|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 11:32:51 GMT -5
The top 3 seeds lose in the opening round in mixed doubles.
Paes/Kirilenko def Bryan/Shaughnessy [3] 6-3, 1-6, 6-2.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 11:34:56 GMT -5
Oh, that's what it's all about? Winning the debate? Very weak, King L. Nothing will ever convince you of anything anyway, so if that is the whole purpose of this exercise, I might just stop right here. But let me quote two posts from yesterday: Sjengster2 wrote: "Has anyone noticed how GoDom and Hurley are similar? Just a few whiles ago, GoDom was critiquing Hurley for his ARROGANCE and SUPERIORITY. And now GoDom goes about in the same vein asserting just how right he always is. He truly is like Venus calling Serena black." Otto wrote: "Well I guess then it's now your turn. " You, my friend, are the epitome of self-righteousness, pomposity and high-horseness. Congrats!
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 11:35:33 GMT -5
Fit Dave now down two sets. He's clearly in the mood for a marathon, wanting to demonstrate to us why he's Fit Dave and not Fat Dave. 5 hours later, he shall be the victor. Yikes, BP/MP for RRH!
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 3, 2006 11:38:38 GMT -5
He's clearly in the mood for a marathon, wanting to demonstrate to us why he's Fit Dave and not Fat Dave. 5 hours later, he shall be the victor. Yikes, BP/MP for RRH! Fit Dave had to finish this match quickly so that he can run a true marathon!
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 11:38:55 GMT -5
RRH wins. Random results this year!
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 11:39:23 GMT -5
And when I buy a lottery ticket for $1 where one person wins one million and the other one million participants get nada, then it is FAIR to all parties, even though the results are as UNEVEN as they get. You can't judge fairness by looking at the results, you need to look at the preconditions. Obviously.
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 3, 2006 11:40:30 GMT -5
You, my friend, are the epitome of self-righteousness, pomposity and high-horseness. Congrats! And that's why we like him ;D
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 11:42:29 GMT -5
Is RRH the guy who almost beat Henman in Wimby?
|
|
|
Post by molala on Jun 3, 2006 11:43:12 GMT -5
Is Paulo now toast? I've only seen some pics but Dave still looks fat to me.
|
|
|
Post by janie on Jun 3, 2006 11:44:42 GMT -5
Hingis is really looking formidable, eh? She'll wax Peer. I'm not so sure. Peer won Istanbul and swatted aside Dementieva without too much trouble. I *hope* Martina waxes Peer, but I'm not as confident as you. Of course not! You can't be objective about Martina; it's called True Love. ** post edited for superior accuracy **
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 11:45:26 GMT -5
I suppose I got a littly huffy there. Sorry, Hurley.
|
|
|
Post by Brinyi on Jun 3, 2006 11:48:06 GMT -5
If Monaco holds onto his lead, one semifinalist will come from Monaco, Ramirez Hidalgo, Benneteau and Martin.
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 11:49:17 GMT -5
I'm not so sure. Peer won Istanbul and swatted aside Dementieva without too much trouble. I *hope* Martina waxes Peer, but I'm not as confident as you. Of course not! You can't be objective about Martina; it's called True Love. ** post edited for superior accuracy ** :hug:
|
|
|
Post by Traveling Man on Jun 3, 2006 11:52:24 GMT -5
If Monaco holds onto his lead, one semifinalist will come from Monaco, Ramirez Hidalgo, Benneteau and Martin. Benneteau, s'il vous plait! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 12:20:16 GMT -5
Oh, that's what it's all about? Winning the debate? Very weak, King L. Nothing will ever convince you of anything anyway, so if that is the whole purpose of this exercise, I might just stop right here. But let me quote two posts from yesterday: Sjengster2 wrote: "Has anyone noticed how GoDom and Hurley are similar? Just a few whiles ago, GoDom was critiquing Hurley for his ARROGANCE and SUPERIORITY. And now GoDom goes about in the same vein asserting just how right he always is. He truly is like Venus calling Serena black." Otto wrote: "Well I guess then it's now your turn. " You, my friend, are the epitome of self-righteousness, pomposity and high-horseness. Congrats! Yeah? You spazzed out for no reason, writing a post ALL IN CAPS, because you were wrong and can NEVER EVER EVER EVER handle it. You had no response except to beg off and backtrack and wanted to derail our discussion into a semantic argument immaterial to it which you were ALSO WRONG ABOUT. I think I've been really polite given the circumstance. I've given you several opportunities for a climbdown, you chose escalation. You're the one who goes around claiming to "rarely be wrong". Well, live up to that or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 12:22:52 GMT -5
And when I buy a lottery ticket for $1 where one person wins one million and the other one million participants get nada, then it is FAIR to all parties, even though the results are as UNEVEN as they get. You can't judge fairness by looking at the results, you need to look at the preconditions. Obviously. lol, that is A. a different example than the one you gave before in your spazzout post which actually related to the subject at hand and I was not in the wrong for using 'fair' to describe and B. a different example using a different definition of the word than that which I was deploying. Try again.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 12:23:44 GMT -5
I suppose I got a littly huffy there. Sorry, Hurley. Hurley, huh ... A little huffy? Looked that up while you were at it, did ya?
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 12:33:00 GMT -5
You're the one who goes around claiming to "rarely be wrong". Well, live up to that or shut up. I will shut up because it's useless to "discuss" with someone who can't get the difference between a fair draw and an even draw. And your other lengthy post was totally off the mark because it totally ignored THIS basic difference. You still have not realised that we were talking about two different matters the whole time. YOU kept mixing them up and started moving from one to the other. But yeah, keep jerking off to your self-proclaimed smartness.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 12:38:47 GMT -5
You're the one who goes around claiming to "rarely be wrong". Well, live up to that or shut up. I will shut up because it's useless to "discuss" with someone who can't get the difference between a fair draw and an even draw. And your other lengthy post was totally off the mark because it totally ignored THIS basic difference. You still have not realised that we were talking about two different matters the whole time. YOU kept mixing them up and started moving from one to the other. But yeah, keep jerking off to your self-proclaimed smartness. What two different matters have we been talking about? Your semantic argument is incorrect and irrelevant if it was correct. There can be differences between "fair" and "even", obviously. They can also be pretty equivalent terms, as I showed to you. But again, it wouldn't matter if you were correct about that to the actual discussion since I was using them interchangably. I self-proclaimed nothing. You did.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 12:45:37 GMT -5
But again, it wouldn't matter if you were correct about that to the actual discussion since I was using them interchangably. I wasn't, since the beginning of this whole topic in the other thread, and I would never consider doing it, because it doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by Grarliner on Jun 3, 2006 12:52:38 GMT -5
But again, it wouldn't matter if you were correct about that to the actual discussion since I was using them interchangably. I wasn't, since the beginning of this whole topic in the other thread, and I would never consider doing it, because it doesn't make any sense. It does, as I showed you, and we were discussing the same thing. I set the parameters of what we were discussing in my 'long post'. Any response to that is a tacit signoff on to the terms, isn't it? Trying to derail this was not a good tactic. You might best prove what you said you could. It evens out.
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 3, 2006 12:54:17 GMT -5
Where's the love? There's not enough! To make the world go round and round and...
We all miss Hanson.
|
|
|
Post by GoDom on Jun 3, 2006 12:55:28 GMT -5
This is a blind reply, announcing that I will move on to Day 8. I wonder what it will bring for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 3, 2006 13:59:09 GMT -5
If Monaco holds onto his lead, one semifinalist will come from Monaco, Ramirez Hidalgo, Benneteau and Martin. You know, one semifinalist coming from Ramirez Hidalgo, Benneteau, Martin, and Ljubicic isn't much better.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 3, 2006 14:02:27 GMT -5
I have to say, though, today's men's results...this is how I remember Roland Garros back in the day, when no one good made the second week. The first five days held too much to form, it was weird.
|
|
|
Post by Calico on Jun 3, 2006 14:15:01 GMT -5
I'm happy for Hingis and sad for Kirilenko today. Martina is playing well but Maria blew her chance to make the second week of the 2006 French Open. And Dementieva's straight set loss to Peer was appalling because she had 4-1 leads in both sets.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 3, 2006 14:17:43 GMT -5
Peer back on serve This match is OVA!
|
|
|
Post by The Chloe on Jun 3, 2006 14:18:56 GMT -5
I like cake.
|
|
|
Post by DBBN on Jun 3, 2006 14:19:02 GMT -5
I'm happy for Hingis and sad for Kirilenko today. Martina is playing well but Maria blew her chance to make the second week of the 2006 French Open. And Dementieva's straight set loss to Peer was appalling because she had 4-1 leads in both sets. The cat. I regret to inform you that A) Kirilenko will never amount to anything and B) a Peer loss to Dementieva would have been far more appalling given that Peer has won ~18 straight matches.* I title this post "Les regrets de Hurley." *Edit: with a loss to Zvonareva somewhere in the middle
|
|
|
Post by Pamela Shriver on Jun 3, 2006 14:28:42 GMT -5
Watching the first few games of the match right now, Hingis is playing scary good. If she can keep up her form, I think she's the pick over Kim in the QF.
|
|