• Hi and welcome to Betnod. Please register for even more tips, analysis and chat.

Bizarre end to tennis final

Three points:

1) I see no personal invective in the post you quoted. Saying "I'd be even more surprised if Steve could find evidence that she did say it, he's full of shit" would be personal invective. Simply doubting your word when even you yourself didn't appear to be sure ("I think Martina Navratilova made the point about about the trajectory of the ball...") isn't.
2) We've moved on since the post you quoted, I found the Navratilova quote myself, do try to keep up. Though it's a pretty big leap from what she actually said to your claim that one can "hear the trajectory of the ball and where it might bounce".
3) By a "balanced life", do you mean you have a chip on each shoulder?
 
rcgills said:
Three points:

1) I see no personal invective in the post you quoted. Saying "I'd be even more surprised if Steve could find evidence that she did say it, he's full of shit" would be personal invective. Simply doubting your word when even you yourself didn't appear to be sure ("I think Martina Navratilova made the point about about the trajectory of the ball...") isn't.
2) We've moved on since the post you quoted, I found the Navratilova quote myself, do try to keep up. Though it's a pretty big leap from what she actually said to your claim that one can "hear the trajectory of the ball and where it might bounce".
3) By a "balanced life", do you mean you have a chip on each shoulder?
Click to expand...
Of course there was implied personal invective,which I myself admittedly have resorted to from time to time when it transpired it was injurious to my own purposes..why quote all that meaningless stuff you found on google if it wasn't meant to humiliate..you've moved on..I'm so glad to hear it,now just admit for once you got it wrong,and apologize like a man..
 
I'll repeat, being sceptical of something you said and admitted you were unsure of is not in any way personal invective, implied or otherwise.

That "meaningless stuff" was far more relevant to the question of the trajectory of the ball than anything in Navratilova's quote. If you consider someone trying to disprove your point to be attempting to "humiliate" you, which I find hard to believe given the number of people arguing with you constantly on your threads in here (is me pointing out that people disagree with you "implied personal invective" too?), then that's up to you.

You implied that Navratilova said you could hear the trajectory of a ball and where it might bounce from the noise it makes on hitting the racket. What she actually said was that you can sometimes hear a bad shot before you can see it. Is she complaining about players grunting? Yes. Does it distract her? Yes. Did she say you can hear the trajectory of a ball and where it might bounce? No. Are you going to get an apology for that? Well seeing as you're so good at reading my mind and knowing my exact intentions, perhaps you'd like to try a quick scan of my mind now, see whether you can find it.
 
rcgills said:
I'd be even more surprised if Steve could find evidence that she did say it.

Just put "Navratilova hear trajectory ball" into Google, came up with this article from two weeks ago.

http://www.carbonated.tv/lifestyle/hitting-the-court-with-an-ear-on-the-ball

Note in particular this paragraph near the end:



Maybe they could save the engineering class the trouble, and just ask Martina Navratilova how to hear a normal tennis ball as it moves.
Click to expand...
Let's leave the readers with the final judgement and forget Ms. Vallabh..now instead of balancing two chips on my shoulder I really should avail myself of a few for lunch..
 
rcgills said:
Well seeing as you're so good at reading my mind and knowing my exact intentions, perhaps you'd like to try a quick scan of my mind now, see whether you can find it.
Click to expand...


:lol

I bet that sounded really good in your head RC.

In print? Not so much (as Borat might say)
 
Damn you ODM, damn you and your implied personal invective :rant
 
As the first week of Wimbledon neared completion with its conflicting legacies of Royal Box,fruit desserts and punkah-wallahs holding aloft stripey umbrellas it took a scoreline of 9-7 in the final set for the tournament to come alive,a result testament to the physical prowess of both Serena Williams and Chinawoman Zheng Jie,yet I could not help but notice when the wind unseasonally gusted up as Serena bent over the now ubiquitous competitor's chair her fluttering white chemisier garb.

One's mind turns all the more readily back to the Gorgeous Gussie controversy of the late 1940s which rekindled many a man's interest in women's tennis,apparel which whilst scandalous to some in its day was nevertheless indicative of a time when women were women,an innocent titillation in gentler times which paved the way for the Williams' pink leggings,trench coats and romper suits of later years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top