Some Funny 606v2 Jokes

I was recently banned for "trolling" for posting a link to the popular Guardian article about Nadal and Federer and talking about fine art so I'm not sure it's safe here to give my views on tennis So I thought I'd tell some funny 606v2 Jokes instead

What does a 606v2 poster say if Federer beats Nadal? "He's the GOAT"

What does a 606v2 poster say if Nadal beats Federer? Nothing otherwise they'll get banned

What does a 606v2 poster say on an article about Federer and Nadal that has 552 comments? "I'm leaving" and then adds another 300 words on the subject

What does a 606v2 poster say on an article about Raonic and Ferrer? Nothing

What does a 606v2 poster call a 606v2 poster who spams an article with off topic snark remarks? "A moderator"

What does a 606v2 poster call a female 606v2 poster? Names If they still hang around they ban them

What does a 606v2 poster call a male 606v2 poster who is a Nadal fan? "A girl"

What does a 606v2 poster do when a 606v2 poster writes an article on a popular tennis topic? Ban them

What does a 606v2 poster call a 606v2 poster with a different viewpoint? "A troll"

What does a 606v2 poster say when other 606v2 posters are happily discussing a topic that doesn't interest them? "Shut up!" and if that doesn't work they say it again

These are so funny!  

I wish we could hang out in real life. You seem fun.

I have a joke too:

What does a 606v2 poster call someone who endlessly posts about the same subject over and over again, with same the same agenda, the same mealy-mouthed wriggle room in the wording and the same desire to disparage views different to their own? Boring.

Sorry to hear you were banned Hawkeye. If it was truly just for posting those threads then that's unacceptable and frankly bizarre.

Born Slippy wrote:Sorry to hear you were banned Hawkeye. If it was truly just for posting those threads then that's unacceptable and frankly bizarre.

Not really bizarre though

Born Slippy wrote:Sorry to hear you were banned Hawkeye. If it was truly just for posting those threads then that's unacceptable and frankly bizarre.

Obviously (I hope) the reasons for banning people are not discussed on threads, unless specifically requested by the poster who was banned (and maybe not even then). As such it would be very wrong to jump to conclusions.
We're always asking for suitable new Mods Born, if you'd care to volunteer? Then you could join in the discussions that Admins and Mods have about when and why to ban people.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Obviously (I hope) the reasons for banning people are not discussed on threads, unless specifically requested by the poster who was banned

Please do tell. Everything I said is on the Guardian Article

https://www.606v2.com/t55537-the-greatest-ever-or-second-best

What did I say that was wrong?

Or was it my article about Constable and Turner

https://www.606v2.com/t55352-two-masters-only-one-winner

Did I say something wrong there?

HE ultimately it is a question of whether a poster is detrimental to the forum with repeated wum-like posts and threads that drag the forum down, or beneficial to the forum with positive and constructive comments that enhance the forum.
We always allow plenty of latitude but decisions are made in the best interests of the forum.
We've had such PM conversations before, so I am sure you are aware of where the limits are and are very aware of when you test them out - as such I think you already know the answers.

So my articles linking to the Guardian Article and the Constable, Turner article where judged to be "wum-like" and were considered to be dragging the forum down? That is a serious question. I do think there were "wum-like" comments posted on there and there was definitely a concentrated attempt by some to stop any discussion but isn't that something a moderator should address? Not join in with.

I post about lots of subjects and provide links to articles that interest me but it's quite obvious I've been banned and labeled a troll because I am a Nadal fan. Nadal fans are just not welcome here. They either move on because it's made obvious or if they continue to post they get banned. Articles about perhaps the greatest player ever will always attract attention on any tennis forum including this one but the only ones that are acceptable are the highly critical ones. Anyone with anything positive to say about him is labeled a troll. It's a joke. You know that's a serious label and I take issue with being called a troll. If this was a work place I doubt you would be able to throw names like that around.

I believe this forum is in need of some new moderators. I offered myself but nothing came of it.

I like HE, I know some Murray fans will disagree and some other posters as well. I find her to be energetic and fun. We need energy and to tight a control on a forum can and does stifle energy in the debates. I can't imagine the site without HE's contribution. I don't really get how some topics anger people so much. There is the ability to just ignore them and not contribute. But if others want to have a discussion there should be no desire to end that discussion because one or two people find it dull or repetitive.

hawkeye wrote:I post about lots of subjects and provide links to articles that interest me but it's quite obvious I've been banned and labeled a troll because I am a Nadal fan. Nadal fans are just not welcome here.

That's nonsense. Lydian, for example, despite some differences of opinion, is one of the posters I respect an value most. I have never permanently banned a Nadal fan. I have permanently banned 2 or 3 Fed fans. When people are banned, it is because of their behaviour, not because of who they support.

Yawwwwnnnnn.

I am getting really sick and tired reading threads that currently question decisions by the moderators. It's tiresome and quite frankly boring. Now as stated many times by the moderators, if you have an issue please raise via PM and the mods will discuss this with you. By all means if you disagree with the current regime, do volunteer to moderate. I am sure JHM and LF would welcome less time on the forum having to read through threads and comments to ensure they comply with forum guidelines. Threads like this aren't actually a solution to the 'problems' percieved by disgruntled posters now are they.

In terms of subject matter, do we really need another Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray thread that basically covers the same ground that was discussed before. The only changes this year in these players careers have been form and fitness. Nothing else. These have been expanded upon.

I wouldn't say new players, but some of the more promising crop have come to the party, but no-one is really engaging in them. Lydian's praise of Goffin and summerblues praise of Dimitrov have been the only difference from the Status Quo that has plagued this forum. Sure Kyrgios gave us something different, it's strange how his one match has been more highlighted than that say of the maiden slam victories for Stan and Cilic. Despite these victories, no-one has really got behind Stan or Cilic with any real interest or support.

I don't blame the posters fully. It's just that when you look at the top 10. Take out Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. What are the other 7 really offering the game that hasn't already been seen? There's no new dimension or freshness. It's 'older' players that are reaching the peak of their striving improvement. As quickly as they mature and peak, they seem to tail off. I do believe this is down to lack of actual talent in the field. I don't believe that the current top 10 will remain the same, bar probably the 3 names mentioned.

My own interest in tennis has dwindled. It shows a real weakness in the tour when the usual suspects are not mentioned or spoke about. So much of the media and ATP interest is invested in those players and that is such a shame. Looking at the structure within the LTA and in other countries, just fills me with negativity.

I am still waiting for those breakout stars.

Good post, LK, and I largely agree.

Tennis is a weird limbo at the moment where the only long term narrative is how much further will Federer, Nadal and Djokovic enhance their already outstanding achievements.

The breakthrough of Stan in Australia and MC was great but it hasn't heralded his emergence as a really top player or as a player to take the game forward. It turned out to be a hiatus rather than a change.

Likewise, Cilic's win at USO was needed but its significance will not be great if it ends up being a one-off.

The younger generation have improved but it's really only Kei who looks to me like a consistent, serious threat to the established top guys.

Tennis feels like it may be on the cusp of some change but the emergence of another 'great' still feels a fair way off to me.

I do question what people want from tennis. Currently we have two players chasing history, a third trying to cement his place as an all-time great and a slam champion trying to re-discover his form following surgery.

That in itself would be compelling enough but we have also had two new slam winners and a trio of younger stars who have made strides this year to reach the top 10 and challenge the elite.

Not only that but we have seen an 18/19 year old rocket up the rankings on the back of a Wimbledon win over Nadal, the Goffin story, Zverev making inroads into ATP events at 17 and Koslov making a Challenger final at 16.

How could tennis be in a much better state?

Born Slippy wrote:I do question what people want from tennis. Currently we have two players chasing history, a third trying to cement his place as an all-time great and a slam champion trying to re-discover his form following surgery.

I enjoy watching it, it's just not great for discussion.

To frequently it ends up as "You know that player who we already know is great? Is he any greater now that the stats have changed slightly? Is he better than that player? What about now? What about now? What about now?".

Tennis needs someone to break through and become a new force at the top of the game. I like having the Big 4 around but they can't keep on being their own greatest rivals. We know the dynamics of their match ups inside out now. They need new rivals.

The younger players are getting ever closer but it's getting like those "will they, won't they" relationships you get in TV programmes. It's interesting for a while but it is tedious if it never gets resolved.

The current greats have close to perfected the heavy baseline game that is the modern way, as such I dont think new guns are gonna challenge them real proper before they get old unless the prevailing tennis style changes.

I do feel that we have tailed off a bit in terms of quality in that the young guns have really failed apart from Cilic who isn't that young anymore. I don't see anyone of the next generation players being able to reach Fedal standards or really even Djokovician levels either. A bit dissappointed in Andy not kicking on but then again he has been injured. Still there are three all time greats currently playing which is better than we have had it in certain down periods of the game. Definetly, feel like transitional period is natural after the highs of the last few years.

socal1976 wrote: apart from Cilic who isn't that young anymore.  

Yes, I'm always amused to see Cilic referred to as part of the younger generation.

He's 26! He's only 16 months younger than Djokovic and Murray.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:I do question what people want from tennis. Currently we have two players chasing history, a third trying to cement his place as an all-time great and a slam champion trying to re-discover his form following surgery.

I enjoy watching it, it's just not great for discussion.

To frequently it ends up as "You know that player who we already know is great? Is he any greater now that the stats have changed slightly? Is he better than that player? What about now? What about now? What about now?".

Tennis needs someone to break through and become a new force at the top of the game. I like having the Big 4 around but they can't keep on being their own greatest rivals. We know the dynamics of their match ups inside out now. They need new rivals.

The younger players are getting ever closer but it's getting like those "will they, won't they" relationships you get in TV programmes. It's interesting for a while but it is tedious if it never gets resolved.

But then there would be 6 months of threads about how great that player is - will he surpass Fed etc. The problem with tennis is that there are very few fans of anyone who isn't top 4. Consequently, any debate about other players largely gets ignored. Its threads about Nadal and Federer which primarily get people to post and generally it will be something perceived as negative towards them which will generate most interest.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Sorry to hear you were banned Hawkeye. If it was truly just for posting those threads then that's unacceptable and frankly bizarre.

Obviously (I hope) the reasons for banning people are not discussed on threads, unless specifically requested by the poster who was banned (and maybe not even then). As such it would be very wrong to jump to conclusions.
We're always asking for suitable new Mods Born, if you'd care to volunteer? Then you could join in the discussions that Admins and Mods have about when and why to ban people.

Give me a month or so and I may have a bit more time to commit.

I don't like to see the terms WUM and troll thrown around at posters, and I don't think HE is the classic type. She does bring some interest to the forum. However, certain specific types of thread that she posts regularly tend to generate an unpleasant reaction and very very little interesting discussion. You can say that the other posters are to blame for this, and that's fair enough, though the make up of the forum is what it is and it unlikely to change radically. However when someone continues to post these same type of threads, I can't help but assume that that is exactly the type of reaction they are looking for and are loving "lighting the blue touch paper" and watching the ensuing reaction. If not, maybe HE can explain exactly what sort of discussion she hopes to get going.

BS, you're probably right. I don't mind threads about Federer and Nadal, it's only the endless, unresolvable debate about who is better than can get a little trying.

The thing with Federer, Nadal and, latterly, Djokovic is that they changed the tennis landscape. They drove the over-arching tennis narrative with their rivalries and the virtues and vices of their games and personalities.

(As a side note, I think an oft-overlooked aspect of their attraction is that they are three very different characters with very different but very distinctive on court personas. People are drawn to or repelled by their character independent of their game. It's difficult to imagine, say, Raonic's character attracting the same interest, however successful he ends up being)

I'd really like someone else like that to emerge from the younger guys but maybe I'm expecting too much.

Murdoch there is a big drop off between both personality and ability from the current big 3 and the rest of the field. There is of course a large gap in accomplisment and popularity between Fed, then Nadal, and then Djoko. With federer being by far the most popular and so far the most accomplished. I struggle to see who will carry the sport on unless someone completely new starts dominanting. There is no dominant type player in the next crop or two guys.

YvonneT wrote:I don't like to see the terms WUM and troll thrown around at posters, and I don't think HE is the classic type. She does bring some interest to the forum. However, certain specific types of thread that she posts regularly tend to generate an unpleasant reaction and very very little interesting discussion. You can say that the other posters are to blame for this, and that's fair enough, though the make up of the forum is what it is and it unlikely to change radically. However when someone continues to post these same type of threads, I can't help but assume that that is exactly the type of reaction they are looking for and are loving "lighting the blue touch paper" and watching the ensuing reaction. If not, maybe HE can explain exactly what sort of discussion she hopes to get going.

I like the arsonist nature of HE, she knows how to put your panties in a bunch without actually saying much that is offensive. She doesn't get into personal attacks but knows how to use the needle.

Not on purpose though

Born Slippy wrote:I do question what people want from tennis. Currently we have two players chasing history, a third trying to cement his place as an all-time great and a slam champion trying to re-discover his form following surgery.

That in itself would be compelling enough but we have also had two new slam winners and a trio of younger stars who have made strides this year to reach the top 10 and challenge the elite.

Not only that but we have seen an 18/19 year old rocket up the rankings on the back of a Wimbledon win over Nadal, the Goffin story, Zverev making inroads into ATP events at 17 and Koslov making a Challenger final at 16.

How could tennis be in a much better state?

Is it a better state though?

I don't see that the game itself has progressed. It's just if anything players conditioning has vastly improved enabling them to hit harder and for longer. The issue I have is the tour and the tournaments not willing to change. Clay is a given, not much can be done with that, but Grass and Hardcourt come on. Encourage some fresh would be champions. Too much advantage in some sense is given to the top players nowadays. For the sake of lengthening the legacies of current greats, you could create new ones. People complained about the 90's in terms of a very serve dominated era, but now we have a era that has stretched beyond that capacity. Virgin Slam winners are now mid 20's? Doesn't have that freshness feel to it. The last teenager that anyone really raved about making strodes in a Slam event was Tomic, but nothing since then.

I follow golf and you look at their Majors, yes played on different venues bar the Masters, but to keep it fair and open they at least try and influence conditions. You could argue longer hitters have the advantage, but if they don't have a short game or putting game that advantage counts for nothing. Look at F1. Can't do anything with the race tracks, so they try and limit the car technology so no car has massive advantages over others.

I accept it is difficult for organisers to chop and change their courts and financially and logistically must be a nightmare, but take Masters events. Surely they could produce varying courts with the other 51 weeks in the year?

I couldn't propose an overnight solution because it's not so simple, but something needs to give.

Thanks Born Slippy and socal1976 for your kind words Born slippy I agree that tennis is interesting at the moment.

Eagle Eye wrote:These are so funny!  

I wish we could hang out in real life. You seem fun.

I have a joke too:

What does a 606v2 poster call someone who endlessly posts about the same subject over and over again, with same the same agenda, the same mealy-mouthed wriggle room in the wording and the same desire to disparage views different to their own? Boring.

Sorry I don't get your joke it makes no sense. But notice you've only ever made 5 comments on 606v2 and one of them was here. Also have you named yourself after me. It's not really a joke as such but it is pretty funny. Your not really mikey are you?

legendkillarV2. Ha ha very funny. I presume you were attempting to be witty by saying you were bored and then posting 300 words (roughly) on the topic of this article just like joke number 3.

YvonneT wrote: If not, maybe HE can explain exactly what sort of discussion she hopes to get going.

I'm not sure why it isn't obvious but if you want me to give some examples I'll use the two articles I got banned for - I've posted links to them in an earlier comment here if your not sure what they are. Both are links to articles I read and were posted a few weeks apart.

The first was an article about a forthcoming exhibition about the works of the painters Constable and Turner. It was a little different to the usual critic pieces about Art as it talked about them as rivals. It included background information on their contrasting lifestyles and what I thought was a fascinating insight into how competitive they were with each other. I thought there were certain parallels with another famous tennis rivalry. Part of the reason for posting was to share it and see what other posters thought. It was just a bit of fun and I expected it to be seen in that way. I didn't expect much interest maybe a few posters matching a particular painter with a particular player. Take out the wum comments and that's more or less what I got. 

The Guardian article was about Nadal and Federer. It had attracted a huge amount of interest for a tennis article with lots of comments. I expected it would be of interest here and I wanted to talk about it. Funnily enough hidden amongst all the wum and spam like comments it attracted exactly the sort of discussion I wanted. Basically on topic comments about the article. Check it and you will see that some posters had some interesting things to say. With better moderation it could have been a really good discussion.

hawkeye wrote:I'm not sure why it isn't obvious but if you want me to give some examples I'll use the two articles I got banned for.

HE, I really do wish you'd stop saying that you got banned for things that you didn't get banned for. I'm not sure why you keep saying that, unless it is to make a point that isn't true. We've had PM conversation in the past that I'm fairly certain you understood at the time. If you've forgotten what was said, please let me know via PM and I'll talk you through it again.

Hi there, Long time reader first time poster.

Here's an idea.. create 3 sticky threads. Federer News, Nadal News and GOAT debate. Chuck anything relating to the above in the corresponding folder so you don't have to see the same thing in the tennis section. You can then just ignore these folders if seeing the same tired argument over and over again winds you up. Worked on the boxing section when there was a poster posting the same thing over and over again.

Or just ignore the new articles all together, there is a foe function.

I'll ask the Admins about a GOAT debate sticky - can't set one up myself.

Not Fed news or Nadal news though - otherwise why not Djoko news, Murray news, Goffin news etc.

Ah HE. On the contray if you read my post correctly, infact I was actually defending your obsession with Fedal. This isn't the first time you have missed the point which I guess could be joke number 11?

Thing is HE many posters have moved on from the 'Big 4' and are looking for the new breed of champions that will take on that mantle and run with it, but sadly this is not happening at the rate we would like it to. It's fair to say really that the whole 'Big 4' died a death in 2013. Some posters have found other players to warm to and others simply are just waiting and biding their time till that player comes along.

In years to come I can see most of the posters speak of new favourite players and move with the times, but you will continue to spew the same threads over and over again even in 20 years to come, which on the face of it is quite depressing when you think about it.

hawkeye wrote:

Eagle Eye wrote:These are so funny!  

I wish we could hang out in real life. You seem fun.

I have a joke too:

What does a 606v2 poster call someone who endlessly posts about the same subject over and over again, with same the same agenda, the same mealy-mouthed wriggle room in the wording and the same desire to disparage views different to their own? Boring.

Sorry I don't get your joke it makes no sense. But notice you've only ever made 5 comments on 606v2 and one of them was here. Also have you named yourself after me. It's not really a joke as such but it is pretty funny. Your not really mikey are you?

I haven't been posting as much recently as Federer hasn't been playing and Rafa's injury meant he got beaten early in Beijing  (a result I classify as )

I think you're a wonderful poster but I'm not actually named after you. My name is based upon the day I saw Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards in the camping section of Millets in Leamington Spa.

Sorry you didn't like the joke. I had a much better one about Andy Murray, Nicola Sturgeon and Scottish oil but it doesn't make sense now that Scotland voted to stay in the UK (much to Andy's disappointment )

Also, I don't know who Mikey is. Michael Bolton?

Eagle Eye wrote:These are so funny!  

I wish we could hang out in real life. You seem fun.

Well I wish that too provided that she is over 18, which I am not so sure about......

Suppose I'm the only one who chuckled at a few of these?

kingraf wrote:Suppose I'm the only one who chuckled at a few of these?

Glad I made you chuckle

I have some more.

What does a 606v2 poster do if there is more than one Nadal fan posting on 606v2? Send them to an isolation unit

What does a 606v2 poster do if there are no comments on an article about Raonic and Ferrer?

What does a 606v2 poster do if there are STILL no comments on an article about Raonic and Ferrer?

What does a 606v2 poster do if the rest of 606v2 is talking about Nadal and Federer? Send them to an isolation unit

NOW What does a 606v2 poster say on an article about Raonic and Ferrer? Nothing