LOL @ Kim!

[Wagasi]

bagelresurrection said:

Kim just announced she'll give a kidney for each of her fans.

It'll go great with the champagne

[Grarliner]

hurley said:

grarline said:

You like to get owned, don't you. This is you from the archived Tokyo main draw thread.

"As it should be, idiot. I have other things to think about than everything everyone posts on this board. It's nice, you should try it."

Now ... based upon those comments, one might think you were accusing me of taking this message board and therefore this discussion "too seriously". Idiot.

For the umpteenth time, you got angry about how people were accusing you of taking the Kim/Justine thing too seriously. That was in reference to a completely different idea which I am discussing -- clearly without you, since you have no bloody idea what I've been saying for days now -- where you decided I have "nothing" because I didn't respond. It actually means that you waiting for me to respond to every discussion on the board is futile because I just can't or don't want to. I've explained this to you a lot and I just don't think your life is firing.

First of all, my life is firing on all eight cylinders since I began my daily V8 injections.

I believe (and I gotta cast myself back here) I got "angry" because you were being dismissive and irritating. I don't care if people think I'm "taking things too seriously" (like you. Did you read that quote? , because I'm really not. I don't particularly care, but I thought you were being a cunt (which you were). Hence this dispute.

Now ... I have understood, and continue to understand, everything you are saying. It's really not the greatest riddle I've come across (that would be the failure of Monique Viele). YOU, on the other hand, have missed my meaning at least twice. I could go back and explain it, but that would give me one of those "arguing-with-Rebecca" headaches. Don't do it to me.

[Grarliner]

shenaynay said:

grarline said:

I don't believe I am. Hurley occasionally likes to be a supercilious asshole, he just needs to be reminded sometimes who he can do it to and who he can't.

Don't read too much into Andy's comments when he makes a new online friend!

Or in any other situation.

[Pamela Shriver]

Ouch! How hurtful!

[Grarliner]

andrew said:

Ouch! How hurtful!

Oh, don't take this so seriously!

[:rolleyes:]

grarline said:

hurley said:

You and Chole were talking about the Justine/Kim comparison, which you have even admitted I had "nothing." So, since I never discussed it, I cannot take it seriously. You are wrong, you are an idiot. 1.

I told you what I did take seriously. It's right there in the post you quoted. You are wrong, you are an idiot. 2.

Man, it used to be hard to make you look stupid. Well...not hard. But less easy.

That was a well-formatted post, oh brilliant one.

How have you made me look stupid? Has it been by a. refuting my arguments? No, as you have admitted. Has it then been by b. railing on and on about how I'm "wrong" and "stupid"? Goebbels said if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes the truth, but you're not quite that good. You haven't even managed to c. have a fucking clue as to my point as you have now proven in this thread and in the Justine thread. Dismal job, Breakneck. Dismal job.

you mentioned Justine's "professional dishonesty" and then failed to explain what "professional dishonesty" she has committed.

[Grarliner]

ballbuster said:

grarline said:

That was a well-formatted post, oh brilliant one.

How have you made me look stupid? Has it been by a. refuting my arguments? No, as you have admitted. Has it then been by b. railing on and on about how I'm "wrong" and "stupid"? Goebbels said if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes the truth, but you're not quite that good. You haven't even managed to c. have a fucking clue as to my point as you have now proven in this thread and in the Justine thread. Dismal job, Breakneck. Dismal job.

you mentioned Justine's "professional dishonesty" and then failed to explain what "professional dishonesty" she has committed.

Yes, I'm sure nobody has any idea as to what I could possibly be referring to. My, mind like a steel trap on you.

[:rolleyes:]

grarline said:

ballbuster said:

you mentioned Justine's "professional dishonesty" and then failed to explain what "professional dishonesty" she has committed.

Yes, I'm sure nobody has any idea as to what I could possibly be referring to. My, mind like a steel trap on you.

well you mentioned RG 03 and then didn't explain your reasonign behind it. Keep in mind I'm ready to refute whatever illogical arguments you come up with.

[The Chloe]

grarline said:

hurley said:

...
"arguing-with-Rebecca" headaches. Don't do it to me.

Buaha!

[Grarliner]

ballbuster said:

grarline said:

Yes, I'm sure nobody has any idea as to what I could possibly be referring to. My, mind like a steel trap on you.

well you mentioned RG 03 and then didn't explain your reasonign behind it. Keep in mind I'm ready to refute whatever illogical arguments you come up with.

If I mentioned RG 03, it seems as if I did mention the "professional dishonesty" she is guilty of. Stop lying.

[Grarliner]

admin said:

grarline said:

hurley said:

...
"arguing-with-Rebecca" headaches. Don't do it to me.

Buaha!

[:rolleyes:]

grarline said:

ballbuster said:

well you mentioned RG 03 and then didn't explain your reasonign behind it. Keep in mind I'm ready to refute whatever illogical arguments you come up with.

If I mentioned RG 03, it seems as if I did mention the "professional dishonesty" she is guilty of. Stop lying.

you didn't even attempt to explain why the RG 03 incident was an example of professional dishonesty

care to do so now?

[Grarliner]

ballbuster said:

grarline said:

If I mentioned RG 03, it seems as if I did mention the "professional dishonesty" she is guilty of. Stop lying.

you didn't even attempt to explain why the RG 03 incident was an example of professional dishonesty

care to do so now?

It's kinda like explaining why 2+2=4. Which is to say, unnecessary.

[:rolleyes:]

grarline said:

ballbuster said:

you didn't even attempt to explain why the RG 03 incident was an example of professional dishonesty

care to do so now?

It's kinda like explaining why 2+2=4. Which is to say, unnecessary.

riiiiiiiiighhhhhhhhht? let's see. Did justine ever claim that she didn't have her hand up? No. Did she break any rules? No. So there goes the lying and cheating part.

Serena didn't see Justine's hand until after she made contact with the ball (despite what idiots like Knizzle will tell you. watch the tape and you should know it from playing tennis anyways; a right hander serving on the deuce side isn't going to see that until after you make contact) , so she didn't influence the serve. And since she didn't influence the serve, there's no reason to give Serena a first serve.

Now, at least the Williams fans have the excuse of the thick cloud of racism that lies between their brain and their senses severely altering their perception.

Now what's your excuse? Not only have you shown that you are illogical, you have also shown that you stubborn and close-minded.

[DBBN]

This thread continued after I stopped reading it? Good heavens, why? Obviously no one else was going to post anything of note!

[Grarliner]

ballbuster said:

grarline said:

It's kinda like explaining why 2+2=4. Which is to say, unnecessary.

riiiiiiiiighhhhhhhhht? let's see. Did justine ever claim that she didn't have her hand up? No. Did she break any rules? No. So there goes the lying and cheating part.

Serena didn't see Justine's hand until after she made contact with the ball (despite what idiots like Knizzle will tell you. watch the tape and you should know it from playing tennis anyways; a right hander serving on the deuce side isn't going to see that until after you make contact) , so she didn't influence the serve. And since she didn't influence the serve, there's no reason to give Serena a first serve.

Now, at least the Williams fans have the excuse of the thick cloud of racism that lies between their brain and their senses severely altering their perception.

Now what's your excuse? Not only have you shown that you are illogical, you have also shown that you stubborn and close-minded.

Actually, I always said that at the time. Why did Serena hit the ball if she saw Justine's hand? Was she trying to catch her unawares? How CHEAP! If she saw it only afterwards, it does not, as you said, matter.

However, there's a chance Serena did see her hand before she hit the ball and was already committed to the stroke and missed because she intended to (because Justine asked for time). We can speculate as to whether that happened, but can we rule it out? I don't think so. That's the party line, we must accept its role as such.

Anyway, Justine denied having her hand up when the chair umpire inquired. That was untruthful. Dishonest. In the realm of her profession.

Now, when did I accuse her of cheating and lying? I said "professional dishonesty," a very apt term if I do say so myself. That was a very poor attempt to erect a straw man. Too blatant.

[:rolleyes:]

grarline said:

ballbuster said:

riiiiiiiiighhhhhhhhht? let's see. Did justine ever claim that she didn't have her hand up? No. Did she break any rules? No. So there goes the lying and cheating part.

Serena didn't see Justine's hand until after she made contact with the ball (despite what idiots like Knizzle will tell you. watch the tape and you should know it from playing tennis anyways; a right hander serving on the deuce side isn't going to see that until after you make contact) , so she didn't influence the serve. And since she didn't influence the serve, there's no reason to give Serena a first serve.

Now, at least the Williams fans have the excuse of the thick cloud of racism that lies between their brain and their senses severely altering their perception.

Now what's your excuse? Not only have you shown that you are illogical, you have also shown that you stubborn and close-minded.

Actually, I always said that at the time. Why did Serena hit the ball if she saw Justine's hand? Was she trying to catch her unawares? How CHEAP! If she saw it only afterwards, it does not, as you said, matter.

However, there's a chance Serena did see her hand before she hit the ball and was already committed to the stroke and missed because she intended to (because Justine asked for time). We can speculate as to whether that happened, but can we rule it out? I don't think so. That's the party line, we must accept its role as such.

Anyway, Justine denied having her hand up when the chair umpire inquired. That was untruthful. Dishonest. In the realm of her profession.

Now, when did I accuse her of cheating and lying? I said "professional dishonesty," a very apt term if I do say so myself. That was a very poor attempt to erect a straw man. Too blatant.

You are one stupid fat fuck. First, the umpire didn't inquire anything, and even if he did it would be against the rules. Second, Justine didn't deny having her hand up.

Third, have you ever played tennis? A right hander isn't going to see that serving from the Deuce side. The chances that Serena did see and altered her swing because of it are so astronomically low that if you're going to bring that into account I might as well bring up the possibility that a ghost flew in and held justine's arm up.

Just admit your some bitter Lindsay fan who's turned to hate Justine cause you are jealous of her success.

[Grarliner]

ballbuster said:

grarline said:

Actually, I always said that at the time. Why did Serena hit the ball if she saw Justine's hand? Was she trying to catch her unawares? How CHEAP! If she saw it only afterwards, it does not, as you said, matter.

However, there's a chance Serena did see her hand before she hit the ball and was already committed to the stroke and missed because she intended to (because Justine asked for time). We can speculate as to whether that happened, but can we rule it out? I don't think so. That's the party line, we must accept its role as such.

Anyway, Justine denied having her hand up when the chair umpire inquired. That was untruthful. Dishonest. In the realm of her profession.

Now, when did I accuse her of cheating and lying? I said "professional dishonesty," a very apt term if I do say so myself. That was a very poor attempt to erect a straw man. Too blatant.

You are one stupid fat fuck. First, the umpire didn't inquire anything, and even if he did it would be against the rules. Second, Justine didn't deny having her hand up.

Third, have you ever played tennis? A right hander isn't going to see that serving from the Deuce side. The chances that Serena did see and altered her swing because of it are so astronomically low that if you're going to bring that into account I might as well bring up the possibility that a ghost flew in and held justine's arm up.

Just admit your some bitter Lindsay fan who's turned to hate Justine cause you are jealous of her success.

I don't have strong feelings about Justine. Fun player to watch when she's playing well though.

Yes, I've played tennis. Yes, I think it is possible. Yes, I think it is also possible Serena's motivations were less-than-pure.

The umpire turned to Justine for confirmation or denial when Serena complained. Justine shook her head. She lied. She did have her hand up. PROFESSIONAL DISHONESTY.

Not "lying" and "cheating" as you would graft on to my argument though ...

[shenaynay]

Just to add my worthless tennis opinion:

Serena definitely could have seen Justine raise her hand during her motion... but, only in enough time to where she could have caught her toss, or let it drop to the ground. There's no way she could have seen it just before striking the ball. And if her serve was interrupted by Justine, it surely did not look like it.

[Maeby Fünke]

My even more worthless opinion is she obviously did see Justines hand, otherwise she wouldn't have asked. But the umpire didn't ask and Justine didn't have to say anything. Maybe if she was feeling very spurting and generous she might have, just like Steffi might have said something in the 99 final, or Jennifat might have said something at the USO, or Venus might have said something in last years Wimbly final...but they didn't, because they're professional tennis players, and these sort of things happen all the time. It was a fairly minor incident, really.

[Grarliner]

shenaynay said:

Just to add my worthless tennis opinion:

Serena definitely could have seen Justine raise her hand during her motion... but, only in enough time to where she could have caught her toss, or let it drop to the ground. There's no way she could have seen it just before striking the ball. And if her serve was interrupted by Justine, it surely did not look like it.

I agree, Serena would have had other options if she saw her hand during her motion. I think, knowing what I do about Serena's friendliness, she probably did see her hand and aimed to catch Justine off guard. But that's just speculation.

As for relating this to Steffi or Jenfat, they didn't make those line calls and we don't know whether they saw them otherwise. We do know Justine had her hand up. It is not a player's obligation to play line judge (at least, not at that level), but she is responsible for her own actions like calling for time.

[Brinyi]

Sorry, I didn't know where else to post this.

Clijsters gets engaged

Kim Clijsters has announced that she is now engaged to her boyfriend Brian Lynch, a professional basketball player. The news was broken over the US Open champion's internet site, but as yet the couple have not set a date for the ceremony.

"Brian and I are engaged! We don't have a specific date for the marriage yet, but we'll think about it later this year. But most likely this should be somewhere next year."

The former world number one hit the headlines back in October 2004 when she split with long-time boyfriend Lleyton Hewitt. The pair had been an item on the main tennis tours for years and were in fact engaged at the time of the separation.

"After my relationship with Lleyton, I was not really interested in men," said Kim. "I didn't look for a new companion, I just wanted to rest at home and pass the time with my family and dogs."

Through all this she met the new love of her life, Brian, and immediately felt comfortable.

"All was easy," she said of their meeting. "I felt at ease as of the first day."

For his part, Brian admitted that he didn't really know who Kim was when they first met.

"I knew the name but did not connect it to tennis."

Through much of their time together, Kim has struggled with a raft of injuries, that have hampered her progress, not least a wrist problem that threatened to cut her career short before she could claim that elusive first slam last summer.

"I have the feeling that the sabbatical she took due to the wrist is the best thing that could have happened," said Brian.

[DevilishAttitude]

Kim also plays with arthritis now



And to her engagement it pisses me off how everyone sees her has the one who was jilted by that evil homophobe and racist in Hewitt when it was HER who dumped Lleyton.

But Kimmie is such a sweet girl

Then again, I prefer her to Justine.

[janie]

' "I have the feeling that the sabbatical she took due to the wrist is the best thing that could have happened," said Brian.'

Lots of us enjoyed that sabbatical, too, Brian! But was it really long enough? How about encouraging your sweetie to take a relaxing, PERMANENT break starting today?

[shenaynay]

Wasn't she with this guy like instantly after ditching Lleyton?

[Pamela Shriver]

Whore!

[DBBN]

andrew said:

Whore!

Damn, I was JUST going to post "Ho!"

[Maeby Fünke]

But Lleyton already got some other chick pregnant.

[Brinyi]

Not to mention running around in his underwear with Aussie footballers. ;D

[Wagasi]

What's up with these belgiums and marrying effete closet cases at waaaay too young an age? that and their horrid horrid musical tastes