of the trillions of
> planets out there we'll never see blowing up would be a big deal.
Then why is Pete so important to you that you feel the need to be dishonest?
Shakes
I knew you would say this even before I read your post. So, just
because he's whisper, I guess I have to say the opposite - i.e., No,
whispy, you are wrong as usual. it's better to die at 50 suffering from
a lingering, painful disease than to have a long, reasonably healthy
life.
jdeluise
On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, just
> because he's whisper, I guess I have to say the opposite
I don't disagree with him on this one though, but It wouldn't hurt for you
to disagree with him once in a while.
Whisper
That's just it. Pete is not amongst my top fave players, so I have
nothing to gain by promoting him unfairly.
What I say about him is simply the truth.
For me to sit back & watch tennis for enjoyment it would have to be
McEnroe, Henin, Hoad, Laver, Mecir & Graf. Most players are pretty dull
to watch.
Whisper
From what I recall shakes disagrees with me plenty. I don't have a
problem with that because he backs up his position & argues honestly. I
have a problem with dishonest Fedfuckers who can't accept Rafa's
superiority over Fed. They should just be honest & admit when Rafa is
at his best he's better than Fed. No one denies Fed has been more
consistent against the field, & that Rafa can't play his best as often
as Fed. That's the truth in a nutshell.
jdeluise
On 26-Aug-2011, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> That's just it. Pete is not amongst my top fave players, so I have
> nothing to gain by promoting him unfairly.
>
> What I say about him is simply the truth.
Except you're a known liar, particularly about Pete. It's been proven many,
many times by many posters.
Jason Catlin
How does a thread about Steve Jobs dying of cancer get sidetracked
into Fed-Nadal argument No. 4,578?
jdeluise
On 26-Aug-2011, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> wrote:
> From what I recall shakes disagrees with me plenty. I don't have a
> problem with that because he backs up his position & argues honestly.
> I have a problem with dishonest Fedfuckers who can't accept Rafa's
> superiority over Fed. They should just be honest & admit when Rafa is
> at his best he's better than Fed. No one denies Fed has been more
> consistent against the field, & that Rafa can't play his best as often
> as Fed. That's the truth in a nutshell.
According to your own position for a decade, that means fuck all. Not that
that matters to Sampras fans who have no principles.... you know who you
are.
felangey
"7543 is the ultimate truth....everything else means fuck all"....chAching,
score Mr Federer.
>Not that that matters to Sampras fans who have no principles.... you know
who you
> are<
Whisper appears to have a kinda anti-conscience.
Shakes
Hey, I do disagree with him on occasion, esp. regarding Fed. It just so
happens that we agree on more than one point about the game in general.
Nothing wrong there, IMO.
jdeluise
On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, I do disagree with him on occasion, esp. regarding Fed
> It just so
> happens that we agree on more than one point about the game in general.
> Nothing wrong there, IMO.
I believe it's best to avoid dishonest people, and that definitely describes
Whisper. It's difficult to understand why you and others suck up to someone
like that so much. He has no principles and will stab you in the back if it
suits his agenda.
Shakes
He overstates/exaggerates to make his point (which is where most on rst
nail him). But I disregard that and just look at his main point. I
either agree with that or disagree with that. Besides I like his sense
of humour.
felangey
>nail him).
No, I am fairly sure he just blatantly lies most of the time.
>But I disregard that and just look at his main point.
Point*s*. For every presented Whisperian argument, there is a documented
opposite position expressed.
>Besides I like his sense of humour<
Hey Whisp! :)
jdeluise
On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He overstates/exaggerates to make his point (which is where most on rst
> nail him).
He does? No, he contradicts almost every point he has ever tried to make,
sometime multiple times just to be able to say "I'm right, you're wrong".
> But I disregard that and just look at his main point. I
> either agree with that or disagree with that. Besides I like his sense
> of humour.
His main point? He only has one, the rest is there just to fool the
feeble-minded.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
> On 2011-08-26 12:23:45 -0700, jdeluise said:
>
>
> >> Hey, I do disagree with him on occasion, esp. regarding Fed
> >> It just so
> >> happens that we agree on more than one point about the game in general.
> >> Nothing wrong there, IMO.
>
> > I believe it's best to avoid dishonest people, and that definitely describes
> > Whisper. It's difficult to understand why you and others suck up to someone
> > like that so much. He has no principles and will stab you in the back if it
> > suits his agenda.
>
> He overstates/exaggerates to make his point (which is where most on rst
> nail him). But I disregard that and just look at his main point.
And what is that? That the players he idolizes (Hoad, Sampras,
McEnroe, Henin) have never lost anything at peak and only lost when
they were half-arsed. While the rest of the mere mortals were terrible
blight on the tennis tour and are not fit to shine his idols' shoes?
Osama Bin Ladetorest
> On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He overstates/exaggerates to make his point (which is where most on rst
> > nail him).
>
> He does? No, he contradicts almost every point he has ever tried to make,
> sometime multiple times just to be able to say "I'm right, you're wrong".
>
self contradicting himself on every ocassion to prove his point. The
basic foundation of Whisper is build on lies and woulda-coulda
bullshit.
Shakes
> On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He overstates/exaggerates to make his point (which is where most on rst
>> nail him).
>
> He does? No, he contradicts almost every point he has ever tried to make,
> sometime multiple times just to be able to say "I'm right, you're wrong".
>
>> But I disregard that and just look at his main point. I
>> either agree with that or disagree with that. Besides I like his sense
>> of humour.
>
> His main point? He only has one, the rest is there just to fool the
> feeble-minded.
If you put me aside for a moment, I think many others feel they have to
disagree with whisper on *every* tennis related issue just because he's
whisper.
His main points are that he thinks Sampras is the best player he ever
saw. He likes variety in tennis styles. He doesn't believe that Fed's
tennis is the best he's seen and considers Fed's record against Nadal
to be a stain on his record.
I don't see any controversy in any of these views, even if one happens
to disagree with all of these points.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
> On 2011-08-26 13:42:44 -0700, jdeluise said:
>
But he resorts to lies or self-contradiction to prove his main points.
You are missing that point.
jdeluise
On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> His main points are that he thinks Sampras is the best player he ever
> saw. He likes variety in tennis styles. He doesn't believe that Fed's
> tennis is the best he's seen and considers Fed's record against Nadal
> to be a stain on his record.
What are you, some kind of Whisper spokesman? I'm sure that Whisper is
capable of making his main points without sinking to the depths of
dishonesty if that was his goal. But, in my opinion, that's not his goal at
all. No, the way I see it Whisper is someone with an incredibly inflated
ego, who thinks that appearing to win an argument or prove a point is far
more important than *actually* doing it. Because of this, he'll say
absolutely anything regardless of any doctrine he may have held at one
point. It's as if the past has absolutely no meaning to him, his supposed
opinion changes with the wind but somehow he's convinced he's always right.
Point out a contradiction from a year, a week, hell, even a minute ago and
he has nothing to say.... those things mean absolutely nothing to him. What
we're dealing with here (and what you're defending) is a pathological liar
and a bully.
Of course I'm sure this is lost on you, since apparently the only thing you
see when you read Whisper's posts is "I reaaaaaaaaally like Sampras". You
agree with that so nothing else he says matters to you.
Court_1
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:31:40 +0800, Superdave
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:19:19 -0700 (PDT), Javier González <jagon...@gmail.com>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill Gates too. I think that is just silly. Going out of your way to
leave all of your billions to charity instead of giving it to loved
ones to me is going too far the other way. Of course with that amount
of money you should give to charities and the like, but to go so far
and leave it ALL to charities and none to your kids? Nuts, IMO. Very
eccentric.
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Whisper and Jaros used to gang up a lot on newbies about 6-7 years
posing as if they knew everything about tennis while lying and
twisting facts at every opportunity. Whisper was very abusive.
Nowadays he is far better. But he is basically still a immature kid.
Court_1
> 26.8.2011 5:23, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>
> > I remember seeing a
> > picture of him in a newspaper or magazine before it was known publicly
> > that he was ill and I remember thinking right away that he must be
> > very ill and have cancer, or AIDS.
>
> Was it a beach pic by any chance?
No, lol! Beach pics and underwear pics are your specialty even though
you deny it! :-)
Osama Bin Ladetorest
I bet he is on ebay now buying Rafa's used undie for 1000 dollars
Court_1
No joke! :)
Shakes
I'm not defending him. Like I said, I agree with him on some points but
disagree with him on some. I do like Sampras like him. OTOH, when you
read other's posts here, all I see is that they really, really like
Fed, or they really, really like Nadal. It's all the same.
Whisper
Nope. I judge each post on it's merits & easily forgive past sins. If
you're a dickhead 1 year but start making sense another I'll acknowledge
& commend it.
I've never resiled from 7543 - it measures quality of career
achievement, & still does. That's why you can't find a single post
where I say Rafa or Sampras are greater than Fed. So who's being
dishonest? 7543 never professed to measure the 'best' player in
absolute terms. That can only be done if the guys are in the same era
competing in slams, eg Borg v Mac, Sampras v Agassi, Rafa v Fed.
It seems to you anyone who thinks Sampras or Rafa are better than Fed in
absolute terms (ie playing each other in huge stakes matches) is
dishonest. Apparently it's beyond comprehension an intelligent person
can conclude otherwise.
That's your problem.
Whisper
Yeah obviously I exaggerate to make a point. If I favour Sampras or
Rafa to beat Fed I'm not being dishonest - that's how I see the matches
going based on respective abilities. Fed beating the crap out of
Blake/Berdych types 50 times doesn't tell me he'd beat Rafa or Sampras
playing their A game, even if Rafa/Sampras suffer some losses to those
guys. I'm not here to piss off Fedfans - that's just a byproduct.
Whisper
>> He overstates/exaggerates to make his point (which is where most on rst
>> nail him).
>
> No, I am fairly sure he just blatantly lies most of the time.
>
Nope. In fact I'm open to changing my mind on big ticket items, but you
have to be good enough to put up convincing arguments.
Whisper
> On Aug 26, 3:42 pm, "jdeluise"<jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> He overstates/exaggerates to make his point (which is where most on rst
>>> nail him).
>>
>> He does? No, he contradicts almost every point he has ever tried to make,
>> sometime multiple times just to be able to say "I'm right, you're wrong".
>>
> Exactly. I never get the Whisper admirers. Whisper has a history of
> self contradicting himself on every ocassion to prove his point. The
> basic foundation of Whisper is build on lies and woulda-coulda
> bullshit.
>
No. A good example is the number of posters who suggest I dropped 7543
like a hot potato. To me it's just as relevent as always.
7543 could never meausure the 'best' player ever, something else I'm
falsely accused of subscribing to. I'm also accused of saying Roddick
was better than Sampras, despite the absence of a single post backing
this up. You'd think there'd be 1,000's if that's what I thought. I've
always made it clear Sampras was far superior to Roddick.
It could well be the lack of comprehension from rst'ers is being passed
off as somehow my fault, & that I'm dishonest. When asked a direct
question I give a direct & consistent answer.
There is a lot of dishonesty in rst, but very little coming from me.
Whisper
No, but I do think Sampras, Hoad & Laver are the 3 candidates for 'best
at best'. Not that other players are crap, just that their best was
likely to come out on top due to various advantages/strengths.
McEnroe is simply the most gifted player I've ever seen - the skill he
had was absolutely amazing to me. Apparently I'm dishonest if I can't
see Fed as more gifted? Henin also is an amazing stylist & never dull
to watch.
Whisper
Correct. Those are my core beliefs, not something I say to rile up Fednuts.
I've also never said Fed wasn't goat, but get no credit for this.
Whisper
> On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes<kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> His main points are that he thinks Sampras is the best player he ever
>> saw. He likes variety in tennis styles. He doesn't believe that Fed's
>> tennis is the best he's seen and considers Fed's record against Nadal
>> to be a stain on his record.
>
> What are you, some kind of Whisper spokesman? I'm sure that Whisper is
> capable of making his main points without sinking to the depths of
> dishonesty if that was his goal. But, in my opinion, that's not his goal at
> all. No, the way I see it Whisper is someone with an incredibly inflated
> ego, who thinks that appearing to win an argument or prove a point is far
> more important than *actually* doing it.
Completely incorrect. I accept that's how you & some others see it, but
not my intention.
> Because of this, he'll say
> absolutely anything regardless of any doctrine he may have held at one
> point. It's as if the past has absolutely no meaning to him, his supposed
> opinion changes with the wind but somehow he's convinced he's always right.
The only new concept I've brought in is 'goat' & 'best' distinctions.
In reality this isn't new at all, as I've always considered Borg greater
but McEnroe better.
> Point out a contradiction from a year, a week, hell, even a minute ago and
> he has nothing to say.... those things mean absolutely nothing to him. What
> we're dealing with here (and what you're defending) is a pathological liar
> and a bully.
>
> Of course I'm sure this is lost on you, since apparently the only thing you
> see when you read Whisper's posts is "I reaaaaaaaaally like Sampras". You
> agree with that so nothing else he says matters to you.
The irony is Sampras genuinely isn't in my top personal faves list.
You Fednuts really have to take stock & realize not everyone thinks like
you.
Superdave
Foundations with targeted giving is the best way as even your children can
irresponsibly waste money they did not earn. For instance, I am considering
setting up a trust to pay for college for all my future descendents. They don't
get the money. They just have to get accepted and the school sends the money to
my foundation and we pay them direct.
Superdave
You are the biggest liar on planet earth. Nobody else even comes close.
Superdave
wrote:
>get the money. They just have to get accepted and the school sends the bill to
Calimero
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:51:39 +0300, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >25.8.2011 18:00, Superdave kirjoitti:
> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:54:00 -0400, bob<stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:20:27 +0800, Superdave
> >>> <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:29:37 -0700 (PDT), Giovanna<giovana...@bol.com.br>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> ~~
>
> >>>> sadly yes.
> >>>> he has been for a long time but now it seems it's nearing the end.
> >>>> still if it was anybody else but him they would have been gone long ago.
> >>>> with his grit and his money he bought several more years of life than he should
> >>>> have had.
> >>>> he deserved it. he's a good guy. not one of those goldman sachs scumbags
> >>>> who rob from the poor to benefit the rich.
>
> >>> while a great artist, and the heart and soul of america's most
> >>> successful company, he is rumored to be a very mean rude jerk,
> >>> egomaniac, yells at others publicly, calls them stupid in meetings,
> >>> etc. i had 1000sh of apple stock bought around 82/sh and sold at 80/sh
> >>> 2 yrs ago when he first took tiime off. still makes me sick.
>
> >>> bob
>
> >> i met him once on a plane when i was travelling with a prof from the university
> >> of waterloo back in the 80's. we were both impressed by him.
>
> >How did he impress you guys on a plane, sucked your cocks?
>
> No, with his mind. He was sharper than a tack. The UW prof was one of the
> greatest minds in computing the world has ever known and I honestly never
> heard him praise a single soul until he praised Steve Jobs (under his breath).
How would you know a Belgian university professor?
Max
felangey
> to beat Fed I'm not being dishonest - that's how I see the matches going
> based on respective abilities. Fed beating the crap out of Blake/Berdych
> types 50 times doesn't tell me he'd beat Rafa or Sampras playing their A
> game, even if Rafa/Sampras suffer some losses to those guys. I'm not here
> to piss off Fedfans - that's just a byproduct.<
Get outta here man :) ....yer having a giraffe with the Pete tosh, and we
all know it. :) Stop trying to spoof Pete above Fed, and start worrying
about Nadal overtaking Pete in 'the discussion'. You could make the argument
that he already has, on the strength of that career slam that Pete found
elusive. The burning question is at what point does passing all courses
supercede slam count? Already....11...12? Or will we just defer to 7543 and
forget about Pete's lack of an all round game?
Certainly we can rule out Pete's A game destroying Fed....as we know that 2
years before he was even 'ready', he defeated the reigning champ and "grass
king" Mr. Sampras. No crazy talk or inner workings of your diseased
convoluted mind will ever convince anyone other than sockpuppets and your
bipolar compadres otherwise. When a young Federer a long, long way from his
best played the *Wimbledon Champ* (with plenty in the tank) at tennis....we
know what happened. Amazing to me when I looked it up on the ATP site that
it still, in fact, recorded as a Fed win. I know how great Pete is at
'retrospective tennis'....surprised he would let this happen.
felangey
Nobody gives a toss about your rebuttal mate! :) Move along now....back to
the village.
Shakes
That's not correct. Otherwise, we have to also say that Berdych, who
has nothing to his name so far, in 2010, beat defending champion and
6-time Wim/Grass king Fed with even less difficulty than Fed had
against Sampras. And Fed in 2010 was younger than Sampras was in 2001
Wim against Fed. So I guess the 2010-2011 versions of Berdych, Tsonga
were better than any version of Fed. I guess that they were the
generational "improvements" over Fed, like Fed, Hewitt, Safin were over
Sampras.
To me, Sampras was past his peak form 2000 onwards. Just like Fed is
past it from 2010.
felangey
> nothing to his name so far, in 2010, beat defending champion and 6-time
> Wim/Grass king Fed with even less difficulty than Fed had against Sampras.
> And Fed in 2010 was younger than Sampras was in 2001 Wim against Fed. So I
> guess the 2010-2011 versions of Berdych, Tsonga were better than any
> version of Fed. I guess that they were the generational "improvements"
> over Fed, like Fed, Hewitt, Safin were over Sampras.
:) Shakes....old boy. This is a very convoluted, half-assed, Whisper type
post. All you need to remember is that the game doesn't move on. Serve and
volley tennis from the 90's beats any tennis past and future. It will ever
be thus.
>Just like Fed is past it from 2010<
Respectfully, peak Fed....2010? Hi Whisp! :)
Pelle Svanslös
Whisper
I think this reply says it all about Fednuts & I need say nothing at
all. It's really too easy.
felangey
I think Big Whooped would be a better name for you - but Father knows best.
:)
Superdave
Who said he was Belgian? The U of W is in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Pelle Svanslös
> On Aug 26, 7:01 pm, "jdeluise"<jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> His main points are that he thinks Sampras is the best player he ever
>>> saw. He likes variety in tennis styles. He doesn't believe that Fed's
>>> tennis is the best he's seen and considers Fed's record against Nadal
>>> to be a stain on his record.
>>
>> What are you, some kind of Whisper spokesman? I'm sure that Whisper is
>> capable of making his main points without sinking to the depths of
>> dishonesty if that was his goal. But, in my opinion, that's not his goal at
>> all. No, the way I see it Whisper is someone with an incredibly inflated
>> ego, who thinks that appearing to win an argument or prove a point is far
>> more important than *actually* doing it. Because of this, he'll say
>> absolutely anything regardless of any doctrine he may have held at one
>> point. It's as if the past has absolutely no meaning to him, his supposed
>> opinion changes with the wind but somehow he's convinced he's always right.
>> Point out a contradiction from a year, a week, hell, even a minute ago and
>> he has nothing to say.... those things mean absolutely nothing to him. What
>> we're dealing with here (and what you're defending) is a pathological liar
>> and a bully.
>>
>> Of course I'm sure this is lost on you, since apparently the only thing you
>> see when you read Whisper's posts is "I reaaaaaaaaally like Sampras". You
>> agree with that so nothing else he says matters to you.
>
> Whisper and Jaros used to gang up a lot on newbies
Only vertically challenged veteran newbies.
TT
> What are you, some kind of Whisper spokesman? I'm sure that Whisper is
> capable of making his main points without sinking to the depths of
> dishonesty if that was his goal. But, in my opinion, that's not his goal at
> all. No, the way I see it Whisper is someone with an incredibly inflated
> ego, who thinks that appearing to win an argument or prove a point is far
> absolutely anything regardless of any doctrine he may have held at one
> point. It's as if the past has absolutely no meaning to him, his supposed
> opinion changes with the wind but somehow he's convinced he's always right.
> Point out a contradiction from a year, a week, hell, even a minute ago and
> he has nothing to say.... those things mean absolutely nothing to him. What
> we're dealing with here (and what you're defending) is a pathological liar
> and a bully.
Aren't you just now bullying whisper...
Any case, you're a pathological stalker, bully and lame troll.
bob
<Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 26, 12:58 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:31:40 +0800, Superdave
so if a man has many billions (gates, buffet, jobs) and say he has 3
kids, and leaves each $20mil so they don't starve, that leaves 99% of
his money for charity, and you think that's a bad idea?
maybe the charities important to him are unimportant to his children
and he knows the money might be lost, invested poorly, left to
charities he doesn't want. no - i kind of like the idea when you're at
that level..
bob
bob
wrote:
>
>On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey, I do disagree with him on occasion, esp. regarding Fed
>> It just so
>> happens that we agree on more than one point about the game in general.
>> Nothing wrong there, IMO.
>
>I believe it's best to avoid dishonest people, and that definitely describes
>Whisper. It's difficult to understand why you and others suck up to someone
>like that so much. He has no principles and will stab you in the back if it
>suits his agenda.
i think whisper prescribed to a very consistent theory for 15 yrs, and
the only part of it that "evolved" if you want to call it that was all
of us witnessing something unprecedented - a guy being called GOAT who
was *clearly* not BOOE or BOAT (i.e. someone else proving repeatedly
to be better than him when they face each other). that made all of us,
including whisp, think outside the orignal small containment box.
i see nothign wrong that that, in fact, i think i was first to start
to think outside this box. there's nothing dishonest in this.
bob
bob
and after a post like this, you actually have th nerve to call someone
else a liar? this is one of the most dishonest posts i have ever seen,
bar none.
bob
bob
sampras was past his peak the day after Wim 2000.
bob
bob
>On 2011-08-26 13:42:44 -0700, jdeluise said:
>
>> On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> He overstates/exaggerates to make his point (which is where most on rst
>>> nail him).
>>
>> He does? No, he contradicts almost every point he has ever tried to make,
>> sometime multiple times just to be able to say "I'm right, you're wrong".
>>
>>> But I disregard that and just look at his main point. I
>>> either agree with that or disagree with that. Besides I like his sense
>>> of humour.
>>
>> His main point? He only has one, the rest is there just to fool the
>> feeble-minded.
>
>If you put me aside for a moment, I think many others feel they have to
>disagree with whisper on *every* tennis related issue just because he's
>whisper.
yep. i'm certain there are at least 20 regulars who form their
opinions solely around contradiction to whisper. sad group.
bob
bob
wrote:
lmao. i'm sure that sailed over a lot of heads (no pun intended), but
that is why pelle is near the top of rst.
bob
TT
It's a popular activity of passing time here, contradicting whisper's
statements...and rather easy since he contradicts himself so often.
The funny part is of course why these people do it, I wouldn't say w's
arguments are worthy of that. In a way they're giving huge credit to him
while trying to discredit him all the time.
bob
wrote:
>On 27/08/2011 10:01 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>> On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes<kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> His main points are that he thinks Sampras is the best player he ever
>>> saw. He likes variety in tennis styles. He doesn't believe that Fed's
>>> tennis is the best he's seen and considers Fed's record against Nadal
>>> to be a stain on his record.
>>
>> What are you, some kind of Whisper spokesman? I'm sure that Whisper is
>> capable of making his main points without sinking to the depths of
>> dishonesty if that was his goal. But, in my opinion, that's not his goal at
>> all. No, the way I see it Whisper is someone with an incredibly inflated
>> ego, who thinks that appearing to win an argument or prove a point is far
>> more important than *actually* doing it.
>
>
>Completely incorrect. I accept that's how you & some others see it, but
>not my intention.
>
>
>> Because of this, he'll say
>> absolutely anything regardless of any doctrine he may have held at one
>> point. It's as if the past has absolutely no meaning to him, his supposed
>> opinion changes with the wind but somehow he's convinced he's always right.
>
>
>The only new concept I've brought in is 'goat' & 'best' distinctions.
>In reality this isn't new at all, as I've always considered Borg greater
>but McEnroe better.
and this was necessary becuse in past 3 yrs 'greatest' and 'best' have
really started to diverge bigtime.
>> Point out a contradiction from a year, a week, hell, even a minute ago and
>> he has nothing to say.... those things mean absolutely nothing to him. What
>> we're dealing with here (and what you're defending) is a pathological liar
>> and a bully.
>>
>> Of course I'm sure this is lost on you, since apparently the only thing you
>> see when you read Whisper's posts is "I reaaaaaaaaally like Sampras". You
>> agree with that so nothing else he says matters to you.
>
>The irony is Sampras genuinely isn't in my top personal faves list.
>You Fednuts really have to take stock & realize not everyone thinks like
>you.
bob
Calimero
OK, next time you write about Paris I will check first whether you are
referring to a French city or not ...
Max
TT
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 11:16:43 +1000, Whisper<beav...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 27/08/2011 10:01 AM, jdeluise wrote:
>>> On 26-Aug-2011, Shakes<kvcs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> His main points are that he thinks Sampras is the best player he ever
>>>> saw. He likes variety in tennis styles. He doesn't believe that Fed's
>>>> tennis is the best he's seen and considers Fed's record against Nadal
>>>> to be a stain on his record.
>>>
>>> What are you, some kind of Whisper spokesman? I'm sure that Whisper is
>>> capable of making his main points without sinking to the depths of
>>> dishonesty if that was his goal. But, in my opinion, that's not his goal at
>>> all. No, the way I see it Whisper is someone with an incredibly inflated
>>> ego, who thinks that appearing to win an argument or prove a point is far
>>> more important than *actually* doing it.
>>
>>
>> not my intention.
>>
>>
>>> Because of this, he'll say
>>> absolutely anything regardless of any doctrine he may have held at one
>>> point. It's as if the past has absolutely no meaning to him, his supposed
>>> opinion changes with the wind but somehow he's convinced he's always right.
>>
>>
>> The only new concept I've brought in is 'goat'& 'best' distinctions.
>> In reality this isn't new at all, as I've always considered Borg greater
>> but McEnroe better.
>
> and this was necessary becuse in past 3 yrs 'greatest' and 'best' have
> really started to diverge bigtime.
>
>
Obviously, since we had to even separate these terms to please fedfans.
Vlado
> On 2011-08-26 13:42:44 -0700, jdeluise said:
>
>
> >> He overstates/exaggerates to make his point (which is where most on rst
> >> nail him).
>
> > He does? No, he contradicts almost every point he has ever tried to make,
> > sometime multiple times just to be able to say "I'm right, you're wrong".
>
> >> But I disregard that and just look at his main point. I
> >> either agree with that or disagree with that. Besides I like his sense
> >> of humour.
>
> > His main point? He only has one, the rest is there just to fool the
> > feeble-minded.
>
> If you put me aside for a moment, I think many others feel they have to
> disagree with whisper on *every* tennis related issue just because he's
> whisper.
>
> saw. He likes variety in tennis styles. He doesn't believe that Fed's
> tennis is the best he's seen and considers Fed's record against Nadal
> to be a stain on his record.
>
> to disagree with all of these points.
why would Whisper post here if he has no favourites today?
Well he said few months ago that Murray will be better than Nole so
I guess maybe Murray is his favourite. On the other hand he has said
so many vicious statements about Nole, to pale anything else he says
and always going to ridiculous lengths to belittle him
Whisper
No real faves in modern game since Henin retired. Murray can be
interesting at times, but the cupboard is fairly bare.
I predicted years ago Djoker would win 3 slams max & Murray about 5.
Looks like it may be the other way round now, but who knows?
> On the other hand he has said
> so many vicious statements about Nole, to pale anything else he says
> and always going to ridiculous lengths to belittle him
Vicious? Just because I predicted Fed would beat him at FO, but then
Djoker would go on to win Wimbledon over Rafa in the final?
Osama Bin Ladetorest
Really..... Murray FFS... the wimpiest player out there... the exact
opposite of McEnroe or Sampras? How come all your favorite players are
Anglo-Saxon? They have to be either British or American or
Australian...okay Henin is a bit of an exception, but that must
because of her boyish looks ;-) You seem to have a hard-on for
sportpeople from English speaking countries.
If you had a more open minded approach in selecting your favorites, I
would have respected you more... Consider this... my favorite players
are Graf (Germany - Western Europe), Lendl (Czech - Eastern Europe),
Borg (Sweden - Northern Europe), Sharapova (Russia -Asia/Eastern
Europe), McEnroe (USA - North America). If there were many great
tennis players from Africa and S. America, I would have had some
favorites from there as well.
Jason Catlin
Of all ways to criticize Whisper, seems like a strange tack.
Hasn't he spent the last 5 years talking ad-nauseum about some swarthy
Spanish guy's success against Fed?
Jason Catlin
> > Well he said few months ago that Murray will be better than Nole so
> > I guess maybe Murray is his favourite.
>
> No real faves in modern game since Henin retired. Murray can be
> interesting at times, but the cupboard is fairly bare.
Tomic?
Shakes
>>
>> That's not correct. Otherwise, we have to also say that Berdych, who
>> has nothing to his name so far, in 2010, beat defending champion and
>> 6-time Wim/Grass king Fed with even less difficulty than Fed had
>> against Sampras. And Fed in 2010 was younger than Sampras was in 2001
>> Wim against Fed. So I guess the 2010-2011 versions of Berdych, Tsonga
>> were better than any version of Fed. I guess that they were the
>> generational "improvements" over Fed, like Fed, Hewitt, Safin were over
>> Sampras.
>
> :) Shakes....old boy. This is a very convoluted, half-assed, Whisper
> type post. All you need to remember is that the game doesn't move on.
> Serve and volley tennis from the 90's beats any tennis past and future.
> It will ever be thus.
So, if you cannot argue with logic, you resort to ridicule. Thanks for
the light, but I thought you were not like that. At least be consisent
in your rules. My point was: if Sampras was peak in 2001, so is Fed in
2011. EIther they both are, or they both aren't. They are of the same
age at this stage of their careers.
>
>> Just like Fed is past it from 2010<
>
> Respectfully, peak Fed....2010? Hi Whisp! :)
Well, if Sampras was peak in 2001 Wim and USO, so was Fed in 2010 and
2011. Unless your standards for Sampras and for Fed are different
(which would not surprise me).
felangey
> 2011. Unless your standards for Sampras and for Fed are different (which
> would not surprise me).
Listen to yourself...."if Sampras was this then Fed was that"....it's all
Whisperian tosh. You win what you win in your time against the field...and
that determines your place in history....it was ever thus. If you are too
good, you make lots of people without a life spend many many years lying and
twisting....trying to justify how there was a clown era. People who invent
and retract idiotic criteria at will just to float their own player who
didn't do as well against the field in their own time. Then we have to
listen to the same olddddd droning.....boring....endless....reams and
reams.....of twaddle about how someone from a previous generation would do
this that or the other in the current generaton. Couldawoulda. Of no
consequence to anyone....and 100% fantasy.
The point is that Whisper constantly tries to tell us that Sampras wouldn't
allow this.....wouldn't allow that....wouldn't allow himself to have a
losing record to anyone.....still had loads left in the tank. He was a
veritable superman. And yet, as *Wimbledon champ*, with lots left in the
tank....he lost to a 19 year old....who was *2 full years* away from even
his own personal breakthrough, let alone the probable *6 or 7* years away
from his own personal peak. Now we are asked to believe how this guy at his
own peak, a few years earlier, would "hand Fed his ass" at peak? Nothing
doing....it is an absolute fantasy. You just have to move on and accept that
each generation takes the game incrementally further. Point in fact the
tailies from Pete's gen like Agassi recognised and said of Fed that "he is
going to revolutionise out sport". That he did.
It's practically a different game now than that Sampras experienced. I have
all the admiration in the world for Pete. He is a great champ of the game.
Had he been born with the current generation, you can surmise that he *may*
have had the talent and athletic ability and drive to compete.....but he
wasn't...and he equally might not have had the grits for the way things are
now. The only facts we have are the facts. The rest is fanboism and fantasy.
Ergo a player can only be located in his own time...and that is where he
belongs....and where he will be judged on his accomplishments against his
contemporaries. That is the natural order.
TennisGuy
> ...You just have to move on and accept that
> each generation takes the game incrementally further.
+1
When I have more time I will make a post on this subject.
Essentially, it will state that there is no such thing as a 'clown
era' and that players of each successive generation take the game to a
higher level of play.
Occasionally you can get a 'super' player like Federer who can
dominate a couple of generations, but rest assured the players in the
generations to follow Federer will be of a higher caliber overall.
It's the got something to do with the Natural Evolution of Tennis
(tm). (I don't want to give too much away at this point. :) )
RaspingDrive
Nice post, felangey.
Shakes
A lot of blather without addressing my point at all. My complaint was
you used Fed's victory over Sampras in the 2001 Wim match as proof of
Fed's superiority as a player. I said that in that case, we can use
Berdych's and Tsonga's victories in the 2010 and 2011 Wim matches to
prove that they are both better players than Fed at his peak.
I never even compared their overall achievements, I never claimed that
Sampras would beat Fed regularly or is greater than Fed. It's funny
because you are so caught up in the assumption that I'm a whisper
supporter that you argue against a strawman.