Underspin, backspin, and slice
Usavadee Praditkul
Hi, I would like to know about:
i) What are the differeces of underspin, backspin, and slice?
How to hit them?
Does it should have forwardspin in tennis?
ii)What is the differences of chip, drop shot, and dink?
How to hit them?
Looking forward to learn from your guys.
Thanks
Joe (W.A.)
tennistv
In article <6h2ma1$72g$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, upra...@dolphin.upenn.edu
(Usavadee Praditkul) wrote:
> Hi, I would like to know about:
>
> i) What are the differeces of underspin, backspin, and slice?
Underspin and backspin are the very same. Slice has two meanings in
tennis: in a serve it is sidespin. On a groundstroke or volley, it is
underspin. Blame it on the Bossanova.
> How to hit them?
With gusto! Spin doesn't have any appreciable benefit unless is
vigorous. The racket face has to travel from high toward low during
contact, generally, in order to create underspin.
> Does it should have forwardspin in tennis?
Forward spin is always called topspin. It is as if the ball is rolling on
the ground away from you. Again, to have any benefit, topspin must be
vigorous. It is the quintessential element of modern tennis and the
cornerstone of most accomplished player's strokes.
> ii)What is the differences of chip, drop shot, and dink?
A chip is a groundstroke (a stroke after the ball has bounced on your side
of the net) hit like a volley. A punch, really. Very short racket
movement. With an open face, usually, to provide....backspin! You see
this on serve returns alot, especially against hard servers where there is
so little time to do more than chip. And, of course, Pam Shriver chipped
everything, but you don't need to know much about her.
A drop shot is a shot (volley or groundstroke) intended to bounce much
closer to the net than other shots. Its purpose is to draw the opponent
forward, hopefully too late to get to the ball before it bounces twice, or
at least to compromise the opponent's ability to hit a forcing shot in
return. Being brought forward this way the opponent is usually at a
disadvantage.
A dink is any shot that has very little "oomph" behind it.
> How to hit them?
Chips are easy. Just block the ball, really. Drop shots require more
practice than most people who try to hit them care to devote to the
skill. With practice it's not hard to hit great drop shots. Dinks can be
easy to hit, the kind you have to eat, or hard to hit, the kind that wins
tennis matches against big strong players. On the list of Top Ten Tennis
Skills, placement occupies 1 through 9. Pace is number 10. Dinking with
excellent placement is no less difficult than blasting with excellent
placement, and just as effective.
>
> Looking forward to learn from your guys.
You're in for quite a ride!
>
> Thanks
Don't mention it.
James Kershaw
Usavadee Praditkul wrote:
>
> Hi, I would like to know about:
>
> i) What are the differeces of underspin, backspin, and slice?
> Does it should have forwardspin in tennis?
When talking about groundstrokes, there is no real difference. A slice
tennis _serve_ has sidespin on it.
So, slice/chip/backspin are generally hit off the backhand side, and
only
rarely of the forehand. The basic method is to open the racquet face
and
let it slide under the ball as you hit it.
At one limit you have a flat ball with little of no backspin, which
tends
to bounce through. With more backspin and a flat trajectory you get a
ball
which skids and shoots through. With more backspin and a loopier
trajectory
you get a ball which props (ie bounces near straight up and down), and
with
a lot of backspin and a very loopy flight the ball bounces back towards
the
net (this is the other limit).
A chip shot is a backspin shot where the racquet doesn't move very
much. It
is a common defensive return, almost like a block, with a little more
backspin,
and the goal of making the ball get down below the height of the net
before
your opponent can hit it.
A dropshot is a very short shot, with the goal of making the ball bounce
twice
before your opponent can get to it. This is very similar to a chip,
with
perhaps a bit more follow through. A dink is not related to these
shots.
It is a generic soft shot aimed at moving the other player around, and
not
giving them any pace to hit at.
If you really want to learn them, the best advice I have is to find
someone
who can hit them, and ask them to show you how.
James.
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
>
> In article <6h2ma1$72g$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, upra...@dolphin.upenn.edu
> (Usavadee Praditkul) wrote:
> > How to hit them?
>
> With gusto! Spin doesn't have any appreciable benefit unless is
> vigorous. The racket face has to travel from high toward low during
> contact, generally, in order to create underspin.
I think this is not the best advice. Much better to punch forward with
an open face - contacting similar to a volley, but with more swing.
The necessity of vigorous spin is questionable. Mild topspin, and mild
slice can be used very effectively to control the ball.
The rest I agree with.
James.
tennistv
In article <35356C...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> tennistv wrote:
> >
> > In article <6h2ma1$72g$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, upra...@dolphin.upenn.edu
> > (Usavadee Praditkul) wrote:
>
> > > How to hit them?
> >
> > With gusto! Spin doesn't have any appreciable benefit unless is
> > vigorous. The racket face has to travel from high toward low during
> > contact, generally, in order to create underspin.
>
> I think this is not the best advice.
As a short answer to the question, it works nicely. Much better, for
instance, than if someone had said "you should punch the slice
groundstroke".
Much better to punch forward with
> an open face - contacting similar to a volley, but with more swing.
Ah, just as we thought. The problem with this is that is presumes an
incoming ball with pace, which is not often the case with balls that have
bounced (groundstrokes). Balls without much pace incoming, needing to
travel 60 to 80 feet off your racket, must be struck vigorously. To
produce appreciable spin product, which steals from the ability to produce
linear momentum, it is quite necessary to do more than punch. If you want
to produce a weak reply, a punch will work quite adequately.
Just as the most developed topspin has the most low to high component in
the contact, so too does the most developed slice have the most high to
low component. Of course the bevel of the racket face displaces the
low/high high/low orientation somewhat, but it is still necessary to
produce the appropriate flight path in the racket in any event.
>
> The necessity of vigorous spin is questionable. Mild topspin, and mild
> slice can be used very effectively to control the ball.
There was no indication given that vigorous spin is necessary. However it
is axiomatic that to produce the greatest effect from a spinning tennis
ball traveling at a given speed, both on the flight and the bounce, the
greatest spin is required. If you want to produce lesser effects, less
spin is required. The questioner didn't ask about how to control the
ball. The questioner asked what was spin, and how do you hit it. Spin
affects the flight and bounce of the ball exactly proportional to how much
it is spinning. The greater the spin, the greater the effect, and vice
versa. To get the greatest effect, which is a normal goal of tennis
players in many circumstances, create the greatest spin.
Perhaps you counsel players not to try to hit vigorous spin. That would
be, IOHO, a detriment to their development.
Steve Barnard
tennistv wrote:
>
> In article <35356C...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Much better to punch forward with
> > an open face - contacting similar to a volley, but with more swing.
>
> Ah, just as we thought. The problem with this is that is presumes an
> incoming ball with pace, which is not often the case with balls that have
> bounced (groundstrokes). Balls without much pace incoming, needing to
> travel 60 to 80 feet off your racket, must be struck vigorously. To
> produce appreciable spin product, which steals from the ability to produce
> linear momentum, it is quite necessary to do more than punch. If you want
> to produce a weak reply, a punch will work quite adequately.
So I suppose a backswing is necessary. Or is it?
Steve Barnard
tennistv
In article <35363A...@megafauna.com>, Steve Barnard
<st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
Necessary for what? To hit a vigorous groundstroke, backswings are
certainly necessary, although they shouldn't be the focus of what you're
doing. To do as James suggests, punching the ball, certainly no backswing
is necessary. On a backhand slice there isn't much of a backswing in even
fairly vigorous shots because the shoulder turn which is required to get
the racket in front of the ball brings the racket back far enough. In
fact, the most effective way to develop significant acceleration in a
slice backhand is to build dynamic tension in the two hands on the
racket. The offhand pulling backward, the racket hand pulling forward.
The racket remains in front of the chest, even though the chest is now
facing the left sideline. When the off hand lets go, the racket
accelerates at a significantly greater rate than it can if just dragged
forward by the racket hand. This produces a long stroke that is about 90%
post contact, just like all the best backhand slices hit by all the best
players. Not a punch at all.
Steve Barnard
tennistv wrote:
>
> In article <35363A...@megafauna.com>, Steve Barnard
> <st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
> >
> > So I suppose a backswing is necessary. Or is it?
> >
>
> Necessary for what? To hit a vigorous groundstroke, backswings are
> certainly necessary,
?????????
What happened to the guy posting under the name tennistv who swore up
and down a few months ago that backswing is NOT necessary for power?
Steve Barnard
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
>
> In article <35356C...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> > > With gusto! Spin doesn't have any appreciable benefit unless is
> > > vigorous. The racket face has to travel from high toward low during
> > > contact, generally, in order to create underspin.
> >
> > I think this is not the best advice.
>
> As a short answer to the question, it works nicely. Much better, for
> instance, than if someone had said "you should punch the slice
> groundstroke".
It was the high to low bit.... this is not strictly necessary, and far
too many people have too much high to low. Anyone is able to hit a
reasonable slice by swinging the racquet parallel to the ground and
opening the face of the racquet.
> > Much better to punch forward with
> > an open face - contacting similar to a volley, but with more swing.
>
> Ah, just as we thought. The problem with this is that is presumes an
> incoming ball with pace, which is not often the case with balls that have
> bounced (groundstrokes). Balls without much pace incoming, needing to
> travel 60 to 80 feet off your racket, must be struck vigorously. To
> produce appreciable spin product, which steals from the ability to produce
> linear momentum, it is quite necessary to do more than punch. If you want
> to produce a weak reply, a punch will work quite adequately.
Punch, with a contact like a volley, but with more swing........ let's
look
at the last bit.... "but with more swing".
> Just as the most developed topspin has the most low to high component in
> the contact, so too does the most developed slice have the most high to
> low component. Of course the bevel of the racket face displaces the
> low/high high/low orientation somewhat, but it is still necessary to
> produce the appropriate flight path in the racket in any event.
The appropriate flight path is around about parallel to the ground -
often
times even going up away from the ground. It is not necessary, or even
good advice, to swing from high to low on this shot.
> >
> > The necessity of vigorous spin is questionable. Mild topspin, and mild
> > slice can be used very effectively to control the ball.
>
> There was no indication given that vigorous spin is necessary. However it
> is axiomatic that to produce the greatest effect from a spinning tennis
> ball traveling at a given speed, both on the flight and the bounce, the
> greatest spin is required. If you want to produce lesser effects, less
> spin is required. The questioner didn't ask about how to control the
> ball. The questioner asked what was spin, and how do you hit it.
He asked how to hit slice. Control on slice is far more important than
ripping the skin off the ball.
> Perhaps you counsel players not to try to hit vigorous spin. That would
> be, IOHO, a detriment to their development.
Of course not.... but I wouldn't advocate vigorous spin at the cost of
control. Especially on slice it is very difficult to control the ball
with "vigorous" backspin - especially when a mishit will almost
automatically
loose the point, whereas a mishit on topspin has a moderate chance of
still
going in.
James.
Mark Voorhees
Could this be the start of a thread rivaling the length of
the topspin serve or the backswing discussions? There's more
than a month till the start of the next major. Plenty of
time for active minds to battle.
Mark
tennistv
In article <3536C2...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> tennistv wrote:
> >
> > In article <35356C...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> > <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > > With gusto! Spin doesn't have any appreciable benefit unless is
> > > > vigorous. The racket face has to travel from high toward low during
> > > > contact, generally, in order to create underspin.
> > >
> > > I think this is not the best advice.
> >
> > As a short answer to the question, it works nicely. Much better, for
> > instance, than if someone had said "you should punch the slice
> > groundstroke".
>
> It was the high to low bit.... this is not strictly necessary, and far
> too many people have too much high to low. Anyone is able to hit a
> reasonable slice by swinging the racquet parallel to the ground and
> opening the face of the racquet.
Just as low to high is the recipe for quality topspin, no matter the bevel
of the racket face, high to low is the recipe for quality slice. Nothing
in life is "strictly necessary" (obvious exceptions of death, taxes and
quibblers) but evidence shows that the best slice hitters use a pronounced
high to low swing path. It's not something that beginners should be
protected from.
>
> > > Much better to punch forward with
> > > an open face - contacting similar to a volley, but with more swing.
> >
> > Ah, just as we thought. The problem with this is that is presumes an
> > incoming ball with pace, which is not often the case with balls that have
> > bounced (groundstrokes). Balls without much pace incoming, needing to
> > travel 60 to 80 feet off your racket, must be struck vigorously. To
> > produce appreciable spin product, which steals from the ability to produce
> > linear momentum, it is quite necessary to do more than punch. If you want
> > to produce a weak reply, a punch will work quite adequately.
>
> Punch, with a contact like a volley, but with more swing........ let's
> look
> at the last bit.... "but with more swing".
So now it's what...not like a volley? Inasmuch as a volley can have any
amount of swing, your suggestion that the slice groundstroke have "more
swing" than a volley is very confusing. If you mean more swing than a
block volley, that could be anywhere from 6 inches of swing on up. Not a
good way to advise someone how to learn a slice groundstroke.
>
> > Just as the most developed topspin has the most low to high component in
> > the contact, so too does the most developed slice have the most high to
> > low component. Of course the bevel of the racket face displaces the
> > low/high high/low orientation somewhat, but it is still necessary to
> > produce the appropriate flight path in the racket in any event.
>
> The appropriate flight path is around about parallel to the ground -
> often
> times even going up away from the ground. It is not necessary, or even
> good advice, to swing from high to low on this shot.
You might want to alert Steffi Graf to your wisdom here. Her backhand
slice almost sees the lower edge of her racket strike the ground, post
contact, from a starting point of over her shoulder. She can't make it go
from much higher to much lower than that if she tried to. Most other good
slice producers have similarly pronounced high to low swing paths. They
could all, presumably, learn from you. You owe it to them to clue them
in, just as an exercise of noblesse oblige.
>
>
> > >
> > > The necessity of vigorous spin is questionable. Mild topspin, and mild
> > > slice can be used very effectively to control the ball.
> >
> > There was no indication given that vigorous spin is necessary. However it
> > is axiomatic that to produce the greatest effect from a spinning tennis
> > ball traveling at a given speed, both on the flight and the bounce, the
> > greatest spin is required. If you want to produce lesser effects, less
> > spin is required. The questioner didn't ask about how to control the
> > ball. The questioner asked what was spin, and how do you hit it.
>
> He asked how to hit slice. Control on slice is far more important than
> ripping the skin off the ball.
Controlling a ball that isn't spinning seems to be counter to the man's
goal. He wants to learn how to hit slice, and slice requires the ball be
spinning. We have found that learning how to make the ball spin
vigorously almost always creates a temporary loss of control. It's
better, IOHO, to have the learning curve be from A. spin the ball, toward
B. control the spinning ball, than as you suggest A. control a
non-spinning ball, toward B. control a ball you still don't know how to
spin.
And no one's ever suggested "ripping the skin off the ball", nice image
that it is.
>
>
> > Perhaps you counsel players not to try to hit vigorous spin. That would
> > be, IOHO, a detriment to their development.
>
> Of course not.... but I wouldn't advocate vigorous spin at the cost of
> control.
We do. At first, anyway. Since you cannot learn to spin the ball without
sacrificing control. Once you've learned to spin it, it's very easy to
learn to control it.
Especially on slice it is very difficult to control the ball
> with "vigorous" backspin - especially when a mishit will almost
> automatically
> loose the point, whereas a mishit on topspin has a moderate chance of
> still
> going in.
We don't teach new strokes during competition. That is, we suggest that a
player learning a new stroke hone the new skill on the practice court.
Mishits happen, and can never be eliminated. Only a framed mishit will
produce a high certainty that a slice groundstroke will "loose the point",
and that is exactly the same scenario with topspin.
tennistv
> On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:33:19, Steve Barnard
> <st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
>
> > tennistv wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <35363A...@megafauna.com>, Steve Barnard
> > > <st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So I suppose a backswing is necessary. Or is it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Necessary for what? To hit a vigorous groundstroke, backswings are
> > > certainly necessary,
> >
> > ?????????
> >
> > What happened to the guy posting under the name tennistv who swore up
> > and down a few months ago that backswing is NOT necessary for power?
> >
> > Steve Barnard
>
No, you've confused the issues. Is a backswing necessary for power? No,
since an incoming ball can supply more than enough power to a static
racket for many purposes in tennis, it is not necessary that the racket
have either a backswing or a forward swing. Is a backswing necessary for
a vigorous groundstroke? Generally yes. More often than not. Especially
so in the context of creating vigorous spin. Hope this helps.
Steve Barnard
tennistv wrote:
>
> No, you've confused the issues. Is a backswing necessary for power? No,
> since an incoming ball can supply more than enough power to a static
> racket for many purposes in tennis, it is not necessary that the racket
> have either a backswing or a forward swing. Is a backswing necessary for
> a vigorous groundstroke? Generally yes. More often than not. Especially
> so in the context of creating vigorous spin. Hope this helps.
Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. In my own silly way I thought
"vigorous" implied "power."
Steve Barnard
Woody Jin
In article <tennistv-160...@user-38ld1d6.dialup.mindspring.com>, tenn...@pipeline.com (tennistv) wrote:
>Necessary for what? To hit a vigorous groundstroke, backswings are
>certainly necessary, although they shouldn't be the focus of what you're
>doing. To do as James suggests, punching the ball, certainly no backswing
>is necessary. On a backhand slice there isn't much of a backswing in even
>fairly vigorous shots because the shoulder turn which is required to get
>the racket in front of the ball brings the racket back far enough.
In backhand, especially in backhand slice, the swing starts by grabbing
the throat with left hand, the effect of the backswing is much much less
than in forehand. But to generate vigorous spin, you need to do just
like when you do slice serve.
In slice serve, at first, your racket contact the ball in angle. Then
you push the racket naturally using pronation as follows:
\
racket ---> \ o <--- ball the racket/ball contac in angle
\
|
| o the racket pushes the spun ball
| that generates even more spin and speed
/
/ o racket faces outward by
/ pronation
Note the direction of the racket rotation.
Similar is the true in the backhand slice.
Look at every pro's backhand slice.
They all start it by making their rackets parallel to the ground.
\ \ \
----- (ball is hit \ \ \
between these \ \ ----- \
angles)
The last two in the above are automatically done (much after
the ball contact), if you did
it right. Also, note the same direction of the racket
rotation as in slice serve.
Actually, it *looks* like you are hitting from
top to bottom just like when you hit slice serve, your racket
goes to the far right after the hit. But you are not hitting
from left to right. It just naturally happens as a result of
vigorous slicing. The same is true in backhand slicing.
--
Woody (wjin_at_cs.uh.edu)
Richard
According to my newsreader, Wood...@email.in.my.sig posted...
> [....]
> Similar is the true in the backhand slice.
> Look at every pro's backhand slice.
> They all start it by making their rackets parallel to the ground.
>
> \ \ \
> ----- (ball is hit \ \ \
> between these \ \ ----- \
> angles)
>
> The last two in the above are automatically done (much after
> the ball contact), if you did
> it right. Also, note the same direction of the racket
> rotation as in slice serve.
> Actually, it *looks* like you are hitting from
> top to bottom just like when you hit slice serve, your racket
> goes to the far right after the hit. But you are not hitting
> from left to right. It just naturally happens as a result of
> vigorous slicing. The same is true in backhand slicing.
Actually, I used to hit my backhand slice just exactly like this--and it
IS an excellent stroke when done correctly. I was taught it a couple of
years ago by a teaching pro whose best strokes were a slice backhand and
slice forehand.
I'm not sure I'd say it's the way that "every" pro hits the stroke, but
that's a quibble. It's an aggressive shot, which I think I still use for
sliced approaches up the left sideline. The ball doesn't "sit up" but
stays low and is almost impossible for an opponent (at my level) to do
anything effective with.
I've added another SBH stroke at the urging of my current instructor; one
which is more appropriate for purely defensive-mode shots. This latter
shot is the one which I consider to be the way I hit a slice backhand.
--
The entire universe is just a simulation running in God's computer.
So chill.
// If you'd like to drop me a note: net dot earthlink at huddler
Woody Jin
In article <MPG.fa2a385b...@news.earthlink.net>, e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>According to my newsreader, Wood...@email.in.my.sig posted...
>
>> [....]
>
>> Similar is the true in the backhand slice.
>> Look at every pro's backhand slice.
>> They all start it by making their rackets parallel to the ground.
>>
>> \ \ \
>> ----- (ball is hit \ \ \
>> between these \ \ ----- \
>> angles)
>I'm not sure I'd say it's the way that "every" pro hits the stroke, but
>that's a quibble.
Well :-) Actually, I was not able to investigate "every" pro in the world,
but at least I investigated "every" pro in the matches that I recorded.
Sampras, Graf, Edberg, Becker, ...... Basuki, well, even Agassi when he
is in defensive mode in his back hand.
I have yet to see any other pro who use different mechanics, which
I would be very interested in.
--
Woody (wjin_at_cs.uh.edu)
tennistv
How candid of you to admit your confusion! This is rare (the admission,
that is). Vigorous spin means "spins fast". Power would mean "moves
laterally fast". A powerful vigorous slice would be both. It's the way
Steffi does it.
tennistv
In article <353A87...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> tennistv wrote:
> >
> > In article <3536C2...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> > <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > It was the high to low bit.... this is not strictly necessary, and far
> > > too many people have too much high to low. Anyone is able to hit a
> > > reasonable slice by swinging the racquet parallel to the ground and
> > > opening the face of the racquet.
> >
> > Just as low to high is the recipe for quality topspin, no matter the bevel
> > of the racket face, high to low is the recipe for quality slice.
>
> I disagree.
How'd we know?
>
> > It's not something that beginners should be protected from.
>
> Sure, it is an option, but the majority of people who hit their
> slice this way, don't tend to win very many matches.
Let's see....Graf? Yep. Wins matches. Novotna? Yep, wins matches.
Courier? Yep. Wins matches. Spirlea? Yep. Wins matches. Sampras?
Yep. Wins matches. The list goes on.... Any that don't do this? Hmmm.
Nope.
>
> > So now it's what...not like a volley? Inasmuch as a volley can have any
> > amount of swing, your suggestion that the slice groundstroke have "more
> > swing" than a volley is very confusing. If you mean more swing than a
> > block volley, that could be anywhere from 6 inches of swing on up. Not a
> > good way to advise someone how to learn a slice groundstroke.
>
> It is the quality of the contact that is important.... and the quality
> is
> very similar to a volley. You can use your images if you like, and I'll
> use mine. Just remember that no-one EVER hits a slice by hitting high
> to low... ALL of them have some foreward motion, and almost all of them
> have far more foreward than downward. It is very VERY easy to quibble
> over written images, especially when there is no standard of objective
> measure that can easily be applied.
Sure there is. The standard is tennis strokes. Topspin is hit low to
high (which of course doesn't mean in a single plane) and slice is hit
high to low (which of course doesn't mean in a single plane). The forward
part is a given, since you aren't hitting the ball (hopefully) to the
court next door or behind you.
>
> > > The appropriate flight path is around about parallel to the ground -
> > > often
> > > times even going up away from the ground. It is not necessary, or even
> > > good advice, to swing from high to low on this shot.
> >
> > You might want to alert Steffi Graf to your wisdom here. Her backhand
> > slice almost sees the lower edge of her racket strike the ground, post
> > contact, from a starting point of over her shoulder. She can't make it go
> > from much higher to much lower than that if she tried to. Most other good
> > slice producers have similarly pronounced high to low swing paths. They
> > could all, presumably, learn from you. You owe it to them to clue them
> > in, just as an exercise of noblesse oblige.
>
> So what the hell were you talking about producing the flight path in the
> racquet for?
To get your views on this, for the sake of humanity? Gee, the question
seems a little vague. It's certainly the readers' fault, as, in this
case, we are the readers. Care to try again?
>
> > And no one's ever suggested "ripping the skin off the ball", nice image
> > that it is.
>
> I suggested it, it is appropriate for the discussion. If you really
> want
> to control the discussion that much, be my guest.
Well, you had suggested that it was what we had said. Your penchant for
creating these strawmen is time-honored, but never have you offered an
excuse such as this for doing so!
Steve Barnard
The Random House College Dictionary: vigorous -- powerful in action or
effect. They might have added, "requires backswing."
Steve Barnard
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
>
> In article <3536C2...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> > It was the high to low bit.... this is not strictly necessary, and far
> > too many people have too much high to low. Anyone is able to hit a
> > reasonable slice by swinging the racquet parallel to the ground and
> > opening the face of the racquet.
>
> Just as low to high is the recipe for quality topspin, no matter the bevel
> of the racket face, high to low is the recipe for quality slice.
I disagree.
> It's not something that beginners should be protected from.
Sure, it is an option, but the majority of people who hit their
slice this way, don't tend to win very many matches.
> So now it's what...not like a volley? Inasmuch as a volley can have any
> amount of swing, your suggestion that the slice groundstroke have "more
> swing" than a volley is very confusing. If you mean more swing than a
> block volley, that could be anywhere from 6 inches of swing on up. Not a
> good way to advise someone how to learn a slice groundstroke.
It is the quality of the contact that is important.... and the quality
is
very similar to a volley. You can use your images if you like, and I'll
use mine. Just remember that no-one EVER hits a slice by hitting high
to low... ALL of them have some foreward motion, and almost all of them
have far more foreward than downward. It is very VERY easy to quibble
over written images, especially when there is no standard of objective
measure that can easily be applied.
> > The appropriate flight path is around about parallel to the ground -
> > often
> > times even going up away from the ground. It is not necessary, or even
> > good advice, to swing from high to low on this shot.
>
> You might want to alert Steffi Graf to your wisdom here. Her backhand
> slice almost sees the lower edge of her racket strike the ground, post
> contact, from a starting point of over her shoulder. She can't make it go
> from much higher to much lower than that if she tried to. Most other good
> slice producers have similarly pronounced high to low swing paths. They
> could all, presumably, learn from you. You owe it to them to clue them
> in, just as an exercise of noblesse oblige.
So what the hell were you talking about producing the flight path in the
racquet for?
> And no one's ever suggested "ripping the skin off the ball", nice image
> that it is.
I suggested it, it is appropriate for the discussion. If you really
want
to control the discussion that much, be my guest.
James.
tennistv
You are well served by your dictionary. The vigor of the slice
spin...powerful in its action and effect...nonetheless requires forward
momentum generated by a power source...the racket in order to go
anywhere. Together a vigorous spin and powerful flight are what make
slices so much fun to hit. Backswings are optional.
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
>
> In article <353A87...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > tennistv wrote:
> > > Just as low to high is the recipe for quality topspin, no matter the bevel
> > > of the racket face, high to low is the recipe for quality slice.
> > Sure, it is an option, but the majority of people who hit their
> > slice this way, don't tend to win very many matches.
>
> Let's see....Graf? Yep. Wins matches. Novotna? Yep, wins matches.
> Courier? Yep. Wins matches. Spirlea? Yep. Wins matches. Sampras?
> Yep. Wins matches. The list goes on.... Any that don't do this? Hmmm.
> Nope.
Let's see.... James? Nope. Wins matches. Terry? Nope, wins matches.
Jeff? Yep. Wins matches. Warren? Nope, wins matches. Dave C? Nope,
wins matches. Dave S? Nope, kicks ass. Most of the younger players
in our competition? Yep, lose matches. Most of the older players
in our competition? Yep, lose matches.
Or try... Stoltenberg, Woodforde, Rafter.
Of all the satellite/(pre, current or ex) level players I have played
against,
I can only remember a small handful that hit slice with a pronounced
earthward
motion. The really good players all didn't.
> Sure there is. The standard is tennis strokes. Topspin is hit low to
> high (which of course doesn't mean in a single plane) and slice is hit
> high to low (which of course doesn't mean in a single plane). The forward
> part is a given, since you aren't hitting the ball (hopefully) to the
> court next door or behind you.
My contention is that just as you can hit topspin without low to high
(trust me, you can) you can hit slice without high to low. With
topspin,
the racquet face tries to push the ball into the ground, so most people
compensate with a low to high swing. With backspin, the compensation
is not necessary, since almost all backspin shots need to go up anyway.
What is more is that _extreme_ slice is no-where near as useful as
extreme topspin. Once you break the surface friction, more slice
doesn't
really help, and you can easily get enough slice from hitting with a
flat racquet trajetory. This allow you to hit harder shots with less
effort.
> > > And no one's ever suggested "ripping the skin off the ball", nice image
> > > that it is.
> >
> > I suggested it, it is appropriate for the discussion. If you really
> > want
> > to control the discussion that much, be my guest.
>
> Well, you had suggested that it was what we had said. Your penchant for
> creating these strawmen is time-honored, but never have you offered an
> excuse such as this for doing so!
Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest that you had suggested that. You were
however, talking about lots and lots of vigorous backspin... or am I
mistaken there as well?
James.
Samir Bhakta
James Kershaw <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
:use mine. Just remember that no-one EVER hits a slice by hitting high
:to low... ALL of them have some foreward motion, and almost all of them
:have far more foreward than downward.
Right. I've always felt that the whole motion of bascially resembles an
inverted bow (open part facing up). Height-wise, your racquet will follow an
"up-down-up", but the length of the swing (foward motion) will be the longer
component.
- Samir ** sbhakta(AT)waterw(DOT)com ** www.waterw.com/~sbhakta
tennistv
In article <353BD3...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> tennistv wrote:
> >
> > In article <353A87...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> > <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > > tennistv wrote:
>
> > > > Just as low to high is the recipe for quality topspin, no matter
the bevel
> > > > of the racket face, high to low is the recipe for quality slice.
>
> > > Sure, it is an option, but the majority of people who hit their
> > > slice this way, don't tend to win very many matches.
> >
> > Let's see....Graf? Yep. Wins matches. Novotna? Yep, wins matches.
> > Courier? Yep. Wins matches. Spirlea? Yep. Wins matches. Sampras?
> > Yep. Wins matches. The list goes on.... Any that don't do this? Hmmm.
> > Nope.
>
> Let's see.... James? Nope. Wins matches. Terry? Nope, wins matches.
> Jeff? Yep. Wins matches. Warren? Nope, wins matches. Dave C? Nope,
> wins matches. Dave S? Nope, kicks ass. Most of the younger players
> in our competition? Yep, lose matches. Most of the older players
> in our competition? Yep, lose matches.
You're not wanting to make a comparison are you? Seriously? Gedouddaheyah!
>
> Or try... Stoltenberg, Woodforde, Rafter.
All of whom hit high to low slice, guaranteed.
>
> Of all the satellite/(pre, current or ex) level players I have played
> against,
> I can only remember a small handful that hit slice with a pronounced
> earthward
> motion. The really good players all didn't.
What does that amount to? Nothing really. If their slices were at the
level of the players we mentioned, and hit the way they do, maybe these
friends of yours would have amounted to something.
>
> > Sure there is. The standard is tennis strokes. Topspin is hit low to
> > high (which of course doesn't mean in a single plane) and slice is hit
> > high to low (which of course doesn't mean in a single plane). The forward
> > part is a given, since you aren't hitting the ball (hopefully) to the
> > court next door or behind you.
>
> My contention is that just as you can hit topspin without low to high
> (trust me, you can) you can hit slice without high to low. With
> topspin,
> the racquet face tries to push the ball into the ground, so most people
> compensate with a low to high swing. With backspin, the compensation
> is not necessary, since almost all backspin shots need to go up anyway.
> What is more is that _extreme_ slice is no-where near as useful as
> extreme topspin. Once you break the surface friction, more slice
> doesn't
> really help, and you can easily get enough slice from hitting with a
> flat racquet trajetory. This allow you to hit harder shots with less
> effort.
You're strangling on your own intransigence, friend. You cannot hit
meaningful topspin without lifing the racket, and even if you could, no
one does. Meaningful slice requires a racket path from high to low, no
matter the bevel of the racket face.
>
>
>
> > > > And no one's ever suggested "ripping the skin off the ball", nice image
> > > > that it is.
> > >
> > > I suggested it, it is appropriate for the discussion. If you really
> > > want
> > > to control the discussion that much, be my guest.
> >
> > Well, you had suggested that it was what we had said. Your penchant for
> > creating these strawmen is time-honored, but never have you offered an
> > excuse such as this for doing so!
>
> Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest that you had suggested that. You were
> however, talking about lots and lots of vigorous backspin... or am I
> mistaken there as well?
Well you've pared down your overstatement from "ripping the skin off the
ball" to "lots and lots of vigorous backspin", an improvement. When you
get further back down from that pole you climbed, back to what we said,
"vigorous backspin", we'll talk. You should invest some time in listening
to what's said, rather than giving in to that cacaphony of made up noise
you always seem to want to replace it with.
tennistv
In article <6hj3ab$7...@sea.waterw.com>, sbh...@spamsucks.com (Samir
Bhakta) wrote:
> James Kershaw <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> :use mine. Just remember that no-one EVER hits a slice by hitting high
> :to low... ALL of them have some foreward motion, and almost all of them
> :have far more foreward than downward.
>
> Right. I've always felt that the whole motion of bascially resembles an
> inverted bow (open part facing up). Height-wise, your racquet will follow an
> "up-down-up", but the length of the swing (foward motion) will be the longer
> component.
>
Goes without saying, since we're talking about groundstrokes. The
essential difference between topspin, flat and slice groundstrokes is the
inclination of the racket path at contact. Low to high, level, high to
low.
Steve Barnard
tennistv wrote:
>
> You're strangling on your own intransigence, friend. You cannot hit
> meaningful topspin without lifing the racket, and even if you could, no
> matter the bevel of the racket face.
That's flat wrong. An agressive slice can be hit right through the
ball, with a pretty much level swing. You can even hit it low to high,
if it's a low ball.
You are so dim. You make these ex-cathedra pronouncements about the way
things have to be -- the bizarre world according to tennistv -- as
though anyone would believe you, given your extremely sorry record.
Steve Barnard
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
> You're not wanting to make a comparison are you? Seriously? Gedouddaheyah!
Sure I want to make a comparison.
> > Or try... Stoltenberg, Woodforde, Rafter.
>
> All of whom hit high to low slice, guaranteed.
I suggest you actually go out and watch these guys sometime. Look
specifically
for just how flat their slice backhand swings are during contact.
> What does that amount to? Nothing really. If their slices were at the
> level of the players we mentioned, and hit the way they do, maybe these
> friends of yours would have amounted to something.
These are people that I have directly observed... directly observed by
having
to play against them. That means that I have some certainty of my
observations.
I _don't_ pretend to be able to observe a stroke from TV, or the stands
anywhere
near as closely as when I am playing against them. Now... when was the
last
time you played against any of these people?
> You're strangling on your own intransigence, friend. You cannot hit
> meaningful topspin without lifing the racket, and even if you could, no
> one does. Meaningful slice requires a racket path from high to low, no
> matter the bevel of the racket face.
You really have no idea about this do you? The amount of topspin you
get comes from the amount of tangential contact. It has
nothing to do with whether you are swinging from low to high. You
generally swing from low to high because you hit topspin, not you
hit topspin because you hit low to high. There are indeed many
situations in which you don't want to hit low to high on a
topspin shot, and if you don't recognise that then your standing
as a source of tennis knowledge will definitely go down below
what it currently is.
> Well you've pared down your overstatement from "ripping the skin off the
> ball" to "lots and lots of vigorous backspin", an improvement. When you
> get further back down from that pole you climbed, back to what we said,
> "vigorous backspin", we'll talk. You should invest some time in listening
> to what's said, rather than giving in to that cacaphony of made up noise
> you always seem to want to replace it with.
Good. I guess you are not really that interested in getting your
message
across after all.
James.
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
>
> In article <6hj3ab$7...@sea.waterw.com>, sbh...@spamsucks.com (Samir
> Bhakta) wrote:
>
> > James Kershaw <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > :use mine. Just remember that no-one EVER hits a slice by hitting high
> > :to low... ALL of them have some foreward motion, and almost all of them
> > :have far more foreward than downward.
> >
> > Right. I've always felt that the whole motion of bascially resembles an
> > inverted bow (open part facing up). Height-wise, your racquet will follow an
> > "up-down-up", but the length of the swing (foward motion) will be the longer
> > component.
> >
>
> Goes without saying, since we're talking about groundstrokes.
What goes without saying.... that slice shots are hit with a parallel
swing
to the ground (ala inverted bow)?
> The
> essential difference between topspin, flat and slice groundstrokes is the
> inclination of the racket path at contact. Low to high, level, high to
> low.
This is completely wrong. The essential difference is the direction of
spin on the ball. Spin is created through the generation of rotational
momentum in the ball. Rotational momentum requires a moment to be
applied.
Applying a moment requires an acute angle between the normal to the face
of the racquet, and the directon of swing of the racquet.
In other words.... the essential difference is the angle of the racquet
face.
I can swing from high to low and still achieve topspin - generally it
won't
make it over the net. I can swing from low to high and still achieve
backspin -
generally it won't make it to the net. There are situations where I
would
hit these shots though : a close court put away, and a drop shot, for
instance, maybe
a super high defensive lob, and a return of a high bouncing second serve
as
well, quite probably others.
I think you need to get your facts straight.
James.
tennistv
> tennistv wrote:
> >
> > You're strangling on your own intransigence, friend. You cannot hit
> > meaningful topspin without lifing the racket, and even if you could, no
> > one does. Meaningful slice requires a racket path from high to low, no
> > matter the bevel of the racket face.
>
> That's flat wrong. An agressive slice can be hit right through the
> ball, with a pretty much level swing. You can even hit it low to high,
> if it's a low ball.
>
> You are so dim. You make these ex-cathedra pronouncements about the way
> things have to be -- the bizarre world according to tennistv -- as
> though anyone would believe you, given your extremely sorry record.
>
Aside from the character assasination, you base your other observations
on...what? Physics don't care about "ex-cathedra pronouncements". It
only cares about creating underspin. You don't seem to have a clue about
that.
(N.B. if you don't believe, don't believe. Just spare everyone else the
spittle, please.)
tennistv
In article <353D84...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> tennistv wrote:
>
> > You're not wanting to make a comparison are you? Seriously? Gedouddaheyah!
>
> Sure I want to make a comparison.
You can't. Simply can't.
>
> > > Or try... Stoltenberg, Woodforde, Rafter.
> >
> > All of whom hit high to low slice, guaranteed.
>
> I suggest you actually go out and watch these guys sometime. Look
> specifically
> for just how flat their slice backhand swings are during contact.
Patrick Rafter, bless his little heart, was one of the first men pros to
give us a whole afternoon of unfettered time. He had just beaten Sampras
at Indy and was coming into the US Open as the "unknown" threat.
Wonderful guy. Hits his slice from high to low....always. Just as the
other guys you mention do. When Stoltenberg had his big summer of several
tour wins we spent a whole show on him. Slow motion of his strokes, the
whole bit. High to low slice, guaranteed. Mark Woodforde and tennistv
dates back to the McEnroe doubles team days. Just as Mac hit his slices
high to low, so too does Woodforde.
We've spent plenty of time alongside each of these fellows. And many
others who do as they do. Slice the ball. High to low. Both sides.
>
> > What does that amount to? Nothing really. If their slices were at the
> > level of the players we mentioned, and hit the way they do, maybe these
> > friends of yours would have amounted to something.
>
> These are people that I have directly observed... directly observed by
> having
> to play against them. That means that I have some certainty of my
> observations.
> I _don't_ pretend to be able to observe a stroke from TV, or the stands
> anywhere
> near as closely as when I am playing against them. Now... when was the
> last
> time you played against any of these people?
What a crock. The worst position to be in to evaluate the technique of a
tennis player is as the opponent. If you're not looking at the ball after
it's hit, you're a loser. The best place to be in is as sideline
spectator, where you don't have to follow the ball. That's our
specialty. When we have an opponent, we don't care about, or notice, the
opponent's technique.
>
> > You're strangling on your own intransigence, friend. You cannot hit
> > meaningful topspin without lifing the racket, and even if you could, no
> > one does. Meaningful slice requires a racket path from high to low, no
> > matter the bevel of the racket face.
>
> You really have no idea about this do you?
Well, yes we do.
The amount of topspin you
> get comes from the amount of tangential contact. It has
> nothing to do with whether you are swinging from low to high.
Well, no, it does.
You
> generally swing from low to high because you hit topspin, not you
> hit topspin because you hit low to high.
Not even close. A shot from the baseline must...that is MUST... be
lifted...that is hit up... or it will not clear the net and land in the
court. Period. You can do this with slice, or with topspin. Slice
imparts enough lifting, virtue of the Magnus Effect to allow the ball
clearance over the net, with not so much pace as to carry it long.
Topspin permits harder hit balls to clear the net and still land in.
Topspin, fortunately, is the byproduct of lifting the ball. The more
topspin you produce the harder you can hit the ball.
There are indeed many
> situations in which you don't want to hit low to high on a
> topspin shot, and if you don't recognise that then your standing
> as a source of tennis knowledge will definitely go down below
> what it currently is.
We're not so concerned about your evaluation of our "standing", being as
we don't agree with many of your thoughts about tennis and you evaluation
has no merit with us. But you do owe us all a look at a few of these
"many situations" in which you produce topspin by hitting the ball other
than low to high.
>
> > Well you've pared down your overstatement from "ripping the skin off the
> > ball" to "lots and lots of vigorous backspin", an improvement. When you
> > get further back down from that pole you climbed, back to what we said,
> > "vigorous backspin", we'll talk. You should invest some time in listening
> > to what's said, rather than giving in to that cacaphony of made up noise
> > you always seem to want to replace it with.
>
> Good. I guess you are not really that interested in getting your
> message
> across after all.
Very interested in fact. Just not willing to have you put words in our
keyboard.
tennistv
In article <353D86...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> tennistv wrote:
> >
> > In article <6hj3ab$7...@sea.waterw.com>, sbh...@spamsucks.com (Samir
> > Bhakta) wrote:
> >
> > > James Kershaw <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > :use mine. Just remember that no-one EVER hits a slice by hitting high
> > > :to low... ALL of them have some foreward motion, and almost all of them
> > > :have far more foreward than downward.
> > >
> > > Right. I've always felt that the whole motion of bascially resembles an
> > > inverted bow (open part facing up). Height-wise, your racquet will
follow an
> > > "up-down-up", but the length of the swing (foward motion) will be
the longer
> > > component.
> > >
> >
> > Goes without saying, since we're talking about groundstrokes.
>
> What goes without saying.... that slice shots are hit with a parallel
> swing
> to the ground (ala inverted bow)?
You call the inverted bow...the upside down banana...a parallel to the
ground swing??? Come on James. This is pitiable. The point of contact
on the upside down banana is here
----- - -- - -- - - - -
-- X -- - - - - -
--------- - -----
--------
In words, the downward part of the stroke.
>
> > The
> > essential difference between topspin, flat and slice groundstrokes is the
> > inclination of the racket path at contact. Low to high, level, high to
> > low.
>
> This is completely wrong. The essential difference is the direction of
> spin on the ball. Spin is created through the generation of rotational
> momentum in the ball. Rotational momentum requires a moment to be
> applied.
> Applying a moment requires an acute angle between the normal to the face
> of the racquet, and the directon of swing of the racquet.
>
> In other words.... the essential difference is the angle of the racquet
> face.
Only if the court and net don't count. They do count. Therefore, the
essential difference is the angle of the racket face on a ball coming
across the net from the direction of the court and intending to go back
there. Given those parameters it is stupefyingly simple what constitutes
the possibilties for success, and they can be summed up as above.
>
> I can swing from high to low and still achieve topspin - generally it
> won't
> make it over the net.
Bingo.
I can swing from low to high and still achieve
> backspin -
> generally it won't make it to the net.
Bingo.
There are situations where I
> would
> hit these shots though : a close court put away, and a drop shot, for
> instance, maybe
> a super high defensive lob, and a return of a high bouncing second serve
> as
> well, quite probably others.
You are a dreamer.
>
> I think you need to get your facts straight.
And a putz.
Steve Barnard
tennistv wrote:
>
> In article <353D86...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> You are a dreamer.
> And a putz.
Spare us the spittle.
Steve Barnard
tennistv
In article <353FCD...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> tennistv wrote:
> >
> > In article <353D86...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> > <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > > tennistv wrote:
>
> > You call the inverted bow...the upside down banana...a parallel to the
> > ground swing??? Come on James. This is pitiable. The point of contact
> > on the upside down banana is here
> >
> > ----- - -- - -- - - - -
> > -- X -- - - - - -
> > --------- - -----
> > --------
> >
> > In words, the downward part of the stroke.
>
> Firstly, there is not that much dip.
Don't know how much dip you read into this diagram. It's imperfect, of
course. But the "inverted bow" or banana is certainly seen in this
diagram.
> Secondly, there would be no reason to come back up again _unless_ you
> were trying
> to hit on the flat part of the swing.
No, you are wrong. The reason to "come back up again" is to attenuate the
downward swing, maintaining as much linear movement as can be maintained
with as much downward movement is possible. This may be too
biomechanically subtle for you, but it is, nonetheless, true.
> Thirdly, the only reason you start off above the ball is exactly the
> same reason
> as you start off above the ball for a topspin - you can get more
> backswing, and
> most people find it easier than starting off in a more neutral position.
Wrong again. There is no need to start off the topspin stroke above the
ball, other than the fact that the racket is going to always be above the
ball at the outset due to the need to lower the racket on the stroke. In
the slice, the racket starts out below the contact point and must be
raised to be able to come down through the first part of the stroke.
>
> > > In other words.... the essential difference is the angle of the racquet
> > > face.
> >
> > Only if the court and net don't count. They do count. Therefore, the
> > essential difference is the angle of the racket face on a ball coming
> > across the net from the direction of the court and intending to go back
> > there. Given those parameters it is stupefyingly simple what constitutes
> > the possibilties for success, and they can be summed up as above.
> >
> > >
> > > I can swing from high to low and still achieve topspin - generally it
> > > won't make it over the net.
> >
> > Bingo.
>
> I take it you agree with me then....
That doing what you say you can do means absolutely nothing to tennis?
You betcha we do!
>
> > I can swing from low to high and still achieve
> > > backspin - generally it won't make it to the net.
> >
> > Bingo.
>
> I take it you agree with me then....
Ditto.
>
>
> > > There are situations where I would
> > > hit these shots though : a close court put away, and a drop shot, for
> > > instance, maybe
> > > a super high defensive lob, and a return of a high bouncing second serve
> > > as well, quite probably others.
> >
> > You are a dreamer.
>
> Perhaps.... but at least I know a little bit about tennis.
That's as close to right as you've been. You know a little about tennis.
We've been trying to improve your score...you're a tough student.
>
> > > I think you need to get your facts straight.
> >
> > And a putz.
>
> You paid up to your bookie yet?
The bookie paid us when you said...in the face of overwhelming evidence
that the facts were straight...that we "need to get [our] facts straight".
Ready for another round?
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
>
> In article <353D86...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > tennistv wrote:
> You call the inverted bow...the upside down banana...a parallel to the
> ground swing??? Come on James. This is pitiable. The point of contact
> on the upside down banana is here
>
> ----- - -- - -- - - - -
> -- X -- - - - - -
> --------- - -----
> --------
>
> In words, the downward part of the stroke.
Firstly, there is not that much dip.
Secondly, there would be no reason to come back up again _unless_ you
were trying
to hit on the flat part of the swing.
Thirdly, the only reason you start off above the ball is exactly the
same reason
as you start off above the ball for a topspin - you can get more
backswing, and
most people find it easier than starting off in a more neutral position.
> > In other words.... the essential difference is the angle of the racquet
> > face.
>
> Only if the court and net don't count. They do count. Therefore, the
> essential difference is the angle of the racket face on a ball coming
> across the net from the direction of the court and intending to go back
> there. Given those parameters it is stupefyingly simple what constitutes
> the possibilties for success, and they can be summed up as above.
>
> >
> > I can swing from high to low and still achieve topspin - generally it
> > won't make it over the net.
>
> Bingo.
I take it you agree with me then....
> I can swing from low to high and still achieve
> > backspin - generally it won't make it to the net.
>
> Bingo.
I take it you agree with me then....
> > There are situations where I would
> > hit these shots though : a close court put away, and a drop shot, for
> > instance, maybe
> > a super high defensive lob, and a return of a high bouncing second serve
> > as well, quite probably others.
>
> You are a dreamer.
Perhaps.... but at least I know a little bit about tennis.
> > I think you need to get your facts straight.
>
> And a putz.
You paid up to your bookie yet?
James.
Woody Jin
In article <tennistv-210...@user-38ld09i.dialup.mindspring.com>, tenn...@pipeline.com (tennistv) wrote:
>In article <6hj3ab$7...@sea.waterw.com>, sbh...@spamsucks.com (Samir
>Bhakta) wrote:
>
>> James Kershaw <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> :use mine. Just remember that no-one EVER hits a slice by hitting high
>> :to low... ALL of them have some foreward motion, and almost all of them
>> :have far more foreward than downward.
>>
>> Right. I've always felt that the whole motion of bascially resembles an
>> inverted bow (open part facing up). Height-wise, your racquet will follow an
>> "up-down-up", but the length of the swing (foward motion) will be the longer
>> component.
>Goes without saying, since we're talking about groundstrokes. The
>essential difference between topspin, flat and slice groundstrokes is the
>inclination of the racket path at contact. Low to high, level, high to
>low.
It is like saying, "Slice serve is hitting from left to right", which
doesn't make sense to me.
Also, for the balls higher than your waist, if you try to top spin them
from low to high, the ball will mostly go well over the baseline.
Not all the ground stroke topspins are low to high swing.
In that case (,hich is more often), "brushing over the ball" is what really
generates topspin without blowing over the baseline.
--
Woody (wjin_at_cs.uh.edu)
Sanj
tennistv wrote:
> The best place to be in is as sideline
> spectator, where you don't have to follow the ball. That's our
> specialty.
Hi,
I've wondered about this, from a different light. Where do you guys
like to watch a live tennis match from - from behind the baseline, or from
the sideline?
I've tried both, and I prefer watching from behind the baseline.
Sanj
--
sanj
@ The opinions expressed herein are mine alone.
orbital.com
tennistv
In article <3540A1...@address.in.sig>, Sanj <sa...@address.in.sig> wrote:
> tennistv wrote:
> > The best place to be in is as sideline
> > spectator, where you don't have to follow the ball. That's our
> > specialty.
>
> Hi,
> I've wondered about this, from a different light. Where do you guys
> like to watch a live tennis match from - from behind the baseline, or from
> the sideline?
> I've tried both, and I prefer watching from behind the baseline.
> Sanj
>
>
The best place to watch a match is just where they put the endzone cameras
on televised matches. Sitting there your head is about 12 feet above the
court. Perfect. If you can't be raised to that level, the perspective
isn't as good and near any of the four corners becomes preferable on the
ground level or above.
The best place to study a player is from near the netpost. The annoyance
many people get from sitting at midcourt is that head turning thing which
you must do to watch the ball. However, you can use this to your
advantage, by focusing on only one player per point. No head turning, and
wonderful insight into what the player is doing...stuff most tennis
watchers miss.
Steve Barnard
Sanj wrote:
>
> tennistv wrote:
> > The best place to be in is as sideline
> > spectator, where you don't have to follow the ball. That's our
> > specialty.
>
> Hi,
> I've wondered about this, from a different light. Where do you guys
> like to watch a live tennis match from - from behind the baseline, or from
> the sideline?
> I've tried both, and I prefer watching from behind the baseline.
> Sanj
>
I prefer behind the baseline and to one side (i.e., the corner).
Steve Barnard
Richard
According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
>
> Patrick Rafter, bless his little heart, was one of the first men pros to
> give us a whole afternoon of unfettered time.
I don't believe you. Nobody who spends all that time preparing the ASCII
tennis drawings you've been illustrating some of your posts with lately
has anything else going on.
> [....] The best place to be in is as sideline
> spectator, where you don't have to follow the ball. That's our
> specialty.
Of course, there's another reason why you're on the sideline. And of
course it's your speciality--just like it's the specialty of everybody
else here: we can all talk much better tennis games than we can play.
"Those who say, cannot do. Those who do, cannot say." -La'o T'zu
That's certainly true for you, as I recall, so why don't you just ease up
on the gratuitous name-dropping and cut us all a break on the slice
backhand lessons. Yours was nothing to write home about.
(Just showing my appreciation for your "volley" comment a couple of weeks
back.)
--
All of reality is just a simulation running in God's computer. So chill.
tennistv
In article <MPG.fab6d208...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> >
> > Patrick Rafter, bless his little heart, was one of the first men pros to
> > give us a whole afternoon of unfettered time.
>
> I don't believe you. Nobody who spends all that time preparing the ASCII
> tennis drawings you've been illustrating some of your posts with lately
> has anything else going on.
What's the definition of non sequitur? This little exercise in "logic" is
probably good enough for anyone's dictionary. And if ASCII drawings are
tough for you to create, take heart. They used to be for us, too. Just
like everything else in life, it gets easier with experience. The one you
seem to be referring to here took about 2.5 minutes to create.
Deriving reasonable conclusions will get easier for you, as well, the more
practice time you put in.
>
> > [....] The best place to be in is as sideline
> > spectator, where you don't have to follow the ball. That's our
> > specialty.
>
> Of course, there's another reason why you're on the sideline. And of
> course it's your speciality--just like it's the specialty of everybody
> else here: we can all talk much better tennis games than we can play.
ROTFL! This is (intentionally, surely) one of the funniest things on
r.s.t. in some while. "We can all talk much better tennis games than we
can play."!!!
>
> "Those who say, cannot do. Those who do, cannot say." -La'o T'zu
What's the definition of pablum? This hackneyed tritism will do.
>
> That's certainly true for you, as I recall, so why don't you just ease up
> on the gratuitous name-dropping and cut us all a break on the slice
> backhand lessons.
Is this supposed to be a question? Or a command? It sounds like a
question until you get to the end, where the punctuation shows a period
instead of a question mark. We're soooo confused!
If you are, in fact, as confused as you profess with the above
question-ish statement, wondering why this outbreak of "gratuitous
name-dropping" (that's a new level for gratuitous, by the way!) won't
"ease up", the advice from here would be to just manipulate your cursor to
avoid tennistv posts. Or, if you accidently trip over one in your search
through other posters, just avert your eyes! You'll get your break from
the relentless lessons, gratuitous name-dropping and perhaps this apparent
need you have to strike out this way will abate.
What's the definition of "gratutious"?
> Yours was nothing to write home about.
Ah, yes. That'll do nicely.
>
> (Just showing my appreciation for your "volley" comment a couple of weeks
> back.)
What "'volley' comment" was that?
Richard
According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> In article <MPG.fab6d208...@news.earthlink.net>,
> e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> > According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> > >
> > > Patrick Rafter, bless his little heart, was one of the first men pros to
> > > give us a whole afternoon of unfettered time.
> >
> > I don't believe you. Nobody who spends all that time preparing the ASCII
> > tennis drawings you've been illustrating some of your posts with lately
> > has anything else going on.
>
> What's the definition of non sequitur? This little exercise in "logic" is
> probably good enough for anyone's dictionary. And if ASCII drawings are
> tough for you to create, take heart. They used to be for us, too. Just
> like everything else in life, it gets easier with experience. The one you
> seem to be referring to here took about 2.5 minutes to create.
Ah, I see. You've got so little going on that you actually have time to
gain *experience* in preparing ASCII art. Now THAT'S a sad state, but
hopefully you'll find work soon.
God only knows what else besides improving your skill in ASCII art you've
had to fill your day with. Perhaps you should consider seeing a career
counselor; this tennis-teacher thing doesn't seem to be keeping you very
busy.
Not that you intended to admit it. <Laughter.>
(I still don't believe you; c.f., above.)
> Deriving reasonable conclusions will get easier for you, as well, the more
> practice time you put in.
...as will not setting yourself up for embarrasing and revealing self-
disclosures get easier for you.
> > > [....] The best place to be in is as sideline
> > > spectator, where you don't have to follow the ball. That's our
> > > specialty.
> >
> > Of course, there's another reason why you're on the sideline. And of
> > course it's your speciality--just like it's the specialty of everybody
> > else here: we can all talk much better tennis games than we can play.
>
> ROTFL! This is (intentionally, surely) one of the funniest things on
> r.s.t. in some while. "We can all talk much better tennis games than we
> can play."!!!
Note that I included you in with the "we." Note further that you didn't
protest this.
Laugh hearty, now. I certainly am. <More laughter.>
> > "Those who say, cannot do. Those who do, cannot say." -La'o T'zu
>
> What's the definition of pablum? This hackneyed tritism will do.
The observations of La'o T'zu have managed to last for 2,500 years or so.
I know it's a lot to ask of you, but show a little respect for someone's
words besides your own.
Besides, I can think of nothing which so precisely places the proper
context on your voluminous pedagogic postings here than those words of
La'o T'zu cited earlier: Those who say, cannot do.
> > That's certainly true for you, as I recall, so why don't you just ease up
> > on the gratuitous name-dropping and cut us all a break on the slice
> > backhand lessons.
>
> Is this supposed to be a question? Or a command? It sounds like a
> question until you get to the end, where the punctuation shows a period
> instead of a question mark. We're soooo confused!
Your confusion has been noted. By others. For some time now.
Glad to see you're finally getting a clue.
> If you are, in fact, as confused as you profess with the above
> question-ish statement, wondering why this outbreak of "gratuitous
> name-dropping" (that's a new level for gratuitous, by the way!) won't
> "ease up", the advice from here would be to just manipulate your cursor to
> avoid tennistv posts. Or, if you accidently trip over one in your search
> through other posters, just avert your eyes! You'll get your break from
> the relentless lessons, gratuitous name-dropping and perhaps this apparent
> need you have to strike out this way will abate.
My motivation is simple: James Kershaw makes, IMO, some of the most truly
useful posts concerning match-play tennis I've seen here. You have an
"apparent need" to "strike out" and call him a putz.
In your early days here, you also had a high signal-to-noise ratio. I'd
get similarly annoyed when you'd draw insults from other r.s.t. posters,
and I have a history of some pretty heated exchanges with a few of them
on your behalf. You are on record as being very appreciative when the
sword was swinging the other direction.
Since your early days, I've come to see you as deliberately contentious
and argumentive. I think you go out of your way to form your responses
and comments in a way to draw heat.
For quite a while, the reason why someone who professes great knowledge
and success in teaching tennis would bother to compulsively argue about
it towards no apparent end here was beyond me.
But no more.
The reason for this, as is now clear by your admission that you've got so
much time on your hands that you can actually become skilled in making
ASCII drawings to augment your r.s.t. postings, is simple: You're bored.
Over the past year, I've met four tennis teachers who are truly excellent
and experienced (three who coached all of the men and women pros from the
former Soviet Union; one who was ranked in the ATP 200s a few years
back). Not one of them has a spare minute in their day, nor a short
waiting list of serious students eager to work with them.
If you were half the instructor you profess to be, IMO you'd be much too
busy to generate all the noise you do here. <Tons of laughter.>
> > (Just showing my appreciation for your "volley" comment a couple of weeks
> > back.)
>
> What "'volley' comment" was that?
Construct the appropriate DejaNews search. By your own admission, you've
got plenty of time on your hands to learn how. <Even more laughter.>
tennistv
In article <MPG.fabf7689...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> > In article <MPG.fab6d208...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> >
> > > According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> > > >
> > > > Patrick Rafter, bless his little heart, was one of the first men pros to
> > > > give us a whole afternoon of unfettered time.
> > >
> > > I don't believe you. Nobody who spends all that time preparing the ASCII
> > > tennis drawings you've been illustrating some of your posts with lately
> > > has anything else going on.
> >
> > What's the definition of non sequitur? This little exercise in "logic" is
> > probably good enough for anyone's dictionary. And if ASCII drawings are
> > tough for you to create, take heart. They used to be for us, too. Just
> > like everything else in life, it gets easier with experience. The one you
> > seem to be referring to here took about 2.5 minutes to create.
>
> Ah, I see. You've got so little going on that you actually have time to
> gain *experience* in preparing ASCII art. Now THAT'S a sad state, but
> hopefully you'll find work soon.
Exactly right. Three ASCII drawings and, voila, we are now expert at
them! How many have you tried? It's not any more daunting than typing
the timely comments you spent at least a few minutes on for this post.
We'd say a very few minutes, but how can we judge, really.
> God only knows what else besides improving your skill in ASCII art you've
> had to fill your day with. Perhaps you should consider seeing a career
> counselor; this tennis-teacher thing doesn't seem to be keeping you very
> busy.
There is no God. Did you miss that thread?
>
> Not that you intended to admit it. <Laughter.>
>
> (I still don't believe you; c.f., above.)
You still haven't given any reason not to. If it still tortures you, next
time you chat with Patrick ask him about it.
>
> > Deriving reasonable conclusions will get easier for you, as well, the more
> > practice time you put in.
>
> ...as will not setting yourself up for embarrasing and revealing self-
> disclosures get easier for you.
This may be of great help to you: No one can embarrass you. Not even
yourself. It is a function of permission, not commission. You must be
willing to be embarrassed before embarrassment sets in. Don't permit
yourself to feel embarrassment, and you never will! (This is just one of
the many useful platitudes that we learned on Take Our Daughters To Work
Day. Thought you might appreciate it, given your endless appetite for
platitudes.)
>
> > > > [....] The best place to be in is as sideline
> > > > spectator, where you don't have to follow the ball. That's our
> > > > specialty.
> > >
> > > Of course, there's another reason why you're on the sideline. And of
> > > course it's your speciality--just like it's the specialty of everybody
> > > else here: we can all talk much better tennis games than we can play.
> >
> > ROTFL! This is (intentionally, surely) one of the funniest things on
> > r.s.t. in some while. "We can all talk much better tennis games than we
> > can play."!!!
>
> Note that I included you in with the "we." Note further that you didn't
> protest this.
>
> Laugh hearty, now. I certainly am. <More laughter.>
You must not get it, given these comments, and we are disappointed that it
wasn't an intentional funny after all. <sigh> Maybe we've been giving
you more credit than you deserved all along....
>
> > > "Those who say, cannot do. Those who do, cannot say." -La'o T'zu
> >
> > What's the definition of pablum? This hackneyed tritism will do.
>
> The observations of La'o T'zu have managed to last for 2,500 years or so.
> I know it's a lot to ask of you, but show a little respect for someone's
> words besides your own.
Dirt has lasted a lot longer than La'o T'zu. So what? You into dirt,
too? Trite is trite no matter the epoch it was first generated in. We
respect things that earn respect. This particular anemic aphorism comes
up well short.
Basketball coaches coach basketball...because they can't play it? They
may not be able to play it as well as their players (Larry Bird can, Pat
Riley can) but what they are doing...coaching...is not predicated on them
playing, it is predicated on them coaching. Just as it might often be
true that coaches are not as good players as players are, it is also true
that players are not as good coaches as coaches are. Coaching requires
saying, playing requires doing. Apples, oranges. P-a-b-l-u-m. Maybe
La'o T'zu was having a bad day.
>
> Besides, I can think of nothing which so precisely places the proper
> context on your voluminous pedagogic postings here than those words of
> La'o T'zu cited earlier: Those who say, cannot do.
And by saying that, you prove to yourself (and La'o T'zu) that you cannot
do...what? Focus your energies on something constructive? You've made it
abundantly clear that you don't like us, that you don't like us being
here, that you don't like what we say. Big friggin' deal. How many times
do you need to say it before you're satisfied that you've said it? Get on
with your life, Richard. You're <on> the record. This obsession is
getting scarier all the time.
>
> > > That's certainly true for you, as I recall, so why don't you just ease up
> > > on the gratuitous name-dropping and cut us all a break on the slice
> > > backhand lessons.
> >
> > Is this supposed to be a question? Or a command? It sounds like a
> > question until you get to the end, where the punctuation shows a period
> > instead of a question mark. We're soooo confused!
>
> Your confusion has been noted. By others. For some time now.
>
> Glad to see you're finally getting a clue.
Hmmmm. So, are <you> so confused that you didn't notice the little cry
for help? You were asked a question, Richard. You didn't respond to the
question, you just blurted out some more Grade B hostility. If you don't
answer questions, people will think you're not interested in talking
<with> someone, they'll see that you're talking <at> someone. Is this how
you wish to be seen?
>
> > If you are, in fact, as confused as you profess with the above
> > question-ish statement, wondering why this outbreak of "gratuitous
> > name-dropping" (that's a new level for gratuitous, by the way!) won't
> > "ease up", the advice from here would be to just manipulate your cursor to
> > avoid tennistv posts. Or, if you accidently trip over one in your search
> > through other posters, just avert your eyes! You'll get your break from
> > the relentless lessons, gratuitous name-dropping and perhaps this apparent
> > need you have to strike out this way will abate.
>
> My motivation is simple: James Kershaw makes, IMO, some of the most truly
> useful posts concerning match-play tennis I've seen here. You have an
> "apparent need" to "strike out" and call him a putz.
Come, come. James is a big boy (he's said so his own self many times).
Do you feel you must come to his rescue and fight the demon hordes that
badger him, on his behalf? Tsk, tsk. Your days must be r-e-a-l-l-y
empty.
>
> In your early days here, you also had a high signal-to-noise ratio. I'd
> get similarly annoyed when you'd draw insults from other r.s.t. posters,
> and I have a history of some pretty heated exchanges with a few of them
> on your behalf. You are on record as being very appreciative when the
> sword was swinging the other direction.
You almost made us have a collective lunch loss when you went around with
Barnard talking about "pissing on his grave" and all. If that's your idea
of swinging your sword, please keep it in its scabbard. No one, James
included, is going to be well served by your prissy proxy pissing poses.
(Oooo, that's good!)
>
> Since your early days, I've come to see you as deliberately contentious
> and argumentive. I think you go out of your way to form your responses
> and comments in a way to draw heat.
<Shudder> The very idea!
>
> For quite a while, the reason why someone who professes great knowledge
> and success in teaching tennis would bother to compulsively argue about
> it towards no apparent end here was beyond me.
What's not apparent to you is, obviously, quite a big piece of the
picture. Given that disadvantage, you shouldn't make too many conclusions
based on what's not apparent to you.
>
> But no more.
Unsheathing that mighty sword again? Watch out, those in graves!
>
> The reason for this, as is now clear by your admission that you've got so
> much time on your hands that you can actually become skilled in making
> ASCII drawings to augment your r.s.t. postings, is simple: You're bored.
From non sequitur maven to parlor room psychoanalyst, in one swell foop!
Taking the time to offer an analysis of writings of someone who is, by
your account, "bored" would seem to be the work of someone who has even
less to do!
>
> Over the past year, I've met four tennis teachers who are truly excellent
> and experienced (three who coached all of the men and women pros from the
> former Soviet Union; one who was ranked in the ATP 200s a few years
> back). Not one of them has a spare minute in their day, nor a short
> waiting list of serious students eager to work with them.
Time management was never a strong point in the Soviet system.
>
> If you were half the instructor you profess to be, IMO you'd be much too
> busy to generate all the noise you do here. <Tons of laughter.>
Non sequitur, non sequitur, non sequitur. Sheesh! Give some other debate
tricks a chance!
(And thanks for snipping the gratuitous hostility that you rented out this
space to in your previous post!)
>
> > > (Just showing my appreciation for your "volley" comment a couple of weeks
> > > back.)
> >
> > What "'volley' comment" was that?
>
> Construct the appropriate DejaNews search. By your own admission, you've
> got plenty of time on your hands to learn how. <Even more laughter.>
Got it now. It was "Let us know when you can volley." So, have you
learned how yet? With all that wonderful help you've been getting over
the past year, you should be able to volley till the cows come home. Can
you? Volley, that is?
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
> That's as close to right as you've been. You know a little about tennis.
> We've been trying to improve your score...you're a tough student.
Ahhhh, that explains a lot..... you think we have a student/teacher
relationship.
.... um... .sorry to disillusion you, but I can learn as much about
tennis from
you as I can from any beginner.
> The bookie paid us when you said...in the face of overwhelming evidence
> that the facts were straight...that we "need to get [our] facts straight".
That classifies as an insult? You must have a soft bookie... actually,
I
rather suggest that you made the whole thing up.
James.
tennistv
In article <354502...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> tennistv wrote:
>
> > No one, James
> > included, is going to be well served by your prissy proxy pissing poses.
> > (Oooo, that's good!)
>
> Even if he does say so himself.
We've learned that if we don't, no one will. And this one deserves note!
>
> I suppose an illiterated insult is slightly more complex than a vulgar
> vulgarity.
>
Oh, James! That's "alliterative", not "illiterated". And yes it's
infinitely more complex and worthwhile than the standard, garden-variety
Barnardisms. We're still howling about this one.
Ahhhh-OOOOOO!!!!
Steve Barnard
tennistv wrote:
>
> In article <354502...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > tennistv wrote:
> >
> > > included, is going to be well served by your prissy proxy pissing poses.
> > > (Oooo, that's good!)
> >
>
> We've learned that if we don't, no one will. And this one deserves note!
He's a legend in his own mind.
Steve Barnard
Steve Barnard
> :> That's as close to right as you've been. You know a little about tennis.
> :> We've been trying to improve your score...you're a tough student.
> :
> :Ahhhh, that explains a lot..... you think we have a student/teacher
> :relationship.
> :tennis from
> :you as I can from any beginner.
>
I've heard (from someone who's a position to know) that tennistitty's
slice backhand is nothing to write home about.
Steve Barnard
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
> No one, James
> included, is going to be well served by your prissy proxy pissing poses.
> (Oooo, that's good!)
Even if he does say so himself.
I suppose an illiterated insult is slightly more complex than a vulgar
vulgarity.
James.
Samir Bhakta
James Kershaw <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
:tennistv wrote:
:
:> That's as close to right as you've been. You know a little about tennis.
:> We've been trying to improve your score...you're a tough student.
:
:Ahhhh, that explains a lot..... you think we have a student/teacher
:relationship.
:..... um... .sorry to disillusion you, but I can learn as much about
:tennis from
:you as I can from any beginner.
You mean you don't want him to teach you about the slice backhand? :-)
- Samir
Richard
According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> In article <MPG.fabf7689...@news.earthlink.net>,
> e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> > According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> > > In article <MPG.fab6d208...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > > e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> > > > >
> > > > > Patrick Rafter, bless his little heart, was one of the first men pros to
> > > > > give us a whole afternoon of unfettered time.
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe you. Nobody who spends all that time preparing the ASCII
> > > > tennis drawings you've been illustrating some of your posts with lately
> > > > has anything else going on.
> > >
> > > What's the definition of non sequitur? This little exercise in "logic" is
> > > probably good enough for anyone's dictionary. And if ASCII drawings are
> > > tough for you to create, take heart. They used to be for us, too. Just
> > > like everything else in life, it gets easier with experience. The one you
> > > seem to be referring to here took about 2.5 minutes to create.
> >
> > Ah, I see. You've got so little going on that you actually have time to
> > gain *experience* in preparing ASCII art. Now THAT'S a sad state, but
> > hopefully you'll find work soon.
>
> Exactly right. Three ASCII drawings and, voila, we are now expert at
> them! How many have you tried? It's not any more daunting than typing
> the timely comments you spent at least a few minutes on for this post.
> We'd say a very few minutes, but how can we judge, really.
Gee...let's see. The last ASCII drawing I did was in 1993 or so, to
help describe a mechanism I'd invented for securely passing SNMP traffic
between an internal NMS and the external router of an Internet firewall.
Your use of the word "expert" in place of the word "experienced" was an
interesting substitution. Intentionally misrepresentative. As usual.
> > God only knows what else besides improving your skill in ASCII art you've
> > had to fill your day with. Perhaps you should consider seeing a career
> > counselor; this tennis-teacher thing doesn't seem to be keeping you very
> > busy.
>
> There is no God. Did you miss that thread?
Then switch "God only knows" with "I shudder to think" in that sentence.
> > Not that you intended to admit it. <Laughter.>
>
> > (I still don't believe you; c.f., above.)
>
> You still haven't given any reason not to. If it still tortures you, next
> time you chat with Patrick ask him about it.
To what end? So that I could simply say that you're a liar? You've
demonstrated that so many times already, I consider it a given.
All you do is exploit the limitations of this medium. Your role here is
the same as that which the first two-bit crackpot with delusions of
grandeur in countless other newsgroups has claimed: you take the position
of authority, and make proclimation after proclimation without ever--in
fact, repeatedly refusing to--substantiating any of it.
> > > Deriving reasonable conclusions will get easier for you, as well, the more
> > > practice time you put in.
> >
> > ...as will not setting yourself up for embarrasing and revealing self-
> > disclosures get easier for you.
>
> This may be of great help to you: No one can embarrass you. Not even
> yourself. It is a function of permission, not commission. You must be
> willing to be embarrassed before embarrassment sets in. Don't permit
> yourself to feel embarrassment, and you never will! (This is just one of
> the many useful platitudes that we learned on Take Our Daughters To Work
> Day. Thought you might appreciate it, given your endless appetite for
> platitudes.)
That explains a great deal. Thanks.
> > > > > [....] The best place to be in is as sideline
> > > > > spectator, where you don't have to follow the ball. That's our
> > > > > specialty.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, there's another reason why you're on the sideline. And of
> > > > course it's your speciality--just like it's the specialty of everybody
> > > > else here: we can all talk much better tennis games than we can play.
> > >
> > > ROTFL! This is (intentionally, surely) one of the funniest things on
> > > r.s.t. in some while. "We can all talk much better tennis games than we
> > > can play."!!!
> >
> > Note that I included you in with the "we." Note further that you didn't
> > protest this.
> >
> > Laugh hearty, now. I certainly am. <More laughter.>
>
> You must not get it, given these comments, and we are disappointed that it
> wasn't an intentional funny after all. <sigh> Maybe we've been giving
> you more credit than you deserved all along....
>
> > > > "Those who say, cannot do. Those who do, cannot say." -La'o T'zu
> > >
> > > What's the definition of pablum? This hackneyed tritism will do.
> >
> > The observations of La'o T'zu have managed to last for 2,500 years or so.
> > I know it's a lot to ask of you, but show a little respect for someone's
> > words besides your own.
>
> Dirt has lasted a lot longer than La'o T'zu. So what? You into dirt,
> too? Trite is trite no matter the epoch it was first generated in. We
> respect things that earn respect. This particular anemic aphorism comes
> up well short.
Not a member of the literati, I see.
> Basketball coaches coach basketball...because they can't play it? They
> may not be able to play it as well as their players (Larry Bird can, Pat
> Riley can) but what they are doing...coaching...is not predicated on them
> playing, it is predicated on them coaching.
Yeah, but you don't teach it OR play it very well. Your technique for
groundstrokes is badly flawed, and--well, just how well-rated are those
poor juniors of yours?
You did mention having one paying student, first time we met: a 2.5, who
was the wife of a rich businessman. You were tapping them for $200 an
hour, I recall you boasting.
Boy, is that ever the ipitome of irony.
> > > If you are, in fact, as confused as you profess with the above
> > > question-ish statement, wondering why this outbreak of "gratuitous
> > > name-dropping" (that's a new level for gratuitous, by the way!) won't
> > > "ease up", the advice from here would be to just manipulate your cursor to
> > > avoid tennistv posts. Or, if you accidently trip over one in your search
> > > through other posters, just avert your eyes! You'll get your break from
> > > the relentless lessons, gratuitous name-dropping and perhaps this apparent
> > > need you have to strike out this way will abate.
> >
> > My motivation is simple: James Kershaw makes, IMO, some of the most truly
> > useful posts concerning match-play tennis I've seen here. You have an
> > "apparent need" to "strike out" and call him a putz.
>
> Come, come. James is a big boy (he's said so his own self many times).
> Do you feel you must come to his rescue and fight the demon hordes that
> badger him, on his behalf? Tsk, tsk. Your days must be r-e-a-l-l-y
> empty.
Naw; just expressing my own personal annoyance.
> > In your early days here, you also had a high signal-to-noise ratio. I'd
> > get similarly annoyed when you'd draw insults from other r.s.t. posters,
> > and I have a history of some pretty heated exchanges with a few of them
> > on your behalf. You are on record as being very appreciative when the
> > sword was swinging the other direction.
>
> You almost made us have a collective lunch loss when you went around with
> Barnard talking about "pissing on his grave" and all. If that's your idea
> of swinging your sword, please keep it in its scabbard.
My, are you self-centered. That little repartee between Steve and I
didn't have anything at all to do with you. I had asked for some
information on tennis courts in San Jose prior to a trip there, and Steve
posted a reply, which he later said was meant in jest, which, well, I
didn't take that way.
> No one, James
> included, is going to be well served by your prissy proxy pissing poses.
> (Oooo, that's good!)
Don't pee yourself over it. (Oooo, that's even better!)
> > Since your early days, I've come to see you as deliberately contentious
> > and argumentive. I think you go out of your way to form your responses
> > and comments in a way to draw heat.
>
> <Shudder> The very idea!
You wouldn't want to be known for talking <at> people, now, would you?
> > For quite a while, the reason why someone who professes great knowledge
> > and success in teaching tennis would bother to compulsively argue about
> > it towards no apparent end here was beyond me.
>
> What's not apparent to you is, obviously, quite a big piece of the
> picture. Given that disadvantage, you shouldn't make too many conclusions
> based on what's not apparent to you.
>
> > But no more.
>
> Unsheathing that mighty sword again? Watch out, those in graves!
>
> > The reason for this, as is now clear by your admission that you've got so
> > much time on your hands that you can actually become skilled in making
> > ASCII drawings to augment your r.s.t. postings, is simple: You're bored.
>
> From non sequitur maven to parlor room psychoanalyst, in one swell foop!
> Taking the time to offer an analysis of writings of someone who is, by
> your account, "bored" would seem to be the work of someone who has even
> less to do!
No; for example, I know one doctoral candidate who is doing her
disseration on the topic of Usenet Megalomania. She's hardly bored, and
has plenty to do. You play a very minor role, being a pretty mundane and
subpar net.kook in the larger set of these creatures.
But your pathology is certainly clear enough.
> [...yo-yaddah-yaddah-yaddah...]
> Got it now. It was "Let us know when you can volley." So, have you
> learned how yet? With all that wonderful help you've been getting over
> the past year, you should be able to volley till the cows come home. Can
> you? Volley, that is?
I seem to remember you dumping around 2/3rds of your volleys into the net
the first two times we got together. I volley pretty well now, thanks--I
hope you can, too, coach!
tennistv
In article <MPG.faf44a86...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
Not misrepresentational at all. Your spin that it is seems meanspirited
and pointless. The fact is, with very little experience, almost anyone
can become expert at ASCII drawing.
>
> > > God only knows what else besides improving your skill in ASCII art
you've
> > > had to fill your day with. Perhaps you should consider seeing a career
> > > counselor; this tennis-teacher thing doesn't seem to be keeping you very
> > > busy.
> >
> > There is no God. Did you miss that thread?
>
> Then switch "God only knows" with "I shudder to think" in that sentence.
You have to do your own editing here. Else the protocol cops will descend.
>
> > > Not that you intended to admit it. <Laughter.>
> >
> > > (I still don't believe you; c.f., above.)
> >
> > You still haven't given any reason not to. If it still tortures you, next
> > time you chat with Patrick ask him about it.
>
> To what end? So that I could simply say that you're a liar? You've
> demonstrated that so many times already, I consider it a given.
Hmmm. Another pointless, meanspirited, inaccurate (and, to use an overused
word, gratuitous) swipe. Does it make you feel elevated to carry on this
way? Patrick will remember very well the afternoon he spent with us. He
was flush from the to-date biggest win he'd had on tour, and we were his
first American television feature. He was fabulously generous and
gracious.
>
> All you do is exploit the limitations of this medium.
As opposed to what you do? What would that be?
Your role here is
> the same as that which the first two-bit crackpot with delusions of
> grandeur in countless other newsgroups has claimed: you take the position
> of authority, and make proclimation after proclimation without ever--in
> fact, repeatedly refusing to--substantiating any of it.
This hang up you seem to have about what we say...how's about just doing
the sophisticated, mature thing and ignore it? What purpose does it serve
for you to go on and on and on, saying the same meanspirited, pointless
and inaccurate things over and over and over?
>
> > > > Deriving reasonable conclusions will get easier for you, as well,
the more
> > > > practice time you put in.
> > >
> > > ...as will not setting yourself up for embarrasing and revealing self-
> > > disclosures get easier for you.
> >
> > This may be of great help to you: No one can embarrass you. Not even
> > yourself. It is a function of permission, not commission. You must be
> > willing to be embarrassed before embarrassment sets in. Don't permit
> > yourself to feel embarrassment, and you never will! (This is just one of
> > the many useful platitudes that we learned on Take Our Daughters To Work
> > Day. Thought you might appreciate it, given your endless appetite for
> > platitudes.)
>
> That explains a great deal. Thanks.
Don't mention it.
The literati has a blind eye for trite?
>
> > Basketball coaches coach basketball...because they can't play it? They
> > may not be able to play it as well as their players (Larry Bird can, Pat
> > Riley can) but what they are doing...coaching...is not predicated on them
> > playing, it is predicated on them coaching.
>
> Yeah, but you don't teach it OR play it very well.
Interesting excursion into the unknown. What informs your certainty here?
Aside from that huge gaff, have you completely sidestepped your
time-honored aphorism altogether? Are you confessing, through snippage,
that "Those who say cannot do, etc." is hackneyed, trite and anemic after
all?
>Your technique for
> groundstrokes is badly flawed,
It's the same technique used by all the best players. But you, of course,
are above them, too, we gather?
and--well, just how well-rated are those
> poor juniors of yours?
It varies. They improve so fast, their ratings are often lagging behind
their level.
>
> You did mention having one paying student, first time we met: a 2.5, who
> was the wife of a rich businessman. You were tapping them for $200 an
> hour, I recall you boasting.
Boasting? No, not boasting. More like expressing disbelief. And, as
with any of the other personal conversations or email you've had with any
of us, they were conducted within the context of your unsolicited, but
valued and believed, promise of utter confidentiality. You almost fell
over yourself to assure us of it. (Maybe that should have been a clue?)
We have no desire to expose any people but those involved in our usenet
presence to the hostility, misrepresentations and pyschotic behavior that
take place in r.s.t. If you find honoring your word to <us> that you'd
not bring to usenet the personal contacts you've had with tennistv not
binding, search your soul to see if you can't keep other people out of it,
at least.
No, the "ipitome" of irony would be found in your sanctimonious prattlings
about how disdainful you are about pointless, inaccurate,
meanspirited-isms on usenet, only to engage in so much of that behavior
yourself. Now that...that's the "ipitome of irony".
>
> > > > If you are, in fact, as confused as you profess with the above
> > > > question-ish statement, wondering why this outbreak of "gratuitous
> > > > name-dropping" (that's a new level for gratuitous, by the way!) won't
> > > > "ease up", the advice from here would be to just manipulate your
cursor to
> > > > avoid tennistv posts. Or, if you accidently trip over one in your
search
> > > > through other posters, just avert your eyes! You'll get your break from
> > > > the relentless lessons, gratuitous name-dropping and perhaps this
apparent
> > > > need you have to strike out this way will abate.
> > >
> > > My motivation is simple: James Kershaw makes, IMO, some of the most truly
> > > useful posts concerning match-play tennis I've seen here. You have an
> > > "apparent need" to "strike out" and call him a putz.
> >
> > Come, come. James is a big boy (he's said so his own self many times).
> > Do you feel you must come to his rescue and fight the demon hordes that
> > badger him, on his behalf? Tsk, tsk. Your days must be r-e-a-l-l-y
> > empty.
>
> Naw; just expressing my own personal annoyance.
You can avoid being annoyed all together, and save yourself the noblesse
oblige of expressing it, by just ignoring anything to do with tennistv!
Simple.
>
> > > In your early days here, you also had a high signal-to-noise ratio. I'd
> > > get similarly annoyed when you'd draw insults from other r.s.t. posters,
> > > and I have a history of some pretty heated exchanges with a few of them
> > > on your behalf. You are on record as being very appreciative when the
> > > sword was swinging the other direction.
> >
> > You almost made us have a collective lunch loss when you went around with
> > Barnard talking about "pissing on his grave" and all. If that's your idea
> > of swinging your sword, please keep it in its scabbard.
>
> My, are you self-centered. That little repartee between Steve and I
> didn't have anything at all to do with you. I had asked for some
> information on tennis courts in San Jose prior to a trip there, and Steve
> posted a reply, which he later said was meant in jest, which, well, I
> didn't take that way.
Oh, there's no misunderstanding at all. Clearly you weren't threatening
to piss on Barnard's grave out of some service to us, and we certainly
didn't imply that you were! The point is that, and maybe you read the
passage too quickly, "If that's your idea of swinging your sword, please
keep it in its scabbard." Your sword seems particularly treakly.
>
> > No one, James
> > included, is going to be well served by your prissy proxy pissing poses.
> > (Oooo, that's good!)
>
> Don't pee yourself over it. (Oooo, that's even better!)
Not awful, but certainly without the magical alliteration in the former.
You know about alliteration, don't you?
>
> > > Since your early days, I've come to see you as deliberately contentious
> > > and argumentive. I think you go out of your way to form your responses
> > > and comments in a way to draw heat.
> >
> > <Shudder> The very idea!
>
> You wouldn't want to be known for talking <at> people, now, would you?
No, why do you ask?
>
> > > For quite a while, the reason why someone who professes great knowledge
> > > and success in teaching tennis would bother to compulsively argue about
> > > it towards no apparent end here was beyond me.
> >
> > What's not apparent to you is, obviously, quite a big piece of the
> > picture. Given that disadvantage, you shouldn't make too many conclusions
> > based on what's not apparent to you.
> >
> > > But no more.
> >
> > Unsheathing that mighty sword again? Watch out, those in graves!
> >
> > > The reason for this, as is now clear by your admission that you've got so
> > > much time on your hands that you can actually become skilled in making
> > > ASCII drawings to augment your r.s.t. postings, is simple: You're bored.
> >
> > From non sequitur maven to parlor room psychoanalyst, in one swell foop!
> > Taking the time to offer an analysis of writings of someone who is, by
> > your account, "bored" would seem to be the work of someone who has even
> > less to do!
>
> No; for example, I know one doctoral candidate who is doing her
> disseration on the topic of Usenet Megalomania. She's hardly bored, and
> has plenty to do. You play a very minor role, being a pretty mundane and
> subpar net.kook in the larger set of these creatures.
So, are you saying that your little exercise here, prattling on about how
bored <we> must be, is worthwhile because <you> are conducting research?
Or just that since someone else has found a purpose in analysing
"net.kooks" that you can, by proxy, justify the time <you> spend on it?
Ever here of Munchausen syndrome? Is that what you've got?
>
> But your pathology is certainly clear enough.
And you've said so, now, for the umpteenth time. Bored yet?
>
> > [...yo-yaddah-yaddah-yaddah...]
>
> > Got it now. It was "Let us know when you can volley." So, have you
> > learned how yet? With all that wonderful help you've been getting over
> > the past year, you should be able to volley till the cows come home. Can
> > you? Volley, that is?
>
> I seem to remember you dumping around 2/3rds of your volleys into the net
> the first two times we got together. I volley pretty well now, thanks--I
> hope you can, too, coach!
Oh, come on, what not just come on out and say it? "I seem to remember
you dumping ALL of your volleys into the net". That's more like in
keeping with the meanspirited, pointless, and inaccurate reality you live
in. Or would that not sound as believable as what you made up?
Glad to hear you can volley, now, though. Hope to see you doing it
sometime. Volleying, that is.
tennistv
In article <354652...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> tennistv wrote:
> >
> > In article <354502...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> > <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > > tennistv wrote:
> > >
> > > > No one, James
> > > > included, is going to be well served by your prissy proxy pissing poses.
> > > > (Oooo, that's good!)
> > >
> > > Even if he does say so himself.
> >
> > We've learned that if we don't, no one will. And this one deserves note!
> >
> > >
> > > I suppose an illiterated insult is slightly more complex than a vulgar
> > > vulgarity.
> > >
> >
> > Oh, James! That's "alliterative", not "illiterated". And yes it's
> > infinitely more complex and worthwhile than the standard, garden-variety
> > Barnardisms. We're still howling about this one.
>
> Thanks. Didn't you notice that alliteration starts with a different
> letter
> to insult? (Poetic license, you see, and it didn't change the meaning).
> Didn't you notice that I intended the passive past and not the
> adjectival forms?
>
> Ahhh, the beauty of poetry.... its been quite a few years since I was
> producing
> and publishing poetry and prose.
And that, campers, is what we call "a good thing".
Richard
[....available on DejaNews....]
> >Your technique for groundstrokes is badly flawed,
>
> It's the same technique used by all the best players. [....]
No, it isn't.
You teach a groundstroke whose motion to the ball is delayed as long as
possible, in order to maximize the magnitude of acceleration of the
racquet as it contacts the ball.
While the timing used by the "best players" I have observed varies some
according to the particulars of the given stroke they're making, the
preference and trend seems to be to make contact well out in front of
them (forehand and one-handed backhand) and to begin the stroke motion to
coordinate with that goal.
> > and--well, just how well-rated are those poor juniors of yours?
>
> It varies. They improve so fast, their ratings are often lagging behind
> their level.
That's like saying, "The match was closer than the score indicates."
[...also available on DejaNews....]
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
>
> In article <354502...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > tennistv wrote:
> >
> > > included, is going to be well served by your prissy proxy pissing poses.
> > > (Oooo, that's good!)
> >
>
> We've learned that if we don't, no one will. And this one deserves note!
>
> >
> > I suppose an illiterated insult is slightly more complex than a vulgar
> > vulgarity.
> >
>
> Oh, James! That's "alliterative", not "illiterated". And yes it's
> infinitely more complex and worthwhile than the standard, garden-variety
> Barnardisms. We're still howling about this one.
Thanks. Didn't you notice that alliteration starts with a different
letter
to insult? (Poetic license, you see, and it didn't change the meaning).
Didn't you notice that I intended the passive past and not the
adjectival forms?
Ahhh, the beauty of poetry.... its been quite a few years since I was
producing
and publishing poetry and prose.
James.
James Kershaw
> :> That's as close to right as you've been. You know a little about tennis.
> :> We've been trying to improve your score...you're a tough student.
> :
> :Ahhhh, that explains a lot..... you think we have a student/teacher
> :relationship.
> :..... um... .sorry to disillusion you, but I can learn as much about
> :tennis from
> :you as I can from any beginner.
>
> You mean you don't want him to teach you about the slice backhand? :-)
Umm... no.
James.
tennistv
In article <MPG.fb057dba...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> > e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> [....available on DejaNews....]
Yeah, except for any pithy defense of sorely need explanations for your
behavior. Do you feel entitled, somehow, to make outrageous,
meanspirited, inaccurate charges, and not have to respond when you are
called on them? That's arrogant, Richard. Purely and simply. Here's
some of the material you've chosen to ignore. Try again? Rise above
arrogant?
> Your use of the word "expert" in place of the word "experienced" was an
> interesting substitution. Intentionally misrepresentative. As usual.
Not misrepresentational at all. Your spin that it is seems meanspirited
and pointless. The fact is, with very little experience, almost anyone
can become expert at ASCII drawing.
> > > (I still don't believe you; c.f., above.)
> >
> > You still haven't given any reason not to. If it still tortures you, next
> > time you chat with Patrick ask him about it.
>
> To what end? So that I could simply say that you're a liar? You've
> demonstrated that so many times already, I consider it a given.
Hmmm. Another pointless, meanspirited, inaccurate (and, to use an overused
word, gratuitous) swipe. Does it make you feel elevated to carry on this
way? Patrick will remember very well the afternoon he spent with us. He
was flush from the to-date biggest win he'd had on tour, and we were his
first American television feature. He was fabulously generous and
gracious.
>
> All you do is exploit the limitations of this medium.
As opposed to what you do? What would that be?
Your role here is
> the same as that which the first two-bit crackpot with delusions of
> grandeur in countless other newsgroups has claimed: you take the position
> of authority, and make proclimation after proclimation without ever--in
> fact, repeatedly refusing to--substantiating any of it.
This hang up you seem to have about what we say...how's about just doing
the sophisticated, mature thing and ignore it? What purpose does it serve
for you to go on and on and on, saying the same meanspirited, pointless
and inaccurate things over and over and over?
> > Dirt has lasted a lot longer than La'o T'zu. So what? You into dirt,
> > too? Trite is trite no matter the epoch it was first generated in. We
> > respect things that earn respect. This particular anemic aphorism comes
> > up well short.
>
> Not a member of the literati, I see.
The literati has a blind eye for trite?
>
> > Basketball coaches coach basketball...because they can't play it? They
> > may not be able to play it as well as their players (Larry Bird can, Pat
> > Riley can) but what they are doing...coaching...is not predicated on them
> > playing, it is predicated on them coaching.
>
> Yeah, but you don't teach it OR play it very well.
Interesting excursion into the unknown. What informs your certainty here?
Aside from that huge gaff, have you completely sidestepped your
time-honored aphorism altogether? Are you confessing, through snippage,
that "Those who say cannot do, etc." is hackneyed, trite and anemic after
all?
>
> You did mention having one paying student, first time we met: a 2.5, who
> was the wife of a rich businessman. You were tapping them for $200 an
> hour, I recall you boasting.
Boasting? No, not boasting. More like expressing disbelief. And, as
with any of the other personal conversations or email you've had with any
of us, they were conducted within the context of your unsolicited, but
valued and believed, promise of utter confidentiality. You almost fell
over yourself to assure us of it. (Maybe that should have been a clue?)
We have no desire to expose any people but those involved in our usenet
presence to the hostility, misrepresentations and pyschotic behavior that
take place in r.s.t. If you find honoring your word to <us> that you'd
not bring to usenet the personal contacts you've had with tennistv not
binding, search your soul to see if you can't keep other people out of it,
at least.
> > From non sequitur maven to parlor room psychoanalyst, in one swell foop!
> > Taking the time to offer an analysis of writings of someone who is, by
> > your account, "bored" would seem to be the work of someone who has even
> > less to do!
>
> No; for example, I know one doctoral candidate who is doing her
> disseration on the topic of Usenet Megalomania. She's hardly bored, and
> has plenty to do. You play a very minor role, being a pretty mundane and
> subpar net.kook in the larger set of these creatures.
So, are you saying that your little exercise here, prattling on about how
bored <we> must be, is worthwhile because <you> are conducting research?
Or just that since someone else has found a purpose in analysing
"net.kooks" that you can, by proxy, justify the time <you> spend on it?
Ever here of Munchausen syndrome? Is that what you've got?
> You wouldn't want to be known for talking <at> people, now, would you?
No, why do you ask?
--now, back to our program--
>
> > >Your technique for groundstrokes is badly flawed,
> >
> > It's the same technique used by all the best players. [....]
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes it is.
>
> You teach a groundstroke whose motion to the ball is delayed as long as
> possible, in order to maximize the magnitude of acceleration of the
> racquet as it contacts the ball.
Hmmm. Not really. It's starting to sink in why you've had such a
difficult time getting your arms around this. No wonder you've
struggled.
The groundstrokes we teach are taken right from the methods used by all
the best players. There's not much in common, form-wise, from one best
player to another, and we don't teach much in the way of form. When you
<do> find commonality in the best players, it must be significantly
important. The commonality we find significantly important, and that
which all the best players exhibit, is exloding on the ball and finishing
the stroke. Most recreational players, yourself included, don't do this
intuitively, nor are they directed to in conventional tennis teaching.
And yet these are the most significant common elements of the best
players. It's very simple to do, it's just something that most people
must be told to do, especially if they have those tapes playing inside
their heads that say "racket back early...step toward the
net...followthrough toward the target."
>
> While the timing used by the "best players" I have observed varies some
> according to the particulars of the given stroke they're making, the
> preference and trend seems to be to make contact well out in front of
> them (forehand and one-handed backhand) and to begin the stroke motion to
> coordinate with that goal.
Exactly. Well out in front of them is a consequence of how they make the
best contact, not a recipe for how to make the best contact. As you seem
to know, the contact point is variable, shot to shot, player to player.
But every best player in the world routinely explodes on the ball, no
matter where the contact point is. That's why Steffi can hit her forehand
so well, even though her contact point is as far away from many players as
you can get. It's not the contact point that drives the potential for
success nearly as much as it's "what's going on at contact" that does.
>
> > > and--well, just how well-rated are those poor juniors of yours?
> >
> > It varies. They improve so fast, their ratings are often lagging behind
> > their level.
>
> That's like saying, "The match was closer than the score indicates."
If you like. Sure. You got a problem with that? You think the score is
a good indicator of the closeness of the match?
Please, Richard, defend your comments if you can. If not, apologize for
them. We'll be glad to engage you in however a frothy, vigorous,
contentious debate you want about tennis, or anything else. But you
shouldn't be saying the kind of things you say. To anyone.
Richard
According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> In article <MPG.fb057dba...@news.earthlink.net>,
> e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> > According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> > > e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> >
> > [....available on DejaNews....]
>
> Yeah, except for any pithy defense of sorely need explanations for your
> behavior. Do you feel entitled, somehow, to make outrageous,
> meanspirited, inaccurate charges, and not have to respond when you are
> called on them? That's arrogant, Richard. Purely and simply. Here's
> some of the material you've chosen to ignore. Try again? Rise above
> arrogant?
Naw. I've decided to apply your standards of answerability and simply
assert things.
[....available on DejaNews....]
Richard
I almost missed something I wanted to address specifically:
According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> In article <MPG.fb057dba...@news.earthlink.net>,
> e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
[....available on DejaNews....]
> > You did mention having one paying student, first time we met: a 2.5, who
> > was the wife of a rich businessman. You were tapping them for $200 an
> > hour, I recall you boasting.
>
> Boasting? No, not boasting. More like expressing disbelief. And, as
> with any of the other personal conversations or email you've had with any
> of us, they were conducted within the context of your unsolicited, but
> valued and believed, promise of utter confidentiality. You almost fell
> over yourself to assure us of it. (Maybe that should have been a clue?)
> We have no desire to expose any people but those involved in our usenet
> presence to the hostility, misrepresentations and pyschotic behavior that
> take place in r.s.t. If you find honoring your word to <us> that you'd
> not bring to usenet the personal contacts you've had with tennistv not
> binding, search your soul to see if you can't keep other people out of it,
> at least.
Your statement that I gave you an "unsolicited...promise of utter
confidentiality" is a complete and utter lie.
The topic of confidentiality only came up once during our three sessions,
and never in any e-mail between us that I have on file. You were without
a doubt the person who brought the subject up and made the request:
The only thing you ever asked me to keep to myself was the fact of our
second "session" (of three total). You asked me to keep the fact that we
had worked together, that particular time, to myself--and this is the
first time I've revealed it. You'd disappeared from r.s.t. for a short
while, and our second meeting was during this period.
I regret breaking my word here and now, but your lie must be addressed.
It seems somewhat curious that I would have discussed freely both the
fact and the content of our first and third "sessions" on r.s.t., with
your full knowledge and no comment ever that I was breaking an explicit
agreement between us--and now, you would characterize my discussion of
some more unflattering aspects of interacting with you as betrayal of
sworn secrets which I "almost fell over" myself to voluntarily give to
you.
You're like a little kid, fabricating this elaborate scenario to cover
for the simple, human fact that, yeah, you broke the lamp. The simple
case here is that you hate having your online personnae tarnished by
someone here who actually knows you, and so you concoct a version of
events where I volunteer, without any prompting by you, to keep each and
every syllable ever exchanged between us a secret.
And yes, the very distinct impression you gave was that of boasting about
getting $200 an hour. It came up at the end of our first meeting, when I
was exploring your availability on a regular basis as a paid instructor.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your body language and tone of voice, however,
as clear as they seemed to me at the time. If you still feel that I did
misinterpret the incident, then re-post an opinion stating so and I'll
consider retracting it.
tennistv
In article <MPG.fb1fa59d...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> I almost missed something I wanted to address specifically:
>
> According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> > In article <MPG.fb057dba...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> [....available on DejaNews....]
>
> > > You did mention having one paying student, first time we met: a 2.5, who
> > > was the wife of a rich businessman. You were tapping them for $200 an
> > > hour, I recall you boasting.
> >
> > Boasting? No, not boasting. More like expressing disbelief. And, as
> > with any of the other personal conversations or email you've had with any
> > of us, they were conducted within the context of your unsolicited, but
> > valued and believed, promise of utter confidentiality. You almost fell
> > over yourself to assure us of it. (Maybe that should have been a clue?)
> > We have no desire to expose any people but those involved in our usenet
> > presence to the hostility, misrepresentations and pyschotic behavior that
> > take place in r.s.t. If you find honoring your word to <us> that you'd
> > not bring to usenet the personal contacts you've had with tennistv not
> > binding, search your soul to see if you can't keep other people out of it,
> > at least.
>
> Your statement that I gave you an "unsolicited...promise of utter
> confidentiality" is a complete and utter lie.
Wow. How sad. Who was it, then, that assured us, when he solicited our
help with his tennis game, that he wasn't "some usenet kook", and that he
would absolutely not divulge any of the contacts between us, unless we
wanted him to? He introduced himself as Richard Huddleston. He was told
that we weren't afraid of his revealing to the newsgroup his evaluation of
what he was being taught, but that we would take him up on his offer of
confidentiality about anything and everything else. "Understood" he
assured us. What followed was exactly that, for a while. Reports to the
newsgroup that spoke in glowing terms of what he was "getting" from his
sessions with tennistv, and nothing of the personal contact, just like
he'd promised. Must be another Richard Huddleston. We liked him. Pity
he went away.
>
> The topic of confidentiality only came up once during our three sessions,
> and never in any e-mail between us that I have on file. You were without
> a doubt the person who brought the subject up and made the request:
In fact, it was your unequivocal offer of such confidentiality,
unsolicited and with all the assurance of you not being a "usenet kook",
that permitted us getting together in the first place. It preceeded all
three sessions.
>
> The only thing you ever asked me to keep to myself was the fact of our
> second "session" (of three total). You asked me to keep the fact that we
> had worked together, that particular time, to myself--and this is the
> first time I've revealed it. You'd disappeared from r.s.t. for a short
> while, and our second meeting was during this period.
>
> I regret breaking my word here and now, but your lie must be addressed.
The only lie is the one you're trying to tell that you didn't assure us of
your confidentiality. That's what must be addressed.
>
> It seems somewhat curious that I would have discussed freely both the
> fact and the content of our first and third "sessions" on r.s.t., with
> your full knowledge and no comment ever that I was breaking an explicit
> agreement between us--and now, you would characterize my discussion of
> some more unflattering aspects of interacting with you as betrayal of
> sworn secrets which I "almost fell over" myself to voluntarily give to
> you.
No, as you remember, we encouraged you to discuss our sessions as they
related to tennis, even though you said you certainly wouldn't do so,
unless we wanted you to. We don't sweat that you're not going to benefit
from what we have to show you, so we said, right up front: please report
to r.s.t. whatever you want about the tennis.
>
> You're like a little kid, fabricating this elaborate scenario to cover
> for the simple, human fact that, yeah, you broke the lamp. The simple
> case here is that you hate having your online personnae tarnished by
> someone here who actually knows you, and so you concoct a version of
> events where I volunteer, without any prompting by you, to keep each and
> every syllable ever exchanged between us a secret.
This is no elaborate scenario. All it is is you going back on your word
to keep personal contact with us confidential other than as it relates to
what we were doing on the tennis court. Your offer, our acceptance, your
breaking your word. Simple. Sad.
>
> And yes, the very distinct impression you gave was that of boasting about
> getting $200 an hour. It came up at the end of our first meeting, when I
> was exploring your availability on a regular basis as a paid instructor.
>
> Perhaps I misinterpreted your body language and tone of voice, however,
> as clear as they seemed to me at the time. If you still feel that I did
> misinterpret the incident, then re-post an opinion stating so and I'll
> consider retracting it.
No, let's see. We've...changed our minds. We were....boasting! Yeah,
that's right....boasting.
What do you mean "IF you still feel"? Of course we "still feel". It's
what happened. That hasn't changed. And it won't.
What we want you to retract is the hateful tone of voice. As mentioned
several times, we're happy to discuss almost anything here. But people
who spit on us when they talk to us don't seem very worthwhile as
conversationalists.
tennistv
In article <MPG.fb18a29c...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> > In article <MPG.fb057dba...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> >
> > > According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> > > > e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> > >
> > > [....available on DejaNews....]
> >
> > Yeah, except for any pithy defense of sorely need explanations for your
> > behavior. Do you feel entitled, somehow, to make outrageous,
> > meanspirited, inaccurate charges, and not have to respond when you are
> > called on them? That's arrogant, Richard. Purely and simply. Here's
> > some of the material you've chosen to ignore. Try again? Rise above
> > arrogant?
>
> Naw. I've decided to apply your standards of answerability and simply
> assert things.
Well then, assert them. Assert why you fail to respond to the charges
that your accusations are wrong! Some things are only assertable, but you
don't even do that. We've never unilaterally declared a topic, or a
comment of ours, to be unworthy of our continued discussion. That would
be slimey.
Richard
I had to snag this off of DejaNews, since it hasn't shown up on my news
server yet.
According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
> [....available on DejaNews....]
> > Your statement that I gave you an "unsolicited...promise of utter
> > confidentiality" is a complete and utter lie.
> Wow. How sad. Who was it, then, that assured us, when he solicited our
> help with his tennis game, that he wasn't "some usenet kook", and that he
> would absolutely not divulge any of the contacts between us, unless we
> wanted him to? He introduced himself as Richard Huddleston. He was told
> that we weren't afraid of his revealing to the newsgroup his evaluation
> of what he was being taught, but that we would take him up on his offer
> of confidentiality about anything and everything else. "Understood" he
> assured us. What followed was exactly that, for a while. Reports to the
> newsgroup that spoke in glowing terms of what he was "getting" from his
> sessions with tennistv, and nothing of the personal contact, just like
> he'd promised. [....]
Au contraire.
Interested parties can go back and read the posts. They'll see that I
make constant reference to the "personal contact" of my lessons with TTV,
Brad's attempts at revisionism notwithstanding.
Or, should I say, my lessons with one guy who claims to be TTV. In all
the talk about "we" and "us" and everything else, there's always only
been just one guy: Brad Holbrook.
Listen, Bradley. I don't know by what twisted little neural pathways you
think that people here can't see your long and distinguished history of
saying anything to squirm out of the various corners your pathological
opinionitis paints you into--but if I'd _accidentally_ engendered even
half the chronic hostility here that you have I'd take a long hard look
in the mirror to see what the deal was.
The only conclusion I think it's reasonable to draw is that you go out of
your way to get a rise out of people. You're simply a more complicated
version the Usenet Troll.
When I think about it, thinking of you as a troll does much to explain
your behavior here over the past two years.
> > The topic of confidentiality only came up once during our three sessions,
> > and never in any e-mail between us that I have on file. You were without
> > a doubt the person who brought the subject up and made the request:
> In fact, it was your unequivocal offer of such confidentiality,
> unsolicited and with all the assurance of you not being a "usenet kook",
> that permitted us getting together in the first place. It preceeded all
> three sessions.
You know, I've met several people from r.s.t. I don't believe any one of
them will remember that I gave them an unsolicited promise not to talk
about them, or anything they said, or the fact of our meeting or anything
else you say I offered to you. Or that any of the parties assured the
other that they weren't "usenet kooks" before meeting.
Charles? Greg? Larry? David? Samir? Bruce? Dan? Feel free to slam
me if I've remembered incorrectly.
Your story requires that I be an extremely lucky guesser: the unsolicted,
blanket promise of secrecy and heapin' stack of assurances I wasn't a
kook I supposedly gave you was the very thing that made our first meeting
possible in the first place. How lucky that I guessed that was the very
thing that was supposedly needed, since you didn't mention it and no one
else I've ever met from here has ever required it.
Jeez, Brad. You're being cut to ribbons by Occam's razor, but you just
continue to throw yourself in its path.
> > The only thing you ever asked me to keep to myself was the fact of our
> > second "session" (of three total). You asked me to keep the fact that we
> > had worked together, that particular time, to myself--and this is the
> > first time I've revealed it. You'd disappeared from r.s.t. for a short
> > while, and our second meeting was during this period.
> >
> > I regret breaking my word here and now, but your lie must be addressed.
> The only lie is the one you're trying to tell that you didn't assure us of
> your confidentiality. That's what must be addressed.
I've precisely and accurately stated the specific bounds of my agreement
with you, Bradley. You asked me to keep the fact of our second meeting
to myself, and until my post (above) I did so.
I'm not the one with the large, gaping wound of severe credibility
problems here, Bradley. You are. And this is but another one.
This is just exactly the type of discussion you revel in: you can twist
and recombine assertions into posts running hundreds of lines, and--best
yet!--on a topic that can't possibly come to a resolution or conclusion.
Let's focus this a bit better:
When's your Very Special Day with Patrick Rafter going to be televised?
I've never met anyone who's seen it, or seen anything at all by Tennis
Television. Time and channel for the New York City area, please. If
there really (still) is a Tennis Television, that is. It's clear that if
there was anything of substance behind TennisTV, and you really had
anything with Rafter to show, you'd simply supply the time, date, and
channel(s) of broadcast. That would have shut me up nicely.
And how about some ISBN numbers for your videos and books, please. I've
got catalogs covering a couple hundred tennis vids and books--but I've
never seen anything from Tennis Television listed.
You're just making most of this stuff up, aren't you? Confess.
> [....available on DejaNews....]
tennistv
In article <MPG.fb6665ed...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> The only conclusion I think it's reasonable to draw is that you go out of
> your way to get a rise out of people. You're simply a more complicated
> version the Usenet Troll.
>
> When I think about it, thinking of you as a troll does much to explain
> your behavior here over the past two years.
Okay, we've got a definition that you like for our behavior. Terrific.
(Has a nice grade school patina, too, which is appropos of such
characterizations.)
Got any guesses as to what a definition might be for someone who spends so
much time and energy doing what you're doing?
>
> Your story requires that I be an extremely lucky guesser: the unsolicted,
> blanket promise of secrecy and heapin' stack of assurances I wasn't a
> kook I supposedly gave you was the very thing that made our first meeting
> possible in the first place. How lucky that I guessed that was the very
> thing that was supposedly needed, since you didn't mention it and no one
> else I've ever met from here has ever required it.
Not a lucky guesser at all. When you solicited our help, you were fully
aware of the controversial nature of our presence in r.s.t. By way of
introducing yourself in email, you said you were not a "usenet kook" and
would, at our request, keep any contact between us confidential,
understanding, apparently, that given our well documented choice not to be
exposed to real usenet kooks with names and addresses and phone numbers,
that you only had a chance to hook us into meeting with you if you made
such an offer. You were taken at your word. And you turned on it.
>
> This is just exactly the type of discussion you revel in: you can twist
> and recombine assertions into posts running hundreds of lines, and--best
> yet!--on a topic that can't possibly come to a resolution or conclusion.
Oh, it can, and should, come to a resolution AND conclusion. When you
summon up the manhood to admit your little charade for being what it is,
the episode will be over and dealt with in the manner it deserves.
>
> Let's focus this a bit better:
>
> When's your Very Special Day with Patrick Rafter going to be televised?
It was on a couple of years ago, just like we said in the post.
> I've never met anyone who's seen it, or seen anything at all by Tennis
> Television. Time and channel for the New York City area, please. If
> there really (still) is a Tennis Television, that is. It's clear that if
> there was anything of substance behind TennisTV, and you really had
> anything with Rafter to show, you'd simply supply the time, date, and
> channel(s) of broadcast. That would have shut me up nicely.
We wouldn't want to shut you up, nicely or otherwise. This evolution in
your personna is (if frightening) very intriguing. Please, go on.
>
> And how about some ISBN numbers for your videos and books, please. I've
> got catalogs covering a couple hundred tennis vids and books--but I've
> never seen anything from Tennis Television listed.
>
> You're just making most of this stuff up, aren't you? Confess.
No, not making up anything. If you want to buy the videos, we have five
for sale. You told us you already had the book we sell. Want to buy
another copy?
Here's an offer: We'll make a person-to-person delivery of the book and
tapes and accept your check as payment! The videos are US$19.99 each, the
book US$9.99. The shipping and handling you'll get, as a special
customer, gratis.
Whattayasay?
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
> Here's an offer: We'll make a person-to-person delivery of the book and
> tapes and accept your check as payment! The videos are US$19.99 each, the
> book US$9.99. The shipping and handling you'll get, as a special
> customer, gratis.
I think that would be a huge waste of money. I'll tell you what,
though,
you send 'em to me, gratis, and I'll review them for r.s.t, gratis.
James.
Richard
I had to snag this off of DejaNews, too, since it hasn't shown up on my
news server yet.
Brad Holbrook (tenn...@pipeline.com) wrote:
> In article <MPG.fb6665ed...@news.earthlink.net>,
> e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> >
> > The only conclusion I think it's reasonable to draw is that you go out of
> > your way to get a rise out of people. You're simply a more complicated
> > version the Usenet Troll.
>
> > When I think about it, thinking of you as a troll does much to explain
> > your behavior here over the past two years.
>
> Okay, we've got a definition that you like for our behavior. Terrific.
> (Has a nice grade school patina, too, which is appropos of such
> characterizations.)
>
> Got any guesses as to what a definition might be for someone who spends so
> much time and energy doing what you're doing?
I spend most of my time and energy working. The definition for that is
"gainfully employeed."
On the off chance you're referring to my activities on r.s.t., however,
I'd say the definition for the time (about 15 minutes a day) and energy
(mentating for a minute and then wiggling my fingers over a keyboard) is
defined by "idle amusement."
> [....]
> > Let's focus this a bit better:
> >
> > When's your Very Special Day with Patrick Rafter going to be televised?
> It was on a couple of years ago, just like we said in the post.
No; you said that Rafter spent a day with you. You didn't say anything
about whether or not it was televised.
> > I've never met anyone who's seen it, or seen anything at all by Tennis
> > Television. Time and channel for the New York City area, please. If
> > there really (still) is a Tennis Television, that is. It's clear that if
> > there was anything of substance behind TennisTV, and you really had
> > anything with Rafter to show, you'd simply supply the time, date, and
> > channel(s) of broadcast. That would have shut me up nicely.
> We wouldn't want to shut you up, nicely or otherwise. This evolution in
> your personna is (if frightening) very intriguing. Please, go on.
Let's try this again:
I've never met anyone who's seen it, or seen anything at all by Tennis
Television. Time and channel for the New York City area, please. If
there really (still) is a Tennis Television, that is. It's clear that if
there was anything of substance behind TennisTV, and you really had
anything with Rafter to show, you'd simply supply the time, date, and
channel(s) of broadcast.
To which I add:
When was your most recent broadcast?
And:
When was your most recent new (ie, not a replay of an earlier) broadcast?
> > And how about some ISBN numbers for your videos and books, please. I've
> > got catalogs covering a couple hundred tennis vids and books--but I've
> > never seen anything from Tennis Television listed.
>
> > You're just making most of this stuff up, aren't you? Confess.
> No, not making up anything. If you want to buy the videos, we have five
> for sale. You told us you already had the book we sell. Want to buy
> another copy?
>
> Here's an offer: We'll make a person-to-person delivery of the book and
> tapes and accept your check as payment! The videos are US$19.99 each, the
> book US$9.99. The shipping and handling you'll get, as a special
> customer, gratis.
>
> Whattayasay?
For the book, you're referring to: "You Can Play...Tennis in 2 Hours"
by Oscare Wegner. I picked it up more than two years ago for $2.
Here's what Amazon Books says about that title:
Availability: This title is out of print. Although it is no longer
available from the publisher, we'll query our network of used
bookstores for you and send an update within a week.
My copy of it says absolutely nothing about Tennis Television in it.
As for the videos, perhaps you could first describe their titles and what
they're about. Why aren't they available from any vendor of tennis
videos? I've checked a source for 25000 video titles, and here's what
my search results for "Tennis Television" came up with:
Here are Your Search Results
The Search Returned 0 Items.
I found dozens of other tennis-related titles there.
If "Tennis Television" was for real--i.e., an active, vital producer of
tennis-related instructional information and materials--you wouldn't be
offering to hand-deliver out-of-print copies of a book that "Tennis
Television" didn't produce or publish. Or videos that nobody seems to
know about.
What we've got here, fellas, is somebody who's all hat and no cattle.
You've commented more than once on my recent aggressiveness towards you.
I think of it more as bumping the table that you build your little house
of cards on, whenever I happen to be passing by. After dealing with you
personally, and dealing with you here, I've come to the conclusion that
anything you say or claim should be taken with extreme skepticism.
I found that conclusion deeply disappointing. If you'd just kept the
90+% filler out of your claims, you'd have still been head-and-shoulders
above most of the noise here.
Look at all the respect that Ron Yu acquired here, in his short stay--and
all he did was string racquets. He didn't try to halo-effect himself
into an authority on everything from genetics (remember those "twins"
postings?) to statistical empiricism (the "hot hand" thread).
Geez, why do I bother trying to reason with you? Just cough up the
information about the videos, please. Titles and descriptions.
Sanj
tennistv wrote:
> When you summon up the manhood to admit your little charade for being
> what it is, the episode will be over and dealt with in the manner it
> deserves.
Hi,
Time and time again 'tennistv' comes up with great advice!
The problem is that they're 180 degrees out of phase. ;)
Sanj
--
sanj
@ The opinions expressed herein are mine alone.
orbital.com
tennistv
In article <MPG.fb97b3a7...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> > In article <MPG.fb6665ed...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> On the off chance you're referring to my activities on r.s.t., however,
> I'd say the definition for the time (about 15 minutes a day) and energy
> (mentating for a minute and then wiggling my fingers over a keyboard) is
> defined by "idle amusement."
Ah, that's it, then? Idle amusement? Hmmm. What does it say about
someone who spends so much of his daily allocation of "mentating" and
finger wiggling in the pursuit of character assasination and finger
pointing; all in the name of "idle amusement"?
Nah, it doesn't quite wash. The tone of your posts (recently at least,
and those directed at us, in particular) belies a much less idle, much
less amused bent. No, the kind of hostility you've unilaterally shown
here is more symptomatic of the lonely kid who pulls wings off flies. He,
too, might defend himself as passing a few moments in "idle amusement",
but in truth there is much more going on there.
>
> > [....]
>
> > > Let's focus this a bit better:
> > >
> > > When's your Very Special Day with Patrick Rafter going to be televised?
>
> > It was on a couple of years ago, just like we said in the post.
>
> No; you said that Rafter spent a day with you. You didn't say anything
> about whether or not it was televised.
Well, we said it was for the purposes of his "first American television
feature", and we said it was "a few years ago", so if you can't sort that
info all at once, then let us be clear: It was televised a couple of
years ago.
>
> > > I've never met anyone who's seen it, or seen anything at all by Tennis
> > > Television. Time and channel for the New York City area, please. If
> > > there really (still) is a Tennis Television, that is. It's clear that if
> > > there was anything of substance behind TennisTV, and you really had
> > > anything with Rafter to show, you'd simply supply the time, date, and
> > > channel(s) of broadcast. That would have shut me up nicely.
>
> > We wouldn't want to shut you up, nicely or otherwise. This evolution in
> > your personna is (if frightening) very intriguing. Please, go on.
>
> Let's try this again:
>
> I've never met anyone who's seen it, or seen anything at all by Tennis
> Television.
Yes, you certainly have. But even if you hadn't, what does that tell you?
>Time and channel for the New York City area, please.
Madison Square Garden Network, SportsChannel NY, SportsChannel America.
Various times. Weekly, half hour.
If
> there really (still) is a Tennis Television, that is. It's clear that if
> there was anything of substance behind TennisTV, and you really had
> anything with Rafter to show, you'd simply supply the time, date, and
> channel(s) of broadcast.
You understand, don't you, that the show referred to with Rafter took
place "a few years ago"?
>
> To which I add:
>
> When was your most recent broadcast?
Not sure. A variety of the RSN's (that's Regional Sports Network, MSG is
one) have replayed the show, as is their contractual right, as recently as
last month. It cannot be determined when, or where, a "final" showing
might take place, and we receive no official notification that repeats are
airing. In Jamaica, we hear, the shows are played frequently, like "The
Honeymooners". But in color.
>
> And:
>
> When was your most recent new (ie, not a replay of an earlier) broadcast?
Don't have the exact date handy, but about a year and a half ago. Just
before you asked for help with your tennis game.
>
> > > And how about some ISBN numbers for your videos and books, please. I've
> > > got catalogs covering a couple hundred tennis vids and books--but I've
> > > never seen anything from Tennis Television listed.
> >
> > > You're just making most of this stuff up, aren't you? Confess.
>
> > No, not making up anything. If you want to buy the videos, we have five
> > for sale. You told us you already had the book we sell. Want to buy
> > another copy?
> >
> > Here's an offer: We'll make a person-to-person delivery of the book and
> > tapes and accept your check as payment! The videos are US$19.99 each, the
> > book US$9.99. The shipping and handling you'll get, as a special
> > customer, gratis.
> >
> > Whattayasay?
>
> For the book, you're referring to: "You Can Play...Tennis in 2 Hours"
> by Oscare Wegner. I picked it up more than two years ago for $2.
>
> Here's what Amazon Books says about that title:
>
> Availability: This title is out of print. Although it is no longer
> available from the publisher, we'll query our network of used
> bookstores for you and send an update within a week.
Do they spell the name correctly? We have lots of the books available,
but not for $2. The publisher (Thomas Nelson) doesn't have the right to
publish the book any longer. It's a very common story for a five year old
book.
>
> My copy of it says absolutely nothing about Tennis Television in it.
Why should it? It was written as Tennis Television was gestating.
>
> As for the videos, perhaps you could first describe their titles and what
> they're about.
We've done that here before. The info can be found at:
http://www.oscarwegner.com/page4.html
> Why aren't they available from any vendor of tennis
> videos?
They have been, from time to time. Tennis Direct sold them for two years,
for instance.
I've checked a source for 25000 video titles, and here's what
> my search results for "Tennis Television" came up with:
>
> Here are Your Search Results
>
> The Search Returned 0 Items.
>
> I found dozens of other tennis-related titles there.
Perhaps <all> of them, but ours, huh?
>
> If "Tennis Television" was for real--i.e., an active, vital producer of
> tennis-related instructional information and materials--you wouldn't be
> offering to hand-deliver out-of-print copies of a book that "Tennis
> Television" didn't produce or publish. Or videos that nobody seems to
> know about.
>
> What we've got here, fellas, is somebody who's all hat and no cattle.
You are so sure about what you're sure about, just like so many others
here. <sigh> No, "what we've got here, fellas," is something far
different than your imagination leads you to believe. We offered to hand
deliver the videos and the book to you in the earnest belief that you were
interested in seeing them, and since you live near us it was the least we
could do to make it an easy transaction for you. You are, afterall,
gainfully employed. The price quoted to you still holds, and it's a
bargain, too.
>
> You've commented more than once on my recent aggressiveness towards you.
> I think of it more as bumping the table that you build your little house
> of cards on, whenever I happen to be passing by.
What a charitable (to you) characterization. It doesn't skew that way to
us, at all. Your "recent aggressiveness" seems, as we've said, to follow
a pretty straightline path from pointless to hostile to inaccurate, back
to pointless. (Until such time as your point becomes clear. Which you
still have refused to address.)
After dealing with you
> personally, and dealing with you here, I've come to the conclusion that
> anything you say or claim should be taken with extreme skepticism.
As we've always insisted. (Do a DejaNews search and see how many times we
insist to be taken skeptically. Tons.) But you seem to miss the vital
distinction between skepticism and hostility, incivility, accusation,
inuendo, lying, mischaracterization and pointless slander. The former,
skepticism, we welcome and always have. The latter, all the rest, is the
sole of your "idle amusement". It's V E R Y interesting.
>
> I found that conclusion deeply disappointing. If you'd just kept the
> 90+% filler out of your claims, you'd have still been head-and-shoulders
> above most of the noise here.
You have your idle amusements, please permit others the right to their's.
>
> Look at all the respect that Ron Yu acquired here, in his short stay--and
> all he did was string racquets. He didn't try to halo-effect himself
> into an authority on everything from genetics (remember those "twins"
> postings?) to statistical empiricism (the "hot hand" thread).
He's a swell guy. But where is that respect-o-meter? Is is posted in the FAQ?
>
> Geez, why do I bother trying to reason with you?
To our knowledge, you've yet to try. Maybe reasoning would be something
that would yield some good will. Maybe good will isn't what you're
interested in.
Just cough up the
> information about the videos, please. Titles and descriptions.
"Just cough up"?! You do have a charm about you, Richard.
Richard
Brad Holbrook (tenn...@pipeline.com) wrote:
> In article <MPG.fb97b3a7...@news.earthlink.net>,
> e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> [...flies' wings, etc...]
> > Let's try this again:
> >
> > I've never met anyone who's seen it, or seen anything at all by Tennis
> > Television.
> Yes, you certainly have.
You?
> But even if you hadn't, what does that tell you?
Well, I read _Tennis_, _Tennis Week_, and _Tennis Match_. I check the TV
Guide each week for televised tennis. I'm trying to substantiate your
claims, skeptic that you advise us to be. I can't seem to do it.
> > Time and channel for the New York City area, please.
> Madison Square Garden Network, SportsChannel NY, SportsChannel America.
> Various times. Weekly, half hour.
I've never seen it listed in the TV Guide. I'm trying to substantiate
your claims, skeptic that you advise us to be. I can't seem to do it.
> > If
> > there really (still) is a Tennis Television, that is. It's clear that if
> > there was anything of substance behind TennisTV, and you really had
> > anything with Rafter to show, you'd simply supply the time, date, and
> > channel(s) of broadcast.
> You understand, don't you, that the show referred to with Rafter took
> place "a few years ago"?
I understand that this is what you're claiming. I'm trying to
substantiate your claims, skeptic that you advise us to be. I can't seem
to do it.
> >
> > To which I add:
> >
> > When was your most recent broadcast?
> Not sure. A variety of the RSN's (that's Regional Sports Network, MSG is
> one) have replayed the show, as is their contractual right, as recently as
> last month. It cannot be determined when, or where, a "final" showing
> might take place, and we receive no official notification that repeats are
> airing. In Jamaica, we hear, the shows are played frequently, like "The
> Honeymooners". But in color.
I'd be really interested in actually seeing this show. I'm trying to
substantiate your claims, skeptic that you advise us to be. I can't seem
to do it.
> > And:
> >
> > When was your most recent new (ie, not a replay of an earlier) broadcast?
> Don't have the exact date handy, but about a year and a half ago. Just
> before you asked for help with your tennis game.
About the same time that you appeared on r.s.t., too.
Thanks for the info--and, again, I'd be interested in actually seeing the
show. I haven't been able to find it in the nearly two years I've been
in NYC. I'm trying to substantiate your claims, skeptic that you advise
us to be. I can't seem to do it.
> [...book...]
> > As for the videos, perhaps you could first describe their titles and what
> > they're about.
> We've done that here before. The info can be found at:
> http://www.oscarwegner.com/page4.html
This Web site is a minor puff piece about the Honorable Senor Wegner
and his association with Brad Holbrook. Here's the public record on
it:
Oscar Wegner (OSCARWEGNER-DOM)
85 Viscount Drive
# 4 G
Milford, CT 06460
US
Domain Name: OSCARWEGNER.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Wegner, Oscar (OW135) OWegn...@AOL.COM
203 874 1943 (FAX) 203 878 8322
Billing Contact:
Wegner, Oscar (OW135) OWegn...@AOL.COM
203 874 1943 (FAX) 203 878 8322
Record last updated on 27-Mar-98.
Record created on 09-Aug-97.
Database last updated on 7-May-98 04:38:46 EDT.
Is that your address in CT that is the "home" of OscarWegner-DOM? The
address of Tennis Television?
I'm looking for impartial information generated by disinterested third
parties. Claims that you're changing the entire world of tennis
instruction ring pretty hollow when that world doesn't seem to be singing
similar praises through sources other than your Web site. Any "jamoke"
with Microsoft Publisher 97 can put up a Web site.
I have absolutely nothing against Senor Wegner. I enjoyed his book a
great deal, and I'm sure he's got a lot great things to say about tennis.
I was really disappointed when your oft-repeated promises that I'd get to
meet and work with him always fell through.
I think that's where I began questioning your credibility, in fact.
Always the big promises; always the disappointment.
> > Why aren't they available from any vendor of tennis videos?
> They have been, from time to time. Tennis Direct sold them for two years,
> for instance.
Must've been a while back. But no matter. Thanks for the information.
> You are so sure about what you're sure about, just like so many others
> here. <sigh>
This certainly describes YOU extremely well.
> No, "what we've got here, fellas," is something far
> different than your imagination leads you to believe. We offered to hand
> deliver the videos and the book to you in the earnest belief that you were
> interested in seeing them, and since you live near us it was the least we
> could do to make it an easy transaction for you. [....]
I haven't ruled out the videos yet. Geez. Quit whining.
> [....]
Donal Fagan
In article <MPG.fbbd63a4...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net says...
>> http://www.oscarwegner.com/page4.html
>
>This Web site is a minor puff piece about the Honorable Senor Wegner
>and his association with Brad Holbrook.
Ouch! Too much colored text! TTV, get that free-to-members HotDog
editor from the Mindspring home page and fix it up.
Richard, having read his book, how do you feel about Wegner's
assertions that tennis is generally taught improperly?
--
Donal Fagan
Donal...@homina-homina-homina-mindspring.com
Remove the Gleasonage to reply via e-mail.
Richard
According to my newsreader, DonalFagan@homina-homina-homina-
mindspring.com posted...
> >
> >This Web site is a minor puff piece about the Honorable Senor Wegner
> >and his association with Brad Holbrook.
>
> editor from the Mindspring home page and fix it up.
>
> Richard, having read his book, how do you feel about Wegner's
> assertions that tennis is generally taught improperly?
I'm not sure how many instructor's teaching methods were sampled prior to
Senor Wegner coming to his conclusion, but if he were talking about
basketball players instead of tennis teachers I gather dear Bradley would
not have found his assertions so convincing.
I think it's an assertion that Oscar Wegner probably believes, but from
my standpoint it's irrelevant. What matters is how well the teacher I
have in front of me teaches. Brad helped cleared up a couple of things
for me (particularly, he cleaned up the service motion I was using until
about a year ago) but screwed up just as much stuff (slice backhand,
volley) as any other improperly-teaching instructor might. Your odds
aren't any better with Brad, IMO, than they are with most other 5.0 club-
pro instructors.
I personally don't see any magic there, and--frankly--I think I'm kind of
embarrassed that I did once.
I have no idea whether one's odds are any better with Senor Wegner. No
personal experience with him.
tennistv
In article <MPG.fbbd63a4...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> (tenn...@pipeline.com) wrote:
>
> > In article <MPG.fb97b3a7...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> > [...flies' wings, etc...]
>
> > > Let's try this again:
> > >
> > > I've never met anyone who's seen it, or seen anything at all by Tennis
> > > Television.
>
> > Yes, you certainly have.
>
> You?
At least. Take it back?
>
> > But even if you hadn't, what does that tell you?
>
> Well, I read _Tennis_, _Tennis Week_, and _Tennis Match_. I check the TV
> Guide each week for televised tennis. I'm trying to substantiate your
> claims, skeptic that you advise us to be. I can't seem to do it.
Tennis Magazine was our co-production partner for two years and featured
full page ads for the show every month during that time. (That's 24
issues you must've missed!) Tennis Week listed the show dutifully every
issue in the "Tennis on TV" box for about two years (more than 24
issues!). You must not be <very> familiar with these publications, or at
least are stretching way beyond your legitimate reach in saying what
you've said. Tennis Match barely knows its own address and we never
worked in conjunction with them at all. Racquets magazine worked with us
on a number of projects. French Tennis did as well.
>
> > > Time and channel for the New York City area, please.
>
> > Madison Square Garden Network, SportsChannel NY, SportsChannel America.
> > Various times. Weekly, half hour.
>
> I've never seen it listed in the TV Guide. I'm trying to substantiate
> your claims, skeptic that you advise us to be. I can't seem to do it.
We were listed in the TV Guide, as well as all NY newspaper TV guides for
five years. You really sound foolish making these assumptive "well, I've
never seen" accusations. Come on, fess up. You're on a witch hunt and
there's nothing but your own bluster in your "gun".
>
> > > If
> > > there really (still) is a Tennis Television, that is. It's clear that if
> > > there was anything of substance behind TennisTV, and you really had
> > > anything with Rafter to show, you'd simply supply the time, date, and
> > > channel(s) of broadcast.
>
> > You understand, don't you, that the show referred to with Rafter took
> > place "a few years ago"?
>
> I understand that this is what you're claiming. I'm trying to
> substantiate your claims, skeptic that you advise us to be. I can't seem
> to do it.
You can't do it because you don't have the interest. It's far easier for
you to sit back and bitch. If you invested the time and effort, you'd
find that we've never lied to you at all. But that's too much like work,
huh?
>
> > >
> > > To which I add:
> > >
> > > When was your most recent broadcast?
>
> > Not sure. A variety of the RSN's (that's Regional Sports Network, MSG is
> > one) have replayed the show, as is their contractual right, as recently as
> > last month. It cannot be determined when, or where, a "final" showing
> > might take place, and we receive no official notification that repeats are
> > airing. In Jamaica, we hear, the shows are played frequently, like "The
> > Honeymooners". But in color.
>
> I'd be really interested in actually seeing this show. I'm trying to
> substantiate your claims, skeptic that you advise us to be. I can't seem
> to do it.
What do you suggest we do to solve your problem? The show was on the air
for over five years. You didn't see it? Tant pis.
>
> > > And:
> > >
> > > When was your most recent new (ie, not a replay of an earlier) broadcast?
>
> > Don't have the exact date handy, but about a year and a half ago. Just
> > before you asked for help with your tennis game.
>
> About the same time that you appeared on r.s.t., too.
Correct-a-mundo.
>
> Thanks for the info--and, again, I'd be interested in actually seeing the
> show. I haven't been able to find it in the nearly two years I've been
> in NYC. I'm trying to substantiate your claims, skeptic that you advise
> us to be. I can't seem to do it.
Do you want a command showing? What? If you want, we'll bring your
videos to your apartment, some VHS copies of some shows, a six pack and a
pizza, and we'll all sit around watching Tennis Television. Deal?
You know, we don't bring pizza, six packs and videos to people who choose
to adopt the disrespectful tone you do. Lose the "Senor Wegner"
references and you might get back in our good graces.
>
> I'm looking for impartial information generated by disinterested third
> parties. Claims that you're changing the entire world of tennis
> instruction ring pretty hollow when that world doesn't seem to be singing
> similar praises through sources other than your Web site. Any "jamoke"
> with Microsoft Publisher 97 can put up a Web site.
It was a foregone conclusion that you'd write the above paragraph.
<Damned if you do, damned if you don't> and <no good deed goes unpunished>
come immediately to mind.
>
> I have absolutely nothing against Senor Wegner.
Other than to offer this thinly veiled epithet. You can use English, Ricardo.
I enjoyed his book a
> great deal, and I'm sure he's got a lot great things to say about tennis.
> I was really disappointed when your oft-repeated promises that I'd get to
> meet and work with him always fell through.
There were no "oft-repeated" promises. Availabilities were mentioned, you
couldn't accomodate them. We're all busy people. Gainfully "employeed"
you might say. Why should any extra effort be made to accomodate <your>
gainful employment schedule?
>
> I think that's where I began questioning your credibility, in fact.
> Always the big promises; always the disappointment.
Bullshit. Pure and unadulterated.
>
> > > Why aren't they available from any vendor of tennis videos?
>
> > They have been, from time to time. Tennis Direct sold them for two years,
> > for instance.
>
> Must've been a while back. But no matter. Thanks for the information.
Not too "a while back". A year and a half? How long have you been the
arbiter of all things tennis? Two years? Three?
>
> > You are so sure about what you're sure about, just like so many others
> > here. <sigh>
>
> This certainly describes YOU extremely well.
But not you. No. You've jumped to no "skewed conclusions", have you? Nahhhh!
>
> > No, "what we've got here, fellas," is something far
> > different than your imagination leads you to believe. We offered to hand
> > deliver the videos and the book to you in the earnest belief that you were
> > interested in seeing them, and since you live near us it was the least we
> > could do to make it an easy transaction for you. [....]
>
> I haven't ruled out the videos yet. Geez. Quit whining.
No whining. Just a recitation of the facts, ma'am.
>
> > [....]
How convenient!
tennistv
In article <6ita04$6b6$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
Donal...@homina-homina-homina-mindspring.com (Donal Fagan) wrote:
> Ouch! Too much colored text! TTV, get that free-to-members HotDog
> editor from the Mindspring home page and fix it up.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Too little time, too much to do. In fact, this site
has attracted quite an interest from the "prefer too much color"
demographic. It has chastened the attitude about making it more IBM-ish.
Steve Barnard
The Energizer Bunny, a.k.a. Brad Holbrook, a.k.a. tennistv wrote:
[snipped a bunch of typically boring, self-serving, egotistical,
name-dropping, clueless, contentious, condescending, obnoxious crap]
Who cares?
Steve Barnard
Richard
According to my newsreader, st...@megafauna.com posted...
Well, I do. But I think it's time to put an end to my part in this.
To make a long story short, over the past year or so I've had growing
suspicions that the whole Tennis Television story was concocted from the
fevered brow of one Brad Holbrook. After one too many claims presented
with a lack of corroborating evidence, I began to wonder just why nobody
but people on r.s.t. had heard of TTV. I'd leaf through a tennis
magazine and look for an article or ad. I'd read the TV Guide. I'd ask
people I'd run in to by chance to at NYC tennis clubs--two or three who
are really well-connected in the tennis industry, etc.
I wasn't conducting a turn-ever-stone search, mind you, but I figured
that I'd see SOMETHING besides a lot of r.s.t. verbage if there was a
anything of substance there.
I never saw or heard anything, however. I wasn't playing Columbo--hell,
I barely get enough sleep as it is, let alone adding time to relentlessly
hunt down some guy's claims on Usenet. But I did ask around, and I'd
check published sources from time to time.
My suspicions reached the point where I became completely convinced that
Brad Holbrook was simply pawning off an elaborate shell game. He'd offer
to introduce me to other people in the company. It'd never happen. He'd
offer to get me into a class of Senor Wegner's (I use the title as a
sincere honorific, by the way), but the offer would always be delivered
at the very last minute--and would require me to spend a few days in the
middle of the week in, say, Naples Florida. It seemed just a little too
conveniently inconvenient, if you see what I mean.
Given my history here with TTV, I frankly began to feel like a dupe.
Like a bit of a sap who'd been conned into accepting a story on so little
tangible evidence. And it REALLY pissed me off.
I've been on a vendetta about it, but with the recent information
provided by Brad (snipped and summarized above) it seems clear enough
that my impression of Brad as a complete storyteller was wrong. The only
decent thing to do, then, is to say you're wrong, and apologize for it.
I've been out for blood. I was wrong in my assessment of Brad as a
complete liar trying to pull one over on all of us. I apologize for it.
This doesn't mean that I'm suddenly all enamored--or ever tolerant--of
the tremendously ponderous on-line personna posting under the alias of
TTV. The personality issues supported my impression of Brad as a
fabricator, and I gave them greater voice in my posts than would be
justified otherwise. I won't apologize for my opinions, but I do think
it's only proper to apologize for making such a big deal them.
Which I hereby do.
tennistv
In article <MPG.fbc6258d...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> Well, I do. But I think it's time to put an end to my part in this.
The better part of valor, for sure. Just some, for the record, comments:
>
> I never saw or heard anything, however. I wasn't playing Columbo--hell,
> I barely get enough sleep as it is, let alone adding time to relentlessly
> hunt down some guy's claims on Usenet. But I did ask around, and I'd
> check published sources from time to time.
Not a good description of how one should assuage suspicion, huh?.
Especially if one is genuinely interested in discovering the truth. Had
you ever said "Gee, I've got my doubts about what you've told me...can you
provide any support?", you'd have been messengered the press kit the same
day.
It seems that someone who professes an interest in fair play (and you
have) would be a little more conscientious about engaging in a jihad over
some very casually reached and inadequately researched conclusions. Of
course since you've characterized your vendetta here as "idle amusement",
you don't have to hew to any standards at all. Other than possibly
creating unwarranted distress for others, you've got nothing on the line
at all. You'd have to have some internal instinct about how much
unwarranted distress in others you feel comfortable causing with such
under informed conclusions, to resist.
>
> My suspicions reached the point where I became completely convinced that
> Brad Holbrook was simply pawning off an elaborate shell game.
"Completely convinced"? Yikes. From this casual "research" you did? Are
you "completely convinced" so easily always? Or just this one time? Wow.
Completely convinced is pretty strong stuff, but such conviction does seem
to have fueled your behavior. The most astonishing thing is, by your own
admission, how casually you assembled the "completely convincing
evidence", including not ever once asking the "suspect" for any support.
"Completely convinced" kind of gives the lie to the bit about "idle
amusement" doesn't it?
He'd offer
> to introduce me to other people in the company. It'd never happen. He'd
> offer to get me into a class of Senor Wegner's (I use the title as a
> sincere honorific, by the way), but the offer would always be delivered
> at the very last minute--and would require me to spend a few days in the
> middle of the week in, say, Naples Florida. It seemed just a little too
> conveniently inconvenient, if you see what I mean.
Yeah, we see what you mean. You mean that your selective,
once-or-twice-over-a-year-and-a-half anecdotal experience helped
"completely convince" you of someone's disingenuousness <and> culpability
for "pawning off an elaborate shell game". Incredible. And, being thusly
convinced gave you cause for a public display of such hostile,
contemptible behavior. (From behind a keyboard, of course.) Again, wow.
And, by the way, it was indicated to you, clearly, that your use of Señor
(especially without the correct diacritical mark) isn't perceived here as
being a "sincere honorific" coming from you. There is no need to express
your knowledge of how Argentineans say Mr. You don't call anyone else
Mr., Herr, Frau, Frauline, Monsieur, Ms. Miss, Mademoiselle, Madame, Mrs.,
Dr., Professor or any other honorific in r.s.t.. If you want to be
sincerely honorific, you can say Mr. Wegner (an American taxpayer for 35
years). Unless you are speaking in Spanish. Otherwise, writing Senor
Wegner will be construed as an attempt by you to be something other than
genuinely, sincerely, honorific.
>
> Given my history here with TTV, I frankly began to feel like a dupe.
> Like a bit of a sap who'd been conned into accepting a story on so little
> tangible evidence. And it REALLY pissed me off.
So, you're NOT really so sure about what you're sure about. If you'd have
only used that prism to filter the reasons you arrived at for your
vendetta.
>
> I've been on a vendetta about it, but with the recent information
> provided by Brad (snipped and summarized above) it seems clear enough
> that my impression of Brad as a complete storyteller was wrong. The only
> decent thing to do, then, is to say you're wrong, and apologize for it.
Calling what Barnard wrote a "summary" of the recent information you could
have asked for and received at any point during your vendetta is supposed
to be what...another swipe? You just can't bring yourself to say "Oh,
shit, my idle amusement has been up sot by the facts, facts I could've
had, quite easily, at any time...my bad...sorry!" without offering a few
last parting shots. That is as interesting as any of the rest of this.
>
> I've been out for blood.
Dean Cashen says he needs someone to bite him. Maybe you could help
there, given this blood lust of yours. (It may not be that he wants skin
broken, but you'll have to ask him.)
*!@#?+*@
Excuse us for taking such a deep breath here, but the idea that you've
"been out for blood" over such a wobbly-put-together little foray into the
theatre of the mind just makes us heave our shoulders!
*!@#?+*@
I was wrong in my assessment of Brad as a
> complete liar trying to pull one over on all of us. I apologize for it.
Yeah, you apologize AS LONG AS you make it abundantly clear that there's
plenty of room for "liar" left in your assessment. Wow. Not a "complete
liar" after all? Ahhhh. Warm and fuzzy feelings all around the room.
>
> This doesn't mean that I'm suddenly all enamored--or ever tolerant--of
> the tremendously ponderous on-line personna posting under the alias of
> TTV.
And no one's ever asked you to be. If you had done some more pondering of
your own you would have saved yourself, and everyone else, a lot of
trouble.
>The personality issues supported my impression of Brad as a
> fabricator, and I gave them greater voice in my posts than would be
> justified otherwise. I won't apologize for my opinions, but I do think
> it's only proper to apologize for making such a big deal them.
>
> Which I hereby do.
So you aren't saying "I messed up with my evaluation" only that "I messed
up with shouting my evaluation so loudly because I was shown to be wrong
by all the attention the shouting got".
Reminds one of the old saying from L'ao T'zu, circa 2506 B.C.: "The
yapping dog, in retreat, yaps still". How profound, to this day.
You are encouraged to take with you, from this hideous little exercise in
finding your threshold for condemnation to be so low, some greater sense
of how little you <still> know about tennistv. If you stick closer to the
facts, and depend less on such casually gained "insight", you'll find some
other intriguing information at least as contrary to what you now imagine
as anything else you've so belatedly discovered.
Apology accepted unconditionally, conditional as the apology is.
Unknown
tennistv (tenn...@pipeline.com) has said...
> In article <MPG.fbc6258d...@news.earthlink.net>,
> e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, I do. But I think it's time to put an end to my part in this.
>
> The better part of valor, for sure. Just some, for the record, comments:
[Snipped Brad's scolding of Richard for "daring" to apologize]
While I'm not surprised at this, I'm still appalled by it. Richard
shows typical character and strength in his post, and TTV/Brad shows
no appreciation for it. This lack of graciousness, and exploitation
of goodwill by TTV is, simply, sickening.
Steve Barnard
Charles Lin wrote:
>
> Richard (e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net) wrote:
> || I've been out for blood. I was wrong in my assessment of Brad as a
> || complete liar trying to pull one over on all of us. I apologize for it.
>
> || the tremendously ponderous on-line personna posting under the alias of
> || fabricator, and I gave them greater voice in my posts than would be
> || justified otherwise. I won't apologize for my opinions, but I do think
> || it's only proper to apologize for making such a big deal them.
>
> || Which I hereby do.
>
>
> p.s. Little bit of a joke. At one point, quite a long time ago,
> somone had claimed that Richard was ttv. Of course, having met
> Richard, I knew that wasn't the case.
That's not fair, Charles. Richard is NOT the same person as tennistv, as
you well know. Not at all. Richard has a considerable degree of
integrity, even though we've had our problems in the past, which I
consider to be over and done with.
Steve Barnard
Charles Lin
Richard (e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net) wrote:
|| I've been out for blood. I was wrong in my assessment of Brad as a
|| complete liar trying to pull one over on all of us. I apologize for it.
|| This doesn't mean that I'm suddenly all enamored--or ever tolerant--of
|| the tremendously ponderous on-line personna posting under the alias of
|| TTV. The personality issues supported my impression of Brad as a
|| fabricator, and I gave them greater voice in my posts than would be
|| justified otherwise. I won't apologize for my opinions, but I do think
|| it's only proper to apologize for making such a big deal them.
|| Which I hereby do.
Waitaminute.... So you aren't the same person as ttv?!!
p.s. Little bit of a joke. At one point, quite a long time ago,
somone had claimed that Richard was ttv. Of course, having met
Richard, I knew that wasn't the case.
--
Charles Lin
cl...@cs.umd.edu
Richard
> you well know. Not at all. Richard has a considerable degree of
> integrity, even though we've had our problems in the past, which I
> consider to be over and done with.
That's kind of you to say, and I'm happy to hear you feel the same way I
do about our rough start.
Charles Lin
Steve Barnard (st...@megafauna.com) wrote:
|| That's not fair, Charles. Richard is NOT the same person as tennistv, as
|| you well know. Not at all. Richard has a considerable degree of
|| integrity, even though we've had our problems in the past, which I
|| consider to be over and done with.
Just a small recollection of the past. Richard and I have had
our disagreements, mostly concerning ttv. I've always maintained
that it was his (ttv) personality that was distasteful, and that if
he stuck to tennis instead of getting down and dirty with everyone,
people would appreciate it, but obviously he's out in his own world.
Even though we might have quibbled (and I think it was only that
because Richard has always been rather pleasant, and even a bit
soft-spoken in person, which doesn't betray the kind of avidness
he has for tennis), we were probably in closer agreement (meaning
that we eventually got around to the notion that the tennis advice
was interesting, possibly even reasonably useful, but that he
could stand to let someone else in the ttv community represent
ttv).
Heck, I don't even recall who the first person to claim he
might have been ttv, it was that long ago. But, someone could
just "check the archives". Richard's approach to tennis has
been one that I can sympathize with, one that involves looking
at many approaches, trying them out, and determining what works
for him. I like that kind of intellectual approach to learning
the game. I wish I had both the time and drive to spend as
much time at it as he does, because I'm sure he'd kick my butt
now in tennis.
--
Charles Lin
cl...@cs.umd.edu
Richard
According to my newsreader, cl...@cs.umd.edu posted...
> [...OK, OK, I'm blushing already...]
> I wish I had both the time and drive to spend as much time at it
> as he does, because I'm sure he'd kick my butt now in tennis.
I wish I could be so sure. Right before Adam moved from Maryland to
Colorado, I had a chance to get to town and play a couple of sets with
him out on the UMD campus courts.
With no disrespect to Adam intended, I fully expected to do damage.
Somewhere around 1-4 in the first set, I realized that Adam was winning a
lot more of the points than I was, just like he always did. And I wasn't
sure why.
It reminded me of something I read in Allen Fox's "Think To Win," where
he wrote about still beating most of his friends during a time when, due
to injury, he had to play with his other hand. Sometimes I think that in
all my intense activity to become a competent strokemeister, there's a
subtle lesson about playing tennis that I either may never learn, or that
only comes with a certain number of calender years on a court playing
match after match after match.
And it annoys the hell out of me. :)
Bertrand Russell said sort of the same thing about the "gestation" period
from the first inkling of an idea to its realization: Some things simply
take time to develop, and this period doesn't get shorter with intense
work or longer if the idea simply plays in the back of your head.
Richard
A few final clarifications before I kill-file this thread.
According to my newsreader, tenn...@pipeline.com posted...
The part you snipped began:
"To make a long story short, over the past year or so I've had growing
suspicions..."
I followed this with a brief summary of, rather than dissertation on, a
mistake I made.
You certainly have the right to dissect this summary as if it WERE a
complete and exhaustive review of the steps leading up to my inaccuracies
regarding your cable TV show, but it's a mistake to do so.
These are my final words on that subject.
> He'd offer
> > to introduce me to other people in the company. It'd never happen. He'd
> > offer to get me into a class of Senor Wegner's (I use the title as a
> > sincere honorific, by the way), but the offer would always be delivered
> > at the very last minute--and would require me to spend a few days in the
> > middle of the week in, say, Naples Florida. It seemed just a little too
> > conveniently inconvenient, if you see what I mean.
>
> Yeah, we see what you mean.
No, I don't believe you do. YOU created an initial set of expectations,
and YOU failed to make good on them.
I was told things like "Oscar's really interested in working with you,"
and "We'll get you into a class of Oscar's" only to get a bunch of fine
print: the offer will come at the last minute; it'll involve travel;
it'll involve having to suddenly arrange mid-week time off from work,
airline tickets, and hotel reservations all at the last minute.
It could have been a scheduling error, but after it happened a few times
it began to sound like one of those "You've Won A Million Dollars!"
mailings: a nice headline, but an empty offer once you get the details.
(I am not making a judgement as to whether or not it was an empty offer;
I'm simply explaining how the conflict between the expectation and the
offer details were perceived.)
Then, when I finally met with someone from TTV, the self-proclaimed Mecca
of New Tennis Instruction, it's one guy who apologizes throughout the
lesson for teaching me a bunch of stroke mechanics--and approach to
teaching that was supposedly Unlawful in the Mecca of New Tennis
Instruction.
Still, I'd met with a self-proclaimed High Priest from the Mecca of New
Tennis Instruction, and for quite a while I had stars in my eyes.
Interested parties can read the posts at DejaNews to see just how many
stars.
I don't expect you to understand that these things were directly related
to the impression you formed: that of inconsistency between expectation
created and what actually arrived.
And these are my final words on *that* subject.
> You mean that your selective,
> once-or-twice-over-a-year-and-a-half anecdotal experience helped
> "completely convince" you of someone's disingenuousness <and> culpability
> for "pawning off an elaborate shell game". Incredible. And, being thusly
> convinced gave you cause for a public display of such hostile,
> contemptible behavior. (From behind a keyboard, of course.) Again, wow.
From behind a keyboard? You know where I live, Brad, and have visited me
here to pick up some racquets I sold you. You also have my phone number.
My home is convenient to your workplace, as you've said more than once.
There was absolutely nothing that would have prevented you from calling
me, or asking the doorperson to advise me that you were in the lobby.
These are my final words on *that* subject.
> And, by the way, it was indicated to you, clearly, that your use of Señor
> (especially without the correct diacritical mark) isn't perceived here as
> being a "sincere honorific" coming from you. [....]
I'm afraid that the way you take it is your problem, not mine. My intent
was to show respect, and I felt respect as I wrote it. If my point was
missed, well, add it to the list of points made and missed between us.
Give me a break, or don't. It doesn't much matter.
These are my final words on *that* subject.
> [....]
> Apology accepted unconditionally, conditional as the apology is.
That's great. See you around, then.
Steve Barnard
Richard wrote:
>
> Then, when I finally met with someone from TTV, the self-proclaimed Mecca
> of New Tennis Instruction, it's one guy who apologizes throughout the
> lesson for teaching me a bunch of stroke mechanics--and approach to
> teaching that was supposedly Unlawful in the Mecca of New Tennis
> Instruction.
>
There are just a few ways to hit a stroke correctly, and about a million
ways to hit it wrong. A sensitive instructor, IMHO, will mainly tell you
what you're doing wrong, and allow you to find your own way to do it
right, with a little guidance.
Steve Barnard
Richard
> ways to hit it wrong. A sensitive instructor, IMHO, will mainly tell you
> what you're doing wrong, and allow you to find your own way to do it
> right, with a little guidance.
I agree. I've accepted tennis instructions from six people over about
four years, and the best two of those seemed to be able to identify the
one key thing I was doing with a stroke that was producing poor results.
With them, a little adjustment here gets a dramatic improvement there.
The really hard part is making that adjustment "yours"--and being willing
to live with a period where you are just all out of whack while you're
effecting the change.
The worst two instructors out of the bunch had a pre-defined idea about
how everyone should hit a given stroke--and you were going to do it that
way, damn it, or hear about each and every time your racquet touched the
ball. They both hit their strokes pretty much the way they taught, but
they also both taught different mechanics.
tennistv
In article <MPG.fbec1d5b...@news.earthlink.net>,
e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
> A few final clarifications before I kill-file this thread.
Ooooo! He's gonna "kill-file" the thread!! Watch out below.....!!!!
Well, say what you mean, and mean what you say. Else, others, reading
what you do say, will interpret that to be your own, fairest, version of
what you do mean. If there was more that led to your "complete
convincing", you should share it. Otherwise, it looks like you became
"completely convinced" from nothing more than a little misconstrued, and
under-researched anecdotal fluff. Not convincing, certainly, and
obviously not complete.
>
> You certainly have the right to dissect this summary as if it WERE a
> complete and exhaustive review of the steps leading up to my inaccuracies
> regarding your cable TV show, but it's a mistake to do so.
Then say what you mean! You offered the review. For god's sake, give a
review! If it's just a partial account, then say so.
>
> These are my final words on that subject.
We d o u b t it.
>
> > He'd offer
> > > to introduce me to other people in the company. It'd never happen. He'd
> > > offer to get me into a class of Senor Wegner's (I use the title as a
> > > sincere honorific, by the way), but the offer would always be delivered
> > > at the very last minute--and would require me to spend a few days in the
> > > middle of the week in, say, Naples Florida. It seemed just a little too
> > > conveniently inconvenient, if you see what I mean.
> >
> > Yeah, we see what you mean.
>
> No, I don't believe you do. YOU created an initial set of expectations,
> and YOU failed to make good on them.
"Set of expectations"? No, you are mistaken. We mentioned possibilities
that could happen, and never said that you should expect them to. Your
schedule, for starters, ruled out many possibilities. You never made any
plans, ever, to take us up on any possibility. In fact, you clearly and
plainly rejected some possibilities.
>
> I was told things like "Oscar's really interested in working with you,"
> and "We'll get you into a class of Oscar's" only to get a bunch of fine
> print: the offer will come at the last minute; it'll involve travel;
> it'll involve having to suddenly arrange mid-week time off from work,
> airline tickets, and hotel reservations all at the last minute.
You're really twisting now. That's the most bogus representation one
could possibly cook up in this matter! You are the one that said you'd be
willing to travel, we never said you'd have to. Once when we offered to
include you on a session in Florida, you demured. But we only offered it
to you because you said you'd be interested in doing that.
>
> It could have been a scheduling error, but after it happened a few times
> it began to sound like one of those "You've Won A Million Dollars!"
> mailings: a nice headline, but an empty offer once you get the details.
It happened once. And you were the one who opted out.
>
> (I am not making a judgement as to whether or not it was an empty offer;
> I'm simply explaining how the conflict between the expectation and the
> offer details were perceived.)
You're not even doing that. You're supplying made-up "facts" that aren't
supported by reality.
>
> Then, when I finally met with someone from TTV, the self-proclaimed Mecca
> of New Tennis Instruction, it's one guy who apologizes throughout the
> lesson for teaching me a bunch of stroke mechanics--and approach to
> teaching that was supposedly Unlawful in the Mecca of New Tennis
> Instruction.
Far fewer mechanics than "a bunch". We typically resort to such short
cuts when a student is not going to be a student for a longer period of
time. And each time you were given a mechanical solution to a particular
problem it was with your particular style of play considered, and supplied
with the express caveat that "this is in the direction for what you want
to end up with, after you spend some concentrated time on effecting the
result" we've discussed.
>
> Still, I'd met with a self-proclaimed High Priest from the Mecca of New
> Tennis Instruction, and for quite a while I had stars in my eyes.
> Interested parties can read the posts at DejaNews to see just how many
> stars.
"Self-proclaimed" what? This is more curious than we thought! Stars in
your eyes? Are you really the 35+ years old you look, or are you really
just a pre-maturely old 11 year old?
>
> I don't expect you to understand that these things were directly related
> to the impression you formed: that of inconsistency between expectation
> created and what actually arrived.
No, we don't understand them because the "cause/effect" lives somewhere in
your imagination. You never once, ever, not one time, ever said you were
at all doubtful of who we were, who and what we represented, or what our
credentials were. Not once. Not ever. Never. Had you voiced the
slightest apprehension, your concerns would have been addressed. How
unfair of you to, post facto, after all the "out for blood vendetta"
stuff, indicate that you had any doubts. Unfair. Unconscionable.
>
> And these are my final words on *that* subject.
We d o u b t it.
>
> > You mean that your selective,
> > once-or-twice-over-a-year-and-a-half anecdotal experience helped
> > "completely convince" you of someone's disingenuousness <and> culpability
> > for "pawning off an elaborate shell game". Incredible. And, being thusly
> > convinced gave you cause for a public display of such hostile,
> > contemptible behavior. (From behind a keyboard, of course.) Again, wow.
>
> From behind a keyboard?
Yeah, from behind a keyboard. That's where your "out for blood vendetta"
occured. Had you said any of the outrageously punk things you've said
during your "out for blood vendetta" to any of us, face to face, you'd be
given the credit due someone who has courage. You didn't and you don't.
You know where I live, Brad, and have visited me
> here to pick up some racquets I sold you. You also have my phone number.
> My home is convenient to your workplace, as you've said more than once.
>
> There was absolutely nothing that would have prevented you from calling
> me, or asking the doorperson to advise me that you were in the lobby.
You seem to have misunderstood the protocol here. The victim of an "out
for blood vendetta" doesn't come calling on the perpetrator of an "out for
blood vendetta". If the person pursuing the vendetta really has the
courage of their conviction, they seek out the victim. In this case, it
was sticks and stones thrown from a safe distance, with no jeopardy of a
mano a mano confrontation. Not a real "out for blood" anything. Just
pissing in the wind.
However, if you want to hurl some of these epithets in person, please say
so. We might be able to arrange it.
>
> These are my final words on *that* subject.
We d o u b t it.
>
> > And, by the way, it was indicated to you, clearly, that your use of Señor
> > (especially without the correct diacritical mark) isn't perceived here as
> > being a "sincere honorific" coming from you. [....]
>
> I'm afraid that the way you take it is your problem, not mine. My intent
> was to show respect, and I felt respect as I wrote it. If my point was
> missed, well, add it to the list of points made and missed between us.
>
> Give me a break, or don't. It doesn't much matter.
Of course it "doesn't much matter" since you aren't the aggrevied party!
That's your style after all. We allow anyone one time to be unconsciously
insulting. But, having been brought up to speed on the matter, it is only
a fool that would make the same allowance twice. We're no fools. You
exceeded the limit.
>
> These are my final words on *that* subject.
Hopefully.
>
> > [....]
>
> > Apology accepted unconditionally, conditional as the apology is.
>
> That's great. See you around, then.
Yeah, right. Whatever. L'ao T'zu said it best: "What goes around, comes
around." (Reflections on Karma, Bizantine Press, NYC, 2489 B.C.)
Oh, and we never take the cowardly route of kill-filing threads or
emailers. We are big enough to deal with the unfettered stuff that is
sent.
dean_cashen
My newsreader believes that tennistv (tenn...@pipeline.com) wrote:
> In article <MPG.fbec1d5b...@news.earthlink.net>,
> e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
> > A few final clarifications before I kill-file this thread.
>
> Ooooo! He's gonna "kill-file" the thread!! Watch out below.....!!!!
[Snipped the usual evasive, illogical, and contrary response from Brad/TTV]
> Oh, and we never take the cowardly route of kill-filing threads or
> emailers. We are big enough to deal with the unfettered stuff that is
> sent.
You, Brad, confuse denial with "big enough". Avoiding truth is
not facing it.
James Kershaw
tennistv wrote:
> Not a good description of how one should assuage suspicion, huh?.
> Especially if one is genuinely interested in discovering the truth. Had
> you ever said "Gee, I've got my doubts about what you've told me...can you
> provide any support?", you'd have been messengered the press kit the same
> day.
Gee, I've got my doubts about what you've told me...can you provide any
support?
(You can mail it to the address on my emails.)
James.
Mike Hoye
In article <tennistv-100...@user-38ld18j.dialup.mindspring.com>,
tennistv <tenn...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.fbec1d5b...@news.earthlink.net>,
>e-mai...@sig.earthlink.net (Richard) wrote:
>
>> A few final clarifications before I kill-file this thread.
>
>Ooooo! He's gonna "kill-file" the thread!! Watch out below.....!!!!
Tennistv gets to Scotland well before Huddleston.
Gif at 11.
--
Mike Hoye
James Kershaw
The trick is finding an instructor who _knows_ how the stroke works,
and is able to explain it to you. A really good instructor will
be able to package the message in a way that works for you.
In that sense, an instructor should be able to hit _every_ stroke.
That doesn't mean that they use them themselves, merely that they
know how to hit them themselves. If they _are_ really good, they
will be able to pick what I call the essence of a stroke and
convey that.... the rest really is surpurfluous.
As an example (and I am by no means a good instructor), I have been
teaching my wife to serve. She is very theory oriented, and likes
to have the style _right_. I have no real objection to this, except
that she was hurting herself trying to hit the serve properly.
Well, last week we spent about 3/4 hour just whacking the ball...
firstly into the fence, any old way, moving on to whacking it
from above the shoulder, and finally moving back onto the court
for a serve. Her service consistency and power increased
dramatically. With that one session I managed to convey more
than I had achieved in over 5 hours of instruction through
demonstration and practise. I guess in a couple of weeks we
will have to go back to getting the ball toss in the right spot,
reaching up, and so forth. Hopefully, though, she will remember
to do all this, then just thwack the ball.
James.
tennistv
In article <MPG.fc02cbaa...@news.primenet.com>, Dean Cashen
pontificated:
> Avoiding truth is
> not facing it.
This is a good laugh-jumpstart for the week! Thanks!
Kill-filing threads and emailers is not to be confused with "avoiding
truth", huh? What a riot! <Not> kill-filing threads and emailers is,
though. Right? ROTFFLOL!! You have such a rich fantasy life!
As long as your version of what's reasonable and ours is 180-degrees
removed, we are sublimely content with our position.
Any luck with the search for a fetish expert in Boise to help you resolve
your wanting to be bitten? The invitation to come to NYC still stands!
dean_cashen
tennistv (tenn...@pipeline.com) has said...
> Dean Cashen wrote:
> >
> > Avoiding truth is
> > not facing it.
>
> This is a good laugh-jumpstart for the week! Thanks!
Uh huh.
> Kill-filing threads and emailers is not to be confused with "avoiding
> truth", huh? What a riot! <Not> kill-filing threads and emailers is,
> though. Right? ROTFFLOL!! You have such a rich fantasy life!
You "misunderstand." Your proven track-record is to obfuscate
and deny. Because you choose to read and respond to threads
cannot be interpreted to mean you're facing the issues presented,
not when you intentionally misaddress them. This very response
of yours is a case-in-point. I never said anything of the sort
that you're "laughing" about, and I'm certain you knew that.
You just proved what I accused you of, obfuscation and denial.
("ROTFFLOL?")
tennistv
In article <MPG.fc105ad5...@news.primenet.com>, Dean Cashen wrote:
> tennistv (tenn...@pipeline.com) has said...
Dean Cashen pontificated:
> > >
> > > Avoiding truth is
> > > not facing it.
> >
> > This is a good laugh-jumpstart for the week! Thanks!
>
> Uh huh.
>
> > Kill-filing threads and emailers is not to be confused with "avoiding
> > truth", huh? What a riot! <Not> kill-filing threads and emailers is,
> > though. Right? ROTFFLOL!! You have such a rich fantasy life!
>
> You "misunderstand." Your proven track-record is to obfuscate
> and deny.
So you say. Your proven track record is to bend over backward (whoops!)
in an effort to denigrate anything and everything that comes from our
keyboard. You don't do a very convincing job of it, but what you lack in
substance you more than make up for in volume (both loudness and amount).
Haven't you ever heard the old saying from L'ao T'zu? "Less is more".
You and he need to have a seance or something.
Because you choose to read and respond to threads
> cannot be interpreted to mean you're facing the issues presented,
> not when you intentionally misaddress them.
So you say. The truth is, by not kill-filing threads and emailers we
don't attempt to construct an artificial reality the way others do. We
certainly do chose to "face the issues presented" and we respond to all
that are addressed to us. Whether you like the response is in no way
germane to the fact that we do respond. Facing the "issues presented" is
exactly what we do.
And what's a "misaddressed" response, hmmm?
This very response
> of yours is a case-in-point. I never said anything of the sort
> that you're "laughing" about, and I'm certain you knew that.
You didn't say "Avoiding truth is not facing it"????? There's a ghost in
your machine then, because that line, which has given us a lift all this
rainy, dreary day long, came from your keyboard.
> You just proved what I accused you of, obfuscation and denial.
And you've just proved what we know so well about you, you just don't make
any sense at all. What's been obfuscated and what's been denied? Or is
it just that you like to change up your accusatory comments from time to
time, no matter how they might not have any relevance. Ha, ha, ha!!!
>
> ("ROTFFLOL?")
Yeah, ROTFFLOL! And still ROTFFLOL to this very moment!!!! It's been a
great day.
Steve Barnard
tennistv wrote:
>
> Yeah, ROTFFLOL! And still ROTFFLOL to this very moment!!!! It's been a
> great day.
They're losing it.
Steve Barnard
tennistv
That means that we've had "it", till now (whatever "it" is)? You were
once sure that we'd completely lost "it" over a year ago. Are you
confused, or what!?
ROTFFLOAO!!!!
Steve Barnard
This is really pathetic. You've abandoned all pretense of posting
tennis-related stuff, which is understandable considering what so many
people think of what you have to say. Now you occupy yourself
*exclusively* with petty bickering and whining.
Steve Barnard
tennistv
Just as we thought! You ARE confused. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Dean_...@com.com
My newsreader believes that tennistv, driven like a
crackhead smoking out of a bong, continues to ramble with:
> Dean Cashen wrote:
>
> > tennistv (tenn...@pipeline.com) has said...
> Dean Cashen pontificated:
> > > >
> > > > Avoiding truth is
> > > > not facing it.
. . .
> > > Kill-filing threads and emailers is not to be confused with "avoiding
> > > truth", huh? What a riot! . . .
> >
> > You "misunderstand." Your proven track-record is to obfuscate
> > and deny.
>
> So you say.
Yeah, I do.
> . . . Your proven track record is to bend over backward (whoops!)
> in an effort to denigrate anything and everything that comes from our
> keyboard.
Not much of an effort, I skip over most of it. There's too much.
> You don't do a very convincing job of it, but what you lack in
> substance you more than make up for in volume (both loudness and amount).
You got a mirror attached to your monitor, don't you?
> Haven't you ever heard the old saying from L'ao T'zu? "Less is more".
THIS, from you? I've downloaded whole applications that took less time
than your quote-upon-quote responses, or your pedantic, convoluted, and
meandering manifestos. What a goofy thing to say from your position.
> You and he need to have a seance or something.
No, we don't.
> Because you choose to read and respond to threads
> > cannot be interpreted to mean you're facing the issues presented,
> > not when you intentionally misaddress them.
>
> So you say.
You bet.
> The truth is, by not kill-filing threads and emailers we
> don't attempt to construct an artificial reality the way others do.
Yes you do. You do it just like you're doing here, by twisting
facts, ignoring issues, and denying everything. You just Make
Things Up, Brad. I can't think how anyone would be able to go
much farther out of reality than that.
> We . . .
"You". There's that artificial reality again. It's just you, Bradley.
> certainly do chose to "face the issues presented" and we respond to all
> that are addressed to us.
Yes, you respond to the people, but not to the content and meaning of
the posts. You don't understand how they differ, but they do. And
it's important.
> And what's a "misaddressed" response, hmmm?
Pretty much everything you write. My post, just before this was
"misaddressed" by you. I pointed that out then, as follows:
> This very response
> > of yours is a case-in-point. I never said anything of the sort
> > that you're "laughing" about, and I'm certain you knew that.
>
> You didn't say "Avoiding truth is not facing it"????? There's a ghost in
> your machine then, because that line, which has given us a lift all this
> rainy, dreary day long, came from your keyboard.
Glad to lift your spirts. Lord knows you must need it.
But, really, that single line, that I wrote, wasn't meant to be what you
tried to construe it to be. You can argue if you like, but geez-louise,
I wrote it. I should know. If you, by chance, "interpreted it" differently,
then let me assure you here, you misinterpreted it. But of course, you
knew what I meant.
But, anyway, WHAT I SAID AND MEANT was: You ignore facts and logic to
attend to your goal to be right, or whatever your hidden agenda is.
In doing that, I do not believe you are brave or honest or sincere,
and so I believe that your insistence that you are "big enough to deal
with" the posts that are addressed to you is hogwash. You don't "deal"
with them, you sidestep. You're doing that now, and you always have.
And everyone knows it. I don't have to convince you, you know it too.
So, what's your point?
> > You just proved what I accused you of, obfuscation and denial.
>
> And you've just proved what we know so well about you, you just don't make
> any sense at all. What's been obfuscated and what's been denied? Or is
> it just that you like to change up your accusatory comments from time to
> time, no matter how they might not have any relevance. Ha, ha, ha!!!
Standard reply. Standard formula: "You're wrong." "No we didn't."
"Show us where we did that." "You're wrong."
Same stuff, Brad, over and over and over. I can show you, EVERYBODY can
show you, but you will always "rebound" by saying "No, show me. You're
wrong." I'm not going to show you AGAIN. It's already there, dig it
up yourself or accept that I don't care to prove the proven, again and
again.
> > ("ROTFFLOL?")
>
> Yeah, ROTFFLOL! And still ROTFFLOL to this very moment!!!! It's been a
> great day.
Mine was a lot of work, and it wasn't all that great. I've had a lot of
those lately. Your kookiness helps, though.
Anyway, what're the two "F's" for? It's "...On The Floor Laughing...".
Not "...On the Funky Floor Laughing..." or some variation. I'm not trying
to spellcheck you, but you (again) didn't respond to my question.
What a surprise.
Listen, Bradster. I think you're starting to feel a need to find someone
to bother since most people just don't care anymore. If you're looking for
comfort in trying me, uh uh. Like I said before, I don't care.
Really. I'll take pot-shots at you -- heaven knows you deserve it,
and it's a bit of fun for me -- but there's no way I'm going to get
caught up in trying to "reason" with you. It's like trying to "reason"
with your dog that it's bad manners to poop on the rug. He doesn't
understand "manners," he just poops. Like you.
So, sorry . . . you'll have to find someone else.
Steve Barnard
Dean_...@com.com wrote:
>
> Listen, Bradster. I think you're starting to feel a need to find someone
> to bother since most people just don't care anymore. If you're looking for
> comfort in trying me, uh uh. Like I said before, I don't care.
> Really. I'll take pot-shots at you -- heaven knows you deserve it,
> and it's a bit of fun for me -- but there's no way I'm going to get
> caught up in trying to "reason" with you. It's like trying to "reason"
> with your dog that it's bad manners to poop on the rug. He doesn't
> understand "manners," he just poops. Like you.
Nope, Dean. A dog can be taught the error of his ways. The Bradster just
keeps pooping on everyone's monitor.
Steve Barnard
tennistv
In article <MPG.fc165fbf...@news.primenet.com>,
Dean_...@com.com wasted bandwidth thusly:
(snip of extra strength soporific Cashen double speak, innuendo, outright
lies, non sequiturs, rants, rambles and sleep aids)
>
> But, anyway, WHAT I SAID AND MEANT was: You ignore facts and logic to
> attend to your goal to be right, or whatever your hidden agenda is.
> In doing that, I do not believe you are brave or honest or sincere,
> and so I believe that your insistence that you are "big enough to deal
> with" the posts that are addressed to you is hogwash. You don't "deal"
> with them, you sidestep. You're doing that now, and you always have.
> And everyone knows it. I don't have to convince you, you know it too.
> So, what's your point?
Here's a perfect example of how direct and responsive we always are: We
don't ever "sidestep" anything. How's that for direct. You accuse, we
deny. At this point, if the accuser truly believes the accusation he/she
offers evidence. But you can't. Therefore you are serving no purpose but
whatever twisted gratification you get from making up these hilariously
off-base accusations. Is this a usenet equivalent for biting for you?
You say something incredibly offensive and stupid with the hope that your
target will "bite back"? That...now that....is...sick.
There must be fetish specialists in Boise. Give one a call!
>
> > > You just proved what I accused you of, obfuscation and denial.
> >
> > And you've just proved what we know so well about you, you just don't make
> > any sense at all. What's been obfuscated and what's been denied? Or is
> > it just that you like to change up your accusatory comments from time to
> > time, no matter how they might not have any relevance. Ha, ha, ha!!!
>
> Standard reply. Standard formula: "You're wrong." "No we didn't."
> "Show us where we did that." "You're wrong."
Standard invitation to bite. No, thanks. What's been obfuscated and
what's been denied? Can't answer? Okay, then how's about making up a
couple of quotes that suit your bias? Your quotes have the inconvenience
of not appearing in the referenced passage. You have a big problem with
reality, don't you Dean?
> >
> > Yeah, ROTFFLOL! And still ROTFFLOL to this very moment!!!! It's been a
> > great day.
>
> Mine was a lot of work, and it wasn't all that great. I've had a lot of
> those lately. Your kookiness helps, though.
>
> Anyway, what're the two "F's" for? It's "...On The Floor Laughing...".
> Not "...On the Funky Floor Laughing..." or some variation. I'm not trying
> to spellcheck you, but you (again) didn't respond to my question.
> What a surprise.
Oh. Our mistake. There's a protocol to acronyms, is there? Typical of
you to be so "in the box". We prefer acronyms that require some thought
to process. Of course those would be lost on you. Ask someone with an
imagination. (And make sure to tell them we live in NYC.) It's not as
much fun if we have to tell you.
>
> So, sorry . . . you'll have to find someone else.
If that were only true! We'll give you ten days. You'll be harping to us,
or about us, in far less time than that. You can't resist. Name callers
and hate mongers <have> to call names and monger hate. It's like
breathing for the rest of us. Don't explode!
Steve Barnard
tennistv wrote:
>
> Here's a perfect example of how direct and responsive we always are: We
> don't ever "sidestep" anything.
:-) That's very funny.
Steve Barnard
Samir Bhakta
Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
:tennistv wrote:
:>
:> Yeah, ROTFFLOL! And still ROTFFLOL to this very moment!!!! It's been a
:> great day.
:
:They're losing it.
I thought they already lost it ...
tennistv
In article <6jaljn$n...@sea.waterw.com>, sbh...@spamsucks.com (Samir
Bhakta) wrote:
So did we! But the scorecard at the official scorers desk says there was
a mistake made previously. Despite the many assertions that we had lost
"it" months and months ago (made over and over), a review of the files
shows that, no, we really hadn't lost it. Good news! Except for this
most recent news that now, <now> we're losing it. But "losing it" is more
hopeful than "lost it", no? Maybe we can pull out a 9th inning rally, and
get "it" back!