Re: All over for Federer


<andrew.reys@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9428cb7b-ec8f-4012-a722-a9e8b4602050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 24, 8:47 pm, "RuPEDski" <datacip...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<andrew.r...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:5789e3ec-44c8-4ef8-a068-c483759433a3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 24, 12:02 pm, "RuPEDski" <datacip...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





"Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:ad7bb29b-56ba-4773-b823-9eafab5e6980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 24, 12:13 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://tennisplanet.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/analysing-federers-curre...

Good post about what is happening with Federer. His rhetoric about
playing into his thirties and winning the 2012 Olympics is looking
very
silly now

No, it's a very dumb and amateurish post. Wrongheaded statements in
just the first two paragraphs:

"Had Nadal not called for a trainer in the fifth set and had
Djokovic's nerves hadn't gotten to him in the first set, Federer would
have surely lost both finals."
This is over-the-top couda-wouda; even you must recognize that. There
are no certainties in counterfactual hypotheticals. Or would you also
agree that had Federer's nerves not gotten to him in the first set of
the AO semifinal, Djokovic surely would have lost it?

"Will 12 be the number that he will retire with? Sure looks like a
certainty with what we are looking at."
Again with the overconfident predictions. This author is no deep
thinker -- that's the real "certainty."

"And if that is really the fact, will his status as the greatest ever
to pick up a racket remain so?"
Huh? If Federer already has the "status as the greatest ever," how can
he lose it simply by not winning anymore? What the author probably
means is that Federer won't be able to achieve that distinction, but
he's too clumsy a writer to express himself properly.

No need to continue; you get the picture. Dr., free to gloat all you
want about Federer's run of bad play, but there's no need to refer us
to dimwitted posts elsewhere just because they share your gloomy
outlook.

I like how angry Joe and all the others in this thread are getting over
a
negative blog towards Fed. Funny how when Fedfanboys have been posting
very
poorly written blogs praising Fed, it was OK! LOL- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Seeing anger among "all the others" in this thread sure doesn't say
much for your reading comprehension abilities, not to mention that
Groundaxe has been peeing himself with joy over poorly written
internet praises of Fed for years, rendering your conclusion untrue as
well as silly.

***********************
I would say you need to read more carefully but I don't think it wil help.
This has NOTHING to do with Groundaxe's behavior. HE WAS THE OP!

I....am....talking....about....people....who....now....criticize....the....­.act.....of.....posting....a.....blog.....because....they.....NOW....object­....to....it's....contents.

You're really gonna do well on those SAT's! Mickey D's is not gonna know
what hit it!!!!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I find it unsurprising that you regard reading to be useless as a tool
to advance intellectual development in light of the utter lack of any
beneficial effect which it has had on your comprehension skills.

*******************
This statement does not make any sense. At no point did I say 'reading" was
"useless as a tool" to advance intellectual development. I said that I
doubted reading carefully would help your comprehension. QED Thank you for
the demonstration. I'll also note that from a purely logical standpoint the
statement is also nonsense as we're dealing with a written medium,
comprehension is obviously contingent upon reading.




That you were talking about people who criticize a blog becayse they
NOW object to it is obvious. The point, which you've once again missed
by an astronomical unit, is that GroundAxe & Co. have been similarly
(if not more adolescently) criticizing pro-Fed blogs for years, hence
such blogs were clearly not "OK" in the sense you mean.

**************************
Let us even take your word and assume that Dr. has previously criticized
such posts. Now, we have the following situation

1.Fedfanboys spend a few years posting fanboy blogs and drool over them.
2.Dr. criticizes this.
3.Dr. posts a blog
4.Fedfanboys scream bloody murder
5.Rupedski LOL's and points out the hypocrisy of the fanboys.

6.Andrew Reyes says that #5 is untrue and silly BECAUSE Dr. has criticized
previous blogs posted by Fanboys

(lol.....um.....just a wee bit of logic lacking in #6)

I cannot simplify it any more than that.



I will further
remind you that while you were talking about people criticizing a
negative a Fed blog NOW, your comment about Fedfanboys "posting very
poorly written blogs praising Fed" was made in the context of "have
been," and as such referenced past instances, as well. Perhaps next
time, you will consult a grammar manual prior to wielding your
ponderous intellect, and subsequently avoid another embarassing
outburst.

***********************************
Yikes.....indeed, the criticism is taking place "now"-within this and
current threads. The Fedfanboys' blog posting occured previously....the fact
that you're struggling to even understand this simple sequence is
astonishing and frightening. These events did not and are not all taking
place concurrently.....whooo........



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: All over for Federer
    ... criticizing pro-Fed blogs for years, ... such blogs were clearly not "OK" in the sense you mean. ... such posts. ... which was an implication that it was "OK" for Fedfanboys ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: All over for Federer
    ... criticizing pro-Fed blogs for years, ... such blogs were clearly not "OK" in the sense you mean. ... such posts. ... which was an implication that it was "OK" for Fedfanboys ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: All over for Federer
    ... criticizing pro-Fed blogs for years, ... such blogs were clearly not "OK" in the sense you mean. ... such posts. ... which was an implication that it was "OK" for Fedfanboys ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: All over for Federer
    ... poorly written blogs praising Fed, ... I find it unsurprising that you regard reading to be useless as a tool ... beneficial effect which it has had on your comprehension skills. ... criticizing pro-Fed blogs for years, ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: All over for Federer
    ... criticizing pro-Fed blogs for years, ... such blogs were clearly not "OK" in the sense you mean. ... such posts. ... which was an implication that it was "OK" for Fedfanboys ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)