Re: RC: Re: The Winning Debate

[Tivers@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/5/00 7:25:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time, SandyDSA@aol.com 
writes:

<< <<  really was that necessary >>
 probably. No he doesn't need defending because his defiant and arrogant 
 positions can't BE defended. He would that anyone who does not agree with 
him 
 and his thoughts be ground into the dirt, as if no one else knows anything 
 believes anything or is worth anything. Sometimes..'winning" is a small 
child 
 with no arms getting about an arena on the horse; sometimes it is  a 70 year 
 old man recovering from a stroke who has gone for his first trail ride in 30 
 years; and sometimes it is a lifetime rider with lifetime chronic arthritis 
 who completes 25 or 30 miles intact. How DARE he belittle the efforts and 
 goals of others to suit his own ego.
 s >>

Emote of the Year Award! My dear, you confuse the word "win" with words like 
"accomplishment" or "achievement".  That's the problem with sociobabble and 
feel-good rhetoric--distorts the language. Demeans the objects of the 
utterances. Projects one's own insecurities onto the backs of those far less 
fortunate who don't need the extra burdens. 

ti