Re: where are all the rst worms like whisper, groundaxe, tjt, hardcell, etc ?

On 24 jan, 12:37, Whisper <beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PeteWasLucky wrote:
On Jan 23, 8:13 am, "xami...@xxxxxxxxx" <xami...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 23 jan, 13:06, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 23 Jan., 17:34, "xami...@xxxxxxxxx" <xami...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 23 jan, 12:16, Whisper <beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
very quiet ?
i guess until Fed were to be broken or lose a set then they will be
out in swarms ?
Pretty boring match so far.
Can't believe you're that biased...
Why is this surprising? It's Whimpy commenting on a Federer match.
Because I was hoping that whiskey was mostly having fun, trying to
turn Hazey on.
I can't believe his words are the exact transcriptions of his mind.
I used to like less the ones who are not trying to irritate you on
purpose, but because of low understanding... You better play dumb than
giving evidences of you being one.
And whiskey's posts are falling in the wrong side of that balance.
He has to give signs of not being an ***, not just more often:
we're still waiting for him to show something clever, instead of
sticking to his idiotic themes (clown era, 7543).
He's hardly ever do anything appart from denying or discribing a false
reality (fed/safin=boring match & rooting for very poor tennis as
Ivanovic/Klaybonova in the same breath...)

Whiskey needs help, from doctors I mean... He went too far on the
"opposite" side, he can't step back.

Share & Enjoy,
Manolo- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ha ha, it seems you joined rst recently or it took you longer to
figure out Whisper.
Let me put it this way, when a guy watches a full match for many hours
to end up editing the video to post a clip of a bad volley, there is
nothing more to be said.
People think he is a Sampras fan, but believe me he is not a Sampras'
fan or a tennis fan either.

I am a fan of real tennis & the truth.

The truth?
What are you talking about?
Still too young to understand that there isn't one?
Define truth, I'll see if I can help better than the quick words
below.

If you are talking about "historical truth", then I see two options:
1. you want to be seen as someone from the "winners" side, for truth
is written afterwards, by winners (few exemples of negociated points
with loosers), after some wars / political trades (wich are different
ways to obtain quite similar results).
In that case, how do you think History will judge the Bush's
administration?
Was there ANY truth about Irak, or -for what we know now- even
pointing Bin Laden as the 9.11 brain?
So far, only claims... On purpose lies, in fact. If you dare not to
use diplomatical understatements.

2. my own idea of what truth is, and it can as well be yours, is that
one can call "truth" anything that had been witnessed -and descibed-
by "enough" people NOT sharing identical goals.
And this one is just a tricky as life, for it can be very hard to
agree on the number of people needed to "establish" a point.
It might sounds weird, but "truth" is a construction from
contradictory points of view.


Share & Enjoy,
Manolo
.

Loading