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.

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:29:04 -0500, 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.

I could go with the Lance Armstrong idea. But, I figure golfers are as
much athletes as most baseball players.

(Whew, I'm ducking now!)
--

Have a Blessed Chrismahanukwanzakah and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

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.

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.

Loogypicker wrote:
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.

Heavens no, Loogie. That would be racist. Surely you can think of a non
race related similarity to the awards.

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..

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, 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.

In article ,
says...

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.

Yeah, kind of like that other guy this morning with his "you guys"
painting a huge group of us with one brush as the nutty group he married
into... grin.

I still like that other guy though, I do trust he is being honest and
probably more informed than I