>On 22 May, 07:06, "Graculus" hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:

>> It would go something like this.
>>
>> Doug comes onto the court, generally insulting and abusing everyone with his
>> vindictive and sneering attitude. This abuse extends even to neutral
>> supporters and the umpire. Umpire awards a penalty point to his opponent for
>> racket abuse.
>> 0-15
>>
>> Doug serves, but every hit of his rally is sent back with great force and
>> precision, leaving him struggling and eventually losing the point.
>> 0-30
>>
>> Doug serves what he claims is a great ace, only it's pointed out to him by
>> the umpire that he isn't allowed to redefine what counts as "in" to suit his
>> own aganda, and the ball was, in fact, out by miles.
>> 0-40
>>
>> Doug quietly shuffles off the court, as he doesn't like this game and knows
>> he's losing. Game declared as forfeited.
>> Game aginst Doug.
>>
>> Sound familiar?

>
>Yes indeed. You could also have added:
>
>Dung claims that the referee, in calling the ball out, is being a
>"nitpicking semanticist".
>
>Dung refuses to accept the referee's decisions, and continues to play
>as though he has won each point. Dung then claims victory, and months
>later refers back to the match as an example of his incredible skills
>at tennis (cf. motorist terrorist, petrol cheaper than water).
>
>Dung calls the opponent a "hypocrite" each time the opponent scores a
>point.