Letters to the Editor
Paul in KY
Published Letters: 669 Editor's Choice: 13
-
About Flo Jo
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]mchebert stuck the late Mrs. Griffeth-Joyner in with Lyle Alzado as a confirmed steroid user. I am a long time observer of WC Track & Field & I personally do not think she took steroids (although I acknowledge that she certainly could have & her great feats mirror those of some other female track competitors who it appears were roided up).
Many people do not know that she participated in the 1984 Olympics & won a medal in the 200m. She ran a very respectable time in those games & if you look at pictures of her from those Olympics, she actually appears fat (for a WC sprinter, anyway).
She spoke candidly about her lack of preparation for those games & personally vowed that if she went back she was going to let it all hang out.
I guess my theses is that if she did not take steroids, her great performances in the 1988 Olympics were due to her extraordinary level of fitness, relative to her competitors, which she achieved thru working out harder than other women would (yes, I know that steroids can certainly help you to work out harder & longer). She was quite cut in her upper body & had biceps I would have killed for. Upper body strength can come in very handy in the sprints, because it can help you maintain your optimum sprinting form for longer in the late stages of the race.
IMO, some women (even those who have reached the WC level) will balk sometimes at attaining a level of fitness that robs them of all their curves and makes their legs and/or arms look basically the same as a man's. Thus, a woman who will do the extra training to achieve a fitness level comparable (or better) to a male WC sprinter can stand out much more & seperate herself from her rivals more dramatically than any man (since disparity in fitness level is not a major factor on the men's side - where all the competitors are as fit as they possibly can be).
-
Once More into the Breach
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Might as well try & predict again (might get a contract from King, if Buster goes free agent next year (I hear rumors)).
In NFC game: I think the Giants are playing better than Pack at this juncture. Game is at Lambaeu, where it's supposed to be colder than a witch's tit in a brass bra in an Antarctic hellstorm. Giants have been pretty good on road & are also a cold weather team. Logic would dictate a Giant's win, but I don't need no stinking logic. I say Packers in a close one, riding the crowd & Farve-love 21 - 17.
In AFC game: I'm a big Chargers fan. The team, I'm sure, would love some revenge for last year. Problem is, our QB is hurt (also seems a bit shaky mentally, at times), our great running back is hurt & our 2nd best player (Gates) is also hurt. Defense did a number on Colts, though. I just think it's a 'bridge too far' this year to beat Pats at home.
NE 28 - SD 17
-
Great Job Giants!
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]having Darth Sidious as your coach can't have hurt ;-)
Seriously, I hope his face hasn't turned green by now...
-
Hey Droogoy
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was checking out a few prior threads I had commented in, and happened upon this: '
The Giants "playing better" than the Pack? The G-I-A-N-T-S???! WIth all their injuries it will be amazing if they can even manage to limp out and take one hit on that glacier that is Lambeau Field.
The Pack dismantled the Seattle D and I rate them better than the Giants. The Giants O will be dismantled by the likes of Atari Bigby, Al Harris, AJ Hawk, KMG and crew.
It will be a LOOOOOONNNNG day for the G-men.'
and I was actually picking the Pack in the prediction you lit into. I guess I should go with logic from now on, huh?
-
To The LW
[Read the article: I'm a busy single mom and I just don't want to date]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're cool.
-
About the Good Samaritan
[Read the article: Consequences for ignoring congressional subpoenas: None]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]HRH mentioned the parable: 'They obviously never read the parable of the Good Samaritan.
The Christ had *two* pious Jews, a priest and a Levite pass by the injured man as if he was rotten meat. The first atheist that came by had mercy on the man, tended him and then paid an inkeeper to take care of him and promised to come back and pay more if necessary.'
It's a fine parable & no quibble with your using it to illustrate your point. However...
Begin Quibble:
I'm pretty sure that the Samaritan in question is not considered to be an 'atheist' in the bible, but rather is the worshipper of whatever Samaritans worshipped in that time, or from the Jewish perspective: an idol worshipping heathen.
End Quibble.
-
Kissing Some Reagan
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton on Reagan and Republicans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm on record as an Obama supporter & campaign contributor. I do not like his comments on Reagan & I have read the entire interview.
I wish the Senator, during one of his paens to bipartisanship, would catalog some of the ways that the other side has basically shat on & laughed at the term 'bipartisanship'.
Bipartisanship (IMO) is a two way street & I have seen NOTHING in the last 7 years where the Republicans have compromised in any meaningful way.
If Shooter or Elephantman (or some other Rep. goon) can come up with any, I'd like to hear their examples (and refraining from sending all us DFHs to Gitmo does not count).