Suggesting that only so-called "elites" like yourself (and even calling yourself that speaks volumes) truly understands olympic competition is mind-boggling and childish. I can truly appreciate a symphony without ever having played a note on a violin, and empathize completely with a quarterback's blown game-making play wihtout having done that either. Professional sports, and multi-county pageants like the Olympics are entertainment, and entertainment only. Without the fans you despise watching, without the huge audiences being entertained, you aren't "elite" at all.

Well, at least you can write an article an be a jerk.

Don't get me wrong, if you did all that and are

bitter you never became famous, by all means, rip

the stupid sports fans. It's a dull, foolishing thing

sheep only waste there time on because of those two

twin evils: patriotism and advertising.

They work very hard at their writing..fiction and non-fiction and then become really pissed when a non-writer talks about someday writing a novel..as if it were as simple as just putting it down. So you are not alone in your anger about non-professionals. But I think the pressure put on young children to perform is child abuse unless the child himself or herself really really loves it(and some do).

I have a genius IQ and scored in the 99% percentile on every standardized test I have ever taken. I got a perfect score on the English section of the GRE. I studied writing with some of the greatest American writers. I started reading at the age of 3 and began reading voraciously. I've read thousands upon thousands of books and written innumerable pages.

You think you wrote a book? No you didn't. In fact compared to me, you haven't even read a book, bee-igh-ahtch. I don't know why you even bother to attempt communication at all with the likes of me around.

P.S. I used to be an assshole but now that I labeled myself an asshole in a semi-self-deprecating way, I can pretend I'm no longer an asshole.

You know, I'm seeing more and more articles wherein the author thinks it's OK to be a jerk as long as she or he starts out by saying "I know I'm a jerk". I disagree with this philosophy. Maybe it's my own version of the "sacrifice" thing: even in my blog, I carefully consider what I'm saying and the effect it will have on the audience, and I can't stand it when others don't do the same.

Of course, part of what tempers my tone is remembering that other people don't think the same way that I do. And yes, I sometimes get mad about people behaving differently than I'd like, but unless it actually affects me, I keep it in my head, and I certainly don't look to publish it on a site like Salon.

Granted, Jennifer has said in this article that she's sequestering herself away to protect the rest of us from her jerkiness. But wouldn't it be better for her to try to come to a better understanding of what armchair athletes feel?

Here's a start: amateur athletes, writers, singers, etc, are in some ways the best fans to have. They may not wholly appreciate your commitment to your craft, but at least they can begin to understand how difficult it is. The jerkwads who say "I could write a novel" but have never tried may as well be saying "I could perform heart surgery". Yes, writing a novel doesn't risk harm to anyone (except maybe your relationships while you're in the process), but if you haven't tried it, you can't know. On the other hand, if you've tried and failed, then you can at least say "I wrote a novel once, and it was bad."

The same thing applies to athletes. My boyfriend and I both were amateur gymnasts in junior high school, and no, we never got into any serious competitions, nor did we even try. But for us, two kids who found P.E. the most horrifying period of the day, just having a sport in which we actually felt competent meant the world. Having an "elite athlete" tell us that our efforts, however meager, didn't count, sends us right back to the jock bullying from that era of our lives. And we don't need that.

"Imagine what it would be like to have parents who were so oblivious to you as an individual that they were incapable of recognizing that you were suffering and needed their help. To her parents she was a thing, an elite, medal winning gymnast, not a person."

I didn't get that from the article. If Ms. Sey were pushed/forced to do those things, I say (and said) that it was abuse.

But if she chose to do it, that's a different thing.

"But that is how we treat children: as things."

Who is "we"? I sure don't treat children that way.

"Ms. Sey's parents and coaches exploited her for their needs. We see this not just in athletics: academics, music, too. Parents rationalize - oh, this is what my son/daughter wants - when it is what the parents want."

*SOME* parents do that. Did Ms. Sey's? I don't know.

If they did, she should be angry at *them*, not expressing disdain and hatred for "fans".

"When society as a whole accepts that it is okay for children to be treated as things, there only to fulfill adult needs, it is any wonder that some people cross a line and do horrible tings to children."

So what is 'society' supposed to do? Ban gymnastics for anyone under the age of 18?

"Why can't we see that this is true for our children?"

It's certainly true for *some* parents and *some* children. Not all. Not most.

But if a child has a real talent, and the real desire to go as far as that talent will take them, is it *abuse* for the parents to support it? Was Michael Phelps abused because his parents (and others) made it possible for him to train and compete?

I don't doubt that some children are pushed into things (not just sports) to fulfill parents' desires/wishes/needs. And they should be stopped.

But where and how do we draw the line?