- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
Regardless of opinion of how one should "act." What about -
Is the athlete there for the sport, or is the sport there for the athlete? - I do not have an answer either way that doesn't support both, this is a Q of opinion.
Just my interpretation -
If you like FS you are in the teapot, if you don't you are not. Do you want to be in a teapot with a tempest? Particularly when it appears all the tempest is doing is spilling water out of the teapot.
And what about the Kat example? OK to be flamboyantly gay but not flamboyantly sexy? Am I way off on that? It should be fine for both or prohibited for both.
And Lund AND Wier, both are "out there," how does one dictate which is worse?
My opinion is kind of pointless here IMO, I am wondering more about the opinions voiced and why.
Is the athlete there for the sport, or is the sport there for the athlete? - I do not have an answer either way that doesn't support both, this is a Q of opinion.
If you like FS you are in the teapot, if you don't you are not. Do you want to be in a teapot with a tempest? Particularly when it appears all the tempest is doing is spilling water out of the teapot.
And what about the Kat example? OK to be flamboyantly gay but not flamboyantly sexy? Am I way off on that? It should be fine for both or prohibited for both.
And Lund AND Wier, both are "out there," how does one dictate which is worse?
My opinion is kind of pointless here IMO, I am wondering more about the opinions voiced and why.
Honestly meant in jest.