"I agree with your dissection of the convenient poverty-pleading of D-I athletic departments, but I think that you've made a false equivalency of athletics and all extracurricular activities. Sports have nothing to do with academics while music and art (and drama and lots of things) are perfectly legitimate intellectual pursuits fit for a school. Sure, sports are fun. I watch plenty and still like to play a few, but I can't reconcile big-time athletics with the academic mission of a school. I don't know if I would call athletic scholarships "immoral," but they certainly defy the very idea of an academic institution, especially with the infiltration of athletics into the academic sphere of a school. Somehow athletics became linked with schools in America, and I don't expect or even really desire turning back, but I just can't equate art and football or playing the violin and playing point guard."

I respect your opinion and while I agree with you about the atmosphere of big time college sports, I don't agree with your key point. The problem you're having is that you're trying to reconcile something that doesn't need reconciling and it's kinda suspect to separate sports out of other extracurricular activities you mention simply because they are primarily physical. They are just as fit for a school as any other activity. Not on your part so much but there seems to be this weird snobbery/jealousy bias against sports. Also, athletics didn't just become linked with schools. They've been a part of schools for quite some time.

"posters to this column are so good at telling people to forget their partners when they've erred - and for good reason. but what about the issue of how difficult it is to meet others with whom we connect? i'm a newly-single 30-something woman in new york and all of my female friends are desperate - obsessed with the dearth of eligible men in the city. it is de-press-ing. and there has to be more to life than scrambling for the few single men left. i don't mean to sound like 'sex in the city' but what are women supposed to do? i don't know if my friends' desperation is well-founded but i just resent the pressure of grabbing the nearest guy and settling (down)."

That difficulty is not unique to NYC. I understand the pressure people put on themselves but I think your friends desperation is not well-founded. There is not a dearth of "eligible" men in the city, but, if by city you mean "eligible" men who live in certain sections of Manhattan and Brooklyn, then I can see your friends problem. Also, I'm not sure "Sex and the City" is the right comparison. They sure didn't have a problem finding eligible dates. Now, self discovery and finding Mr. Right was another matter.

"In a nation in which two-thirds of the populace is overweight and a third dangerously obese, the (and I freely admit it is usually unhealthy) lifestyle of models hardly seems the most pressing concern for the media's demagogic hysteria* to target."

That fact is the strangest aspect of this issue. The main argument in favor of this is the "social influence" argument. Apparently, the ultra-skinny models aren't having much of an effect on influencing the general public in terms of body type. This is classic grandstanding and clucking about nothing much.

Hey, do you know that Cleopatra could probably kick you ass? I'm not sure what that vague threat was supposed to mean. Maybe it was supposed to mean that it's okay to be "obese" so long as you are healthy and can probably kick someone's ass.

"My points were that my health does not depend on starving myself into an acceptable weight to satisfy smug, self-righteous individuals and organizations, and that one does not have to be extremely heavy to have a BMI that is supposedly in the "danger zone".

Your first point is beside the point. Apparently, most Americans aren't starving themselves period much less to satisfy the supposed tyranny of the fashion industry. Your point BMI's relative arbitrariness is exactly what some are saying about the Madrid dictate but just on the other end of the spectrum.

"Women are not clothes hangers. The purpose of clothing is not to massage a designer's inflated ego; it is to enhance appearance and provide warmth and comfort. Those who cannot design clothing to fit a woman of average proportions should find another line of work."

Now that's just silly. So Maserati should fine another line of work because they don't make Toyotas? There are plenty of designers who design clothes for all markets while some design for select markets. That, along with the seeming explosion of vanity sizing and the come as you are "Casual Everyday and Everywhere" approach to style that's popular now, there's something for everyone.

"My points were that my health does not depend on starving myself into an acceptable weight to satisfy smug, self-righteous individuals and organizations, and that one does not have to be extremely heavy to have a BMI that is supposedly in the "danger zone"."

Your first point is beside the point. Apparently, most Americans aren't starving themselves period much less to satisfy the supposed tyranny of the fashion industry. Your point BMI's relative arbitrariness is exactly what some are saying about the Madrid dictate but just on the other end of the spectrum.

"Women are not clothes hangers. The purpose of clothing is not to massage a designer's inflated ego; it is to enhance appearance and provide warmth and comfort. Those who cannot design clothing to fit a woman of average proportions should find another line of work."

Now that's just silly. So Maserati should fine another line of work because they don't make Toyotas? There are plenty of designers who design clothes for all markets while some design for select markets. That, along with the seeming explosion of vanity sizing and the come as you are "Casual Everyday and Everywhere" approach to style that's popular now, there's something for everyone.