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

Kstone wrote: "NO. Here's what Sey said:"

Sey wrote: "Watching the women's 400-meter individual medley with some friends, one lesser-known acquaintance gently whispered to her daughter, "Mommy swam the 400-meter freestyle in high school."

No, you didn't.

See? I'm horrible. But she didn't. Technically, she stayed afloat. She swam back and forth in the pool. But her interpretation of this flywheel-type movement surely had nothing to do with what Britain's Rebecca Adlington brought to bear on that pool in Beijing."

Twice Sey says that the unnamed person DID NOT SWIM THE 400m FREESTYLE. Without any knowledge of that person's skill level in high school, who they swam against, awards won, etc.

KStone: "Sey mocked the person's attempt to "me too"."

NO. She said that the person didn't swim the 400 m freestyle without any other knowledge of the person.

KStone: "The mother told her kid that she swam the 400 free in HS while they were watching the 400 IM race. Sey's internal "No, you didn't" wasn't a denial that the person literally swam, it was a mocking of the me tooism. Whether you agree or like it is another matter but it wasn't a denial the person "even did it" as you say."

It was a denial that the person swam the 400 m freestyle, without any knowledge of the person's skill level in high school.

The unnamed person simply said that they swam the 400 meter freestyle in highschool. No mention of how well she did it, nor any comparison to the Olympians on the screen.

Is that wrong? Is it not allowed to mention one's own experiences, however modest, in the presence of superior beings?

Let me put it another way:

At what point is a person qualified to call themselves a swimmer, a runner, a gymnast, etc.?

If a person runs a marathon in under three hours, can s/he say "I ran a marathon", or is that "me tooism"? How about the four hour marathoner?

Where's the line? Who gets to draw that line?

I understand Sey's point that there's a universe of difference between those who compete at the top levels and those who do the same events at much lower levels. So does anyone with any experience in sports.

The problem is that she dismisses, denigrates and denies those lower level athletes because they didn't do what she did, at the level she did it.

That's not sporting.

It seems to me that in order to qualify as a runner, swimmer, gymnast, etc., Sey is saying that a person has to do it as their primary focus over and above everything else.

I say that's just not right.

I am just asking--again.

Well that woman that says 'I was a gymnast too' is probably more able to understand you than those of us who have little or no interest in the sport and every four years are either mildly amused by the athlete's abilities or totally bored and disgusted by the spectacle of what these women/girls do to themselves in the name of competition. You devote your life to the single minded pursuit of a meaningless ideal, you are ultimately unsatisfied with your accomplishments and whine about other people who dabble in sports and come away happy because they were able to excel in something, to whatever minor degree.

Why do I have the feeling that people who know you would be most likely to describe you as selfish?

Ms. Sey is a witty writer, and no doubt was an equally gifted athlete.

As a "real" former ballet dancer (as opposed to someone writing from the "sidelines," Mr. Stinson), I can understand her perspective.

But it saddens and frankly disgusts me that she makes no attempt whatsoever to move beyond it. Watching the Olympics alone and wallowing in self-aggrandizment seems like a terrible idea.

It seems that Jennifer Sey may be misinterpreting what people mean when they say "I used to ..."

I just read about the Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, where people who perform poorly at a task are incapable of recognizing their own incompetence because the skills needed to do the task well are the same as those needed to correctly evaluate their performance.

(Wikipedia has a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_Syndrome)

Dr. Dunning and Dr. Kruger realized that the only way to get incompetent people to recognize their own ability was, ironically, to make them more competent.

People who have done amateur sports have gained the competence to recognize their incompetence. Everyone "knows" that what elite athletes do is impossible for average people... but amateurs who have scrambled a few feet up the mountain Olympians stand atop have more real capacity to admire the difficulty of their climb.

I think you nailed it.

It's the difference between "knowing" a thing intellectually (a marathon is a footrace 26 miles 385 yards long) and knowing it from experience (how it feels and what it takes to train for and actually do one from start to finish).

The first can be learned easily in a few moments, the second takes a lot longer and a lot more effort.

There's also the fact that the only way to really know the limit of one's abilities is to try. But there aren't resources enough to try everything.

Perhaps the hardest thing to accept is that everyone doesn't get an equal cut of the pie. There are people for whom a lot of things - yes, even gymnastics - are a lot easier than for most. And those for whom a lot of things are more difficult or impossible.

That is why they are so popular. It is a sickness. See if any other members of the great ape family do this to themselves and each other.

The bitterness, the anger, the intolerance, the being a jerk - all of the result of the most abusive aspect of this cultural madness - everyone who doesn't win is a loser.

Hertz Donut?

Sports is about as healthy as self flagellation, self-cutting, drug abuse and vomitophilia.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

I am not watching any of it.

Sports kill, cripple, maim and produce mental illness - BUT IT IS JUST A LEGAL AS INHALANTS!

Go ahead, have a huff. Pretend that is you are the one that have had their life sacrificed for a chance to win a shiny medal. Bring on the agony of defeat!