Robbery

First topic message reminder :

Umpire Molina has denied Wawrinka the victory today.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:It is just a sad fact socal that players such as Novak and Andy will never be accepted as greats of the sport by certain people and you will never change that I am afraid.

I agree CC. Equally as sad as the fact that Hewitt, Roddick and Safin will never be accepted as greats of the sport by certain people (not you). And the way other slam winners and No 1's are dismissed as lucky or asterisked or in a weak era, as a way of boosting their own favourite player or having a go at players/posters they don't like.
Except of course, in those cases, the posters are only being rational and objective and anyone who disagrees is clearly a (flll in the insult)

It's all staggeringly juvenile (and I include the OP in that.)

All hail Julius the magnificient slayer of Socal and his posts the High Lord of the delete button.

By the way your charge is bogus. I give the weaker era number 1s the credit they deserve, in fact I have repeatedly stated that hewitt is the best two slam winner of the bunch and had his career hurt by injuries. But, since you seem to have an incapability in understanding relative arguments while I consider lleyton hewitt a great of the tennis world, a deserving slam champion, I do not believe that he is a particularly strong #1 when compared to other players who have held the number 1 position. I also feel the same about Roddick and Rios, and the objective facts I used in comparing their accomplishments makes my argument a strong one. If you think it is wummery to claim that Lendl, Novak, Nadal, Roger, Agassi, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, and Courier (on average)>hewitt, ferrero, moya, roddick (on average) then I would suggest you get your wummery meter checked. It is a fact, a factual and objective argument in comparing relative strengths of eras is quite a different thing then allegations of asteriks and robbery. And of course your inability to distinguish legitimate and wrongful conduct from legitimate conduct is the only beef I have ever had with you. Otherwise you are a great guy and a nice person, but in my humble opinion a terrible and overbearing moderator.

OH NO!! My charge is bogus

socal1976 wrote:
By the way your charge is bogus. I give the weaker era number 1s the credit they deserve, in fact I have repeatedly stated that hewitt is the best two slam winner of the bunch and had his career hurt by injuries. But, since you seem to have an incapability in understanding relative arguments while I consider lleyton hewitt a great of the tennis world, a deserving slam champion, I do not believe that he is a particularly strong #1 when compared to other players who have held the number 1 position. I also feel the same about Roddick and Rios, and the objective facts I used in comparing their accomplishments makes my argument a strong one. If you think it is wummery to claim that Lendl, Novak, Nadal, Roger, Agassi, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, and Courier (on average)>hewitt, ferrero, moya, roddick (on average) then I would suggest you get your wummery meter checked. It is a fact, a factual and objective argument in comparing relative strengths of eras is quite a different thing then allegations of asteriks and robbery.

Exactly.
I can say the tennis in the 1980's in my eyes was the best period ever for tennis, better than the 1990's.
If Murray either won the Australian Open this year facing Tsonga in the semi and then Almagro in the final, or won by facing Federer than Djokovic in the final, it is not a terrible crime to claim the latter feat is more impressive.
Saying Murray's win in the AO (if he did beat Tsonga and then Almagro) is 'asterisked' and 'doesn't count' is just silly. They all count. If I then make random allegations about him, questioning his integrity as a professional without any evidence, then this is bad.

socal1976 wrote:Otherwise you are a great guy and a nice person,

Thank you. Wish I could say the same about you.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Otherwise you are a great guy and a nice person,

Thank you. Wish I could say the same about you.

You are entitled to your opinion, Julius and I am entitled to my opinion about your poor, biased, and wrong headed application of the rules. If that makes me a bad person and evil, well dress me up in a devil's costume and have at it.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
By the way your charge is bogus. I give the weaker era number 1s the credit they deserve, in fact I have repeatedly stated that hewitt is the best two slam winner of the bunch and had his career hurt by injuries. But, since you seem to have an incapability in understanding relative arguments while I consider lleyton hewitt a great of the tennis world, a deserving slam champion, I do not believe that he is a particularly strong #1 when compared to other players who have held the number 1 position. I also feel the same about Roddick and Rios, and the objective facts I used in comparing their accomplishments makes my argument a strong one. If you think it is wummery to claim that Lendl, Novak, Nadal, Roger, Agassi, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, and Courier (on average)>hewitt, ferrero, moya, roddick (on average) then I would suggest you get your wummery meter checked. It is a fact, a factual and objective argument in comparing relative strengths of eras is quite a different thing then allegations of asteriks and robbery.

Exactly.
I can say the tennis in the 1980's in my eyes was the best period ever for tennis, better than the 1990's.
If Murray either won the Australian Open this year facing Tsonga in the semi and then Almagro in the final, or won by facing Federer than Djokovic in the final, it is not a terrible crime to claim the latter feat is more impressive.
Saying Murray's win in the AO (if he did beat Tsonga and then Almagro) is 'asterisked' and 'doesn't count' is just silly. They all count. If I then make random allegations about him, questioning his integrity as a professional without any evidence, then this is bad.

Exactly, some people don't seem to understand the difference between making observations and comparisons in different eras of players and throwing Robbery terminology and smears. Either way IMBL, that is the breaks of the game. I have answered all the charges levelled at me by Julius and Lags, and Julius response to my logic is to take a shot at me. Which is fine, I can't say that our interactions in regards to his moderating have always been positive. People throw out Robbery and asteriks claims and I am the aggressive one, that is the double standard that us fans of players not named federer have had to live with on these forums.

socal1976 wrote:

lags72 wrote:HB : good observation.

Says it all really.

But when the personal insults start flying (rather than just sticking to tennis) some of socal's posts become more than just harmless wummery and goading.

Like which one please, just one specific example. You claim I am aggressive yet you fail to address the aggressive terminology that instigated my aggression. If you are going to level a charge you should be honorable enough, and I feel that you are honorable, to at least specifically point to what you are talking about. I refer you to my response to Henman bill. Please read it and tell me how my logic is flawed. Have I ever attacked you lags? Have ever called you a name, if someone posts stupid, denigrating, dishonest, nonsense I am not going to grin and bear it. And it has nothing to do with Novak, I have been accused of being a Nadal fan of all things when I take exception to the vague innuendos surrounding Nadal and his supposed conduct on and off the court.

"Moronic"

"Federer Yahweh worshippers"

"Your idiocy"

I know you only asked for one example but I like to offer choice.

Yes I stand by thesis to call this victory by Novak robbery or an asteriks slam, is a moronic comment and the height of idiocy. As for the Federer as Yahweh worshipper your probably right on that one can't say that is meant as a compliment but I will chalk that up to responding to aggression with aggression. Not the best moral example, but sometimes a valid response.

Let me ask you a question BB, before I left the site you and I had reached a bit of an understanding. When you reached out to me, did you not find that I responded to your logical move to quell tensions in an agreeable manner? Despite the long history of tension we have had? Did I not act honorably after we reached what you would say was a detente?

I am like anyone else if I am treated with respect I give respect. If people are aggressive I can get just as aggressive and probably more so.

Socal, since you mention it lets recall the full story:

You had got very angry and wrote some stuff that would probably have got you banned. I complained, then I thought better of it and contacted the mods to ask that they take no action while I try to rescue the situation, as I don't like bans. I still have my posts to them, they will support me on this. I contacted you privately, as you say, to say that we must stop it as it was pointless and spoiling the forum for everyone else, and indeed you held your side up. No problem.

Then you've come back on here and sprayed it around. Check all my posts to you, not one of them has been to attack you - I just kept suggesting you leave it yesterday but you won't. And here we find ourselves.

You just seem to me a very intemperate man, always keen to insult and denigrate, keen also to ingratiate with anyone to find allies but only to support more angry posting.

You say if someone is aggressive to you, you respond. Please show me who was aggressive to you to prompt your various insults yesterday. Nobody did. The fact is that you're an aggressive person, full stop. Unpleasantly so.

Ah more delusion from BB. You were the one who posted a slanderous and untrue claim that "Socal claimed Fogninni was part of a conspiracy" to cost Novak the french open. I asked you to produce the evidence to that charge and you couldn't or wouldn't, because it never happened. You responded to me after I complained to Julius about your lies about my postions and continual misrepresentation. So you have no factual support, you were caught lying about my positions or lets give you the benefit of the doubt, misrepresenting my positions, and in order to save your credibility and the forum you reached out to me. And as you stated I neither asked you for an apology or cared about the past, I set aside the fight and held up my end of the bargain.

But your analysis of what happened is 180 degrees off. You were the one got in trouble with the moderator for slurring me by warping my position into something that I never said, and then attacking your own distortion. YOu claimed that I had said foggy was part of anti-novak conspiracy something i never claimed ever. You were forced to back track and then you reached out with a peace offering that I took and respected.

IMBL and Julius were a witness to your deceitful attack and you got caught with your hands in the cookie jar.

We don't like each other, and that is fine, I have plenty of people I get along with and some that I don't. But I will not let you rewrite history in order to couch yourself in some faux ghandesque veil of peacefulness that you do not deserve.

Julius is no fan of mine, but he can attest to the fact that it was your distortions of my record on the socalled foggy conspiracy that preceded your overture to me, not the commentary I was making.

You're just not to be trusted, I sorted the matter privately and perhaps laverfan or Julius may confirm what I did.

Copy of my pm to Julius on 22/10/2012:

Don't ban him please.

I'm going to try to end this through pms with him, it's silly.

Hope I'm not too late.

Ah yes, you were never sent a PM about your made up Foggy conspiracy charge, I just imagined all that. A charge by the way that you levelled over and over again and could never produce any evidence that I had said it, because I didn't say it.

I ignored you for months while you attacked, and attacked, and lied and misrepresented. Then I let you have it for lying about my positions. Then when you offered a peace overture after being caught misrepresenting me in order to ridicule me, I accepted and lived up to it.

Wow, it sounds like I am aggressive and unpleasant.

Do you deny getting called on your foggy conspiracy misrepresentation?

By the way, interesting read on your views on Fognini here;

https://www.606v2.com/t6328-how-will-the-end-of-djoko-s-streak-affect-his-play

Nice, balanced and calm. As always.

The fun starts at 5:41 and goes on, and on.

Re: I will no longer engage him but!!!!
From JuliusHMarx To socal1976, Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:05 pm

I've removed the post into the Admin section, and noted why it was removed.
I see he's retracted the statement.
I've just now PM'ed him - I'll see what his response is before making any further decisions.[b]

Since you are trying to rewrite history here is the post Julius sent in regards to our Foggy conspiracy nonsense. Wow it sounds like I am the one who broke the rules, if I was the one who broke the rules why did you retract your comments and why did he remove your post? Oh because BB is so reasonable and honest.

Can't you guys go on with this using own personal emails? A couple of years ago it was great fun, now it is getting decidedly pathetic...........I mean whats the point to tell to a forum in great details why you don't love each other? Who cares.......

I don't want to post private messages but since you continue to lie and distort the record of what actually happened. This is julius post in response to you getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and lying about my positions to attack me.

This preceded by about one or two days your peace overture to me. Which I accepted and lived up to.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Can't you guys go on with this using own personal emails? A couple of years ago it was great fun, now it is getting decidedly pathetic...........I mean whats the point to tell to a forum in great details why you don't love each other? Who cares.......

I couldn't care less Jeremy, I was happy back on here but this guy ones back in and starts throwing everything around.

Screw it, who needs it?

JK, you are right this is a big waste of time. But I can not stand people rewritting history to give themselves this faux aura of kindness and reasonableness.

Did you know in the semi-final of Wimbledon 2006 Roger Federer faced unseeded 33 year old Jonas Bjorkman?
Interesting fact isn't it.

Yeah, if like you I was caught lying and rewritting history I would run away and pretend to be above the fray as well. Very interesting how you saved me from getting banned, what a joke. YOu got caught redhanded and retracted the comment and got a PM about it, and then you are the one saving me from getting banned. Wow! really delusional stuff.

May I request that reason, rather than raw emotion, prevail, as it has in the past?

@SoCal... not every attack on a player one likes, is the equivalent of a personal attack.

It is very difficult to predict the outcome of a match, based on a single point. The current Wawrinka-Djokovic match could have gone either way, but one player won, the other did not.

@BB... it may perhaps be better to let bygones be bygones. Dredging history can unnecessarily open old wounds.

Let us all enjoy the current and future slams and root for our favourites and hope they do their best.

use the foe button then! I used it for BOO and now my internet life is just fine......

laverfan wrote:May I request that reason, rather than raw emotion, prevail, as it has in the past?

@SoCal... not every attack on a player one likes, is the equivalent of a personal attack.

It is very difficult to predict the outcome of a match, based on a single point. The current Wawrinka-Djokovic match could have gone either way, but one player won, the other did not.

@BB... it may perhaps be better to let bygones be bygones. Dredging history can unnecessarily open old wounds.

Let us all enjoy the current and future slams and root for our favourites and hope they do their best.

Laverfan, I accept your commentary, I saw red at this nasty thread and did go a bit bonkers. Fair enough. I apologize for the fed as yahweh worshipper comments, that is an insult. I do not retract calling this thread a moronic and idiotic analysis of the match.

And my apology to anyone offended by Fed as Yahweh commentary. I am sorry, i was upset and shouldn't have said it.

@SoCal... Brave man. Pretty certain, your new lady friend appreciates such a quality. Have a Macallan!

@BB... Thank you for being a gentleman.

Thanks to everyone for helping.

Laverfan you should work at the UN.
You're brilliant.

It Must Be Love wrote:Laverfan you should work at the UN.
You're brilliant.

I am not qualified, IMBL. I wish this did not happen.

Well Laverfan, I frankly won't be on here much longer. I didn't want to post to begin with and got sucked into it frankly by this bizarre thread. I have always been respectful to those that have shown me respect. And if I misspeak I admit it and try not to do it again. The old time posters who I have interacted with know my nature and my character despite innuendos by some that I am all about fighting it really isn't the case. I have never turned down an overture by anyone who wishes to calm the tensions on the site. My record is clear despite some people's views to the contrary. But this thread deserved an aggressive rebuttal and I am happy to provide it. Take care and we will see each other again. Maybe I will make a cameo to share my happiness if Novak wins the AO, I will leave you all to your forum and enjoy. And of course I do enjoy reading the articles from time to time some of the posters really are better than paid journalists.

socal1976 wrote:Well Laverfan, I frankly won't be on here much longer.

That is rather sad. Diversity of opinions are important.

socal1976 wrote:I didn't want to post to begin with and got sucked into it frankly by this bizarre thread.

Similar threads in the future may goad you into a similar mind-set. Please beware.

socal1976 wrote:I have always been respectful to those that have shown me respect. And if I misspeak I admit it and try not to do it again. The old time posters who I have interacted with know my nature and my character despite innuendos by some that I am all about fighting it really isn't the case. I have never turned down an overture by anyone who wishes to calm the tensions on the site. My record is clear despite some people's views to the contrary.

I am glad to see mutual respect, but neutrality, rather than explicit agression, is perhaps a better course of action, in the case of a perception of overt/covert disrespect.

socal1976 wrote:But this thread deserved an aggressive rebuttal and I am happy to provide it. Take care and we will see each other again. Maybe I will make a cameo to share my happiness if Novak wins the AO, I will leave you all to your forum and enjoy. And of course I do enjoy reading the articles from time to time some of the posters really are better than paid journalists.

It would be wonderful to see you back, especially if Djokovic wins AO 2013. Hopefully no one will write a new version of 'Robbery' to make you respond with aggression.

Thanks Laverfan, I will take your suggestions under serious consideration. We will chat again soon, thanks for taking the time to respond and doing your best to be a peacekeeper. See u soon LF, hoping for a great final and a great celebration of tennis.

socal1976 wrote:Thanks Laverfan, I will take your suggestions under serious consideration. We will chat again soon, thanks for taking the time to respond and doing your best to be a peacekeeper. See u soon LF, hoping for a great final and a great celebration of tennis.

All the best to all the quarterfinalists (including your favourite player).

I don't want to stir things but I just wanted to say that I hope very much that both BB and socal stay around. I know I am not alone in enjoying BB's quick wit and I feel the place really wouldn't be the same without him, nor would it without socal's passionate articles about his favourite player. It's a shame it has become very acrimonious between the two of you socal, but the Fognini thread was funny and much enjoyed by all.

We all have strong opinions on here and emotions sometimes cloud our objective judgements - just like all sports fans the world over. It's hard to get nuance always on a forum, but I feel that we are all comfortable with each other when we are comfortable teasing, or being teased.

Thanks for the kind words timeplease, nice to chat with you again.

Well to be frank I myself enjoyed some of Socal's articles and he did bring some variety here in the past and was a great addon, but it wasn't the same Socal I knew of who in the past would take matter easy and never use to swear abuse or get aggressive at posters just for objecting his views.

BB is one of those very polite and gentle posters who never hesitated to object a view if found silly, JM is another one of similar style.

The first thing we need to understand in an online forum is respect everybody and never get abusive on another poster just coz he objected one's view that would make the mods and admin's role easy, if they are pushed to a task then they have no option than removing objectionable content and further actions if necessary.

I am very pleased with the mods here, they are not just knowledgeable but patient and very friendly yet do their task.

IC, your entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. The moderators make their decisions and I have had a very nice and constructive discussion with Julius that has eased my concerns. That is the principal reason I am posting again. I have tolerated a lot of nonsense in the past, and felt the need to retaliate at some point.

Your opinion of BB is not mine, and I leave it at that. As I say I am willing to extend an olive branch to anyone, anyone despite past tensions if they themselves are willing to do the same. But I have a very short tolerance in general when I feel someone is being dishonest and misrepresenting my positions and creating straw men to ridicule me with.

I will leave it at that, whether you agree with my assessment or not. If you want the tone to change I suggest that you look at what you can do, and I will look at what I can do.

Wawrinka robbed himself when he failed to serve out the second set. He choked, which he even admitted in the post-match interview. Credit though that he kept fighting after that dissapointment, I thought he would have a Cilic-like collaps (see Murray match at US Open).

Precisely, you can not be robbed of a match that you were up 6-1 and 5-2, you can give it away. Furthermore, the call in question was his call to make, and he didn't do it, your not even supposed to chat it up with the umpire you have to make the call immediately or lose the right to challenge. Not to mention the match ended 10 games later.

socal1976 wrote:Your opinion of BB is not mine, and I leave it at that. As I say I am willing to extend an olive branch to anyone, anyone despite past tensions if they themselves are willing to do the same.

Does extending an olive branch somehow also involve revising one's opinion(s) of another? I personally think it does, but opinion(s) may vary.

socal1976 wrote:But I have a very short tolerance in general when I feel someone is being dishonest and misrepresenting my positions and creating straw men to ridicule me with.

Part of an olive branch should also be introspection and the next logical step of increasing such tolerances to be more accommodating, should it not?

socal1976 wrote:I will leave it at that, whether you agree with my assessment or not. If you want the tone to change I suggest that you look at what you can do, and I will look at what I can do.

Courtesy begat courtesy. You are a brave man, SoCal, and many, of such ilk, take risks. .

If I may be so forward as to suggest a PM (aka an olive branch) to posters you might want to renew acquaintances with, perhaps. Just some ideas towards a warmer clime, if you will.

Thank you for reading.

invisible - your concerns in your (now deleted) post are more appropriately expressed via a PM.

Sorry Laverfan, I don't think that will be likely. I wanted to write a post detailing my reasons but frankly it would only be adding gasoline on the fire. Lets just let things be, the man isn't here and I don't want to continue talking about him when he is not here. In life you can't get along with everybody and nor should you try with some people.

JuliusHMarx wrote:invisible - your concerns in your (now deleted) post are more appropriately expressed via a PM.

I thought of doing that way but then decided to do it this way so everybody know it, but I got no objections on you deleting the post coz you do whats best suited for the forum, so the decision is respected.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:invisible - your concerns in your (now deleted) post are more appropriately expressed via a PM.

I thought of doing that way but then decided to do it this way so everybody know it, but I got no objections on you deleting the post coz you do whats best suited for the forum, so the decision is respected.

So it's not only Socal getting posts deleted then?

I don't believe you?

*Blocks ears*

Actually JM lets put it right my post wasn't deleted but Robbed by a Socalled Mod

I see curly and larry, where is moe? on second thought no curly it is just shep, damn it I hate the episodes with shep.

socal1976 wrote:Sorry Laverfan, I don't think that will be likely. I wanted to write a post detailing my reasons but frankly it would only be adding gasoline on the fire. Lets just let things be, the man isn't here and I don't want to continue talking about him when he is not here.

I had suggested a PM route.

socal1976 wrote:In life you can't get along with everybody and nor should you try with some people.

Be careful, the moolah you lose in business with that viewpoint could be enormous. . I will leave you to your musings, with a chotta peg of Mcallans and a wise man's quote...

As I say I am willing to extend an olive branch to anyone, anyone despite past tensions if they themselves are willing to do the same.

BTW, LCM provided hours of entertainment, but behind the scenes was real hard work.

You do have a way of soothing the savage beast Laverfan. Thank you for your anger management counseling, people charge money for this, may I suggest a second career. Again I will as always take your suggestions under serious consideration.

socal1976 wrote:You do have a way of soothing the savage beast Laverfan. Thank you for your anger management counseling, people charge money for this, may I suggest a second career.

Thanks, SoCal. Very happy to have an active community member. I had not considered a second career. My current involvement with autistic children has taught me a lot, not sure I would choose a different path, but glad to take your suggestion under advisement.

socal1976 wrote:Again I will as always take your suggestions under serious consideration.

I am grateful, honoured and humbled.

All's cool.

Your plane to the West Bank is being readied, laverfan.

bogbrush wrote:All's cool.

Your plane to the West Bank is being readied, laverfan.

I will never fill Senator George J. Mitchell's shoes. He is a great man, both in West Bank and Ireland. I am just glad to have both of you back.

Please enjoy this virtual .