Those might be rhetorical questions, to me, but I thought they weren't to you. You think Nadal has no talent and no fans. And you do think he has "lucked" into a lot of his wins. You say it all the time. I'm perfectly happy if you answer.
I'm stalling? I haven't failed to respond to anything you've said. I, on the other hand, have asked specific questions. I'll be standing by for your answers.
Well, in your post #1124, above, you were perfectly happy to imply doping on Nadal's part. So, just like Front and Darth, when confronted with solid questions about Nadal's history and what makes real sense, you fold like a cheap tent. I have no illusions that you and Front and Darth won't keep taking cheap shots at Nadal, but I'm hoping that folks like @Michael;Kiwi and other reasonable people will read this and see you for the cowardly provocateurs that you are.
Actually, I gave you a very good counter-argument for why he's not doping, chapter and verse, and you ignored it. Sports doctors say that the "tell" for doping is a spike in performance, especially late-career. I've told you why there was none in Nadal's. I asked you directly: given the evidence, when would Rafa have started doping and why? You have no answer. And you say I'd better have proof. Well, actually, it's hard to prove the absence of something, but I've done a pretty good job. What I would say to you is: if you're going to keep slandering Nadal, YOU'D better have proof, if that's your stated standard. One proof I have is he won a libel suit in a French court of law against a woman who claimed on television that he'd served a silent ban. That's better than you've got. Since you're not going to respond to direct questions, why don't we say you should just stop implying that Nadal dopes, ok?
I can name quite a few Fed fans who must be on “something “that ain’t legal “ in most states besides Colo and California if they actually believe that the World’s # 1 is using PEDs but the world’s #2 who is almost 6 years older is pure as the driven Snow.
Okay Let me get this one straight..Roger is your tennis God.. Roger got outplayed by the same guy that Novak took to the woodshed and had a cup of tea during the changeovers. If this is true, you are saying that a less than 80 % Djokovic defeated Anderson, Nadal and most likely Roger? I am very curious to see how you wiggle your way out of this One.
I've asked you to comment on reasonable facts. You refuse. No one is policing your morals. Only asking you to comment on observable facts. If you choose your "perception of facts" over those that are well-delineated and laid out for debate, then you choose your own La-La Land. Otherwise you would debate. I have not set up a moral construct, merely a series of debatable points.
Actually, your understanding of "childish bickering" (my first emphasis) is different than as described by the English dictionary:
Oops, I haven't seen your post until a moment ago, hence my delayed response herein.
It's o.k. A lot was said. Things get missed. Some people exaggerate. Sometimes when a lot is said we tend to look at the majority of what is said by 1 person to build up a picture of what someone is normally like. This colours the way that the person is seen & means that if a person normally just whinges, whines & name-calls & doesn't say much else what else they do say is normally disregarded. Of course, everyone has minds of their own which means people are going to disagree sometimes but not always, everyone also has different experiences which affect the way they see things not to mention education, culture & skills, strengths, weaknesses, likes & dislikes. Although everyone reads the same way on a basic level there are many different ways of reading on a not so basic level & even the simplest sentence can be ambiguous as it could be written sarcastically or to mean what it actually says, then there's critical reading etc. Sometimes I seem to pick up on people's moods when reading & try to work out their intentions but that's a defence mechanism because I've often played victim to other people's moods. I try not to leave myself open to comment & work out possible comebacks so I'm ready for them though I'm spontaneous most of the time & don't have an agenda. Sometimes I read things in all ways they could be meant & have a range of different answers in mind & just have to pick 1. Sometimes I pick the right 1. Sometimes I don't. (Don't forget, I've had Monfed on ignore for about a month now so don't see what he says directly only other people's responses to him.) I agree with you.
