| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 47:01:13 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,072 |
The draws are out. Same rules as always, post your picks here (winner/finalist).
https://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/draws/2025_WS_draw.pdf https://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/draws/2025_MS_draw.pdf
Entries must be posted before the first ball is struck in New York on
Sunday.
-a MJ
The draws are out. Same rules as always, post your picks here(winner/fina=list).https://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/draws/2025_WS_draw.pdfhttps://www= .usopen.org/en_US/scores/draws/2025_MS_draw.pdfEntries must be posted befor=
Alcaraz d SinnerSabalenka d Shnaider
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> writes:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> Wrote in message:r
On 8/23/2025 8:55 AM, Pelle Svansl||s wrote:> WHAT DO YOU know about
Hamas?> > That itrCOs sworn to d
Some people didn't have sex since WWII,-a can this change now? I don't
believe so but using Nukes can happen at any moment
But I am more impressed that the military finally got rid of using
floppy disks
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/17/the-us-nuclear-forces-dr-
strangelove-era-messaging-system-finally-got-rid-of-its-floppy-disks/
Only under the resolute desk now.-a Oh wait, you said DISKS!
On 8/23/25 9:54 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> writes:
I honestly am impressed that nukes have not been used since WWII,
considering how many nations that now have them or could quickly make
a few low end ones.
Well, only 9.-a Most of which have had them for quite a while. What
does this have to do with Hamas?
I take it to mean that Scall means that it's ironic that anyone who has access to nukes has not used them against Hamas, just to settle the
issue once and for all.
"There. We'll never hear any more about *those* fuckers...".
Am I right, or am I right? :^)
Sawfish kirjoitti 23.8.2025 klo 22.21:
On 8/23/25 9:54 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> writes:I take it to mean that Scall means that it's ironic that anyone
I honestly am impressed that nukes have not been used since
WWII,
considering how many nations that now have them or could
quickly make
a few low end ones.
Well, only 9.-a Most of which have had them for quite a
while. What
does this have to do with Hamas?
who
has access to nukes has not used them against Hamas, just to
settle
the issue once and for all.
"There. We'll never hear any more about *those* fuckers...".
Am I right, or am I right? :^)
A great idea regardless.
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
Sawfish kirjoitti 23.8.2025 klo 22.21:
On 8/23/25 9:54 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> writes:I take it to mean that Scall means that it's ironic that anyone who
I honestly am impressed that nukes have not been used since WWII,
considering how many nations that now have them or could quickly make >>>>> a few low end ones.
Well, only 9.-a Most of which have had them for quite a while. What
does this have to do with Hamas?
has access to nukes has not used them against Hamas, just to settle
the issue once and for all.
"There. We'll never hear any more about *those* fuckers...".
Am I right, or am I right? :^)
A great idea regardless.
I don't see how.-a Besides the ethical and humanitarian aspect of it
(which you obviously don't care about anyway), it's bad for the health, safety and stability of the region.-a It would very likely encourage
nuclear reprisals.-a Likely in the form of terrorist attacks.
Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> Wrote in message:r
Alcaraz d SinnerSabalenka d Shnaider
Excellent pick, Schnaidar is underappreciated.
Micha→ Jankowski <michalj@fuw.edu.pl> Wrote in message:r> The draws are out. Same rules as always,
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
Micha Jankowski <michalj@fuw.edu.pl> Wrote in message:r> The draws are out. Same rules as always,
Alcaraz is so pissed that he shaved his hair and looks like a
fugitive
Sawfish kirjoitti 23.8.2025 klo 22.21:nukes have not been used since
On 8/23/25 9:54 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> writes:
I honestly am impressed that
that now have them or couldWWII,
considering how many nations
have had them for quite aquickly make
a few low end ones.
Well, only 9.-a Most of which
means that it's ironic that anyonewhile. WhatI take it to mean that Scall
does this have to do with Hamas?
them against Hamas, just towho
has access to nukes has not used
more about *those* fuckers...".settle
the issue once and for all.
"There. We'll never hear any
Am I right, or am I right? :^)
A great idea regardless.
I don't see how. Besides the
ethical and humanitarian aspect of
it (which you obviously don't care
about anyway), it's bad for the
health, safety and stability of the
region. It would very likely
encourage nuclear reprisals.
Likely in the form of terrorist
attacks.
In article <87bjo4xp40.fsf@gmail.com>, jdeluise <jdeluise@gmail.com> wrote:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
Sawfish kirjoitti 23.8.2025 klo 22.21:nukes have not been used since
On 8/23/25 9:54 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> writes:
I honestly am impressed that
that now have them or couldWWII,
considering how many nations
have had them for quite aquickly make
a few low end ones.
Well, only 9.-a Most of which
means that it's ironic that anyonewhile. WhatI take it to mean that Scall
does this have to do with Hamas?
them against Hamas, just towho
has access to nukes has not used
more about *those* fuckers...".settle
the issue once and for all.
"There. We'll never hear any
Am I right, or am I right? :^)
A great idea regardless.
I don't see how. Besides the
ethical and humanitarian aspect of
it (which you obviously don't care
about anyway), it's bad for the
health, safety and stability of the
region. It would very likely
encourage nuclear reprisals.
Likely in the form of terrorist
attacks.
Gaza is a shitshow. Everybody blames either Israel or Hamas. Both have been a-holes. But few seem to know that the problem is roted in 1948, when Egypt and Jordan attacked Israel. Israel won and kicked the Palestians out. Jordan accepted refugees. Egypt didn't.
On 8/26/2025 6:01 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <87bjo4xp40.fsf@gmail.com>, jdeluise-a <jdeluise@gmail.com>
wrote:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
Sawfish kirjoitti 23.8.2025 klo 22.21:nukes have not been used since
On 8/23/25 9:54 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> writes:
I honestly am impressed that
that now have them or couldWWII,
considering how many nations
have had them for quite aquickly make
a few low end ones.
Well, only 9.-a Most of which
means that it's ironic that anyonewhile. WhatI take it to mean that Scall
does this have to do with Hamas?
them against Hamas, just towho
has access to nukes has not used
more about *those* fuckers...".settle
the issue once and for all.
"There. We'll never hear any
Am I right, or am I right? :^)
A great idea regardless.
I don't see how.-a Besides the
ethical and humanitarian aspect of
it (which you obviously don't care
about anyway), it's bad for the
health, safety and stability of the
region.-a It would very likely
encourage nuclear reprisals.
Likely in the form of terrorist
attacks.
Gaza is a shitshow. Everybody blames either Israel or Hamas. Both have
been a-holes. But few seem to know that the problem is roted in 1948,
when Egypt and Jordan attacked Israel. Israel won and kicked the
Palestians out. Jordan accepted refugees. Egypt didn't.
Probably sums it up quite nicely.
On 27.8.2025 5.23, Scall5 wrote:
On 8/26/2025 6:01 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <87bjo4xp40.fsf@gmail.com>, jdeluise-a <jdeluise@gmail.com>
wrote:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
Sawfish kirjoitti 23.8.2025 klo 22.21:nukes have not been used since
On 8/23/25 9:54 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> writes:
I honestly am impressed that
that now have them or couldWWII,
considering how many nations
have had them for quite aquickly make
a few low end ones.
Well, only 9.-a Most of which
means that it's ironic that anyonewhile. WhatI take it to mean that Scall
does this have to do with Hamas?
them against Hamas, just towho
has access to nukes has not used
more about *those* fuckers...".settle
the issue once and for all.
"There. We'll never hear any
Am I right, or am I right? :^)
A great idea regardless.
I don't see how.-a Besides the
ethical and humanitarian aspect of
it (which you obviously don't care
about anyway), it's bad for the
health, safety and stability of the
region.-a It would very likely
encourage nuclear reprisals.
Likely in the form of terrorist
attacks.
Gaza is a shitshow. Everybody blames either Israel or Hamas. Both have
been a-holes. But few seem to know that the problem is roted in 1948,
when Egypt and Jordan attacked Israel. Israel won and kicked the
Palestians out. Jordan accepted refugees. Egypt didn't.
There are refugee camps all over the place since 1948. BUt Gaza became a >camp after the 1967 war. Under Israel control. The people in those camps
are poeple that lived in Gaza and the West Bank before the 1967 war.
Not sure what Egypt admitting or not admitting refugees has to do with
Gaza let alone Hamas.
If you're in for for the infinitesimals, you COULD say that the
neighbouring countries have not been part of a solution. For them,
hunnreds of thousands of refugees has been a burden. And at the same
time a useful political wedge to be applied when appropriate. In fact,
one of the reasons, I guess, for the Hamas attack is that the
Palestinians were losing that position.
But this part of the total blame is wildly disproportionate to its >complement. In no way does it excuse what Israel has been doing in the
past or is doing now. Israel has never intended to let go of the
territories it seized in 1967. It has never intended to make the people
that live there fully fledged citizens either. Or any kind of citizens.
They would become a majority in Israel. There basically is only one
solution to the quandary. To paraphrase Netenyahu: "What started with
the Hamas attack, is a historical window of opportunity".
It's not about Hamas. Kushner talked about the amusement park before any >attacks.
Probably sums it up quite nicely.
Definitely not. I'm not a reader of minds but I suspect bmoore didn't
mean to sum anything up. Just to offer another perspective. Which is
cool enough.
In article <108mqrm$lc97$1@dont-email.me>,
Pelle Svansl|a-|s <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 27.8.2025 5.23, Scall5 wrote:
On 8/26/2025 6:01 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <87bjo4xp40.fsf@gmail.com>, jdeluise|e-a
<jdeluise@gmail.com>
wrote:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
Sawfish kirjoitti 23.8.2025 klo 22.21:nukes have not been used since
On 8/23/25 9:54 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> writes:
I honestly am impressed that
that now have them or couldWWII,
considering how many nations
have had them for quite aquickly make
a few low end ones.
Well, only 9.|e-a Most of which
means that it's ironic that anyonewhile. WhatI take it to mean that Scall
does this have to do with Hamas?
them against Hamas, just towho
has access to nukes has not used
more about *those* fuckers...".settle
the issue once and for all.
"There. We'll never hear any
Am I right, or am I right? :^)
A great idea regardless.
I don't see how.|e-a Besides the
ethical and humanitarian aspect of
it (which you obviously don't care
about anyway), it's bad for the
health, safety and stability of the
region.|e-a It would very likely
encourage nuclear reprisals.
Likely in the form of terrorist
attacks.
Gaza is a shitshow. Everybody blames either Israel or
Hamas. Both have
been a-holes. But few seem to know that the problem is roted
in 1948,
when Egypt and Jordan attacked Israel. Israel won and kicked
the
Palestians out. Jordan accepted refugees. Egypt didn't.
There are refugee camps all over the place since 1948. BUt Gaza
became a
camp after the 1967 war. Under Israel control. The people in
those camps
are poeple that lived in Gaza and the West Bank before the 1967
war.
Not sure what Egypt admitting or not admitting refugees has to
do with
Gaza let alone Hamas.
If you're in for for the infinitesimals, you COULD say that the >>neighbouring countries have not been part of a solution. For
them,
hunnreds of thousands of refugees has been a burden. And at the
same
time a useful political wedge to be applied when appropriate. In
fact,
one of the reasons, I guess, for the Hamas attack is that the
Palestinians were losing that position.
But this part of the total blame is wildly disproportionate to
its
complement. In no way does it excuse what Israel has been doing
in the
past or is doing now. Israel has never intended to let go of the >>territories it seized in 1967. It has never intended to make the
people
that live there fully fledged citizens either. Or any kind of
citizens.
They would become a majority in Israel. There basically is only
one
solution to the quandary. To paraphrase Netenyahu: "What started
with
the Hamas attack, is a historical window of opportunity".
It's not about Hamas. Kushner talked about the amusement park
before any
attacks.
Probably sums it up quite nicely.
Definitely not. I'm not a reader of minds but I suspect bmoore
didn't
mean to sum anything up. Just to offer another
perspective. Which is
cool enough.
I mention Egypt not to blame them for everything, but in 1948,
Egypt controlled Gaza. When they forced so many Palestians
to live in tiny Gaza, that created tension. Later, Israel added
to the tension by forcing even more Pelestians to live
there. Why did the Palestians get pissed off at Israel but not
so much Egypt?
In article <108mqrm$lc97$1@dont-email.me>,
Pelle Svansl||s <pelle@svans.los> wrote:
On 27.8.2025 5.23, Scall5 wrote:
On 8/26/2025 6:01 PM, bmoore wrote:
In article <87bjo4xp40.fsf@gmail.com>, jdeluise-a <jdeluise@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:
Sawfish kirjoitti 23.8.2025 klo 22.21:nukes have not been used since
On 8/23/25 9:54 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Scall5 <nospam@home.net> writes:
I honestly am impressed that
that now have them or couldWWII,
considering how many nations
have had them for quite aquickly make
a few low end ones.
Well, only 9.-a Most of which
means that it's ironic that anyonewhile. WhatI take it to mean that Scall
does this have to do with Hamas?
them against Hamas, just towho
has access to nukes has not used
more about *those* fuckers...".settle
the issue once and for all.
"There. We'll never hear any
Am I right, or am I right? :^)
A great idea regardless.
I don't see how.-a Besides the
ethical and humanitarian aspect of
it (which you obviously don't care
about anyway), it's bad for the
health, safety and stability of the
region.-a It would very likely
encourage nuclear reprisals.
Likely in the form of terrorist
attacks.
Gaza is a shitshow. Everybody blames either Israel or Hamas. Both have >>>> been a-holes. But few seem to know that the problem is roted in 1948,
when Egypt and Jordan attacked Israel. Israel won and kicked the
Palestians out. Jordan accepted refugees. Egypt didn't.
There are refugee camps all over the place since 1948. BUt Gaza became a
camp after the 1967 war. Under Israel control. The people in those camps
are poeple that lived in Gaza and the West Bank before the 1967 war.
Not sure what Egypt admitting or not admitting refugees has to do with
Gaza let alone Hamas.
If you're in for for the infinitesimals, you COULD say that the
neighbouring countries have not been part of a solution. For them,
hunnreds of thousands of refugees has been a burden. And at the same
time a useful political wedge to be applied when appropriate. In fact,
one of the reasons, I guess, for the Hamas attack is that the
Palestinians were losing that position.
But this part of the total blame is wildly disproportionate to its
complement. In no way does it excuse what Israel has been doing in the
past or is doing now. Israel has never intended to let go of the
territories it seized in 1967. It has never intended to make the people
that live there fully fledged citizens either. Or any kind of citizens.
They would become a majority in Israel. There basically is only one
solution to the quandary. To paraphrase Netenyahu: "What started with
the Hamas attack, is a historical window of opportunity".
It's not about Hamas. Kushner talked about the amusement park before any
attacks.
Probably sums it up quite nicely.
Definitely not. I'm not a reader of minds but I suspect bmoore didn't
mean to sum anything up. Just to offer another perspective. Which is
cool enough.
I mention Egypt not to blame them for everything, but in 1948, Egypt controlled Gaza. When they forced so many Palestians
to live in tiny Gaza, that created tension. Later, Israel added to the tension by forcing even more Pelestians to live
there. Why did the Palestians get pissed off at Israel but not so much Egypt?