The balls in your court.

05-08-2008, 09:49 AM

Nadals loss proves one thing:

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

View Full Version : Spoler....Nadals performance at Rome proves Fed has no chance

The balls in your court.

05-08-2008, 09:49 AM

Nadals loss proves one thing:

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

coloskier

05-08-2008, 09:50 AM

Nadals loss proves one thing:

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

But it also proves that 2 weeks of best 3 of 5 sets can cause major problems with Nadal's feet.

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

But it also proves that 2 weeks of best 3 of 5 sets can cause major problems with Nadal's feet.

CyBorg

05-08-2008, 09:57 AM

Roger isn't technically a grinder, but unlike most non-grinders he's unusually talented. So you can't apply the normal standards to him altogether.

r2473

05-08-2008, 10:07 AM

All players are equal

Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.

Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.

The balls in your court.

05-08-2008, 10:15 AM

All players are equal

Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.

At least you see that i was using a logical formula. Good response....but my logic is not flawed.

Roger has been trying to win for 10 years now....and for 10 years a grinder has won RG every single time.

Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.

At least you see that i was using a logical formula. Good response....but my logic is not flawed.

Roger has been trying to win for 10 years now....and for 10 years a grinder has won RG every single time.

edmondsm

05-08-2008, 10:23 AM

At least you see that i was using a logical formula. Good response....but my logic is not flawed.

Roger has been trying to win for 10 years now....and for 10 years a grinder has won RG every single time.

He took out Robredo and Davydenko last year at RG, and I'm sure he's beaten many a grinder before. Your logic is as flawed as it gets, but I'm pretty sure you're joking.:)

Roger has been trying to win for 10 years now....and for 10 years a grinder has won RG every single time.

He took out Robredo and Davydenko last year at RG, and I'm sure he's beaten many a grinder before. Your logic is as flawed as it gets, but I'm pretty sure you're joking.:)

MajinX

05-08-2008, 10:23 AM

Nadals loss proves one thing:

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

that proves nothing...

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

that proves nothing...

dh003i

05-08-2008, 10:23 AM

Silly comment, Federer would have handily beat him today too.

Vision84

05-08-2008, 10:30 AM

Nadals loss proves one thing:

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

http://pandadan.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/idiot-41423.jpg

Can you quit making dumb threads please?

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

http://pandadan.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/idiot-41423.jpg

Can you quit making dumb threads please?

bluescreen

05-08-2008, 10:40 AM

i dont get how nadal's loss proves you have to be a grinder to win roland garros. if anything, it suggests the opposite.

Serpententacle

05-08-2008, 10:48 AM

Nadals loss proves one thing:

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

Dude, I'm a Nadal fan, but anyone would know Federer has just as much chance to win as Nadal at RG. They're both extremely talented.

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.

Dude, I'm a Nadal fan, but anyone would know Federer has just as much chance to win as Nadal at RG. They're both extremely talented.

The balls in your court.

05-08-2008, 11:00 AM

Dude, I'm a Nadal fan, but anyone would know Federer has just as much chance to win as Nadal at RG. They're both extremely talented.

Nope. Look only a grinder can win this thing unles there is some weird fluke. Check out the facts:

Federer in 10 attempts has only made the finals twice! On the other hand Nadal has tried three times and won all three times!

In the past 10 years only grinders have one. Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!

Nope. Look only a grinder can win this thing unles there is some weird fluke. Check out the facts:

Federer in 10 attempts has only made the finals twice! On the other hand Nadal has tried three times and won all three times!

In the past 10 years only grinders have one. Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!

Vision84

05-08-2008, 11:06 AM

Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!

It is quotes like these that make it impossible to take you even remotely seriously.

It is quotes like these that make it impossible to take you even remotely seriously.

edmondsm

05-08-2008, 11:08 AM

Nope. Look only a grinder can win this thing unles there is some weird fluke. Check out the facts:

Federer in 10 attempts has only made the finals twice! On the other hand Nadal has tried three times and won all three times!

In the past 10 years only grinders have one. Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!

All right I'll play the game. So let me ask you, who were this other 5% who won Roland Garros without grinding? By any chance were they the most talented tennis players that ever walked the earth......like Federer?

Federer in 10 attempts has only made the finals twice! On the other hand Nadal has tried three times and won all three times!

In the past 10 years only grinders have one. Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!

All right I'll play the game. So let me ask you, who were this other 5% who won Roland Garros without grinding? By any chance were they the most talented tennis players that ever walked the earth......like Federer?

coloskier

05-08-2008, 11:11 AM

Nope. Look only a grinder can win this thing unles there is some weird fluke. Check out the facts:

Federer in 10 attempts has only made the finals twice! On the other hand Nadal has tried three times and won all three times!

In the past 10 years only grinders have one. Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!

Borg was definitely NOT a grinder.

Federer in 10 attempts has only made the finals twice! On the other hand Nadal has tried three times and won all three times!

In the past 10 years only grinders have one. Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!

Borg was definitely NOT a grinder.

dulapul

05-08-2008, 11:21 AM

All players are equal

Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.

Hey,

actually

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

doesn`t imply

a - t/2 = b - t/2

so, till the next new formula tennis isn`t pointless, yesssssssss.

Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.

Hey,

actually

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

doesn`t imply

a - t/2 = b - t/2

so, till the next new formula tennis isn`t pointless, yesssssssss.

Turning Pro

05-08-2008, 11:28 AM

Dude, I'm a Nadal fan, but anyone would know Federer has just as much chance to win as Nadal at RG. They're both extremely talented.

How is this even logical. The stats certainly tell a different story.

How is this even logical. The stats certainly tell a different story.

West Coast Ace

05-08-2008, 11:34 AM

Nadals loss proves one thing:

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.Thanks for taking time out from your busy day to share this nugget of wisdom... what are tomorrow's Mega lotto numbers going to be?

Your logic is as flawed as it gets, but I'm pretty sure you're joking.:)Let's hope so - or hope he's not a breeder... :)

i dont get how nadal's loss proves you have to be a grinder to win roland garros. if anything, it suggests the opposite.Exactly. Take the first short ball and end the point. Getting in protracted rallies is for masochists...

http://www.angrybackhand.com

To win RG you must be a grinder. Federer is no grinder so he cannot win.Thanks for taking time out from your busy day to share this nugget of wisdom... what are tomorrow's Mega lotto numbers going to be?

Your logic is as flawed as it gets, but I'm pretty sure you're joking.:)Let's hope so - or hope he's not a breeder... :)

i dont get how nadal's loss proves you have to be a grinder to win roland garros. if anything, it suggests the opposite.Exactly. Take the first short ball and end the point. Getting in protracted rallies is for masochists...

http://www.angrybackhand.com

r2473

05-08-2008, 11:43 AM

Hey,

actually

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

doesn`t imply

a - t/2 = b - t/2

so, till the next new formula tennis isn`t pointless, yesssssssss.

Can u call my wife please :)

actually

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

doesn`t imply

a - t/2 = b - t/2

so, till the next new formula tennis isn`t pointless, yesssssssss.

Can u call my wife please :)

serve/and/volley

05-08-2008, 11:47 AM

All players are equal

Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.

If you're going to fool around with algebra, at least do it properly. Your result "a = b" is flawed because you fail understand the properties of square roots and absolute values, i.e.

SquareRoot(x^2) = | x | = if x is greater than or equal to 0; and -x if x is less than or equal to zero.

The only meaningful conclusion for any arbitrary a and b, and t = a + b is:

|a - b| is greater than or equal to 0.

This is not the same as

a - b = 0

a = b

Don't bust out the math if you don't understand it.

So r2473 is a failure at algebra just as The_balls_in_your_court is a failure at applying logic to the real world, since his simplistic assumption is meaningless.

Hence we have proven 2 theorems:

Theorem 1: r2473 fails algebra; i.e. he doesn't understand properties of the square root function as well as the absolute value function.

Theorem 2: The_balls_in_your_court fails to make meaningful conclusions from meaningless assumptions, i.e. he makes meaningless conclusions from meaningless assumptions.

Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.

If you're going to fool around with algebra, at least do it properly. Your result "a = b" is flawed because you fail understand the properties of square roots and absolute values, i.e.

SquareRoot(x^2) = | x | = if x is greater than or equal to 0; and -x if x is less than or equal to zero.

The only meaningful conclusion for any arbitrary a and b, and t = a + b is:

|a - b| is greater than or equal to 0.

This is not the same as

a - b = 0

a = b

Don't bust out the math if you don't understand it.

So r2473 is a failure at algebra just as The_balls_in_your_court is a failure at applying logic to the real world, since his simplistic assumption is meaningless.

Hence we have proven 2 theorems:

Theorem 1: r2473 fails algebra; i.e. he doesn't understand properties of the square root function as well as the absolute value function.

Theorem 2: The_balls_in_your_court fails to make meaningful conclusions from meaningless assumptions, i.e. he makes meaningless conclusions from meaningless assumptions.

serve/and/volley

05-08-2008, 12:10 PM

All players are equal

Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.

http://pandadan.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/idiot-41423.jpg

Proof: Choose arbitrary players a and b, and let t = a + b. Then

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

So all players are the same, and tennis is pointless.

http://pandadan.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/idiot-41423.jpg

r2473

05-08-2008, 12:13 PM

Theorem 1: r2473 fails algebra; i.e. he doesn't understand properties of the square root function as well as the absolute value function.

It is an old math "joke". I'm sure you have seen it before.

It is an old math "joke". I'm sure you have seen it before.

veroniquem

05-08-2008, 12:24 PM

Dude, I'm a Nadal fan, but anyone would know Federer has just as much chance to win as Nadal at RG. They're both extremely talented.

As much definitely not but he has the best chance after Nadal to win it. People who keep claiming Fed has no chance to win RG are either crazy or dishonest.

As much definitely not but he has the best chance after Nadal to win it. People who keep claiming Fed has no chance to win RG are either crazy or dishonest.

serve/and/volley

05-08-2008, 12:24 PM

It is an old math "joke". I'm sure you have seen it before.

For mathematicians, math jokes are more stupid than funny. Just like for chess players, chess "jokes" are more stupid than funny. (E.g. "The Fool's Mate", "The Scholar's Mate"). However, chess "jokes" are at least instructive. Such math "jokes" just demonstrate meaningless results when you break mathematical rules, as in proving that 1 = 2 when you allow for division by zero.

Advice: stop trying to be pretentious with your mathematical mumbo-jumbo when your audience do not give a damn about math.

For mathematicians, math jokes are more stupid than funny. Just like for chess players, chess "jokes" are more stupid than funny. (E.g. "The Fool's Mate", "The Scholar's Mate"). However, chess "jokes" are at least instructive. Such math "jokes" just demonstrate meaningless results when you break mathematical rules, as in proving that 1 = 2 when you allow for division by zero.

Advice: stop trying to be pretentious with your mathematical mumbo-jumbo when your audience do not give a damn about math.

joeri888

05-08-2008, 01:03 PM

Nope. Look only a grinder can win this thing unles there is some weird fluke. Check out the facts:

Federer in 10 attempts has only made the finals twice! On the other hand Nadal has tried three times and won all three times!

In the past 10 years only grinders have one. Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!

That's because any player that won the French was labeled a grinder after it. Not the other way around.

By the way, if 95% was a grinder, than surely Federer is in that other 5% with a possibility to win.

Federer in 10 attempts has only made the finals twice! On the other hand Nadal has tried three times and won all three times!

In the past 10 years only grinders have one. Hell in the whole history of open tennis 95% of all champions were grinders!

That's because any player that won the French was labeled a grinder after it. Not the other way around.

By the way, if 95% was a grinder, than surely Federer is in that other 5% with a possibility to win.

r2473

05-08-2008, 01:47 PM

Advice: stop trying to be pretentious with your mathematical mumbo-jumbo when your audience do not give a damn about math.

Two rednecks decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead.

The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic.

"What's Logic?" the first redneck asks. The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?" "I sure do."

"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.

"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife." "That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"

The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.

"So what classes are ya takin' ?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck. "What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example.

Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.

"No," his friend replied.

"You're QUEER, ain't ya?"

Two rednecks decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead.

The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic.

"What's Logic?" the first redneck asks. The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?" "I sure do."

"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.

"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife." "That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"

The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.

"So what classes are ya takin' ?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck. "What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example.

Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.

"No," his friend replied.

"You're QUEER, ain't ya?"

CyBorg

05-08-2008, 02:01 PM

r2473 - my new favorite poster.

InvisibleSoul

05-08-2008, 03:31 PM

"And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife."

I don't see the connection.

I don't see the connection.

miniRafa386

05-08-2008, 03:33 PM

its only a blister on his foot, blisters dont take all too long to heal. when does hamburg start? if its in a week, he should be fine IMO

TheTruth

05-08-2008, 03:40 PM

Two rednecks decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead.

The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic.

"What's Logic?" the first redneck asks. The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?" "I sure do."

"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.

"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife." "That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"

The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.

"So what classes are ya takin' ?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck. "What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example.

Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.

"No," his friend replied.

"You're QUEER, ain't ya?"

Hilarious!!!

The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic.

"What's Logic?" the first redneck asks. The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?" "I sure do."

"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.

"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife." "That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"

The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.

"So what classes are ya takin' ?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck. "What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example.

Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.

"No," his friend replied.

"You're QUEER, ain't ya?"

Hilarious!!!

Dilettante

05-08-2008, 03:44 PM

a + b = t

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

...hhhmmm... three?

Or what?

(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)

a^2 - b^2 = ta - tb

a^2 - ta = b^2 - tb

a^2 - ta + (t^2)/4 = b^2 - tb + (t^2)/4

(a - t/2)^2 = (b - t/2)^2

a - t/2 = b - t/2

a = b

...hhhmmm... three?

Or what?

zagor

05-08-2008, 03:51 PM

Two rednecks decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead.

The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic.

"What's Logic?" the first redneck asks. The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?" "I sure do."

"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.

"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife." "That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"

The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.

"So what classes are ya takin' ?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck. "What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example.

Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.

"No," his friend replied.

"You're QUEER, ain't ya?"

LOL,good joke.

The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic.

"What's Logic?" the first redneck asks. The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?" "I sure do."

"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.

"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife." "That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"

The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.

"So what classes are ya takin' ?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck. "What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example.

Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.

"No," his friend replied.

"You're QUEER, ain't ya?"

LOL,good joke.

Salsa_Lover

05-08-2008, 04:23 PM

So, now that the balls in your court is on my ignore list, I, thank God, can't see his posts.

But I still can see the threads he starts.

How can I get his threads to become invisible too ?

But I still can see the threads he starts.

How can I get his threads to become invisible too ?

serve/and/volley

05-08-2008, 05:19 PM

Two rednecks decided that they weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should go to college to get ahead.

The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic.

"What's Logic?" the first redneck asks. The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?" "I sure do."

"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.

"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife." "That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"

The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.

"So what classes are ya takin' ?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck. "What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example.

Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.

"No," his friend replied.

"You're QUEER, ain't ya?"

Now this is a much better improvement over your math "joke". Your first attempt at sarcasm over the OP statement was too obscure for most the members of this board.

The first goes in to see the counselor, who tells him to take Math, History, and Logic.

"What's Logic?" the first redneck asks. The professor answers by saying, "Let me give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?" "I sure do."

"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard," replied the professor.

"That's real good!" says the redneck. The professor continues, "Logic will also tell me that since you have a yard, you also own a house." Impressed, the redneck says, "Amazin!" "And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have a wife." "That's Betty Mae! This is incredible!" The redneck is obviously catching on. "Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume that you are heterosexual," said the professor. "You're absolutely right! Why that's the most fascinatin' thing I ever heard! I cain't wait to take that logic class!!"

The redneck, proud of the new world opening up to him, walks back into the hallway, where his friend is still waiting.

"So what classes are ya takin' ?" asks the friend. "Math, History, and Logic!" replies the first redneck. "What in tarnation is logic???" asked his friend. "Let me give you an example.

Do ya own a weed eater?" asked the first redneck.

"No," his friend replied.

"You're QUEER, ain't ya?"

Now this is a much better improvement over your math "joke". Your first attempt at sarcasm over the OP statement was too obscure for most the members of this board.

BkK_b0y14

05-08-2008, 08:46 PM

can someone please ban the idiotic thread maker?

The balls in your court.

05-08-2008, 08:50 PM

its only a blister on his foot, blisters dont take all too long to heal. when does hamburg start? if its in a week, he should be fine IMO

Yeah!!! Only Federer is allowed to use that Blister excuse! If Nadal uses the same one it just aint true!!

Borg was definitely NOT a grinder.

Are you kidding?????? Borg is the king of all grinders. At RG he would camp behind the baseline and just get ball back after ball forever. In fact Nadal is Borg reincarnated! They both have the sme freaking game and both are great at RG and Wimbledon! Thats no accident!

All right I'll play the game. So let me ask you, who were this other 5% who won Roland Garros without grinding? By any chance were they the most talented tennis players that ever walked the earth......like Federer?

actually its probably like 2 percent and 2 out of the three were the most talented players on earth:

1. Rod Laver (But he played during the age of serve and volley)

2. Ilie Nastase , he may have had more raw talent than any player that has ever played the sport. He could do anything....but like Safin he was a total head case.

The third player was not all that talented...but he was French....Yanick Noah.

***finally why all the hate? I am just saying the facts. Federers game historically has proven to be a loser at Roland Garros. The dude has been trying for ten years and only made 2 finals. Things just do not look good.

Hell I dont think Fed will even win Rome and thats only a best of three.

Yeah!!! Only Federer is allowed to use that Blister excuse! If Nadal uses the same one it just aint true!!

Borg was definitely NOT a grinder.

Are you kidding?????? Borg is the king of all grinders. At RG he would camp behind the baseline and just get ball back after ball forever. In fact Nadal is Borg reincarnated! They both have the sme freaking game and both are great at RG and Wimbledon! Thats no accident!

All right I'll play the game. So let me ask you, who were this other 5% who won Roland Garros without grinding? By any chance were they the most talented tennis players that ever walked the earth......like Federer?

actually its probably like 2 percent and 2 out of the three were the most talented players on earth:

1. Rod Laver (But he played during the age of serve and volley)

2. Ilie Nastase , he may have had more raw talent than any player that has ever played the sport. He could do anything....but like Safin he was a total head case.

The third player was not all that talented...but he was French....Yanick Noah.

***finally why all the hate? I am just saying the facts. Federers game historically has proven to be a loser at Roland Garros. The dude has been trying for ten years and only made 2 finals. Things just do not look good.

Hell I dont think Fed will even win Rome and thats only a best of three.

llbarracks

05-08-2008, 09:00 PM

So, now that the balls in your court is on my ignore list, I, thank God, can't see his posts.

But I still can see the threads he starts.

How can I get his threads to become invisible too ?

I second this. This is probably the dumbest thing I have seen in a long time. I think you should have accumulated a certain number of posts or a certain amount of time on the board before you start making threads. Let me know if you figure out how to get his threads to be invisible too.

But I still can see the threads he starts.

How can I get his threads to become invisible too ?

I second this. This is probably the dumbest thing I have seen in a long time. I think you should have accumulated a certain number of posts or a certain amount of time on the board before you start making threads. Let me know if you figure out how to get his threads to be invisible too.

The balls in your court.

05-08-2008, 09:14 PM

I second this. This is probably the dumbest thing I have seen in a long time. I think you should have accumulated a certain number of posts or a certain amount of time on the board before you start making threads. Let me know if you figure out how to get his threads to be invisible too.

Thats really not fair. First of all if you dont like what I have said just dont read it. No one is forcing you. Problem solved.

Secondly I realize you are all Fed fans. But everything I said was true. You may not like to hear it but the fact is that baseliners win RG year after year. Can Fed win RG ?....well he does have a chance. Hey if I get into a boxing ring with Trinidad I might get a lucky punch and knock him out. But its unlikely. Feds chances of winning RG is also unlikely.

Thats really not fair. First of all if you dont like what I have said just dont read it. No one is forcing you. Problem solved.

Secondly I realize you are all Fed fans. But everything I said was true. You may not like to hear it but the fact is that baseliners win RG year after year. Can Fed win RG ?....well he does have a chance. Hey if I get into a boxing ring with Trinidad I might get a lucky punch and knock him out. But its unlikely. Feds chances of winning RG is also unlikely.

BkK_b0y14

05-08-2008, 09:22 PM

RF = Second best clay courter. Nuff said.

CyBorg

05-08-2008, 09:45 PM

Now this is a much better improvement over your math "joke". Your first attempt at sarcasm over the OP statement was too obscure for most the members of this board.

So, they're dense and it's his problem?

So, they're dense and it's his problem?

caesar66

05-08-2008, 09:59 PM

***finally why all the hate? I am just saying the facts. Federers game historically has proven to be a loser at Roland Garros. The dude has been trying for ten years and only made 2 finals. Things just do not look good.

Facts? How about the tons of players on tour who've played over ten years and never made it to the finals of any grand slam? Federer does it two years in a row, and in 05's semifinal ran into the guy who won the tournament and would stop Fed in the next two finals. Not to mention that Fed has been pretty consistently the second best claycourter on tour for the last two years. If anything, things do look good for fed this year, especially with Rafa wearing out (though I hope he can get back on track for another RG final against fed). Compared to most of the tour, Fed's chances are awesome for at least reaching the final if not winning it. And I still haven't connected Nadal's performance at Rome with why Federer can't win Roland Garros. I'd say the only "things" that just don't look good is you getting out of this thread with dignity if you keep trying to defend faulty logic.

Facts? How about the tons of players on tour who've played over ten years and never made it to the finals of any grand slam? Federer does it two years in a row, and in 05's semifinal ran into the guy who won the tournament and would stop Fed in the next two finals. Not to mention that Fed has been pretty consistently the second best claycourter on tour for the last two years. If anything, things do look good for fed this year, especially with Rafa wearing out (though I hope he can get back on track for another RG final against fed). Compared to most of the tour, Fed's chances are awesome for at least reaching the final if not winning it. And I still haven't connected Nadal's performance at Rome with why Federer can't win Roland Garros. I'd say the only "things" that just don't look good is you getting out of this thread with dignity if you keep trying to defend faulty logic.

llbarracks

05-09-2008, 07:11 AM

Facts? How about the tons of players on tour who've played over ten years and never made it to the finals of any grand slam? Federer does it two years in a row, and in 05's semifinal ran into the guy who won the tournament and would stop Fed in the next two finals. Not to mention that Fed has been pretty consistently the second best claycourter on tour for the last two years. If anything, things do look good for fed this year, especially with Rafa wearing out (though I hope he can get back on track for another RG final against fed). Compared to most of the tour, Fed's chances are awesome for at least reaching the final if not winning it. And I still haven't connected Nadal's performance at Rome with why Federer can't win Roland Garros. I'd say the only "things" that just don't look good is you getting out of this thread with dignity if you keep trying to defend faulty logic.

Hey Caesar66 I was wondering if you were gonna get a chance to comment on this idiotic thread. Well done.

Hey Caesar66 I was wondering if you were gonna get a chance to comment on this idiotic thread. Well done.

The balls in your court.

05-09-2008, 07:43 AM

Hey Caesar66 I was wondering if you were gonna get a chance to comment on this idiotic thread. Well done.

Facts? How about the tons of players on tour who've played over ten years and never made it to the finals of any grand slam? Federer does it two years in a row, and in 05's semifinal ran into the guy who won the tournament and would stop Fed in the next two finals. Not to mention that Fed has been pretty consistently the second best claycourter on tour for the last two years. If anything, things do look good for fed this year, especially with Rafa wearing out (though I hope he can get back on track for another RG final against fed). Compared to most of the tour, Fed's chances are awesome for at least reaching the final if not winning it. And I still haven't connected Nadal's performance at Rome with why Federer can't win Roland Garros. I'd say the only "things" that just don't look good is you getting out of this thread with dignity if you keep trying to defend faulty logic.

Look this is what sports and discussion boards are all about. Its all opinions. Thats why people make bets and all that good stuff. if we all knew the outcome it would not be exciting.

I hope this does not turn ugly like a Boston yankee rivalry.

You think that Feds chances are great this year....I dont agree. Whats the big deal? Are you going to attack and bully me just for having that opinion?

If you want to have an intelligent discussion as to my reasons or your reasons then thats fine.....but to attack me personally simply for believeing that feds chances this year are bad......well thats just poor form on your part and all of you others who have attacked me for simply having my own opinion.

Now as far as the connection to Rome:

The only person to beat nadal this year on clay was another grinder. Its this style that is needed to win. Feds style has proven over and over again to be a failure. How many times do you have to bang yourself in th head to realize that it hurts?

As to the rest of feds chances:

1- Fed has been playing the worst tennis of his life.

2- the competition has become even stiffer...guys like the Joker have now come of age. And since the Joker is ranked #3 and Fed #1 they are very likely to meet in the semis.

3. Fed was soundly beaten by Nadal yet again and has still not figured out a new style of play. If you keep doing the same things you are going to get the sam results!

4. percentage wise Feds style of game just does not win at RG

5 Fed has been doing the same things at RG for 10 years and failing. I dont see him trying anything new.

Facts? How about the tons of players on tour who've played over ten years and never made it to the finals of any grand slam? Federer does it two years in a row, and in 05's semifinal ran into the guy who won the tournament and would stop Fed in the next two finals. Not to mention that Fed has been pretty consistently the second best claycourter on tour for the last two years. If anything, things do look good for fed this year, especially with Rafa wearing out (though I hope he can get back on track for another RG final against fed). Compared to most of the tour, Fed's chances are awesome for at least reaching the final if not winning it. And I still haven't connected Nadal's performance at Rome with why Federer can't win Roland Garros. I'd say the only "things" that just don't look good is you getting out of this thread with dignity if you keep trying to defend faulty logic.

Look this is what sports and discussion boards are all about. Its all opinions. Thats why people make bets and all that good stuff. if we all knew the outcome it would not be exciting.

I hope this does not turn ugly like a Boston yankee rivalry.

You think that Feds chances are great this year....I dont agree. Whats the big deal? Are you going to attack and bully me just for having that opinion?

If you want to have an intelligent discussion as to my reasons or your reasons then thats fine.....but to attack me personally simply for believeing that feds chances this year are bad......well thats just poor form on your part and all of you others who have attacked me for simply having my own opinion.

Now as far as the connection to Rome:

The only person to beat nadal this year on clay was another grinder. Its this style that is needed to win. Feds style has proven over and over again to be a failure. How many times do you have to bang yourself in th head to realize that it hurts?

As to the rest of feds chances:

1- Fed has been playing the worst tennis of his life.

2- the competition has become even stiffer...guys like the Joker have now come of age. And since the Joker is ranked #3 and Fed #1 they are very likely to meet in the semis.

3. Fed was soundly beaten by Nadal yet again and has still not figured out a new style of play. If you keep doing the same things you are going to get the sam results!

4. percentage wise Feds style of game just does not win at RG

5 Fed has been doing the same things at RG for 10 years and failing. I dont see him trying anything new.

vBulletin® v3.6.9, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.