"Miss Sey's problem is that she fails to understand that just because you have a thought in your head doesn't mean you have to say it out loud. What good has come of her saying -- unsolicited! -- these hurtful things? She pissed all over people's happy memories of childhood pursuits, or adult hobbies that they enjoy doing on their own level and enjoy watching at an expert level. The Salon readers suddenly loathe a person they were probably largely indifferent to prior to this post. Any friends or acquaintances of hers might now be reconsidering the bounds of their social circles. Capricious cruelty and meanness isn't mitigated by the phrase "I was just being honest!""

I think there is often a fine and blurred line between phony me tooism (what Ms. Sey is mocking) and the normal human search for common ground (what you are claiming). The difference in outlook is usually a matter of perspective. In this example, elite athletes, particularly famous ones, are innudated with tales of what Average Joes and Janes did back in the day or are doing now and I can imagine it wears thin pretty quickly. OTOH, Average Joes and Janes like us are trying to make a connection to a level we never attained or can never attain.

Anyway, nothing "good" or "bad" has come out of this. This is hardly important. Okay, Ms. Sey supposedly pissed on people's happy memories of.....and now you've pissed on her article. So I guess you're even. Happy now? Also, just because "the Salon readers" are in high dungeon (surprise, surprise...not) over her article doesn't really matter at all. Well, at least not in the way you think it does. If anything, the outrage!!!! is helping bump up the site traffic. And, the idea that "any friends or acquaintances of hers might now be reconsidering the bounds of their social circles" is just spiteful whishing on your part and a tad melodramatic. Again, this is nowhere near that important despite some bruised feelings here.

Someone writes something provocative, and then we who respond are scolded for being provoked, for being too sensitive, for making too much of it, for having a different opinion.

Anyway, there is apparently another Olympian who is behaving poorly (some Swedish wrestler), so we can all lay off Ms. Sey now, I guess. Maybe part of the training for elite athletes should be anger management.

...that I saw Mark Spitz being interviewed on Today this morning. He said that he's probably the only person who understands the pressure that Mark Phelps is feeling right now.

Which is, at the heart of it, the same point that Jennifer Sey is trying to make, I think.

But, he wasn't an asshole about it. He was what you might call a "class act".

"because Ms. Sey's article hurt your wittle feelings because it put your largely mediocre and mostly leisure time or past athletic pursuits in perspective. Yeah, yeah you played baseball in Little League, swan in HS, did gymnastics when you were little, played basketball in the Y leagues, shuffled along and did a couple of marathons or a Corporate Challeneges, yadda, yadda, so you foolishly flatter yourselves and think you can compare yourselves to the elite in those sports because, after all, you are/were a baseball/basketball player, gymnast, runner, etc., too and you know how it is."

NO. That's NOT what people are offended by.

One thing that has stirred up so much resentment is Ms. Sey's statements that those activities weren't athletic pursuits at all, because they weren't done at a high-enough level. That nobody who did those things at less than the "elite" level can call themselves a gymnast, a swimmer, a runner, etc. That's simply wrong, and people are calling her on it.

"The level they are doing it at is so far removed and so fundamentally different from what you did/do, that any comparison is laughable."

I don't see any of us in the non-elite unwashed masses here comparing ourselves to Olympians or athletes of higher level. We all know there's a universe of difference between, say, the two-and-a-half-hour marathoner and the three-and-a-half-hour one.

Nor do I see any of us saying "we know how it is" to train and compete at the level needed to even approach being in national or international competition.

"though it is amsuing that a lot of the "outrage" is some version of "Just because I sucked, doesn't mean I didn't do it". Okay. That's true I suppose but besides Sey's cheerfully rude point."

NO. It's the point exactly. Sey denies that we even did it. That's the problem.

The other thing that bothers many respondents here is that Sey does not acknowledge how much others did to make it possible for her to train and compete. Her article comes across as if she did it all by herself, and that nobody other than elite athletes face such challenges and take such risks.

Sorry, I don't buy that for a second. She was a gymnast because she wanted to be a gymnast, was willing to do what it took, and had the resources to make it possible.

--

There is one other dynamic that is also operating here.

Most of us in the developed world have grown up being bombarded by words and images from "the media" without any way of responding. (This is what makes "talk radio" so popular, but it's strictly controlled by the staff at the stations).

But in online venues like Salon, we can respond right away and in detail. We don't have to just sit and take it when somebody denigrates what we've done.

Being an elite athlete does not give Sey (or anyone else) the right to be a condescending jerk online and not be taken to task for it.

Then again, she may not be reading any of this.

"Someone writes something provocative, and then we who respond are scolded for being provoked, for being too sensitive, for making too much of it, for having a different opinion."

Yes, you all are innocent victims of Sey's provocative piece. You all were minding your business and bang!. After that unprovoked provocation, you just couldn't help youself page after page after page after page after page after page. It really is a bit much ado over not much at all.