Stircrazy wrote:

---

But that's precisely what you're doing when/if you buy a newspaper, surely?   Even the news on the BBC web site or the information you glean from sites such as this one isn't free as such, since you have to pay for the service you get from your Internet provider!

---

 But at least you get toilet roll for that

Stircrazy wrote:

---

Maza1987 wrote:

---

The day I start paying for news/information will be the day I'm rotting in a coffin.

---

But that's precisely what you're doing when/if you buy a newspaper, surely?   Even the news on the BBC web site or the information you glean from sites such as this one isn't free as such, since you have to pay for the service you get from your Internet provider!

---

They day I have to pay additional fees for news/information I can attain from elsewhere (for a nominal fee) is the day I'm rotting in my coffin.

ESPN try to do the same thing but call it ESPN insider. They attempt to justify it by claiming it is insight/commentary. But I'm not going to pay extra to read someone write that Laura can be inconsistant.

Doubles SF:

Caroline Garcia & Michaella Krajicek (FRA/NED) WR 487 vs (2) Eva Birnerova (CZE) & Anne Keothavong WR 231

Julia Carrot wrote:

---

tony_orient wrote:

---

Maza1987 wrote:

---

 But I'm not going to pay extra to read someone write that Laura can be inconsistant.

---

 Are you sure, because I am willing to tell you that Laura is inconsistent for a very good price.

---

---

---

  And Maza's promised match report is going to be 'priceless' ,  I know

 

(just saying)

---

 Love this forum!

I bet Ali's reports is worth paying for more than the Times'.

Stircrazy wrote:

---

Hard to say, Phil.  There's two-page spread on tennis today.  The article from which I quoted above takes up all of the first page (that said, the bottom third of each page is taken up by advertising!), with a colour photo of Hev (with a rather despairing look on her face!), some comment on the match itself, an aside about JoKo ("an Australian-born player with pretentions [sic] to play for Britain some day"), a few words about Naomi B & a few more about AK's 2012 prospects.  The second page is taken up by a larger, not very flattering (she's grimacing as she reaches for a backhand!), photo of Laura & the follow-up to yesterday's report on Caroline Wozniacki's call for the powers that be to do something about the noise levels in women's tennis (as if they have the guts to do that!) under the heading "Azarenka delivers derisory snort to prospect of being told:  'Stop grunting'" (that inevitably mentioned Shriekapova, Shriekarenka & MLdB  ).

I rather wish OEM had checked his facts a bit better:  apart from the fact that he can't spell "pretensions", I think his use of the word was unintentionally (I think he actually meant "aspirations" - he's often guilty of malapropisms, I find) disparaging & potentially inaccurate (I thought I saw a post on here earlier this week to the effect that Jo was now officially a Brit).  The other obvious example is the spelling of Kotze (I copied "Coetze" letter for letter from the paper), about which, having checked, I think you're correct!

---

I was shocked by "pretentions" this morning too - you don't expect to see spelling errors as bad as that in the Times - carry on like that and we'll hav to start calling it the Thnureder.  

I imagine that was the word OEM used, and I agree that 'aspirations' would have been better, but with the spellings, you never know whether it's the journo or an over-zealous/over-tired editor who has made the mistake. My guess would be that someone assumed Kotze was similar to (Amanda) Coetzer!