Re: Clijsters out of Olympics

>"H Holbrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Steve Jaros wrote:

> If
> countries choose not to compete they would suffer immeasurably.  (See
> Moscow 1984 and Los Angeles 1988, et al.)

Earth to Holbrook: Moscow was in 1980, Los Angeles was 1984. 1988 was Seoul.
And no country suffered 'immeasurably' by not competing. The USA got along
fine skipping the 1980 games, etc.

Why do you even bother..?

The 'intelligence' half-life of your posts in this thread is eroding even
faster than the warp-speed disintegration of the other threads..

> > And Kim
> > doesn't need 'sponsorship' to go to Athens. She can do that herself.
>
> Nope, she cannot.

Don't be stupid. The 'sponsorship' referenced was obviously money needed to
travel and participate, not the endorsement of her olympic federation to
officially rep. the country.

Kim doesn't need the financial support of the BOIC to compete at the games.

> > Perhaps a good rule of thumb is that only athletes who need a subsidy by
> > their olympic federation must wear the clothes? In that case, the player
is
> > getting something for their 'endorsement'. Kim isn't.
>
> How naive.

I bet Holbrook can't explain that.

> The sponsors sponsor the team.  There is no "i" in team, whether the
> team is made up of pro or amateur athletes.

LOL - there's no 'we' either. Kim seems willing to participate, as long as
she doesn't have to be economically exploited by an organization that she
has no desire to see benefit from her participation. A very reasonable
stance to take.

> > Playing for Belgium for 'patriotic' reasons is something Kim should do,
in a
> > 'moral' sense, though of course she doesn't have to. But playing for
Belgium
> > on the condition that she provide an economic benefit to a BOIC sponsor
is
> > something that she not only doesn't have to do, it's something she also
has
> > no 'moral' duty to do either. That has nothing to do with "playing for
> > Belgium", etc. it's just about money and the sponsor's goal of getting a
> > free-ride on Kim's prominence while Kim gets nothing in return.
>
> How naive.
>
> The tradeoff is play for your country and honor your country's
> sponsorship deals, or don't play for your country.

That's the trade-off established by the BOIC. But Kim is under no obligation
to accept it. So why all the whining...?

> Most athletes highly value the opportunity to represent their country.
> Whether they value it as highly as the money they'd lose by doing so is
> the question here.

Actually, the only 'question' in play in this post is whether you will once
again reveal yourself to be a retard, or whether you can carry on an
intelligent conversation. So far, you're failing with limping colours.

You have one more chance in this thread to prove yourself to be anything but
a cretin. If you fail on this next post, you're flunked and flushed for the
thread.

So choose your words carefully, or perhaps have your reply reviewed by
someone intelligent before posting..


-- 
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".

- Thomas Jefferson