Srdjan speaks again, 10 more slams for his son

MichaelNadal said:
Something scary is really going on here....
Click to expand...

24041fb91da723cafdad4c5bfe3896a4.gif
 
I mean... I know a lot of people give Srdjan a lot of sh*t for the things he says. However, what is he supposed to say about his son? "Well I think Novak is not as good as Nadal or Federer and he'll be lucky to get another major win" Every parent should be their children's biggest fan and have them shoot for the moon.
 
catskillthunder said:
I mean... I know a lot of people give Srdjan a lot of sh*t for the things he says. However, what is he supposed to say about his son? "Well I think Novak is not as good as Nadal or Federer and he'll be lucky to get another major win" Every parent should be their children's biggest fan and have them shoot for the moon.
Click to expand...
Exactly, every parent wants to think their kid will be special. His actually is.
 
catskillthunder said:
I mean... I know a lot of people give Srdjan a lot of sh*t for the things he says. However, what is he supposed to say about his son? "Well I think Novak is not as good as Nadal or Federer and he'll be lucky to get another major win" Every parent should be their children's biggest fan and have them shoot for the moon.
Click to expand...

It's truth.

He sacrificed and risked very much to provide his son everything he needed in a poor, war torn country to become who he is now - GOAT in tennis.
 
Nole_The_Champion said:
On a more serious note
- Rafa will be dangerous at the USO, he skipped Wimbledon and Olympics, he s preparing for it madly and will be fresh like a daisy.

The biggest threat for Novak, without a doubt.
Click to expand...

Rafa is Nole's biggest threat always. But we should also accept that next gen are on par with rafa. This is not 2019, even Medvedev will stand toe to toe with Rafa. Zverev, Tsitsipas, Berrettini. None of them will back down. And Rafa's service games have been so poor. If he gets beaten even on clay, what chances are there on hard courts? He had faced pretty weak players in 2017 and next gen underdeveloped players in 2019.
 
MichaelNadal said:
Rafa needs to win the USO for things to be somewhat interesting again
Click to expand...

I think some random dude like Gilles Simon winning the US Open would really make it interesting! :laughing:

It happened when Serena was going for the calendar slam in 2015, losing to Roberta Vinci in the semifinals, which led to Flavia Pennetta's only major title.

However, to be clear, I'm personally rooting for Djokovic to win the US Open and complete the calendar slam this year. It hasn't happened on the men's side in my lifetime, so I want to see some history made. Djokovic isn't my favorite player, but of the 20-20-20 guys, I think his resume is the best already.
 
nachiket nolefam said:
Rafa is Nole's biggest threat always. But we should also accept that next gen are on par with rafa. This is not 2019, even Medvedev will stand toe to toe with Rafa. Zverev, Tsitsipas, Berrettini. None of them will back down. And Rafa's service games have been so poor. If he gets beaten even on clay, what chances are there on hard courts? He had faced pretty weak players in 2017 and next gen underdeveloped players in 2019.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no one should be underestimated. Time works in favour of the youngsters, their peak is ahead of them.

However, I believe that Rafa would win RG if there wasn't Novak.
 
catskillthunder said:
I mean... I know a lot of people give Srdjan a lot of sh*t for the things he says. However, what is he supposed to say about his son? "Well I think Novak is not as good as Nadal or Federer and he'll be lucky to get another major win" Every parent should be their children's biggest fan and have them shoot for the moon.
Click to expand...
He is the most annoying tennis parent in the history of the sport. Novak’s PR rep need to strongly advise him to tell his dad to STFU.
 
BlueB said:
It's not floating, it's built into a cliff.
Monastery Ostog:
1200px-Ostrog.jpg


However, a floating church can be an association to a brilliant book "The Siege of the Saint Salvation Church" by Goran Petrović, which has a deep symbolic meaning of fight against the odds and prevalence of spirit strength over brute force.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's could actually be beautifully symbolic, probably is. Thank you for explaining.

The monastery looks amazing! Even in the picture it has such a strong, not sure how to put it, spiritual presence? I'm not religious but things like that feel really special.
 
jm1980 said:
How can any of these words have "traditional Ancient Greek" definitions if the words originated much later, in the 16th and 17th centuries? Atheism never meant lack of knowledge or understanding of deities, I have no idea where you got that from.
Click to expand...

I am talking about the original Ancient Greek words.

As I mentioned previously, the original words have had their meanings redefined in the process of being translated into English. The definitions you have provided are based on English translations which are technically inaccurate translations of the original Greek meanings.

Believer: Do you believe in God?
Atheist: What is God? I don't uinderstand what you mean by God?
Agnostic: I don't know whether God exists or not.
Non Believer: No. I do not believe in God.

That is why people are being confused.

I thought pointing out that I was using the original definitions would be enough. But obviously not.

itrium84 said:
You're wrong on almost everything with those personal subjective definitions only you recognize as valid. It's been a long time I saw someone who can be so much wrong on so many levels. Thank you for the fun, cheers.
Click to expand...

Nope. You misunderstood. I used the example of the word "Gay" to demonstrate the difference. You still didn't get the point.

In tennis parlance, you are like those players who call the Major Tournaments "The Grand Slams" or "The Slams". Technically they are neither. But that doesn't stop people trying to redefine the terms and eventually those new (incorrect) definitions become widely accepted.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
catskillthunder said:
I'm going down there on Aug 31st-Sept 1st hoping to get to see Rafa finally play in person.
Click to expand...

You are in for an absolute treat. One of the great experiences in life is to witness any of the Big 3 actually playing a match live right in front of your eyes. Television does not do any of them justice.
 
catskillthunder said:
I mean... I know a lot of people give Srdjan a lot of sh*t for the things he says. However, what is he supposed to say about his son? "Well I think Novak is not as good as Nadal or Federer and he'll be lucky to get another major win" Every parent should be their children's biggest fan and have them shoot for the moon.
Click to expand...

Have Fedal's parents ever said their sons were anointed by God?
 
Rosstour said:
Have Fedal's parents ever said their sons were anointed by God?
Click to expand...

They're Christians, aren't they?

All Christians believe they and their children have been anointed by God. So they probably have said it at some point, but perhaps it hasn't been picked up by Global Media ;)
 
Karma Tennis said:
They're Christians, aren't they?

All Christians believe they and their children have been anointed by God. So they probably have said it at some point, but perhaps it hasn't been picked up by Global Media ;)
Click to expand...

So it's just another Western conspiracy against Serbs, to hide the fact that surely Fedal's parents have said these things?

Are you serious with this response?
 
Karma Tennis said:
The facts are the facts.



A person cannot claim "no knowledge" on a matter unless they are aware of the matter. The matter has to be known to them in order to make the claim. Otherwise there is no ability to make to claim.

Agnostics recognise the concept of Religiion and God but don't believe in either - that's the negation bit. (You are confusing knowledge and belief. They are not interchangeble.)

Definition of Agnostic ...a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

In order to be Agnostic, the person must understand the concept of God. Otherwise they cannot believe that nothing is known or can be known about the existence or nature of God.
Atheists do not understand to concept of God. An Atheist has no understanding of the concept of God. One cannot believe in something one does not know about. One cannot believe in something if they don't understand the meaning of belief either.



That is a different debate. You are trying to redefine the meaning of the word "Atheist" by suggesting an atheist is something else. An atheist is an atheist.



Atheist - No knowledge or understanding of God at all. (Therefore belief is irrelevant to the atheist.)
Agnostic - Knowledge of the meaning of the word God. Knowledge of the concept of Belief in God. Belief that nothing is known or can be known about God's existence or nature.

Can't be any simpler than that!

Cheers :)
Click to expand...
LOL, are you posting drunk??
 
What are you talking about?

Any one with a sliver of knowledge about Christianity would understand their are differences in the way different Christians feel about their "Faith".

Orthodox Christians tend to be far more outwardly vocal about their beliefs than Roman Catholics or Protestants are. Doesn't mean that Roman Catholics / Protestants don't inwardly feel the same way.

Are you suggesting that Fedal's parents and families don't believe that Roger and Rafa are "special"?
 
GabeT said:
?
Click to expand...

No. Are you reading drunk? (I do realise it is difficult for some people to grasp simple concepts. I mean, we are in a pandemic. People are being told to stay home as much as possible. Yet we see many people still going about their daily business as if it is 2019.)
 
itrium84 said:
It's your personal definitions, they make sense to you. If you find it strange why people have trouble grasping your explanations - It's because of your personal definitions are pretty unusual.

Agnostic is the person claiming no knowledge on the matter.
Gnosis is old-greek for "knowledge".
"A" is old-greek prefix for negation.

Atheist can learn about concept (idea) of a god and still reject it. It's like being "Abigfootist" or "Aspidermanist" - it's simply not believing god, big foot or spiderman are real.

Almost all atheists are agnostic atheists.

This is all very simple, you just made it so much more complicated with your personal definitions.
Click to expand...
LOL, just came across this nonsense. Can't believe he is trolling based on made up definitions of words. TTW attracts all kinds of people!
 
GabeT said:
you joined in 2015 and waited until now to troll on some stupid definitions? LOL. Must be drunk or bored out of your mind.
Click to expand...

The "Drunk" does not know that he is "drunk" because he doesn't understand the concept of being "drunk". So the "Drunk" is actually "Adrunk".

If he did, he would also understand the consequences of being "drunk".

And then would probably choose not to become "drunk".
 
Karma Tennis said:
The "Drunk" does not know that he is "drunk" because he doesn't understand the concept of being "drunk". So the "Drunk" is actually "Adrunk".

If he did, he would also understand the consequences of being "drunk".

And then would probably choose not to become "drunk".
Click to expand...
LOL, go back to your PS4
 
Karma Tennis said:
I am talking about the original Ancient Greek words.

As I mentioned previously, the original words have had their meanings redefined in the process of being translated into English. The definitions you have provided are based on English translations which are technically inaccurate translations of the original Greek meanings.
Click to expand...
You're wrong on many levels. First and foremost, the original Greek word "átheos" (ἄθεος) means "without god" (from a-, "not" + theos, "god") and was already used to describe those who denied the gods as early as the 5th century BCE. It then carried that meaning into the Latin "atheos," the French "athée" and its derived terms "athéiste" and "athéisme" to finally the English words "atheist" and "atheism."

I could find no point in this word's history, from its modern use in English, to early use in English, to Latin, to ancient Greek where it meant what you are saying it means.

But setting that aside for a minute, even if it only got "redefined" when it was translated into English, that would have happened some 400+ years ago, and has had that meaning ever since. Why are you even typing this in English and complaining about some ancient meaning in a completely different language anyway (which wasn't even the case)?

Karma Tennis said:
That is why people are being confused.
Click to expand...
The only one confused is you. This word has a nearly universally agreed upon definition that you're trying to deny. What a strange hill to die on.
 
jm1980 said:
"without god"
Click to expand...

The original intent of the meaning of ἄθεος ("without God") applied to peoples who had no knowledge or understanding of "God" - not those who were aware of the concept but did not subscribe to it.

You and some of the other posters are resorting to "philosophical" arguments as to the validity of these terms.

The original understanding of "without God" means "NO God".

jm1980 said:
This word has a nearly universally agreed upon definition
Click to expand...

A "nearly universally agreed upon definition" ?

You actually mean a "nearly universally agreed upon RE-definition".

Cheers :)
 
jm1980 said:
But setting that aside for a minute, even if it only got "redefined" when it was translated into English, that would have happened some 400+ years ago, and has had that meaning ever since. Why are you even typing this in English and complaining about some ancient meaning in a completely different language (which doesn't even exist, anyway)?
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Would you be a little more sympathetic if I said that I believed Rod Laver is the GOAT?

Or should we constantly re-define the meaning of the term GOAT to suit or revisionist compulsions?

Many people appear to think that COVID-19 is nothing more than a "common cold" too.

YMMV.
 
Karma Tennis said:
Fair enough.

Would you be a little more sympathetic if I said that I believed Rod Laver is the GOAT?

Or should we constantly re-define the meaning of the term GOAT to suit or revisionist compulsions?

Many people appear to think that COVID-19 is nothing more than a "common cold" too.

YMMV.
Click to expand...
I could understand your objection (maybe even support it, because I am a bit of a prescriptivist) if the word has been redefined somewhat recently (like "literally" meaning "figuratively"). But this word has meant what it means now for at least 2400 years. It is a little late to fight this particular battle, isn't it?
 
jm1980 said:
You're wrong on many levels. First and foremost, the original Greek word "átheos" (ἄθεος) means "without god" (from a-, "not" + theos, "god") and was already used to describe those who denied the gods as early as the 5th century BCE. It then carried that meaning into the Latin "atheos," the French "athée" and its derived terms "athéiste" and "athéisme" to finally the English words "atheist" and "atheism."

I could find no point in this word's history, from its modern use in English, to early use in English, to Latin, to ancient Greek where it meant what you are saying it means.

But setting that aside for a minute, even if it only got "redefined" when it was translated into English, that would have happened some 400+ years ago, and has had that meaning ever since. Why are you even typing this in English and complaining about some ancient meaning in a completely different language anyway (which wasn't even the case)?


The only one confused is you. This word has a nearly universally agreed upon definition that you're trying to deny. What a strange hill to die on.
Click to expand...
Reminds me a bit of people in the US that claim that the country is a republic, not a democracy, based on a definition of democracy not in use now for hundreds of years.

Atheism and agnosticism have clear and accepted meanings in this day and age. You can look them up in any dictionary or, if you want to delve further, something like Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy which is available online. All agree on the definition.
 
GabeT said:
Atheism and agnosticism have clear and accepted meanings in this day and age. You can look them up in any dictionary or, if you want to delve further, something like Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy which is available online. All agree on the definition.
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Knock yourself out :)

jm1980 said:
It is a little late to fight this particular battle, isn't it?
Click to expand...

So you join me in accepting that Rodney George Laver is the GOAT in the sport of tennis. Great :)
 
Karma Tennis said:
en.wikipedia.org

Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Knock yourself out :)
Click to expand...
Implicit atheism is, at most, a small subcomponent of the overall concept of atheism.You claimed it was the whole of atheism.

Today atheism is defined as "Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)." (from the Stanford Encyclopedia).

if you want to argue that some philosophers also include within the concept of atheism those, like children, that are not even aware of the concept of God that's fine. But that's a special case (at best since not all would agree that is atheism-note that is explained in the link you provided- but let's accept it for purposes of this discussion) and does not cover the whole of the concept.
 
Karma Tennis said:
Do you accept every human being at birth is an "atheist"?

If you do, why do you accept that?
Click to expand...
I can accept that some not widely accepted definitions of the word atheist would include newborns. Personally I don't particularly care. I also recognize that atheism and agnosticism have widely accepted definitions, whose meaning is explained in all dictionaries.
 
If you are simply prepared to accept what is fed to you without questioning it then you obviously have no issue with Srdjan saying that his son Novak was sent to us by God in order to achieve the great things he is achieving - meaning you are certainly not an "atheist".

Fine by me :)
 
Karma Tennis said:
If you are simply prepared to accept what is fed to you without questioning it then you obviously have no issue with Srdjan saying that his son Novak was sent to us by God in order to achieve the great things he is achieving - meaning you are certainly not an "atheist".

Fine by me :)
Click to expand...
and yes, Novak has come to save us all! :-D
 
Karma Tennis said:
The original intent of the meaning of ἄθεος ("without God") applied to peoples who had no knowledge or understanding of "God" - not those who were aware of the concept but did not subscribe to it.

You and some of the other posters are resorting to "philosophical" arguments as to the validity of these terms.

The original understanding of "without God" means "NO God".
Click to expand...
The idea that this word was conceived with this intent is dubious at best. Ancient civilizations tended to be much more religious than today's. It doesn't seem likely that a whole word would have been created to describe a portion of the population that would be almost entirely infant children or the mentally invalid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

clayqueen
Srdjan Djokovic: "Tennis still needs Rafael Nadal"
2
Replies
61
Views
5K
cronus
cronus
J
  • Locked
Srdjan Djokovic: "Novak was sent from God, can win 10 more Slams".
2
Replies
63
Views
7K
toxicity
T
Razer
Thank you Alcaraz and Sinner for successfully calibrating the aberration from the normal in Tennis (ATP)
Replies
15
Views
685
Razer
Razer
jl809
Djokodal would have conquered the “weak era” even more than Fed did, and ended up with better stats than his by 2008
2 3
Replies
109
Views
6K
RS
RS
AO13
It's been a ride...
Replies
8
Views
953
Djokodalerer31
Djokodalerer31
Back
Top