Innocent or Guilty?

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:The "strange" logic is at it again. Toni is an interested party, Noah is not. So a "fair minded observer" would not give them the same weight.

Technically you have a point but on balance I am more with LF here. LF's choice of Toni may not have been ideal but clearly her point was not built around Toni and she could have easily picked someone else to support her point. If you disagree with her point, I'd rather see an argument against the substance of what she is saying. Otherwise this is bound to deteriorate into looking for minor errors in each other's arguments while leaving substance untouched.

I can pick someone else and still have a valid argument. RFET officially made statements, which should have been given more weight, but we are now discussing Toni vs Noah.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:The "strange" logic is at it again. Toni is an interested party, Noah is not. So a "fair minded observer" would not give them the same weight.

Technically you have a point but on balance I am more with LF here. LF's choice of Toni may not have been ideal but clearly her point was not built around Toni and she could have easily picked someone else to support her point.

What is her point? I don;t understand! Who said I value Noah or else's views on this subject? She keeps moving goal posts and change subject at every end of sentence. You experienced that yourself when you argued with her the rigged draw stats.

From my side, it's very simple. It's 100s of clues and evidence that makes me think the way I do. Some more important than others. And they are enough for me. Sure I could be tempted to believe what I want to believe but as I did not know Nadal more than Fed or Stepanek so I don;t see why I wanted to believe he was more dopped than the others.

It's like Lance's case. You might say innocent until proven guilty but for me that's not interesting. I am more interested to know how he can finally get nailed. And despite all the evidence and witnesses....he might still get away.

With Nadal my take is 99.9% with Lance it's 99.99999%. That's the difference. There is still a chance both might be clean but it's not even worth speculating.

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:The "strange" logic is at it again. Toni is an interested party, Noah is not. So a "fair minded observer" would not give them the same weight.

Technically you have a point but on balance I am more with LF here. LF's choice of Toni may not have been ideal but clearly her point was not built around Toni and she could have easily picked someone else to support her point.

What is her point? I don;t understand! Who said I value Noah or else's views on this subject? She keeps moving goal posts and change subject at every end of sentence. You experienced that yourself when you argued with her the rigged draw stats.

You made a reference to the French forum find as 'interesting' find, including the 'Scott Wiliams' story. Why are you arguing about the 'interested' parties.

Tenez wrote:[From my side, it's very simple. It's 100s of clues and evidence that makes me think the way I do. Some more important than others. And they are enough for me. Sure I could be tempted to believe what I want to believe but as I did not know Nadal more than Fed or Stepanek so I don;t see why I wanted to believe he was more dopped than the others.

You have been posting about Nadal on every forum you have been to, including his anti-Tennis. Do you know him more? I have seen you dig up more internet links then anyone else.

Tenez wrote:It's like Lance's case. You might say innocent until proven guilty but for me that's not interesting. I am more interested to know how he can finally get nailed. And despite all the evidence and witnesses....he might still get away.

With Nadal my take is 99.9% with Lance it's 99.99999%. That's the difference. There is still a chance both might be clean but it's not even worth speculating.

Balco and Lance's team (including Landis) have implicated him. Has anyone else in the Spanish Tennis 'team' implicated Nadal?

Again a question of what you want to believe.

laverfan wrote:You made a reference to the French forum find as 'interesting' find, including the 'Scott Wiliams' story. Why are you arguing about the 'interested' parties.

I said interesting but then I added a post later after having read the article that I doubted the source. A proof actually that I don't believe what I want to believe.

You have been posting about Nadal on every forum you have been to, including his anti-Tennis. Do you know him more? I have seen you dig up more internet links then anyone else.

Even more than you? I doubt it. His game is about sending a ball that has enough energy to blunt his opponent's talent. It's not rocket science is it? I never said it was wrong to do so. I just question where that energy comes from!

Balco and Lance's team (including Landis) have implicated him. Has anyone else in the Spanish Tennis 'team' implicated Nadal?

What's so funny??? Anyway, there are 100 clues as I said! But the main one is watching him play AO09 or AO12 for instance. It's teh equivalent of watching Lance climbing the Alps on his motorcyle.

Tenez wrote: Anyway, there are 100 clues as I said! But the main one is watching him play AO09 or AO12 for instance.

AO 2009 - Nadal v Verdasco 5 set SF, Federer v Roddick 3 sets. Federer v Nadal and Federer went walkabout in the fifth set. Very much like USO 2009.

AO 2012 - Nadal v Federer 4 sets. Djokovic v Murray 5 sets. Djokovic v Nadal 5 sets.

By your observations, I should suspect Djokovic 2012 as much as Nadal 2009. Correct? Why do I not?

Tenez wrote:It's teh equivalent of watching Lance climbing the Alps on his motorcyle.

No it is not. You keep forgetting Landis and others sacrificed themselves for Lance by chasing Lances' opponents.

laverfan wrote:

You are confusing social issues with world peace, which is what I had as context. I have used 'global' vs 'local' in such a context. If we are going to take the concept of 'peace' and apply it across social fabric all the way to the inner lack of it inside a self-contained human, we have a very large body of work and a debate which may take many lifetimes.

You are trying to put social issues and world peace as separate things when the fact is they aren't. You talk about "world peace" which is nothing but an abstract word which doesn't mean anything in reality if it can't translate itself into social world. The world can't be at peace if the society isn't and the society isn't when the people aren't. World peace in Mayan and Aztec huh? If it was possible you should have asked some of the victims of above crimes during the Mayan and Aztec civilizations how peaceful the world was. Anyway this is getting too diverted from what was the initial discussion.

Tenez wrote:
What is her point? I don;t understand! Who said I value Noah or else's views on this subject? She keeps moving goal posts and change subject at every end of sentence. You experienced that yourself when you argued with her the rigged draw stats.

Have you not known LF to know what's her point? She raised a topic here but *never* clearly mentioned what's her own take on the subject. The moment you post something, she will post to counter it, in a mild enough way not to completely disagree with you and all this while diverting it to something totally different and irrelevant, all the time never clearly making what side she is on. She always wants to be politically correct and balanced.

laverfan wrote:
By your observations, I should suspect Djokovic 2012 as much as Nadal 2009. Correct? Why do I not?

Dear Lady, who is stopping you from suspecting Djokovic 2012? This is the 3rd time in this very topic itself I'm saying this. Suspect anyone and everyone if you want. Bolt, Djokovic, Lance armstrong, Carl lewis, Asafa, Federer, Pete anyone is fine. If you do not, its your wish. Should Tenez or nitb or anyone oblige you for that favor by not suspecting Nadal? Tenez suspects Nadal in AO 2009 and 2012 and you don't think that, make your point clear and ask him the reasons. Don't say that if you don't suspect Djo of 2012, he too should not suspect Nadal of 2009, 2012. No one here is immature like a lot of Nadal fans who'll toss you points without any reasons calling them trash. I won't call your reasons trash unless I reason out every single one of them. But I know you won't because selecting a side is just not you, right? You want to be "BALANCED".

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:

You are confusing social issues with world peace, which is what I had as context. I have used 'global' vs 'local' in such a context. If we are going to take the concept of 'peace' and apply it across social fabric all the way to the inner lack of it inside a self-contained human, we have a very large body of work and a debate which may take many lifetimes.

You are trying to put social issues and world peace as separate things when the fact is they aren't. You talk about "world peace" which is nothing but an abstract word which doesn't mean anything in reality if it can't translate itself into social world. The world can't be at peace if the society isn't and the society isn't when the people aren't. World peace in Mayan and Aztec huh? If it was possible you should have asked some of the victims of above crimes during the Mayan and Aztec civilizations how peaceful the world was. Anyway this is getting too diverted from what was the initial discussion.

Social structures can solve problems locally very well. They cannot address external aggression, because it is external by definition.
For example, Hammurabi's code addressed it locally for it's context in time.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:
What is her point? I don;t understand! Who said I value Noah or else's views on this subject? She keeps moving goal posts and change subject at every end of sentence. You experienced that yourself when you argued with her the rigged draw stats.

Have you not known LF to know what's her point? She raised a topic here but *never* clearly mentioned what's her own take on the subject. The moment you post something, she will post to counter it, in a mild enough way not to completely disagree with you and all this while diverting it to something totally different and irrelevant, all the time never clearly making what side she is on. She always wants to be politically correct and balanced.

I have clearly stated, and in no uncertain terms, Innocent unless publicly proven Guilty. I consider Internet fora an unreliable source of information and do not trust any such information. Also, see my comments to SummerBlues.

I consider Internet fora an unreliable source of information and do not trust any such information. Also, see my comments to SummerBlues.

That's fair enough but do you trust the mainstream media? Cause you have even less trustable information there....certainly on the most important topics.

When is the jury going to bring the verdict?

Tenez wrote:That's fair enough but do you trust the mainstream media?

The reason such media is mainstream, in the first place, is primarily because of overall trust it has garnered. Part of the reason for such trust is because the said trust was obtained, in some cases, prior to the Internet becoming a viable medium for information sharing.

Would I rather trust Facebook or BBC? Would I rather trust BBC or THASP? Would I trust Twitter? I will trust BBC without any question.

For Facebook and Twitter, i would trust parts, that of named official information providers, not some anonymous internet poster.

Another example, I trust Summerblues more than I trust you!. This is purely based on my interactions with SB, for last 2+ months, vs with you, spanning last several years.

Am I still willing to debate with you? Yes, I am.

Tenez wrote:Cause you have even less trustable information there....certainly on the most important topics.

Just because the media does not reflect your world view does not imply a lack of trust from the general public, does it?

noleisthebest wrote:When is the jury going to bring the verdict?

I do not think there is a verdict to be reached, but a discussion, that can continue. Raiders had suggested some topics wait for a lull in tennis, hence such aspects can wait. Would you prefer that a verdict was arrived at?

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:That's fair enough but do you trust the mainstream media?

The reason such media is mainstream, in the first place, is primarily because of overall trust it has garnered.

I am afraid that's very wrong. People started to read papers or listen to radio that were available...They had no choice at first. So those who broadcast were the one with means and money to do so. It was therefore from the very beginning a way to control those who had no means.

Would I rather trust Facebook or BBC? Would I rather trust BBC or THASP? Would I trust Twitter? I will trust BBC without any question.

You see I don;t read and watch any of the mainstream media nowadays cause I know they have a clear agenda. Their agenda is to make you think they are "neutral" and only describing what is out there when clearly very subtly they are completely biased. I read their agenda on almost every article they provide.

I do not trust teh internet more than the BBC. I make up my own mind on what I see and read. I make up my mind out of the tons of information available.

If I am told that Kaddafi for instance was going to massacre his own people and we need to intervene, I wanted to see facts before intervening. I do not trust those who said so or even took Kaddafi's words so seriously. I did not see any massacre of Kaddafi over his own people, I did not see any mass grave (though we were told there were), nor did I see images of massacres by Kaddafi troops. Yet we removed him and forced another regime change. Same thing is happening in Syria and never can you read or listen on the BBC anything negative coming from the rebels or anything positive coming from Bashar El-Assad. They have again a clear agenda.

Another example, I trust Summerblues more than I trust you!. This is purely based on my interactions with SB, for last 2+ months, vs with you, spanning last several years.

Feel free to trust whoever you want. I do not think you have any particular strong sense of discernement and observation. I don;t think many people have actually, otherwise this world would be a much better place and so would be our politicians. And yes I think you are a "trustable" person...but I find your knowledge and reasoning not very sound. Sorry for being so frank!

Tenez wrote:I am afraid that's very wrong. People started to read papers or listen to radio that were available...They had no choice at first. So those who broadcast were the one with means and money to do so. It was therefore from the very beginning a way to control those who had no means.

What happened when more than one newspaper was accessible, or more than one Radio station started broadcasting?

Tenez wrote:You see I don;t read and watch any of the mainstream media nowadays cause I know they have a clear agenda. Their agenda is to make you think they are "neutral" and only describing what is out there when clearly very subtly they are completely biased. I read their agenda on almost every article they provide.

Who brings you Federer or Nadal matches for your 'observations', Tenez? I did not realise there is an independent broadcaster, who provides you private feeds. Do you watch every Nadal or Federer match on the court? If you do, very nice that you have the means to do it.

Tenez wrote:I do not trust teh internet more than the BBC. I make up my own mind on what I see and read. I make up my mind out of the tons of information available.

Who provides you what you 'see' and 'read'?

Tenez wrote:If I am told that Kaddafi for instance was going to massacre his own people and we need to intervene, I wanted to see facts before intervening. I do not trust those who said so or even took Kaddafi's words so seriously. I did not see any massacre of Kaddafi over his own people, I did not see any mass grave (though we were told there were), nor did I see images of massacres by Kaddafi troops. Yet we removed him and forced another regime change. Same thing is happening in Syria and never can you read or listen on the BBC anything negative coming from the rebels or anything positive coming from Bashar El-Assad. They have again a clear agenda.

There are many sources of information. There is also a statistical and probabilistic model of what is considered reliable? Do you actually go into a bank vault to collect money for your pay cheque, whether self-employed or being an employee? If your bank sends you a statement of deposit, do you go into the bank to verify it? I know this is not published on BBC. Did you go to Syria or Libya to verify whatever you considered to be a reliable source of information?

Tenez wrote:

Another example, I trust Summerblues more than I trust you!. This is purely based on my interactions with SB, for last 2+ months, vs with you, spanning last several years.

Feel free to trust whoever you want. I do not think you have any particular strong sense of discernement and observation. I don;t think many people have actually, otherwise this world would be a much better place and so would be our politicians. And yes I think you are a "trustable" person...but I find your knowledge and reasoning not very sound. Sorry for being so frank!

I would suggest you read the Federer tribute article (https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t66-roger-federer-revisited), and then we can discuss my powers of discernement and observation. Your condescension towards posters who disagree with you is rather blatant. If you possess such strong sense of discernement and observation which others apparently do not, why would you waste your time on a forum. Why not work for greater good? Let me suggest a position for you and see if you would consider it. Work for WADA/ITF and help the world be a better place, rather than running an unreliable forum?

laverfan wrote:
What happened when more than one newspaper was accessible, or more than one Radio station started broadcasting?

You know what happens, don't you? they make you believe you have a choice when at the end of the day it's the same news. It's like Bush or Obama...at the end of the day same thing!

Who brings you Federer or Nadal matches for your 'observations', Tenez? I did not realise there is an independent broadcaster, who provides you private feeds. Do you watch every Nadal or Federer match on the court? If you do, very nice that you have the means to do it.

I tend to trust images, but already there I don;t systtematically trust a draw, an umpire, a tournament organiser and I don't even trust players.

Who provides you what you 'see' and 'read'?

Again, I don't trust one source, I question everything and try to establish the agenda of those providing information. By accepting that one is innocent until proven guilty you are blocking tons of information and more importantly questions.

Tenez wrote:If I am told that Kaddafi for instance was going to massacre his own people and we need to intervene, I wanted to see facts before intervening. I do not trust those who said so or even took Kaddafi's words so seriously. I did not see any massacre of Kaddafi over his own people, I did not see any mass grave (though we were told there were), nor did I see images of massacres by Kaddafi troops. Yet we removed him and forced another regime change. Same thing is happening in Syria and never can you read or listen on the BBC anything negative coming from the rebels or anything positive coming from Bashar El-Assad. They have again a clear agenda.

. Did you go to Syria or Libya to verify whatever you considered to be a reliable source of information?

No I have not but I had planned to, based on people I trust and said Syria and Lybia were great countries. Have you read Kaddafi's green book? Do you know what was his agenda for his country and Africa. He was no Jesus but what I question above all is the fact we trust ourselves of knowing bad and good and who should rule in far away countries.

If you possess such strong sense of discernement and observation which others apparently do not, why would you waste your time on a forum.

What makes you think I waste my time? I am enjoying a few conversations with people who share my passion of tennis. Tennis was the only source of positive news, imo, coming from the media in the last 10 years. It was not all great and beautiful as we exposed the dark side of the game but at least I was extremely happy to see someone clearly graced with talent winning versus the dark forces including sciences (legal or not) and politics. A kind of modern days hero.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
What happened when more than one newspaper was accessible, or more than one Radio station started broadcasting?

You know what happens, don't you? they make you believe you have a choice when at the end of the day it's the same news. It's like Bush or Obama...at the end of the day same thing!

The same world that also contains Wangarai Maathai and Mohammed Yunus.

Tenez wrote:

Who brings you Federer or Nadal matches for your 'observations', Tenez? I did not realise there is an independent broadcaster, who provides you private feeds. Do you watch every Nadal or Federer match on the court? If you do, very nice that you have the means to do it.

I tend to trust images, but already there I don;t systtematically trust a draw, an umpire, a tournament organiser and I don't even trust players.

Yet, you have been glued for the last 10 years to what these organizations have put up as a show. Hypocrisy, at it's best. This reminds me of Nero and The Matrix.

Tenez wrote:

Who provides you what you 'see' and 'read'?

Again, I don't trust one source, I question everything and try to establish the agenda of those providing information. By accepting that one is innocent until proven guilty you are blocking tons of information and more importantly questions.

I have clearly referenced a statistical and probabilistic model of building trust in my post, IIRC.

Tenez wrote:

Tenez wrote:If I am told that Kaddafi for instance was going to massacre his own people and we need to intervene, I wanted to see facts before intervening. I do not trust those who said so or even took Kaddafi's words so seriously. I did not see any massacre of Kaddafi over his own people, I did not see any mass grave (though we were told there were), nor did I see images of massacres by Kaddafi troops. Yet we removed him and forced another regime change. Same thing is happening in Syria and never can you read or listen on the BBC anything negative coming from the rebels or anything positive coming from Bashar El-Assad. They have again a clear agenda.

. Did you go to Syria or Libya to verify whatever you considered to be a reliable source of information?

No I have not but I had planned to, based on people I trust and said Syria and Lybia were great countries. Have you read Kaddafi's green book? Do you know what was his agenda for his country and Africa. He was no Jesus but what I question above all is the fact we trust ourselves of knowing bad and good and who should rule in far away countries.

I am absolutely against foreign interference. I have clearly stated the havoc that 'Western' democracies have wrought on local governance, because of so called 'security' interests for centuries. It is not a Bush/Bush/Obama/Reagan/Thatcher/Blair/Major/Brown/Stalin/Khruschev/Gorbachev/Putin/Yeltsin problem. I would suggest reading David Fromkin's A Peace to end all Peace.

Tenez wrote:

If you possess such strong sense of discernement and observation which others apparently do not, why would you waste your time on a forum.

What makes you think I waste my time? I am enjoying a few conversations with people who share my passion of tennis. Tennis was the only source of positive news, imo, coming from the media in the last 10 years. It was not all great and beautiful as we exposed the dark side of the game but at least I was extremely happy to see someone clearly graced with talent winning versus the dark forces including sciences (legal or not) and politics. A kind of modern days hero.

A 'talent' shines next to similar 'talents'. Federer would not have shined if his peers were absent. Do you think you could have a W 2008/W 2009/Rome 2006/TMC 2005/AO 2005 without Nadal and Roddick and Nalbandian and Safin. I would suggest reading McEnroe after Borg left the game. Borg/McEnroe played doubles recently - youtube.com/watch?v=DRAX66Ztmv8&feature=youtu.be

The unwillingness and sheer hypocrisy and inability to recognise talent is what I see with my limited sense of discernment and observation. (And I have used Hypocrisy twice in this post. )

Tenez wrote:1 - not on subject again, sorry won't answer.

2 - not on subject again, won't answer.

3- not on subject again, won;t answer.

Tenez wrote:4 -So if you are against foreign interference, how come you trust all the mainstream media, including the bbc who unanimously call for regime change if not military intervention, essentially based on distorted information?

Where? Send me a link? Do you understand 'genocide'?

Tenez wrote:5 -You see your lack of discernment? So exposed once again. Fiirst you cannot define what talent is. I simply go by the dictionary definition. Yours is absurdly vague based on previous posts on other forums. Then I always imply a relative form of talent and not a binary form (O/I) like one has and the other has not, so a bit of honesty needed here as well if you want to carry on conversing. Finally I certainly discern a huge difference in talent between Federer and Nadal for instance. They are not at all similar in that department. It's like comparing Kasparov talent with deep blue's. You are showing your limited discernment again I am afraid.

I am not discussing the definiton of talent and the degrees of separation between players. You consider talent a boolean despite claims to the contrary, and have a clear separation in two distinct categories. I keep forcing you to consider talent that players not named Federer have, and you keep turning into a physicality argument, which is a disservice to Tennis professionals. I consider Borg and McEnroe, so do I consider Nadal and Federer. Federer:McEnroe::Nadal:Borg. Physicality is a building block and part of talent. The talent to work hard in the gym and enhance physicality is where we get into artificial vs natural methods and associated discussions. My contention is that every single player uses artificial means. All professional sport is based on this. I would have been playing slam finals otherwise.

1 - not on subject again, sorry won't answer.

2 - not on subject again, won't answer.

3- not on subject again, won;t answer.

4 - not on subject again, won;t answer

So we are left with #5....but I am afraid you are mixing up everything once again, extending the subject to Borg, McEnroe while not even able to sort the Fed/Nadal dilema and nor are you able to discern talent with work capacity which though can be innate for some has nothing to do with talent which is an innate ability to make something complicated look easy. So again talking about a "talent to work hard" is an absurd statement and another expression of your confused mind taking us again somewhere else.

But I guess sentences such as "My contention is that every single player uses artificial means."!!! expresses best your wandering mind uncapable of discerning the subtlety of this world. Meaningless point....leading us nowhere!

#5 closed!

Tenez wrote:but I am afraid you are mixing up everything once again, extending the subject to Borg, McEnroe while not even able to sort the Fed/Nadal dilema and nor are you able to discern talent with work capacity which though can be innate for some has nothing to do with talent which is an innate ability to make something complicated look easy. So again talking about a "talent to work hard" is an absurd statement and another expression of your confused mind taking us again somewhere else.

You are back to a GOAT debate. There is no such thing as a GOAT. . You seem to obsess on proving the GOATness of a specific player without any talent to appreciate what is across the net. It is rather surprising in an observer that you claim to be.

Nadal's ability to hit 30+ shots to the Federer BH requires talent that is enhanced by constant practice.

Tenez wrote:But I guess sentences such as "My contention is that every single player uses artificial means."!!! expresses best your wandering mind uncapable of discerning the subtlety of this world. Meaningless point....leading us nowhere!

#5 closed!

Can you distinguish the subtelty of differences in talent? Federer and Nadal both have talent. They both make Tennis look easy.

They were both asked by Courier what they would have from each other's arsenal and chose each other's FH.

youtube.com/watch?v=FblE5Jy7qgA - Watch the FHs in the first set TB from both?

youtube.com/watch?v=GzmcjgRPdvA - Same thing here again.

They both have talent (== an innate ability to make something complicated look easy ).

PS: It is fascinating to see a general discussion on 'Innocence vs Guilt' turned into a GOAT debate. And you are suggesting I am off-topic? I am not debating with you to convince you are anyone else of any player's talent. You can keep quantifying and qualifying an abstract notion of talent and continue your world-view.

innocent or guilty is the easy one.
The difficult one is: samba, rumba or cha-cha-cha? Or even worse: What shall I wear? question

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:The "strange" logic is at it again. Toni is an interested party, Noah is not. So a "fair minded observer" would not give them the same weight.

Technically you have a point but on balance I am more with LF here. LF's choice of Toni may not have been ideal but clearly her point was not built around Toni and she could have easily picked someone else to support her point.

What is her point? I don;t understand!

Maybe I am misunderstanding her point but it seemed fairly clear to me. I thought LF was suggesting that you tend to cherry-pick evidence and see the one that works in your favor. I am pretty certain that you do just that. It is hard to prove and I do not have 100% evidence but - since I do not quite subscribe to the innocent until proven guilty maxim - I have no problem making this my working assumption (though I do leave the door open for the possibility that I am wrong).

I have seen it over and over again. Perhaps the best example was from a few months back when you and Lydian discussed whether or not Nadal was sticking to the time limit in the Fed-Nadal Miami 04 match. You were saying that he did stick to the time limit there. Out of curiosity, I timed Nadal in that match and my numbers, which pretty much matched what Lydian had also measured, showed he by and large did not stick to the limit. Your reaction was telling. After some initial incredulity about the numbers you ultimately admitted the numbers looked ok, you then "slightly" adjusted your initial claim and ultimately you continued making the same sweeping - now shown plain incorrect - statement as before. That was as clear disregard of evidence and facts as you can realistically expect in forum debates. The only reasonable thing would have been to simply admit you were wrong, and you could not do it. Interestingly, I think in the bigger scheme of things you actually had reasonable argument about Nadal and his time between points, so you could have admitted to being wrong about Miami 04 without even sacrificing the heart of the argument, yet you could not bring yourself to even do that.

Frankly, this one case alone would be enough to seriously question your intellectual honesty in forum debates. However, similar examples are repeated again and again. The fact that you do not want to see it does not make your case any better.

Having said all that, I should also say that in spite of all this I do like you as a poster. You clearly understand tennis and you clearly have given your opinions a lot of thought and they are frequently interesting. For the purpose of a debate, I usually do not need to care whether or not you weigh evidence fairly. If you make a good argument, it does not matter whether you did it after a fair or biased consideration of facts. Also, I think posters that are willing to "have strong views without strong evidence" are needed for forums to prevent blandness.

summerblues wrote:

Also, I think posters that are willing to "have strong views without strong evidence" are needed for forums to prevent blandness.

Here's where I sense an element of patronising arrogance: the whole point of a debate is not to debate on one person's terms which is what you seem to be doing and dismissing those who don't as somehow less worthy .

Frankly, (and no offence intended) all of LF's arguments in this matter are nothing but vague beating about the bush, I try to read it but I can't help my eyes glazing over it after a few lines. Even the very thread is elusive. IF somebody came from outside and had a look at it they wouldn't have a clue what it was about.

If I've got an opinion, I spell it out without fear of losing face. What's the worst that can happen: I am proven wrong - big deal!

I am not the type that can be bullied by the majority and their need for proof. As a Christian, I don't need any proof of believing every word the Bible says. God requires faith. They are his T&C.
When the masses shouted: Crucify him! even his disciples denied him (Peter who swore he would follow him to the bitter end, did it three times within a few hours), majority of people on ALL forums would have been in that crowd shouting the same words. They all wanted "proof" and felt smug in the crowd.
I know where they all now and how differently they think but can't do anything about it any more. Now you will probably disagree with me her, but I won't be judging you on it or demaning evidence on why you don't.


Similarly here, incl. tennis debates here: I hear everyone's opinion and sometimes agree, sometimes disagree, sometimes I change my view and learn. But I don't judge others because they can't see my point of view, or think less of them because they like the player I don't.

I recognise LF and yourself, and some other posters from other forums enjoy debating for debating's sake. Fine. Not my thing in the least: I say it as it is and keep going. Nothing worse for me than going round in circles.

The only thing that grieves me is personal insults which can be blunt or subtle. Not so much because of their nature but because I lose a tennis friend like that.

Because I've "known" you for a while, I'm sure you won't get upset about all this....but this is how I debate, I can only use my own terms, not yours

That is very nice view of posting here, Nitb. I appreciate that very much

Hey All Posters, let us post whatever about tennis, speculate, philozophize, but do not scare of anybody and do not offend anybody!

Who wants to read your post then he/she will, who will not, that is his choice.

Nitb, Nole should be and definitely is proud of the best his fan

Thanks Paul, I just hope noone gets offended as that was not my intention

Nitb, your view on posting was quite positive. Everybody must feel it.

That would be interisting perhaps funny to process character posters profiles according to their posts and their favorite player

paulcz wrote:Nitb, your view on posting was quite positive. Everybody must feel it.

That would be interisting perhaps funny to process character posters profiles according to their posts and their favorite player

That would be quite an interesting social study

noleisthebest wrote:Here's where I sense an element of patronising arrogance: the whole point of a debate is not to debate on one person's terms which is what you seem to be doing and dismissing those who don't as somehow less worthy .

The point of a debate is to present arguments and supporting evidence, even if it contradicts your world view. I get accused of being a sophist. I had much rather consider myself willing to change my viewpoint if evidence contradicting my world view is presented.

noleisthebest wrote:Frankly, (and no offence intended) all of LF's arguments in this matter are nothing but vague beating about the bush, I try to read it but I can't help my eyes glazing over it after a few lines. Even the very thread is elusive. IF somebody came from outside and had a look at it they wouldn't have a clue what it was about.

I have clearly stated that my base primitive is innocent till publicly proven guilty, and is the foundation of my argument. (Notice SB and I disagree on this to some extent. He prefers building a statistical model and accumulate evidence and reach a judgement based on available evidence, including his own observations).

I have clearly stated,

a. my distrust of internet fora
b. my lack of trust of the internet in general
c. my trust for specific posters based on my interaction with them
d. that previous comments like 'case closed' are detrimental to a debate
e. that claims to being a better observer are false, which Summerblues clearly corroborates (Thanks SB, ) with a previous debate being an example (the Miami 04 discussion on v2).
f. the inability to articulate the definition of talent, and then discussing about 'relative' shades of talent

noleisthebest wrote:Because I've "known" you for a while, I'm sure you won't get upset about all this....but this is how I debate, I can only use my own terms, not yours

I am not imposing any terms for this debate, or any in the future. If you sense that such is the case, I am . How can I remove such terms, NITB?

Out of curiosity, I timed Nadal in that match and my numbers, which pretty much matched what Lydian had also measured, showed he by and large did not stick to the limit.

My PC has crashed and have little time for debating but that's is fairly wrong. If you look at teh video of this match Nadal has no OCD and plays well within the 20s in most points. He only takes extra time when he has played a long rally but it;s clearly not anticipated.

if you look at the stats of the match the average time per point is even lower than the 2005 Miami Final meaning Nadal was playing fast.

So yes I realise rewatching the Miami 04 and 05 that there are times when Nadal goes over but you can clearly and you cannot deny it that he has no OCD and at teh beginning of teh match when fit he plays within 20s even 18s often...quite a striking difference from the routime that follows 99% of his matches post Miami 05.

So I am afraid my point is actually extremely valid!

Give me another example where I cherry pick evidence. I am extremely surprised you came to that conclusion cause I simply do not.

My take is you have more likely made up your mind about me from the beginning cause I do not have "wanting-to-appear" fair approach like Lydian or LF have. However you do not see, probably due to lack of desicerment again, that Lydian is an extremely biased poster who got it wrong every single time he wanted to argue.

Same happened when you thought I was making up excuses for Federer during teh FO....when clearly you could not see he was impared but a few of us did. Then came Wimbledon and his back problems were more than obvious then. Sure as he says, his back problem can come and go but he has said it multiple times since that he was not in his best form in the FO...proving again we were right and not making it up.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Because I've "known" you for a while, I'm sure you won't get upset about all this....but this is how I debate, I can only use my own terms, not yours

I am not imposing any terms for this debate, or any in the future. If you sense that such is the case, I am . How can I remove such terms, NITB?

Sorry, LF, my comment regarding rules of debate was more for SB as he seems to always keep insisting on percentages of conviction and need of proof. He must be a lawyer

Tenez wrote:

My PC has crashed and have little time for debating but that's is fairly wrong. If you look at teh video of this match Nadal has no OCD and plays well within the 20s in most points. He only takes extra time when he has played a long rally but it;s clearly not anticipated.

Mac won't let you down !

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

My PC has crashed and have little time for debating but that's is fairly wrong. If you look at teh video of this match Nadal has no OCD and plays well within the 20s in most points. He only takes extra time when he has played a long rally but it;s clearly not anticipated.

Mac won't let you down !

We should discuss Ballmer/Gates vs Cook/Jobs in a separate topic. IIRC, Gates was a significant investor in Apple.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

My PC has crashed and have little time for debating but that's is fairly wrong. If you look at teh video of this match Nadal has no OCD and plays well within the 20s in most points. He only takes extra time when he has played a long rally but it;s clearly not anticipated.

Mac won't let you down !

I sometimes wonder how anyone can still use PC,how did I survive before....??? I could NEVER go back now

Veejay wrote:I sometimes wonder how anyone can still use PC,how did I survive before....??? I could NEVER go back now.

Hardware-wise, the MACs and PCs have very similar hardware. The OS is a completely different ball game.

A MACH kernel vs. some DOS-based cr@p.

Veejay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

My PC has crashed and have little time for debating but that's is fairly wrong. If you look at teh video of this match Nadal has no OCD and plays well within the 20s in most points. He only takes extra time when he has played a long rally but it;s clearly not anticipated.

Mac won't let you down !

I sometimes wonder how anyone can still use PC,how did I survive before....??? I could NEVER go back now

I know exactly what you mean !

noleisthebest wrote:Here's where I sense an element of patronising arrogance:

.

.

.

Because I've "known" you for a while, I'm sure you won't get upset about all this....but this is how I debate, I can only use my own terms, not yours

Very nice post NITB,

I can appreciate a lot of these sentiments and I am tempted to agree with most of what you say. If I had written my post in vacuum, my temptation would probably translate into an agreement. I would perhaps reread my post and see elements of arrogance and personal insults and feel that I could have written it differently.


But I did not write it in vacuum. I was not really the one to set the tone, I just picked up where the thread left off. I would like to believe that I do not revel in personal insults either. Yet I have seen no shortage of them over the last few months here or on ja606 – I would not even have to leave this thread to find some of them. So I wrote the post the way I did. I believe my post had substance and I was not writing it to be insulting. But I did leave some of the usual self-censorship behind.


In any event, I am sorry if you felt my post crossed the line.


PS: no, I do not get upset much at all but I appreciate that you have given it a thought and seemed to be concerned about the potential of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvAGAdLArKY

SB - I am stunned you take Lydian's side on this very verifiable point. I had to watch the clip again and the facts are clear. Nadal is not going through a routine and does play within 20s when possible. What kind of fact are you and Lydian denying?

I have 1st game 22s, 19s, 18s, 19s, 27s (Ball boys and Nadal messing up with the balls in that last point) otherwise would have most likely played circa 20s. 2nd game....34s (long point nadal is breathless and the crowd cheers) then 18s, 18s, 19s!!!

And you and Lydian are arguing that he was taking time already then?


And if you look at the Miami 05 clip, it's exactly the same thing. Rafa plays well within with the 25s rule. Or let's put it this way, he has no routine to extend the time. Which is a clear contrast from after that Miami 05 match, where the hair, socks, back pinching etc...are all well orchestrated to go well over 25 sec.

I am shocked by your comments above....but hey like you I hardly ever get upset on a tennis forum!

summerblues wrote: But I did leave some of the usual self-censorship behind.


In any event, I am sorry if you felt my post crossed the line.


PS: no, I do not get upset much at all but I appreciate that you have given it a thought and seemed to be concerned about the potential of it.

No probs SB, we all have THOSE moments....

Tenez wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvAGAdLArKY

SB - I am stunned you take Lydian's side on this very verifiable point. I had to watch the clip again and the facts are clear. Nadal is not going through a routine and does play within 20s when possible. What kind of fact are you and Lydian denying?

I have 1st game 22s, 19s, 18s, 19s, 27s (Ball boys and Nadal messing up with the balls in that last point) otherwise would have most likely played circa 20s. 2nd game....34s (long point nadal is breathless and the crowd cheers) then 18s, 18s, 19s!!!

And you and Lydian are arguing that he was taking time already then?

And if you look at teh Miami 05 clip, it's exactly the same thing. Rafa plays with the 20s. Or let's put it this way, he has no routine to extend the time. Which is a clear contrast from after that Miami 05 match, where the hair, socks, back pinching etc...are all well orchestrated to go well over 25 sec.

I am shocked by your comments above....but hey like you I hardly ever get upset on a tennis forum!

Tenez, what do you think fo that comment that Tisparvic makes in that link on the mental strenght thread where he says that Nadal certainly doesn't take time between points to recover physically (because he is super fit) but to lay the point in his head).

I say what a load of amazing rubbish....

noleisthebest wrote:Tenez, what do you think fo that comment that Tisparvic makes in that link on the mental strenght thread where he says that Nadal certainly doesn't take time between points to recover physically (because he is super fit) but to lay the point in his head).

I say what a load of amazing rubbish....

Of course it's lot of rubbish. Tsip is a tennis professional but doesn't know that Nadal himself admitted to taking extra time due to long rallies. I am surprised no professional pointed out the difference between pre and post Miami 05. Nadal runs out of breath and loses the last 6 games. And in Wimby 07, you can say something similar happened. Nadal lost the last 4 or 5 games I believe with his FH making gross UEs, not passing the net even cause of suddenly hitting the wall. Those extra sec he takes are crucial.

Using UTube clock

1. +2:47 Nadal gets ready to serve at +3:03 (16 seconds)

2. First serve - Federer's dumps the volley in the net +3:14 (11 seconds).

3. Nadal gets ready to serve +3:30 (16 seconds).

4. Nadal OH smash +3:44 (14 seconds).

5. Nadal ready to serve after the SloMo replay +4:02 (18 seconds).

6. Federer return long +4:07 (5 seconds).

7. Nadal ready to serve +4:24 (17 seconds).

8. Nadal FH winner +4:28 (4 seconds).

9. Nadal ready to serve +4:45 (17 seconds).

10. Nadal Let +5:01 (16 seconds - second serve).

11. Nadal serve and goes wide +5:07 (6 seconds).

12. Nadal serves +5:34 (27 seconds).

13. Federer goes wide +5:43 (9 seconds).

14. Federer serves at +6:16 (33 seconds).

15. Nadal dumps BH in the net +6:29 (13 seconds).

16. Federer serves +6:44 (15 seconds).

17. Second serve +6:53 (9 seconds).

18. Nadal BH wide +6:57 (4 seconds).

19. Federer serves +7:11 (14 seconds).

20. Ace +7:15

21. Federer serves +7:30 (15 seconds).

22. Second serve +7:39 (9 seconds).

23. Nadal dumps it in the net +7:43 (4 seconds).

24. Nadal serves +7:59 (16 seconds - perhaps edited).

25. At +8:13 Federer slice followed by a CC BH at the other corner, and Nadal retrieves the ball. Reminds me of AO where Nadal went from one tram line to the other (+8:15).

26. At +8:20 Nadal FH pass.

27. Nadal serves +8:50 (30 seconds).

28. Federer dumps BH return in the net +8:57.

29. Nadal serves +9:13 (16 seconds) but he is winded.

30. Ace +9:15

31. Nadal serves +9:32 (17 seconds).

32. Federer return drops short. +9:38 (6 seconds).

There may be a +/- 1 discrepancy due to the quality of the video. Does that look reasonable?

eh....yeah maybe....Not sure. You have that special "talent" to make easy things look complicated! Are you referring to the Miami 04 clip? Then you must have like me the same sec between points....roughly. Correct? So does Nadal takes time and go through a routine? no.

Tenez wrote:Are you referring to the Miami 04 clip?

Yes.

Tenez wrote:Then you must have like me the same sec between points....roughly. Correct? So does Nadal takes time and go through a routine? no.

There is already a routine in place. Right after the first Federer game, there is the 'water bottle' stuff.

The times I have are fairly in the high 15+ to 20+ seconds. He was taking a longer time between points, even if it was close to the ATP limit (which is 25 seconds not 20 seconds. ITF is 20 seconds). Moya says that he goes through a routine for every point. There is an ESPN article that you should be able to search for.

Incidentally, the OP was not about Federer v Nadal, was it?

There you go. No routine between points. I am right...once again. .

The thread is not about Fed and Nadal, it;s about me making things up according to SB...which clearly is not the case.

Lydian has always be wrong when arguing with me. It's a sad fact...for him or she. (I know he says he, but I have never been really sure) .

The times I have are fairly in the high 15+ to 20+ seconds. He was taking a longer time between points, even if it was close to the ATP limit (which is 25 seconds not 20 seconds. ITF is 20 seconds). Moya says that he goes through a routine for every point. There is an ESPN article that you should be able to search for.

I'll ask SB to clarify this...as usual, I am not sure what you want to say...or rather what you do not want to say!

Tenez wrote:There you go. No routine between points. I am right...once again. .

There is. Just watch him getting ready to serve. He does not adjust his pants, but the rest is there, just watch carefully.

Oh you right....he chooses the right ball and then suddenly throws it in the air before whacking it! He does that every time when serving! Bloody him with his nasty routine. Wel at least there were between the allowed time then!

Tenez wrote:Oh you right....he chooses the right ball and then suddenly throws it in the air before whacking it! He does that every time when serving! Bloody him with his nasty routine. Wel at least there were between the allowed time then!

You consider yourself a keen observer, notice the 'three' balls on his racquet, that he still does today, correct?

The only noticeable missing part is adjusting the pants, perhaps he had more comfortable underwear at 17 than at 23.

Does he touch his nose hair, etc? Does he do a 'lawn mower' after passing Federer at the net? Does Federer flick his hair?

I am afraid, you are not a keen observer, cause, there are more things missing. The towel, the socks, the hair behind the ear, the forehead wipe, the stair over the net, the forehead wipe again and then the throw.

I'm beginning to develop ticks after reading comments here

I missed a bit of this discussion and it has taken a totally new turn.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I missed a bit of this discussion and it has taken a totally new turn.

They usually turn into a Nadal bash.