'Young Guns' - Narcissistic Sportsmen? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

'Young Guns' - Narcissistic Sportsmen?

DDrago2
02-01-2008, 01:43 AM
I have just read an article 'Narcissism' in a Serbian daily paper 'Danas', written by two psychologists, talking about modern day uprisal of narcissistic personality.
World of sport is also touched and three essential points are made:

1. Initially, sport is a useless game, interesting in itself, with an aim of strengthening the body and the spirit and producing positive feelings in people; players approach theirs game with love and experience satisfaction from the pleasure of playing itself. This is how sports were played until some time in the past. But today such sport almost doesn't exist anymore. A sportsman doesn't practice his skills for owns pleasure and from inner motivation, but regardless of that wants to impress the audiences and goes for sensation and ovations.

2. Genuine winning in sport is about overcoming imagined obstacles which is bringing personal satisfaction to a player. But in modern sport winning more and more doesn't seem to make sense, if the opponent is not destroyed. Players do not want only theirs victory but maybe more the defeat of the opponent. Victory is not so important anymore, but the competing itself and the destruction of the opponent.

3. Rather than towards players, modern sport is turned towards passive spectators who are growingly unaware of the rules of the game. More and more often rules are altered in a way to attract such audiences. Modern sport is subdued to its entertainment value. While people run away from everyday boredom towards sports, what they get is entertainment and sensation. The basic purpose of sport is trivialized, sporting game turned into a trivial act that is being sold as grave matter.


After this article, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic would come out as being excessively narcissistic sportsman. Nadal's and Djokovic's respective games, brutish and uninspiring on theirs own ground, show that the joy of playing is subdued (if existing at all) to some other aims. And that aim mostly seems to be fame and adulation. Both Nadal and Djokovic show extreme sensitiveness on every (perceived) lack of adulation they receive, while being very envious towards the adulation others get. At that, they don't seem to be fully conscious - if conscious at all - of how the adulation is deserved, it is as if they don't see the source of admiration important - the skill and creativity coming from innate gifts and living for the game - but the admiration itself. This is so much emphasized that they seem happy to steal success and admiration - so Nadal doesn't seem troubled by numerous indications that his success is also an outcome of many outside factors and not only his game, neither is Djokovic by lack of ground for his habitual cocky claims.
Also like true narcissistic sportsman they see winning more as a matter of destroying the opponent than overcoming some imagined obstacles of theirs own. They are turned towards marketability and happy to reach towards half-interested audiences - at the place of Nadal this is seen through his on-court antics and emphasis on physical looks, while at the place of Djokovic through his 'impersonations' and outward image selling.

As a contrast, older generation of current players such as Roger Federer are not fitting this narcissistic sportsman frame. From the way Federer plays you see that the love for the game is the main driving force; he is motivated more with his own set aims and imagined obstacles than with destroying opponents, and is not striving to put up a show and become "marketable" but to build and perfect his own playing style. And while many Federer's detractors point out his burgeoning Ego ("Ego King"), this is just a try of blinding with words, in accordance with that aphorism "the world likes to talk, but it's true wishes does not express through words; what's more, through words it tries to hide them". What they actually mind is exactly Fererer's lack of bulging Ego, and probably the main reason for Federer being somewhat unfashionable today is his non- narcissistic appearance - in the age that craves for a narcissistic champion that will reflect it's own nature.

Traits of narcissistic personality include grandiose feeling of over-blown self-importance, expectations of excessive admiration, unreasonable expectation of getting specially good treatment and unquestioned approval of owns wishes, tendencies towards abuse and exploitation of others, fierce envy towards success of others and belief that others feel the same towards owns success, arrogant, conceited behavior and attitudes, and reduced sense of empathy. Modern changes in society that are stimulating this type of personality include promoting bare competitiveness as an aim in itself, deterioration of family, growing ambiguity of sexes and all-present ness of mass-media.
Today, narcissistic personality is more wide-spread than ever and, unlike in recent past, is more common than neurotic problems such as hysteria or obsessive neurosis (that were coming from suppressed sexual drive).

Black and white picture of modern narcissistic and ex-non-narcissistic players can't be formed since every player who ever played has some narcissistic traits, especially in youth (ex. Agassi in his early stage), but newest generation - especially those the most successful until now - show these traits to a new degree. This is contrasted with the other extreme brought by previous generation - a completely ego-less, self-sufficient player such as Roger Federer. So you get almost black-and-white picture: the duel between Roger Federer and his younger rival becomes a duel between a non- narcissistic and narcissistic champion.

Maybe you could say at the end that we don't need these extremes but a balance.? Maybe champions from golden age of tennis, such as McEnroe, Borg, Edberg or Becker were close to that balance?

JimmyV
02-01-2008, 05:39 AM
I didn't read the article.

Djokovic is a douchebag.

/Thread.

http://www.esreality.com/files/images/2006/50373-ivan_drago.jpg

Allure
02-01-2008, 06:16 AM
I don't need to read a whole article to know Djokovic is arrogant. :zzz:

Zaba
02-01-2008, 11:26 AM
:haha:

The Pro
02-01-2008, 12:00 PM
I guess an article like this is worth having a think about, at least since it brings a psychological perspective.

I was going to write it off until I read the bit about 'expectation of adulation,' and 'jealousy of it in others.'

I think both Jokervic and Nadal do have expectation of adulation. I think Nole's is much worse, as evidenced by his scolding of the Aussie Open crowd, unlike Rafa who never disparages the French crowd because of a few people who still may not respect him.

Both Rafa and Nole dislike criticism and often get a little pissy when its thrown their way, I'm not sure this is total narcissism on Rafa's part, since he had genuinely humble moments.

I think Nole shows jealousy in his remarks about Federer and his dislike of Tsonga's popularity.

So yeah, Nole's a narcissist, Rafa, not so much so.

zcess81
02-01-2008, 12:06 PM
Watch Roger BEFORE won his first slam and tell me with a straight face that he's not arrogant. After you dominate the game, obliterating everything that comes in your way, win 12 slams, there is no need for arrogance...once he starts losing more often...well...I always like to refer to his Wimbledon final girlie hissy fit.

Sean.J.S.
02-01-2008, 12:41 PM
I have just read an article 'Narcissism' in a Serbian daily paper 'Danas', written by two psychologists, talking about modern day uprisal of narcissistic personality.
World of sport is also touched and three essential points are made:

1. Initially, sport is a useless game, interesting in itself, with an aim of strengthening the body and the spirit and producing positive feelings in people; players approach theirs game with love and experience satisfaction from the pleasure of playing itself. This is how sports were played until some time in the past. But today such sport almost doesn't exist anymore. A sportsman doesn't practice his skills for owns pleasure and from inner motivation, but regardless of that wants to impress the audiences and goes for sensation and ovations.

2. Genuine winning in sport is about overcoming imagined obstacles which is bringing personal satisfaction to a player. But in modern sport winning more and more doesn't seem to make sense, if the opponent is not destroyed. Players do not want only theirs victory but maybe more the defeat of the opponent. Victory is not so important anymore, but the competing itself and the destruction of the opponent.

3. Rather than towards players, modern sport is turned towards passive spectators who are growingly unaware of the rules of the game. More and more often rules are altered in a way to attract such audiences. Modern sport is subdued to its entertainment value. While people run away from everyday boredom towards sports, what they get is entertainment and sensation. The basic purpose of sport is trivialized, sporting game turned into a trivial act that is being sold as grave matter.


After this article, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic would come out as being excessively narcissistic sportsman. Nadal's and Djokovic's respective games, brutish and uninspiring on theirs own ground, show that the joy of playing is subdued (if existing at all) to some other aims. And that aim mostly seems to be fame and adulation. Both Nadal and Djokovic show extreme sensitiveness on every (perceived) lack of adulation they receive, while being very envious towards the adulation others get. At that, they don't seem to be fully conscious - if conscious at all - of how the adulation is deserved, it is as if they don't see the source of admiration important - the skill and creativity coming from innate gifts and living for the game - but the admiration itself. This is so much emphasized that they seem happy to steal success and admiration - so Nadal doesn't seem troubled by numerous indications that his success is also an outcome of many outside factors and not only his game, neither is Djokovic by lack of ground for his habitual cocky claims.
Also like true narcissistic sportsman they see winning more as a matter of destroying the opponent than overcoming some imagined obstacles of theirs own. They are turned towards marketability and happy to reach towards half-interested audiences - at the place of Nadal this is seen through his on-court antics and emphasis on physical looks, while at the place of Djokovic through his 'impersonations' and outward image selling.

As a contrast, older generation of current players such as Roger Federer are not fitting this narcissistic sportsman frame. From the way Federer plays you see that the love for the game is the main driving force; he is motivated more with his own set aims and imagined obstacles than with destroying opponents, and is not striving to put up a show and become "marketable" but to build and perfect his own playing style. And while many Federer's detractors point out his burgeoning Ego ("Ego King"), this is just a try of blinding with words, in accordance with that aphorism "the world likes to talk, but it's true wishes does not express through words; what's more, through words it tries to hide them". What they actually mind is exactly Fererer's lack of bulging Ego, and probably the main reason for Federer being somewhat unfashionable today is his non- narcissistic appearance - in the age that craves for a narcissistic champion that will reflect it's own nature.

Traits of narcissistic personality include grandiose feeling of over-blown self-importance, expectations of excessive admiration, unreasonable expectation of getting specially good treatment and unquestioned approval of owns wishes, tendencies towards abuse and exploitation of others, fierce envy towards success of others and belief that others feel the same towards owns success, arrogant, conceited behavior and attitudes, and reduced sense of empathy. Modern changes in society that are stimulating this type of personality include promoting bare competitiveness as an aim in itself, deterioration of family, growing ambiguity of sexes and all-present ness of mass-media.
Today, narcissistic personality is more wide-spread than ever and, unlike in recent past, is more common than neurotic problems such as hysteria or obsessive neurosis (that were coming from suppressed sexual drive).

Black and white picture of modern narcissistic and ex-non-narcissistic players can't be formed since every player who ever played has some narcissistic traits, especially in youth (ex. Agassi in his early stage), but newest generation - especially those the most successful until now - show these traits to a new degree. This is contrasted with the other extreme brought by previous generation - a completely ego-less, self-sufficient player such as Roger Federer. So you get almost black-and-white picture: the duel between Roger Federer and his younger rival becomes a duel between a non- narcissistic and narcissistic champion.

Maybe you could say at the end that we don't need these extremes but a balance.? Maybe champions from golden age of tennis, such as McEnroe, Borg, Edberg or Becker were close to that balance?

Can anybody actually be fucked reading this post? :scratch: :rolls:

Castafiore
02-01-2008, 12:46 PM
Just to be clear, you read this article written by two psychologists about narcissism in sports, summarized like this:
1. Initially, sport is a useless game, interesting in itself, with an aim of strengthening the body and the spirit and producing positive feelings in people; players approach theirs game with love and experience satisfaction from the pleasure of playing itself. This is how sports were played until some time in the past. But today such sport almost doesn't exist anymore. A sportsman doesn't practice his skills for owns pleasure and from inner motivation, but regardless of that wants to impress the audiences and goes for sensation and ovations.

2. Genuine winning in sport is about overcoming imagined obstacles which is bringing personal satisfaction to a player. But in modern sport winning more and more doesn't seem to make sense, if the opponent is not destroyed. Players do not want only theirs victory but maybe more the defeat of the opponent. Victory is not so important anymore, but the competing itself and the destruction of the opponent.

3. Rather than towards players, modern sport is turned towards passive spectators who are growingly unaware of the rules of the game. More and more often rules are altered in a way to attract such audiences. Modern sport is subdued to its entertainment value. While people run away from everyday boredom towards sports, what they get is entertainment and sensation. The basic purpose of sport is trivialized, sporting game turned into a trivial act that is being sold as grave matter.

The rest, the bit about Djokovic, Nadal featuring as the excessively narcissistic sportsmen and Federer as the a completely ego-less, self-sufficient player is your own special touch, right? Whatever you're smoking, it's good stuff.

zcess81
02-01-2008, 12:58 PM
marijuana's baaadddd for you

bokehlicious
02-01-2008, 01:10 PM
Nice read, thanks. :)

tennizen
02-01-2008, 02:34 PM
I have just read an article 'Narcissism' in a Serbian daily paper 'Danas', written by two psychologists, talking about modern day uprisal of narcissistic personality.
World of sport is also touched and three essential points are made:

1. Initially, sport is a useless game, interesting in itself, with an aim of strengthening the body and the spirit and producing positive feelings in people; players approach theirs game with love and experience satisfaction from the pleasure of playing itself. This is how sports were played until some time in the past. But today such sport almost doesn't exist anymore. A sportsman doesn't practice his skills for owns pleasure and from inner motivation, but regardless of that wants to impress the audiences and goes for sensation and ovations.

2. Genuine winning in sport is about overcoming imagined obstacles which is bringing personal satisfaction to a player. But in modern sport winning more and more doesn't seem to make sense, if the opponent is not destroyed. Players do not want only theirs victory but maybe more the defeat of the opponent. Victory is not so important anymore, but the competing itself and the destruction of the opponent.

3. Rather than towards players, modern sport is turned towards passive spectators who are growingly unaware of the rules of the game. More and more often rules are altered in a way to attract such audiences. Modern sport is subdued to its entertainment value. While people run away from everyday boredom towards sports, what they get is entertainment and sensation. The basic purpose of sport is trivialized, sporting game turned into a trivial act that is being sold as grave matter.




Like Castafiore said, stop writing BS. It isn't even funny

Beforehand
02-01-2008, 02:57 PM
Watch Roger BEFORE won his first slam and tell me with a straight face that he's not arrogant. After you dominate the game, obliterating everything that comes in your way, win 12 slams, there is no need for arrogance...once he starts losing more often...well...I always like to refer to his Wimbledon final girlie hissy fit.

Roger's not arrogant, he's just SPOILED. :angel: :o

DDrago2
02-01-2008, 03:01 PM
Just to be clear, you read this article written by two psychologists about narcissism in sports, summarized like this:


The rest, the bit about Djokovic, Nadal featuring as the excessively narcissistic sportsmen and Federer as the a completely ego-less, self-sufficient player is your own special touch, right?

Right. Tennis-related parts are mine, the rest not.

DDrago2
02-01-2008, 03:04 PM
Watch Roger BEFORE won his first slam and tell me with a straight face that he's not arrogant.

I didn't watch him then, but he comes across as the being contrary of arrogant

DDrago2
02-01-2008, 03:04 PM
Watch Roger BEFORE won his first slam and tell me with a straight face that he's not arrogant.

I didn't watch him then, but he comes across as the contrary of arrogant

Beforehand
02-01-2008, 05:47 PM
Also, those talking about Novak or Rafa's expectant adulation seem to be suggesting this is unreasonable. If anything, I think the mass praise of Roger has caused them to have a little bit of an overinflated sense of "What the hell, people?" when they don't get the same kind of respect he does, or fanfare for challenging him.

star
02-01-2008, 06:07 PM
Nadal's and Djokovic's respective games, brutish and uninspiring on theirs own ground, show that the joy of playing is subdued (if existing at all) to some other aims.

I only had to read this far to be laughing to hard to read more. What a load. :lol:

Corey Feldman
02-01-2008, 06:13 PM
I really agree with some points in that article, nail on the head and i've thought some of those things myself

yellowboy906
02-01-2008, 06:20 PM
I don't need to read a whole article to know Djokovic is arrogant. :zzz:

omg, djokovic is arrogant. i can't stand arrogant player cause i'm such a pussy. cause my parent taught me how to be a classy pussy person that i am today. i want to thank my parent for making me the world class pussy that i dream of when i was i kid, thanks:tears:

star
02-01-2008, 06:23 PM
I really agree with some points in that article, nail on the head and i've thought some of those things myself

You do realize that it wasn't an article, don't you?

The numbered points were the poster's summary of an article and the rest was his own rant -- uh -- opinion. :)

Corey Feldman
02-01-2008, 06:29 PM
I agree'd.. with some of what i read
:p

so tell your cat to sniff that

Miss Runcible
02-01-2008, 07:00 PM
Well, ignoring the 'brutish and uninspired game' bits and the fact that we have no way of knowing what these people think and feel when they play, and what their inner goals really are...

Even though I'm a Djokovic fan, I have say his chest-beating and self-belief look and sound more overtly 'narcissistic' than anything Nadal has done or said. But at the same time I think extreme ambition in one area, off-putting though it may be to many people, isn't the same as narcissism by a long shot... and when it comes to the satisfaction of being good at something, it's never simple. There's the satisfaction of conquering your weaknesses, of doing something well and knowing it; then there's the rush you get when people tell you you're good; the even bigger rush you get when a lot of people acknowledge you're very good indeed; and the rush of realising you're not only good, but better than your opponent. It's all intertwined - the self-satisfaction and the adulation of others - so if you're going to apply the term very loosely, then we're all narcissists in a variety of ways. Like you say,

Black and white picture of modern narcissistic and ex-non-narcissistic players can't be formed since every player who ever played has some narcissistic traits, especially in youth (ex. Agassi in his early stage), but newest generation - especially those the most successful until now - show these traits to a new degree.

Perhaps it's not about being more narcissistic but that (a) it has become more permissible to show it, and (b) not only permissible, but expected? I mean, we're constantly told that we can do anything if we want it badly enough and success comes down to unwavering self-belief, so is it any wonder if players foster these qualities?

(I have to say though, I've met more than a few narcissists (and people with narcissistic personality disorders) in my time and I think true narcissism is incompatible with success in competitive sports. It's more than just being overly aware of your own success. In fact, true narcissists don't need success to prove their worth: they're not hungry to win because they're already winners in their own minds. I don't think they even look for adulation - they see it even when it isn't there. They decide to write a book and just know it's going to be a bestseller... if they ever took the trouble of actually writing it, that is - which they don't. They sing out of tune but they're moved to tears by their own talent. I used to be acquainted with somebody who assumed every woman was in hopeless, unrequited love with him, and he claimed (in all seriousness) that whenever he entered a room people were awed into silence by his magnetic presence. They don't want to improve, they don't have any weaknesses; if the ball lands in the net, it's the ball's fault, not theirs. Not to mention that they're great at absolutely everything they do, without even trying, so they'd never stick with one measly sport anyway. They could easily win multiple Grand Slams if they just bothered to train, but they don't bother - and tennis is the loser, not them ;))

l_mac
02-01-2008, 07:18 PM
Nadal's and Djokovic's respective games, brutish and uninspiring on theirs own ground, show that the joy of playing is subdued (if existing at all) to some other aims. And that aim mostly seems to be fame and adulation.

This is so much emphasized that they seem happy to steal success and admiration - so Nadal doesn't seem troubled by numerous indications that his success is also an outcome of many outside factors and not only his game,

They are turned towards marketability and happy to reach towards half-interested audiences - at the place of Nadal this is seen through his on-court antics and emphasis on physical looks,


Greatest post ever. :haha: :haha:

Easily better than jcempire's finest work.

Mikey - :rolleyes: :kiss: :lol:

Corey Feldman
02-01-2008, 07:19 PM
Greatest post ever. :haha: :haha:

Easily better than jcempire's finest work.

Mikey - :rolleyes: :kiss: :lol:Drago has been on form lately hasnt he :p

Castafiore
02-01-2008, 07:31 PM
Easily better than jcempire's finest work.
It reminds me of Prima Donna's best work.

Corey Feldman
02-01-2008, 07:34 PM
Dont be Grumpy Casta

embrace it :p

Corey Feldman
02-01-2008, 07:35 PM
The stuff about Hawkeye being controlled by De Villiers for Rafa and Nole was sheer genuis

it makes sense when i think of it, coz everytime they challenge, its in by 0.000001 of a mm.

tennizen
02-01-2008, 07:41 PM
I have just read an article 'Narcissism' in a Serbian daily paper 'Danas', written by two psychologists, talking about modern day uprisal of narcissistic personality.
World of sport is also touched and three essential points are made:

1. Initially, sport is a useless game, interesting in itself, with an aim of strengthening the body and the spirit and producing positive feelings in people; players approach theirs game with love and experience satisfaction from the pleasure of playing itself. This is how sports were played until some time in the past. But today such sport almost doesn't exist anymore. A sportsman doesn't practice his skills for owns pleasure and from inner motivation, but regardless of that wants to impress the audiences and goes for sensation and ovations.

2. Genuine winning in sport is about overcoming imagined obstacles which is bringing personal satisfaction to a player. But in modern sport winning more and more doesn't seem to make sense, if the opponent is not destroyed. Players do not want only theirs victory but maybe more the defeat of the opponent. Victory is not so important anymore, but the competing itself and the destruction of the opponent.

3. Rather than towards players, modern sport is turned towards passive spectators who are growingly unaware of the rules of the game. More and more often rules are altered in a way to attract such audiences. Modern sport is subdued to its entertainment value. While people run away from everyday boredom towards sports, what they get is entertainment and sensation. The basic purpose of sport is trivialized, sporting game turned into a trivial act that is being sold as grave matter.


After this article, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic would come out as being excessively narcissistic sportsman. Nadal's and Djokovic's respective games, brutish and uninspiring on theirs own ground, show that the joy of playing is subdued (if existing at all) to some other aims. And that aim mostly seems to be fame and adulation. Both Nadal and Djokovic show extreme sensitiveness on every (perceived) lack of adulation they receive, while being very envious towards the adulation others get. At that, they don't seem to be fully conscious - if conscious at all - of how the adulation is deserved, it is as if they don't see the source of admiration important - the skill and creativity coming from innate gifts and living for the game - but the admiration itself. This is so much emphasized that they seem happy to steal success and admiration - so Nadal doesn't seem troubled by numerous indications that his success is also an outcome of many outside factors and not only his game, neither is Djokovic by lack of ground for his habitual cocky claims.
Also like true narcissistic sportsman they see winning more as a matter of destroying the opponent than overcoming some imagined obstacles of theirs own. They are turned towards marketability and happy to reach towards half-interested audiences - at the place of Nadal this is seen through his on-court antics and emphasis on physical looks, while at the place of Djokovic through his 'impersonations' and outward image selling.

As a contrast, older generation of current players such as Roger Federer are not fitting this narcissistic sportsman frame. From the way Federer plays you see that the love for the game is the main driving force; he is motivated more with his own set aims and imagined obstacles than with destroying opponents, and is not striving to put up a show and become "marketable" but to build and perfect his own playing style. And while many Federer's detractors point out his burgeoning Ego ("Ego King"), this is just a try of blinding with words, in accordance with that aphorism "the world likes to talk, but it's true wishes does not express through words; what's more, through words it tries to hide them". What they actually mind is exactly Fererer's lack of bulging Ego, and probably the main reason for Federer being somewhat unfashionable today is his non- narcissistic appearance - in the age that craves for a narcissistic champion that will reflect it's own nature.

Traits of narcissistic personality include grandiose feeling of over-blown self-importance, expectations of excessive admiration, unreasonable expectation of getting specially good treatment and unquestioned approval of owns wishes, tendencies towards abuse and exploitation of others, fierce envy towards success of others and belief that others feel the same towards owns success, arrogant, conceited behavior and attitudes, and reduced sense of empathy. Modern changes in society that are stimulating this type of personality include promoting bare competitiveness as an aim in itself, deterioration of family, growing ambiguity of sexes and all-present ness of mass-media.
Today, narcissistic personality is more wide-spread than ever and, unlike in recent past, is more common than neurotic problems such as hysteria or obsessive neurosis (that were coming from suppressed sexual drive).

Black and white picture of modern narcissistic and ex-non-narcissistic players can't be formed since every player who ever played has some narcissistic traits, especially in youth (ex. Agassi in his early stage), but newest generation - especially those the most successful until now - show these traits to a new degree. This is contrasted with the other extreme brought by previous generation - a completely ego-less, self-sufficient player such as Roger Federer. So you get almost black-and-white picture: the duel between Roger Federer and his younger rival becomes a duel between a non- narcissistic and narcissistic champion.

Maybe you could say at the end that we don't need these extremes but a balance.? Maybe champions from golden age of tennis, such as McEnroe, Borg, Edberg or Becker were close to that balance?

I re-read your post. Earlier I thought it was BS. Then upon second reading, it sounds like you really believe in what you are writing. If this is the case then I have no issues:yeah:

Castafiore
02-01-2008, 07:47 PM
Dont be Grumpy Casta

embrace it :p
For once, I wasn't grumpy...:p

Oh, I miss Prima Donna's rants so this is good.

Skyward
02-01-2008, 08:02 PM
Whatever you're smoking, it's good stuff.

I think both him and Sawan use the same distributor.

l_mac
02-01-2008, 08:10 PM
I think both him and Sawan use the same distributor.

Sawan's stuff is tongue in cheek baiting.

I fear DDrago believes his bs.

Sunset of Age
02-01-2008, 09:10 PM
Reading the names of Djoko and Rafa in one and the same sentence, referring to the notion of narcissm of all things... :scratch: :help:

Skyward
02-01-2008, 10:13 PM
Sawan's stuff is tongue in cheek baiting.
I fear DDrago believes his bs.


It's still BS of the highest order.