Re: Clijsters out of Olympics

>"H Holbrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Steve Jaros wrote:
>
> >>"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.
>
> The games missed by the countries mentioned were as you say.  The
> effects were felt in the next games.  Or would you choose, once again,
> to evade the evidence that runs smack in the face of your toothless
> allegation?

You've provided no evidence. That's par for the Holbrook course. At least
this time you avoided embarrassing yourself by not screwing up the dates of
olympic games.

> >>>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.
>
> She cannot compete in the games without the consent of her country's
> olympic committee.  Am I going too fast for you?

No, far too slow. No one ever disputed that she can't compete for Belgium
unless the BIOC says she can. You conjured that issue up yourself when you
interpreted my comment about sponsorship to mean something other than
economic need.

You are a retard.

> >>>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.
>
> To which level of naivete do I address the explanation?  Stupid.  Dumb.
>   Or dumber?

The worst level possible - "Holbrooker".

> >>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.
>
> She certainly has the choice not to participate.

So what are you whining about...? Nothing, as usual.

Sorry Holbrook, but you once again failed to pass the brain-wave test.
You're officially flunked and flushed for this thread. But unlike some
around here, i'm infinitely patient, so if you want to try again in another,
be my guest.


-- 
"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