Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stuczynski still out? [she's out]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    we have never sent our best team to olympics or worlds,never!this is due to our selection methods.project 30,we will be lucky with 25 this year.in the majority of events we know who our best rep is but we insist upon running in the trials .the casualty list is long .gay last year,sonya 07,this year clay,fountain,oliver,jones and now it might be stuczynski.these are almost automatic medals,some gold.I have news for everyone,that is why other countrys select one or two. the first should be by selection guarenteeing your stud.we have never sent our best team.anyone on this message board could select a better team simply by selecting one and then competing for 2 and 3.everyone knows its better but still no change.I vote next year we run trials and make all the studs have to wear weighted vest like jockeys and see if we can knock out 10-12 medal winners with our trials and break the record of 7-8 set this year.others select because it works.sonya was right,everyone could hear her but no one listened.after this world championship,people might start listening.

    Comment


    • #17
      Take a breath.

      Comment


      • #18
        It's an awfully big stretch to say that Stuczynski's health can be blamed on the Trials. She was banged up coming into the meet, and did not visibly injure herself there.

        It's not like our more competitive events where she had to fight hard to make the team. All she had to do was make a bar. She chose to keep jumping past the point at which she made the team, so if anyone tries to blame her injuries on the team selection, I think they would be in error.

        Besides, even if she had skipped USAs, there's no guarantee she'd be any better off right now.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 30yrs-coaching
          we have never sent our best team to olympics or worlds,never!this is due to our selection methods.project 30,we will be lucky with 25 this year.in the majority of events we know who our best rep is but we insist upon running in the trials .the casualty list is long .gay last year,sonya 07,this year clay,fountain,oliver,jones and now it might be stuczynski.these are almost automatic medals,some gold.I have news for everyone,that is why other countrys select one or two. the first should be by selection guarenteeing your stud.we have never sent our best team.anyone on this message board could select a better team simply by selecting one and then competing for 2 and 3.everyone knows its better but still no change.I vote next year we run trials and make all the studs have to wear weighted vest like jockeys and see if we can knock out 10-12 medal winners with our trials and break the record of 7-8 set this year.others select because it works.sonya was right,everyone could hear her but no one listened.after this world championship,people might start listening.
          Your syntax is questionable but your logic irrefutable.
          Well said.

          Comment


          • #20
            if it's well said, then there's no need to throw in a gratuitous slap at syntax.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by gh
              if it's well said, then there's no need to throw in a gratuitous slap at syntax.
              Syntax is more central than being a grammar police. It affects that ability of the reader to parse the comment. Telling the author that it is difficult is a way to get the poster to work at the syntax, to the benefit of all. I found that post so hard to read that I did not get the benefits of its content until I read the reply.

              Comment


              • #22
                Getting back on track... yes, Stuczynski is out.

                Comment


                • #23
                  made phone calls and now i hear she is jumping.she is on start list and in write up.awesome! not all is lost.good luck to her!looks like we just iced the m&w 4x100 with the jamac problem.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 26mi235
                    I found that post so hard to read that I did not get the benefits of its content until I read the reply.
                    I didn't even try to read that post. It wasn't a matter of syntax either.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by tandfman
                      I didn't even try to read that post. It wasn't a matter of syntax either.
                      Grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation, capitalization - all the mechanics of composition - are just conventions we have developed to enhance communication. I have no problem with people who have not mastered them yet (that's what keeps TOEs employed), but I do have a problem with people who are inconsiderate in their laziness and force the reader to make sense. I'm not saying that is the case with anyone here, just in general. If that makes me snooty, then so be it! :twisted:

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        if you choose to ignore it, ignore it; that's your prerogative; my complaint was at somebody choosing to criticize somebody for it. I'd like to think that mature adults, if they really had a problem might have said, something along the lines of "sorry, but a long run-on paragraph with no breaks and punctuation and capitalization problems is sorta unreadable."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by gh
                          I'd like to think that mature adults, if they really had a problem might have said, something along the lines of "sorry, but a long run-on paragraph with no breaks and punctuation and capitalization problems is sorta unreadable."
                          How is that more mature than saying "Your syntax is questionable"?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            It actually tells the person what syntax is questionable. In my day job I've seen things like "the internet is broken" and "X app doesn't work." Those, like "your syntax is questionable" are useless. The response GH penned was both direct and instructive instead of obtuse and a little abrasive.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by bhall
                              It actually tells the person what syntax is questionable. In my day job I've seen things like "the internet is broken" and "X app doesn't work." Those, like "your syntax is questionable" are useless. The response GH penned was both direct and instructive instead of obtuse and a little abrasive.
                              The remark was light-hearted, happened to rhyme, and, lest ye forget, complimented the soundness of the gentleman's argument.
                              The only thing abrasive around here appears to be certain individuals' keks.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                In the end: People do not like to be criticized (and,
                                ironically, the more they could benefit from feedback,
                                the less they like it).

                                Trying to correct anyone, in any manner, is a risky business,
                                and the best one can do is to make a reasonably polite
                                and constructive statement---which kir did.

                                After that it boils down to whether the counter-parts are on
                                the same wave-lengths---some will prefer kir's version
                                (I did); others will prefer gh's. gh and kir are clearly not on
                                the same wave-length in this particular matter.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X