On 12/17/09 11:36 AM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:29:04 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John
wrote:

...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.

Travesty. Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.

Golfers aren't atheletes.

You don't know much, evidently.


Are you second-guessing rec.boats' own Mr. Non-Science? :)

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:39:15 -0500, Harry
wrote:

On 12/17/09 11:36 AM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:29:04 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John
wrote:

...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.

Travesty. Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.

Golfers aren't atheletes.

You don't know much, evidently.


Are you second-guessing rec.boats' own Mr. Non-Science? :)

Oh, I thought he was our lawnmower expert. He knows about science?

If he knew anything about science, he'd marvel at the multitude of
effects Tiger Woods can put on a ball with any one of the 14 clubs in
his bag.

And, if he knew what it took to develop such skills, he may not be
among the mob of idiots who'd like to string him up. He's like any
pampered athlete. They're denied a normal life and live on clouds of
adulation and worship. False sense of security. It's among the
hazards of professional sports.

In article ,
om says...

...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.

As it should be, he personal life is none of our business...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:

...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.

Travesty. Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.

Golfers aren't atheletes.

Never really thought of that.. uhmmmmmmmm, you could be right.

In article 2c2b75e4-abf4-43f2-914e-
, says...

On Dec 17, 9:21*am, Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:

...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.

Travesty. *Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.

Golfers aren't atheletes.

It might be too early to say definitively, but there seems to be a trend
* emerging. First Obama Then Woods. Who will get the next prize.

Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two.

Funny, being open minded as I am, the first thing that struck me was two
folks who got prizes they may not have deserved in comparison to the
competition... Never even thought of the color thing till you mentioned
it..

In article , lil abner
says...

John H wrote:
...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.
I was at least as "athletic" as Woods but my wife wouldn't let me
compete on other courses.
Darn fortunate to get to play the same course, once or twice a week now.

LOL...

I am Tosk wrote:
In article 2c2b75e4-abf4-43f2-914e-
, says...
On Dec 17, 9:21 am, Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:
...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.
Travesty. Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.
Golfers aren't atheletes.
It might be too early to say definitively, but there seems to be a trend
emerging. First Obama Then Woods. Who will get the next prize.
Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two.

Funny, being open minded as I am, the first thing that struck me was two
folks who got prizes they may not have deserved in comparison to the
competition... Never even thought of the color thing till you mentioned
it..
Kind of puts Loogie in the same boat with Harry, doesn't it. Racists,
both of them.

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:02:48 -0500, Jim wrote:

I am Tosk wrote:
In article 2c2b75e4-abf4-43f2-914e-
, says...
On Dec 17, 9:21 am, Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:
...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.
Travesty. Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.
Golfers aren't atheletes.
It might be too early to say definitively, but there seems to be a trend
emerging. First Obama Then Woods. Who will get the next prize.
Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two.

Funny, being open minded as I am, the first thing that struck me was two
folks who got prizes they may not have deserved in comparison to the
competition... Never even thought of the color thing till you mentioned
it..
Kind of puts Loogie in the same boat with Harry, doesn't it. Racists,
both of them.

I wouldn't put Loogy in the same boat as Harry. I'm not that cruel.
But Loogy does come up with some strange associations at times.
--

Have a Blessed Chrismahanukwanzakah and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

On Dec 17, 12:48*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article 2c2b75e4-abf4-43f2-914e-
, says...







On Dec 17, 9:21*am, Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:

...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.

Travesty. *Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.

Golfers aren't atheletes.

It might be too early to say definitively, but there seems to be a trend
* emerging. First Obama Then Woods. Who will get the next prize.

Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two.

Funny, being open minded as I am, the first thing that struck me was two
folks who got prizes they may not have deserved in comparison to the
competition... Never even thought of the color thing till you mentioned
it..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why would an open minded person think that Woods is undeserving of the
award? He is by far the best golfer out there, an brings in billions
to the sport.

On Dec 17, 1:06*pm, John H wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:02:48 -0500, Jim wrote:
I am Tosk wrote:
In article 2c2b75e4-abf4-43f2-914e-
, says....
On Dec 17, 9:21 am, Jim wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:10:05 -0500, John H
wrote:
...and from what I hear, a small part of the award is due to his golf
prowess.
Travesty. *Clearly, Lance Armstrong is the athelete of the century
because he's actually an athelete.
Golfers aren't atheletes.
It might be too early to say definitively, but there seems to be a trend
* emerging. First Obama Then Woods. Who will get the next prize.
Are you suggesting this because they are both black? Seems to be the
only common thread of the two.

Funny, being open minded as I am, the first thing that struck me was two
folks who got prizes they may not have deserved in comparison to the
competition... Never even thought of the color thing till you mentioned
it..
Kind of puts Loogie in the same boat with Harry, doesn't it. Racists,
both of them.

I wouldn't put Loogy in the same boat as Harry. I'm not that cruel.
But Loogy does come up with some strange associations at times.
--

Have a Blessed Chrismahanukwanzakah and a Spectacular New Year!

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

John, in the past you have made many many bigoted remarks. Show me one
I've made.