Tara Lipinski on "Early Edition"
Debra D. Wright
Haven't seen this posted yet..
As I was reading the TV Guide this week, I noticed that Tara Lipinski will
be on the series "Early Edition" on Saturday, May 17th. It will air at
9pm EST on CBS. For anyone who doesn't know this show, it's filmed in
Chicago, and the plots center around a guy who receives the newspaper a
day early. He tries to rectify mistakes that will be made in the coming
day before they happen. Saturday's episode is about the guy (I'm blanking
on his name) trying to prevent an injury happening to Tara Lipinski.
It's a really good show in my opinion, and anybody who likes Tara or
skating should get a kick out of it. It's also the season finale, so the
Tara plot is only part of the show, BTW.
Back to lurking..
Debbie Wright
--
Debra D. Wright
deb...@nwu.edu
Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University
"There are no small parts, only small actors."
PegLewis
In article <debbiew-1105...@hazelnut186037.nuts.nwu.edu>,
deb...@nwu.edu (Debra D. Wright) writes:
>As I was reading the TV Guide this week, I noticed that Tara Lipinski
will
>be on the series "Early Edition" on Saturday, May 17th. It will air at
>9pm EST on CBS. For anyone who doesn't know this show, it's filmed in
>Chicago, and the plots center around a guy who receives the newspaper a
>day early. He tries to rectify mistakes that will be made in the coming
>day before they happen. Saturday's episode is about the guy (I'm
blanking
>on his name)
"Gary Hobson" ("Hobbson"?SP?)
> trying to prevent an injury happening to Tara Lipinski.
My TV section from the Sunday paper describes a different plot. It will be
interesting to see how the various plot arcs mesh.
>It's a really good show in my opinion,
Best new show of this season, for me. Love the cat. And a blind regular
character is pretty neat, although I think she's been underutilized after
the first six shows or so.
> and anybody who likes Tara or
>skating should get a kick out of it. It's also the season finale, so the
>Tara plot is only part of the show, BTW.
Too bad Gary wasn't in *Detroit* in 1994. Or maybe he was, and Kerrigan
was *supposed* to be struck. OOoooh, I feel a script coming on...!
;-) Peg
(PegL...@aol.com)
===========
“It’s a wonderful feeling to fly again.” - Michelle Kwan, '97 Worlds,
March 1997
===========
"There's something I've always wanted to do..." - Peggy Fleming,
immediately prior to sealing Dick Button's chops with a nice strip of duct
tape, '97 Hershey's Pro-Am, April 1997
===========
"Hey, my nephew is now an officer in the Coast Guard! Good Job, Shawn!" -
Peg Lewis, Mother's Day 1997
H20RJR
Glad to hear that geek is trying so hard to get attention. Early Edition
is a show on CBS that nobody watches. l guess her agent can't get his
preious client on a more popular show. That little brat is just going to
make a fool of herself. She is
pathetic!
chu...@oakton.edu
In article <debbiew-1105...@hazelnut186037.nuts.nwu.edu>,
> be on the series "Early Edition" on Saturday, May 17th. It will air at
> 9pm EST on CBS. For anyone who doesn't know this show, it's filmed in
> Chicago, and the plots center around a guy who receives the newspaper a
> day early. He tries to rectify mistakes that will be made in the coming
> day before they happen. Saturday's episode is about the guy (I'm blanking
Well, THAT was quick work on Mike Berg's part... it's only been what, two
months since Worlds? And how many weeks of 'lag' between an episode's
filming and broadcast date are there?
Great... I'm of the opinion that the further *away* from the whole
"Hollyweird" experience Tara can stay, the better. Looks like her agent
does not share my opinion.
(Here's hoping this is NOT the beginning of an 'overexposed-in-the-media'
trend for Tara.)
And here's hoping that...
a) since TV Guide says that Tara only gets a "cameo" and devotes 90% of
its entry to the 'other' plot line mentioned, that Tara and the 'injury
plot' is just the 1-minute "opening vignette" that an "Early Edition"
episode always starts with. (Remember the 30-second one about the
just-in-time phone call to Chernobyl?)
b) that the scriptwriters do it in good taste (and since when did TV
scriptwriters last know the meaning of those words?)
c) that any future appearance(s) on TV serials remain infrequent.
> It's a really good show in my opinion, and anybody who likes Tara or
> skating should get a kick out Dof it. It's also the season finale, so the
> Tara plot is only part of the show, BTW.
Here's hoping it's a *very* small part of the show... I really like Tara,
and I want to her to remain a *figure skater* until Nagano, not a "TV
personality."
IMO (which is worth however much you want it to be), there will be time
enough for stuff like this AFTER her eligible career, not during the
'run-up' to her career's most important challenge yet.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Trudi Marrapodi
In article <19970512225...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, h20...@aol.com
(H20RJR) wrote:
> Glad to hear that geek is trying so hard to get attention.
Obviously there IS a geek trying very hard to get attention here.
> Early Edition
> is a show on CBS that nobody watches.
My mother is not nobody. Or, I mean, she is anybody. Or, I mean, she is
somebody...oh, forget it.
> l guess her agent can't get his
> preious client on a more popular show.
Well, you know, it was hard enough getting the "Seinfeld" people back on
"Seinfeld," so, you see...
> That little brat is just going to
> make a fool of herself. She is
> pathetic!
You know, my friend, you should start looking in the mirror when it comes
to making a fool of oneself and being pathetic.
Trudi
www...@getridodispart.frontiernet.net
Previous spamproofing unsuccessful--take two! To mail me, get rid 'o "getridodispart."...
"Some men think strong opinions are a sign of PMS..."--TV commercial
"...and if you don't believe it, you can ring my doorbell and smell my toilet." --another TV commercial
Brad Miller (TaraRulz!)
H20RJR wrote:
>
> Glad to hear that geek is trying so hard to get attention. Early Edition
> is a show on CBS that nobody watches. l guess her agent can't get his
> preious client on a more popular show. That little brat is just going to
> make a fool of herself. She is
> pathetic!
If I was as smart as you (and i'm glad I'm NOT) I would actually know
what "preious" meant, and would be offended by your comments.
Brad Miller (TaraRulz!)
Cycys22
>Glad to hear that geek is trying so hard to get attention. Early Edition
>is a show on CBS that nobody watches. l guess her agent can't get his
>preious client on a more popular show. That little brat is just going to
>make a fool of herself. She is
>pathetic!
What makes you think SHE's the one who aksed to be on the show?
Usually it's the other way around. I stopped watching the show the first
few times but I'll be sure to watch this episode, sound interesting.
Jam
*************************************
"There are only three cities in America, San Francisco, New Orleans and New
York."- Tennessee Williams
Of course, I disagree with San Francisco. It's just a bad imitation of New Orleans.
Kathleen Bratton
> In article <8634792...@dejanews.com>, chu...@oakton.edu writes:
> [re: Tara & show biz]
> >IMO (which is worth however much you want it to be), there will be time
> >enough for stuff like this AFTER her eligible career, not during the
> >'run-up' to her career's most important challenge yet.
> >
> >
PegLewis (pegl...@aol.com) wrote:
> But unless she retires at the age Oksana Baiul did, she won't be waiflike
> and enchanting when she retires... She's bankable right now. Now, before
> she does Continents Cup or Skate America - and should she be fortunate
> enough to win at either or both of those, her bankability will escalate.
> If she does not win, but skates well, a little tarnish. If she
> zamboni's... who knows?
But I think that Chuck's worried that too much outside activity is going
to hurt Tara's longterm bankability. That too much outside activity will
hurt her chances at Continents Cup, at Skate America, etc. I'm sure an
episode of Early Edition can't compare with what she can do in terms of
$$$ if she wins the Olympics.
I guess it comes down to risk and balance. She wants to win the Olympics,
and she has a shot -- but how much do they give up *now* in order to
sacrifice for a less-than-assured (in fact, I would argue somewhat
unlikely, at least in 1998) goal? As Peg says, she's marketable now . . .
just not as marketable as she'll be in a couple of years if she can keep
winning.
> Her agent knows his stuff. He might not know what is good for Tara's
> skating career or her longevity as a serious competitor, but he certainly
> knows how to garner attention well in advance of actual delivery of the
> promised goods.
Are you referring to Early Edition? (I'm just curious, it wasn't clear to
me)
> So long as Tara keeps living up to his promises, he'll be
> dealing away.
> <shrug> That's what they hired him to do, after all. I don't think anyone
> involved in that decision cared what Tara's *fans* might think about her
> agent or his dealings back then. I wonder if they care now? (<-- just
> curious, not laced with hidden sinister meaning )
I think they (Team Lipinski) probably do care -- at least what her fans
and what her potential fans want. Ideally, they want to make her as
marketable as possible, and that means making fans happy and creating new
fans. And it means making sure she's in the best shape possible to win
worlds. Personally (message to Chuck), I wouldn't panic yet. This was
probably arranged right after Worlds, and it's probably just a cameo.
She doesn't strike me as someone particularly interested in an acting
career; but I could be wrong.
And the other thing they care about is the goal of being the best skater.
And she's not there yet (and I suspect she knows she's not there yet), but
she clearly wants that much more than she wants to be in the spotlight,
though I don't think she dislikes the spotlight. But every time she's
interviewed, it's clear that she enjoys skating really, really well; she
enjoys winning, and I think she wants to maximize her chances of doing so
in the future. She seems to me to be more focused in this regard than
some other skaters; I guess, just from her interviews, I get the sense
she's aware of the pitfalls of pro tours, interviews/cameos, etc., and
will act cautiously. And I think this is not only the sense I get from
her, but from her family, agent, etc.
I guess what I think is: Tara's team cares about one thing: winning
skating events. And if other $$$ and reknown can be achieved along the
way, great. But not of the cost of the primary goal.
-- Kate
PegLewis
In article <5lb9q6$7l7$1...@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu>, kbra...@email.unc.edu
(Kathleen Bratton) writes:
[Peg said]
>> Her agent knows his stuff. He might not know what is good for Tara's
>> skating career or her longevity as a serious competitor, but he
certainly
>> knows how to garner attention well in advance of actual delivery of the
>> promised goods.
>Are you referring to Early Edition? (I'm just curious, it wasn't clear
to
>me)
Yes, in part. But more so to the hype he created before Junior Nationals
'95, and his securing some pretty impressive endorsement deals on the
"strength" of one Olympic festival win plus one Senior National Bronze and
one really mixed-performance pair of programs at Worlds '96, deals that
were made before Tara won Nationals, much less CSF & Worlds.
Clearly, he's been making big hints as to her dead-cert potential
successes, and Tara has delivered in some cases, particularly last year.
(Understatement re: last year). This will work so long as Tara delivers, I
would think. But I don't really know any more details than those broad
brushstrokes. Perhaps someone else can share more information on Tara's
agent's activities - how many irons are in the fire, for example.
Yoriko Irie
In article <19970512225...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
h20...@aol.com (H20RJR) wrote:
> Glad to hear that geek is trying so hard to get attention. Early
Edition
> is a show on CBS that nobody watches. l guess her agent can't get his
> preious client on a more popular show. That little brat is just going
to
> make a fool of herself. She is
> pathetic!
Early Edition is THE most favorite of mine.
--
************************************************************
From Yoriko Irie
Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota
<irie...@tc.umn.edu>
English & Japanese available
************************************************************
Sk8Maven
> chu...@oakton.edu wrote:
> >b) that the scriptwriters do it in good taste (and since when did TV
> >scriptwriters last know the meaning of those words?)
>
> Every week on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine & Star Trek: Voyager... the
> only shows, by the way that take unagented spec scripts.
>
> Never been a skater on Trek to my knowledge. Hmmmm. Who would I most
> like to send three hundred years into the future?
A while back, somebody wrote a sketch for a Star Trek:Next Generation
story involving a direct descendant of a certain well-loved US Olympic
silver medalist preparing to compete at the next Interstellar
Olympics.... It was clever, but I thought some of the ideas needed to
be thought through more completely. For instance, would the 24th century
still have individual skating segregated by gender, especially since
there are known races with more or fewer than two genders and/or that
switch genders? Would there still only be *one* heavily gender-encoded
type of pairs skating, or would there be a greater variety of styles, or
would there be several types of pairs competitions? Would there be solo
dance as well as couple-dance, and maybe group dance as well? Would
precision be included on an equal footing? Would figures have made a
comeback as a separate discipline, considering that Vulcans would
probably excel at both compulsory and creative figures (if they got the
chance, Vulcan being a hot dry planet)?
Most of all, would there still *be* an organized sports competition
called the "Olympics"? Held how often? Under what rules and what
governing body or bodies? What sports would be included? How would
competitors be selected? Etc., etc., etc.
As a footnote, *professional sports do not exist* in the Star Trek
universe -- at least, the Big Team Sports all seem to be extinct.
Baseball, certainly -- that point was hammered home several times. :-(
On the other hand, there is still a "marathon" for Starfleet cadets (won
on one occasion by one Jean-Luc Picard), so at least some Olympic
traditions have survived. (The "marathon" as we know it was invented for
the first Modern Olympic Games in 1896, and the distance was revised
slightly for the 1908 London games -- which, to provide some obSkating
commentary, were the first to include figure skating as a medal sport.)
--
Bettina (sk8m...@bellsouth.net)
Please reply to *this* address ONLY if you aren't trying
to sell me something! :-)
ALL other addresses are intentionally bogus to block
incoming junk email.
Anyone who uses the above address to send me junk email
will be charged a $500.00 reading fee. You have been
warned.
ken
No member of "Team Tara" could have been happy with Tara's credit last
night -- It went something like "Special Guest appearance by 'Tara
Lipinsky'.
Oh, well, maybe an Olympic Gold medal will take care of problems like
incorrect spelling.
Then again there's Oksana Grishuk/Grischuk/Gritschuk.
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <5lms6u$pvb$1...@newsd-104.bryant.webtv.net>,
ken <tr...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> No member of "Team Tara" could have been happy with Tara's credit last
> night -- It went something like "Special Guest appearance by 'Tara
> Lipinsky'.
Which was very inconsiderate of them, because the "prop newspaper" they
used in the scene *did* have the correct spelling! So it's not as if
they didn't *know*...
Not to mention my other pet peeve -- if "Early Edition" wanted Tara on
the show, couldn't they have given her at least one line of dialogue?
I mean, if she *has* to be there at all, at least let her do something
besides be an animate piece of background scenery.
> Oh, well, maybe an Olympic Gold medal will take care of problems like
> incorrect spelling.
I hope she wins it too -- but, as we all know, nothing is certain until
after it happens.
Trudi Marrapodi
> No member of "Team Tara" could have been happy with Tara's credit last
> night -- It went something like "Special Guest appearance by 'Tara
> Lipinsky'.
>
> Oh, well, maybe an Olympic Gold medal will take care of problems like
> incorrect spelling.
Well then, Todd "Eldridge" better hope he wins too!
> Then again there's Oksana Grishuk/Grischuk/Gritschuk.
Oh, she just can't make up her mind."Gritschuk" appears to have been just
fine with her until she discovered what "grits" were and decided she
didn't want to have her name made fun of by Westerners that way (Trudi
says cynically). Sheesh. Next thing you know, Irina Slutskaya will insist
that her last name name be spelt "Slootskaya" in order to get rid of the
"slut" in it.
Cycys22
>I hope she wins it too -- but, as we all know, nothing is certain until
>after it happens.
I'm not trying to bash Tara or anything but why in the world would you
want
her to win the olympic gold?
Brad Miller (TaraRulz!)
Not trying to jump in or anything, but in my OPINION, Tara is adorable,
and is my favorite skater.. why WOULDN'T i want her to win???
Everybody has a fave..............
Brad Miller (TaraRulz!)
Laura Russ
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression to have a speaking role,
one must be a member of the actor's guild. James Worthy (B-Ball star)
played a very tall, very menancing klingon on one of the Star Trek shows -
never spoke for that reason. However, he did glare a lot.
Laura Clift
PegLewis
In article <19970518232...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) writes:
> I'm not trying to bash Tara or anything but why in the world would you
>want
>her to win the olympic gold?
Most people *want* their favorites to win the Olympic gold medal. I know I
want *my* favorites to win it, although my wanting it for them will pretty
much curse their chances with the powers that are.
;-) Peg
(PegL...@aol.com)
===========
"It's very intense what's happening in the sport... In the ladies event,
it's a little more the artistic beauty of figure skating. I hope it
doesn't come through to be jump, jump, jump... ...I wasn't as artistic as
I usually am. I was really concentrating on the jumps. I could feel the
lack in the artistry. I have to not let that happen again. I really love
the music, and skating is not all about jumping. My mind was strong. I had
a lot of people behind me. I appreciate it more. When you're young, you
don't think 'I have to do this, and this.' You just skate." - Nicole Bobek
after qualifying round at Worlds, March, 1997
===========
"Watch how those feet stretch and are pointed..." - Dick Button about Maia
Usova, TOC commentary, air date May, 1997
Louis Epstein
Trudi Marrapodi (www...@getridodispart.frontiernet.net) wrote:
: In article <5lms6u$pvb$1...@newsd-104.bryant.webtv.net>, ken
: <tr...@webtv.net> wrote:
:
: > No member of "Team Tara" could have been happy with Tara's credit last
: > night -- It went something like "Special Guest appearance by 'Tara
: > Lipinsky'.
: >
: > Oh, well, maybe an Olympic Gold medal will take care of problems like
: > incorrect spelling.
:
: Well then, Todd "Eldridge" better hope he wins too!
:
: > Then again there's Oksana Grishuk/Grischuk/Gritschuk.
:
: Oh, she just can't make up her mind."Gritschuk" appears to have been just
: fine with her until she discovered what "grits" were and decided she
: didn't want to have her name made fun of by Westerners that way (Trudi
: says cynically). Sheesh. Next thing you know, Irina Slutskaya will insist
: that her last name name be spelt "Slootskaya" in order to get rid of the
: "slut" in it.
(I have seen "Grichtchuk" too...but either there is or isn't a "t"
sound in there,and if there isn't the letter should go too!)
Louis Epstein
Laura Russ (laur...@aol.com) wrote:
: I may be wrong, but I was under the impression to have a speaking role,
I think you need to be a member even for non-speaking roles,but if
you say anything the salary goes up substantially.
Kathleen Bratton
Hmmm. I know that if you say anything, the salary definitely goes up
substantially, but I don't think you need to be a member . . . or at least
I know there are exceptions. I know, for instance, that shows will use
stage hands as extras occasionally, and those extras aren't in the screen
actors guild. But if those stage hands get to say something, it's a
happy, happy week for their families. :)
-- Kate
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <19970518232...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) wrote:
>
> In article <8639747...@dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >I hope she wins it too -- but, as we all know, nothing is certain until
> >after it happens.
>
> want her to win the olympic gold?
Since <cgla...@hotmail.com> is the backup e-mail account of
<chu...@oakton.edu>...
... I think the above sentence just told you why. :-)
Tara is my favorite skater, of course.
Pop123405
>>I hope she wins it too -- but, as we all know, nothing is certain until
>>after it happens.
Then Cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) writes:
> I'm not trying to bash Tara or anything but why in the world would you
>want
>her to win the olympic gold?
>
Why not? Just because you do not want Tara Lipinski to win the gold,
doesn't mean that EVERYONE *doesn't* want Tara to win.
-----
Just my humble opinion....
Email address: pop1...@aol.com
"Excuse me dear, I have to take a screen dump now," --DOS for Dummies.
"The AOL Newsreader is like a box of chocolates. You never know what
messages you're gonna get"
----
Revjoelle
>Hmmm. I know that if you say anything, the salary definitely goes up
substantially, but I don't think you need to be a member
Well you need to be a union member to talk on the radio. A local DJ used
to have conversations with his producer on the air all the time until his
rival lodged a complaint and that was the end of the conversations which
were pretty fun.
Joelle
"I feel 100% confident that I can overcome this disease and be
back on the ice within a few months" - Scott Hamilton
Christopher Jefferson
"Brad Miller (TaraRulz!)" <bmi...@jadeinc.com> wrote:
>> >after it happens.
>>
>> want
>> her to win the olympic gold?
>>
>>
>> *************************************
>> "There are only three cities in America, San Francisco, New Orleans and New
>> York."- Tennessee Williams
>>
>> Of course, I disagree with San Francisco. It's just a bad imitation of New Orleans.
>
>Not trying to jump in or anything, but in my OPINION, Tara is adorable,
>and is my favorite skater.. why WOULDN'T i want her to win???
>
>Everybody has a fave..............
>
>Brad Miller (TaraRulz!)
Brad,
Many times Jam will post something like this which absolutely makes one
pull one's hair out. At other times, Jam can make rather intelligent
posts. It comes and goes. But then again, you take it as it comes.:-)
Glad to see you like Tonya, by the way.:-D
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Cycys22
In article <19970519135...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
pegl...@aol.com (PegLewis) writes:
>
>Most people *want* their favorites to win the Olympic gold medal. I know
I
>want *my* favorites to win it, although my wanting it for them will
pretty
>much curse their chances with the powers that are.
>
>;-) Peg
I wonder why I didn't think of that.
Cycys22
In article <5lthl3$i...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>, Christopher Jefferson
<ALMI...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Many times Jam will post something like this which absolutely makes one
>pull one's hair out. At other times, Jam can make rather intelligent
>posts. It comes and goes. But then again, you take it as it comes.:-)
>
>Glad to see you like Tonya, by the way.:-D
>
>Be Seeing You,
>
>Chris
>
>
Sorry I couldn't come up with anything original but for you Chris, just
shut up for once. What category can I put your post in? Absolutely
obsolete is one choice.
Cycys22
In article <19970521010...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
pop1...@aol.com (Pop123405) writes:
>Why not? Just because you do not want Tara Lipinski to win the gold,
>doesn't mean that EVERYONE *doesn't* want Tara to win.
>
>
Nobody in their right mind would want her to win in Nagano. Sorry, but if
you *really* are a fan and care about the girl, you wouldn't want her to
win gold until 2002 if you know what's best.
NLathy
Jam writes:
<<Nobody in their right mind would want her to win in Nagano. Sorry, but
if
you *really* are a fan and care about the girl, you wouldn't want her to
win gold until 2002 if you know what's best.>>
How about wanting her to win in 1998 and 2002?
Nat
Pamela-Marie
cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) wrote:
>In article <19970521010...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>pop1...@aol.com (Pop123405) writes:
>
>>Why not? Just because you do not want Tara Lipinski to win the gold,
>>doesn't mean that EVERYONE *doesn't* want Tara to win.
>>
> Nobody in their right mind would want her to win in Nagano. Sorry, but
>if you *really* are a fan and care about the girl, you wouldn't want her
>to win gold until 2002 if you know what's best.
This is the first time in a long time I've agreed with you Jam. I'm not
fond of the way you said it, but I agree nonetheless. Those who care
wouldn't *want* her to win. Then again, I want the one deserving of the
gold to win it, something that happens less and less.
Pamela-Marie
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <19970524220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) wrote:
<snip>
> Nobody in their right mind would want her to win in Nagano. Sorry, but if
> you *really* are a fan and care about the girl, you wouldn't want her to
> win gold until 2002 if you know what's best.
>
> Jam
If I'm "really" a fan, I should hope for my favorite skater to *lose*
one of what will almost certainly be her only two chances to wear Olympic
gold? If she wins one at all?
The whole point of holding the competition is "may the best skater win."
Ergo, if I hope for Tara *not* to win, then I am hoping for Tara to
*not* be the best skater. Which means, by your reasoning, I am NOT really
a fan of Tara unless I'm hoping for to NOT be the best skater!
??????
Also, I resent your implication that anyone who doesn't want Tara to lose
in 1998 is "not in their right mind." If you are not a fan of Tara
Lipinski, that is entirely your privilege. Feel free to wish for whoever
you want to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to win at Nagano. Lord knows
everyone else here has their own 'wish list'.
(n.b. -- *please* read the underlined part carefully *before* you feel
tempted to accuse me of "denying you your right to have an opinion". Not
that you have ever made such an accusation before, because you haven't.
But this time around, I don't want anyone to be mistaking my intent.)
But it is NOT your privilege to tell *me* that *I* am 'not in my right
mind" for hoping that Tara wins something, and that *I* should be
changing *my* 'wish lists' to suit your own preconceptions. As you just
did, above.
I will admit that the Olympic gold medal winner immediately gets dumped
into a pressure cooker. I will admit that her life turns into a circus.
I will even admit that it's sometimes very hard to watch a 14 or 15-year
old girl go through this. (Although several who have gone through it
before really seemed to be enjoying themselves.)
But neither you nor I are Tara's parents. If she *wants* to subject
herself to this, and her parents consent, then *we* don't have any
"right" whatsoever to say that she *shouldn't* try to do this, "for her
own good." And Tara wants that gold medal like she's wanted few things
in her entire life.
Furthermore, Tara has a far better 'support structure' in place than some
other skaters have had to help her deal with the possible consequences of
winning it.
What's *really* best for young people who have spent their entire lives
chasing a dream is that they not be denied from a fair chance to achieve
it. The only thing worse than trying and failing is never having tried at
all. Or, worse yet, having been unfairly denied your chance to try by
other people.
Let Tara go to Nagano. Let her skate the best she can. And if that best
is actually enough for her to win the gold, then for God's sake please
LET HER WIN.
OK?
Brad Miller (TaraRulz!)
NLathy wrote:
>
> Jam writes:
>
> <<Nobody in their right mind would want her to win in Nagano. Sorry, but
> if
> you *really* are a fan and care about the girl, you wouldn't want her to
> win gold until 2002 if you know what's best.>>
>
>
> Nat
Actually, I want Tara to win 1998, 2002, 2006,
2010..........................(hey! at least I'm honest!)
Brad Miller (TaraRulz!)
Cycys22
In article <19970525005...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, nla...@aol.com
(NLathy) writes:
>How about wanting her to win in 1998 and 2002?
>
>Nat
That would be overdoing a good thing.
Cycys22
>If I'm "really" a fan, I should hope for my favorite skater to *lose*
>one of what will almost certainly be her only two chances to wear Olympic
>gold? If she wins one at all?
No, just for what's best for your favorite skater.
>The whole point of holding the competition is "may the best skater win."
Exactly, that's why I'm not pulling for Tara but for Michelle, Nicole or
Chen Lu.
>Ergo, if I hope for Tara *not* to win, then I am hoping for Tara to
>*not* be the best skater. Which means, by your reasoning, I am NOT
really
>a fan of Tara unless I'm hoping for to NOT be the best skater!
No, just that everyone skates up to their ability, meaning Tara won't
have a chance of winning but she'll still skate a clean program making
her fans like you happy.
>??????
Yeah, you heard me.
>Also, I resent your implication that anyone who doesn't want Tara to lose
>in 1998 is "not in their right mind." If you are not a fan of Tara
>Lipinski, that is entirely your privilege. Feel free to wish for whoever
>you want to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to win at Nagano. Lord knows
>everyone else here has their own 'wish list'.
I may not necessarily want my favorite skater to win but for the
best skater to win. That would be Michelle Kwan who is also by
the way, my favorite. No such coincidence. I'm just being fair.
>(n.b. -- *please* read the underlined part carefully *before* you feel
>tempted to accuse me of "denying you your right to have an opinion". Not
>that you have ever made such an accusation before, because you haven't.
>But this time around, I don't want anyone to be mistaking my intent.)
Okay.
>I will admit that the Olympic gold medal winner immediately gets dumped
>into a pressure cooker. I will admit that her life turns into a circus.
>I will even admit that it's sometimes very hard to watch a 14 or 15-year
>old girl go through this. (Although several who have gone through it
>before really seemed to be enjoying themselves.)
But then you want Tara to go through all this since you don't
mind her winning olympic gold. BTW, do you mind naming those
"several who have gone through it before really seemed to be
enjoying themselves."?
>But neither you nor I are Tara's parents. If she *wants* to subject
>herself to this, and her parents consent, then *we* don't have any
>"right" whatsoever to say that she *shouldn't* try to do this, "for her
>own good." And Tara wants that gold medal like she's wanted few things
>in her entire life.
Right, neither of us can do a thing about what happens in Nagano
unless......
>Furthermore, Tara has a far better 'support structure' in place than some
>other skaters have had to help her deal with the possible consequences of
>winning it.
True, but could she still handle it? Do you want to find out? Do you
want her turning pro anytime soon?
>What's *really* best for young people who have spent their entire lives
>chasing a dream is that they not be denied from a fair chance to achieve
>it. The only thing worse than trying and failing is never having tried at
>all. Or, worse yet, having been unfairly denied your chance to try by
>other people.
You're right, Michelle, Nicole and Chen should have a chance to win
gold.
>Let Tara go to Nagano. Let her skate the best she can. And if that best
>is actually enough for her to win the gold, then for God's sake please
>LET HER WIN.
Well, I certainly can't do anything about that.
>OK?
Okay.
PegLewis
> And Tara wants that gold medal like she's wanted few things
>in her entire life.
She and every other skater who ever laced up boots and got up at
whatever-early-a.m. of their own free will. World wide.
>Furthermore, Tara has a far better 'support structure' in place than some
>other skaters have had to help her deal with the possible consequences of
>winning it.
Now, this sentence intrigues me. Comparing the elite skaters who have a
legitimate shot at a gold medal at Nagano, and who are known quantities at
this time (because *anything* including a newcomer sweeping all the titles
can and does happen in skating), it looks on the surface as if most if not
*all* elite skaters on the planet have a good support system, else they
wouldn't have gotten where they are.
Why do we - and I include me in this - think that certain American skaters
have cornered the market on having excellent support systems that we deem
are superior to most or indeed all others? And having seen numerous
examples of people crashing despite having what had been/is described as a
great support system, do we continue to delude ourselves into believing
that the *appearance* of having things in control and *seeming* to know
what pitfalls lie ahead will make a bit of difference when the real
problems are encountered?
Seriously, does anyone have any ideas why we refuse to admit so much
planning is dependent upon human frailty, the ice conditions, and gravity
- things beyond the control of any skater, coach, parent, agent or
choreographer...?
Kathleen Bratton
PegLewis (pegl...@aol.com) wrote:
> Now, this sentence intrigues me. Comparing the elite skaters who have a
> legitimate shot at a gold medal at Nagano, and who are known quantities at
> this time (because *anything* including a newcomer sweeping all the titles
> can and does happen in skating), it looks on the surface as if most if not
> *all* elite skaters on the planet have a good support system, else they
> wouldn't have gotten where they are.
But if we look at the past -- Tonya Harding never had a great support
system (such a waste . . . ). And I'm not 100% sure of Nicole Bobek's --
I don't know *anything* about her parents, they may well be wonderful
people, but she seemed a bit, ummm, headstrong in earlier years, and
perhaps a bit too much in charge of her own destiny.
> Why do we - and I include me in this - think that certain American skaters
> have cornered the market on having excellent support systems that we deem
> are superior to most or indeed all others?
This is an interesting question, -- I've never considered whether American
skaters (or just certain American skaters) have cornered the market on
support systems. Obviously, the "support system" in other countries tends
to be more government-run. I'm not even necessarily talking about just
about the PRC here -- clearly most other countries have more government
involvement in elite-level sports. I suppose, depending on the skater's
family, that could work to a skater's betterment or detriment.
What I would say is that the Kwans and the Lipinskis both seem very
supportive of their children. Neither seem as if they are pushing their
children toward skating -- if either Tara or Michelle wanted to retire
tomorrow, I imagine the parents would encourage them to think it over, but
they wouldn't necessarily stand in their way. And I don't think that's
true for all young elite-level athletes.
> And having seen numerous
> examples of people crashing despite having what had been/is described as a
> great support system, do we continue to delude ourselves into believing
> that the *appearance* of having things in control and *seeming* to know
> what pitfalls lie ahead will make a bit of difference when the real
> problems are encountered?
What are some examples of this in skating -- of people crashing despite an
ostensibly good support system? (just curious -- I never pay much
attention to skaters' families, etc., so I can't think of any offhand).
-- Kate
cgla...@hotmail.com
DejaNews went down Tuesday evening when I tried to post (and school
wasn't open Monday), so this response is a little belated, I know. Copy
e-mailed 5/28/97 to cyc...@aol.com.
In article <19970526021...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) wrote:
>
> In article <8645852...@dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >If I'm "really" a fan, I should hope for my favorite skater to *lose*
> >one of what will almost certainly be her only two chances to wear Olympic
> >gold? If she wins one at all?
>
> No, just for what's best for your favorite skater.
What's best for my favorite skater is that she skate the best she can,
as often as she wants to, *wherever* she wants to. It is *not* "best" if
her career opportunities were deliberately *limited* 'to give other people
a chance.' (as stated, by you, below.)
> >The whole point of holding the competition is "may the best skater win."
>
> Exactly, that's why I'm not pulling for Tara but for Michelle, Nicole or
> Chen Lu.
Let's get this straight -- in your personal opinion, Tara Lipinski is
not the best skater... and has *no* chance of *becoming* the best skater,
even if only for two days, by February 1998?
Well, if that is your opinion, you are completely entitled to have it.
But since I happen to have a different opinion on this topic, you will
please forgive me for not agreeing with you.
> >Ergo, if I hope for Tara *not* to win, then I am hoping for Tara to
> >*not* be the best skater. Which means, by your reasoning, I am NOT
> really
> >a fan of Tara unless I'm hoping for to NOT be the best skater!
>
> No, just that everyone skates up to their ability, meaning Tara won't
> have a chance of winning but she'll still skate a clean program making
> her fans like you happy.
> >??????
>
> Yeah, you heard me.
What I heard is an *automatic assumption* that Tara Lipinski is inferior
to at least three other skaters, and can be safely assumed to *still* be
inferior to those skaters at a definite time in the future.
(Specifically, February 1998.)
> >Also, I resent your implication that anyone who doesn't want Tara to lose
> >in 1998 is "not in their right mind." If you are not a fan of Tara
> >Lipinski, that is entirely your privilege. Feel free to wish for whoever
> >you want to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ to win at Nagano. Lord knows
> >everyone else here has their own 'wish list'.
>
> I may not necessarily want my favorite skater to win but for the
> best skater to win. That would be Michelle Kwan who is also by
> the way, my favorite. No such coincidence. I'm just being fair.
Sorry, but you are not being fair... your reasoning is based on the
assumption that if Tara Lipinski and Michelle Kwan both skate clean
at Nagano, Tara will lose.
There is nothing fair about starting from the assumption that "Michelle
is the best" and using that assumption to justify your conclusion that
"Michelle is the best." Using your assumptions to justify your
conclusions and vice versa is known as 'circular logic.' And circular
logic is actually NO logic at all.
Admittedly, Tara has come in second in the *past* when both her and
Michelle skated cleanly. (The free skate placements at Lausanne come to
mind.) But Nagano is in the *future* -- can you predict the future with
certainty?
And if you can't, why are you basing your conclusions on *assumptions*
about what will happen in the future? (More to the point, why are you
expecting *me* to accept those assumptions, *before the fact*?)
IMO, Tara has at least as much of a chance to win as anybody else, and a
*lot* more than some. (IMO, that "some" is everybody but Michelle,
Nicole, Lu Chen, Irina S., and maybe Maria B.)
<snip>
> >I will admit that the Olympic gold medal winner immediately gets dumped
> >into a pressure cooker. I will admit that her life turns into a circus.
> >I will even admit that it's sometimes very hard to watch a 14 or 15-year
> >old girl go through this. (Although several who have gone through it
> >before really seemed to be enjoying themselves.)
>
> But then you want Tara to go through all this since you don't
> mind her winning olympic gold. BTW, do you mind naming those
> "several who have gone through it before really seemed to be
> enjoying themselves."?
Well, there aren't any recent ones in *figure skating*... (I will grant
you that Oksana Baiul is a classic example of how NOT to handle fame...
but she was an orphan with no 'support structure' whatsoever, and dealing
with a severe case of culture shock besides. Tara, should she win, will
have neither of those factors to deal with, so Oksana's case doesn't
really apply here.)
But just off the top of my head in *other* sports... from the most recent
Olympics alone, we have Dominique Moceanu (gymnastics, 14, of course),
whose only post-Atlanta disappointments were the gold medals she *didn't*
win... and Amanda Beard (swimming, 4x100 meter relay, 14), who thoroughly
enjoyed her 15 minutes of fame and then got on with her life. Are two
examples (from as narrow a field as only one country and one Olympic
year) enough?
And if we open the field to 16 and 17 year olds (which is how old
*Michelle* is now/will be after Nagano)... well, that lets in about half
of the Magnificent Seven, and Brooke Bennett (swimming, 800m freestyle,
16), and...
...and again, that's just a *partial* list, from only one Olympic year and
only one country. (Do any non-US newsgroup members have their own lists?)
The all-time list of teenaged Olympic gold medal winners who "dealt with
it" and led well-adjusted lives afterward is longer than commonly
believed. Think back... I'm sure your own memory can supply some examples
I missed.
BTW -- if "real fans" are supposed to hope that their favorite skater
*doesn't* win -- then why do *you* want *your* favorite skater to win
gold?
> >But neither you nor I are Tara's parents. If she *wants* to subject
> >herself to this, and her parents consent, then *we* don't have any
> >"right" whatsoever to say that she *shouldn't* try to do this, "for her
> >own good." And Tara wants that gold medal like she's wanted few things
> >in her entire life.
<snip>
> >Furthermore, Tara has a far better 'support structure' in place than some
> >other skaters have had to help her deal with the possible consequences of
> >winning it.
>
> True, but could she still handle it? Do you want to find out?
*Tara* sure wants to find out, or she wouldn't have spent her entire life
trying to get on top of that podium.
Think about it -- would it *really* be best for Tara to be told that her
entire life's effort was wasted, because she's not going to be 'allowed'
a chance to win at all? "For her own good?"
NOT!
And, *assuming* Tara wins, I think her odds of handling success well are
at least roughly equal to Michelle's or Nicole's odds of handling it...
remember, not only is this *their* first Olympic opportunity as well, but
Michelle is only two years older than Tara (true, Michelle is a very
level-headed person, but has anyone noticed that Tara is quite
level-headed herself?)...
...and Nicole has already *proven* that she can let too much fame go to
her head. Heck, now that I think about it, Tara has *better* odds of
"weathering the storm" than Nicole does. (sarcasm)
> Do you want her turning pro anytime soon?
No, I'd much rather that she stayed eligible for 2002... and based on
prior statements from Callaghan and the Lipinskis, so does Tara. And
even if she *did* change her mind... well, it's her career, not ours.
Besides, since when is it *automatic* that "win one Olympics" equals
"turns pro?". Admittedly, it's a common pattern... but not the
*inevitable* pattern.
> >What's *really* best for young people who have spent their entire lives
> >chasing a dream is that they not be denied from a fair chance to achieve
> >it. The only thing worse than trying and failing is never having tried at
> >all. Or, worse yet, having been unfairly denied your chance to try by
> >other people.
>
> You're right, Michelle, Nicole and Chen should have a chance to win
> gold.
?????
We're talking equality of *opportunity* here, not equality of *outcome*.
Everyone WILL get their chance to try. But only one of them can win.
The only way that Tara could *deny* anyone a *chance* just by showing up
is if she was the *guaranteed* gold medal winner! Not even I am claiming
that Tara is a guaranteed anything... so what are you so worried about?
If *your* favorite skater turns out to be the best at Nagano, Tara can
skate all she wants and it won't make any difference. And if *my*
favorite skater turns out to be the best at Nagano... then I'll be one
happy skating fan. :-)
(And we have both assumed here that Tara, Michelle, and Nicole will be
the top three finishers at 1998 Nationals. When for all we know right
now, Zaphod Beeblebrox could do a flyover with the Infinite Probability
Drive at full throttle and the 1998 US Olympic Team will end up being
*Karen* Kwan, Synde Vogel, and Tonia Kwiatikowski.)
(n.b. -- just in case you haven't read _Hitchiker's Guide To the Galaxy_
by Douglas Adams... well, now you know where those weird references above
came from.) :-)
And if China qualifies for a slot, Lu Chen will *definitely* show up at
Nagano -- so why bring her up? Nothing Tara does next season can affect
Lu Chen's chances of making it to Nagano at all. It's not as if *she* has
to skate at US Nationals for one of three slots...
> >Let Tara go to Nagano. Let her skate the best she can. And if that best
> >is actually enough for her to win the gold, then for God's sake please
> >LET HER WIN.
>
> Well, I certainly can't do anything about that.
And a good thing too, IMO. Because if I understand you correctly, if you
actually *were* in charge, you wouldn't let Tara have *any* chance at
Nagano.
Fair IS fair... if I have to 'let' Michelle have a chance, you have to
'let' *Tara* have a chance.
Nagano, 1998. May the best skater win.
And may *all* the top contenders show up.
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <19970526054...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
pegl...@aol.com (PegLewis) wrote:
>
> In article <8645852...@dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
<snip>
> >Furthermore, Tara has a far better 'support structure' in place than some
> >other skaters have had to help her deal with the possible consequences of
> >winning it.
>
> Now, this sentence intrigues me. Comparing the elite skaters who have a
> legitimate shot at a gold medal at Nagano, and who are known quantities at
> this time (because *anything* including a newcomer sweeping all the titles
> can and does happen in skating), it looks on the surface as if most if not
> *all* elite skaters on the planet have a good support system, else they
> wouldn't have gotten where they are.
I'll agree about of them... but let's not forget Oksana Baiul, and she was
hardly the only one in the category of 'not enough support system' -- just
the most recent one to make the network news.
> Why do we - and I include me in this - think that certain American skaters
> have cornered the market on having excellent support systems that we deem
> are superior to most or indeed all others?
The defense enters a plea of "not guilty". :-)
In that thread, cyc...@aol.com was making the point to me that if I was
a "real fan" of Tara, I'd be hoping for her *not* to win Nagano, so as to
'spare her' all the hype, stress, etc. (puzzled look)
I was just pointing out to him that Tara is hardly *that* vulnerable...
... yes, she's quite young and this is her first Olympics, but she's also
has at *least* as good a "support team" available as most other contenders
do (foreign *or* domestic), and has shown herself to be very level-headed
for her age.
So her odds of emotionally surviving "the Olympic experience" are at least
as high as anyone else's -- which is all we can ask.
Yes, it's entirely *possible* that Tara will crack come the 'moment of
truth'... nothing is certain. Which was my main point of disagreement
with cycys22 -- that it is not *certain* that Tara *will* crack, any
more than it is certain that she won't.
(And cycys22 seemed to be certain that Tara would crack, or at the very
least find it so unpleasant that it would be "for her own good" NOT to
win.)
(puzzled look)
I didn't mean any disrespect to foreign skaters at all, honest.
> And having seen numerous examples of people crashing despite having what had
> been/is described as a great support system, do we continue to delude
> ourselves into believing that the *appearance* of having things in control
> and *seeming* to know what pitfalls lie ahead will make a bit of difference
> when the real problems are encountered?
IMO, it's because if we see a skater that young who is known to *not* have
things in control and *lacking* a "great support system" heading into an
Olympics, we are almost certain that disaster lies ahead.
So if we *do* see someone with things in control and a great support
system in place, we can then go "Well, at least they have a good
*chance*..."
Which is what I'm doing. Having a support system does not necessarily
equal "will do fine." But lacking one pretty much equals "disaster
looking for a place to happen."
It's sort of like skydiving... if you have a parachute, your safe landing
still isn't fully *guaranteed*, because your chute might fail to open.
But your odds are WAY better than those of the guy who *didn't* have a
parachute. :-)
> Seriously, does anyone have any ideas why we refuse to admit so much
> planning is dependent upon human frailty, the ice conditions, and gravity
> - things beyond the control of any skater, coach, parent, agent or
> choreographer...?
Because there's just something deep in the human soul that refuses to
leave it all up to Fate? (Mainly because we all know that Fate can
be one cruel individual.)
Besides, it was what might or might not happen *after* the final results
go up that the earlier thread was talking about. Cycys22 and I weren't
discussing Tara's chances of winning gold -- we were discussing Tara's
chances of handling her newfound fame successfully if she actually *did*
win gold.
Nice talking to you... sorry about the delay, but that tornado in Texas
knocked DejaNews out all of last evening. (And my school's computer lab
was closed Monday, of course.)
Cycys22
>In that thread, cyc...@aol.com was making the point to me that if I was
>a "real fan" of Tara, I'd be hoping for her *not* to win Nagano, so as to
>'spare her' all the hype, stress, etc. (puzzled look)
>
>
Not a "real fan", a "caring fan".
>(And cycys22 seemed to be certain that Tara would crack, or at the very
>least find it so unpleasant that it would be "for her own good" NOT to
>win.)
Uh, no.
Pamela-Marie
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>In article <19970526021...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) wrote:
>>
>> In article <8645852...@dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
>> >The whole point of holding the competition is "may the best skater win."
>>
>> Exactly, that's why I'm not pulling for Tara but for Michelle, Nicole or
>> Chen Lu.
>
>Let's get this straight -- in your personal opinion, Tara Lipinski is
>not the best skater... and has *no* chance of *becoming* the best skater,
>even if only for two days, by February 1998?
You can't be the best skater for two days. That is impossible. To be the
best skater includes consistency. In honesty Tara has only been the "best
skater" for two days at Nationals. She can be the best skater of the
Olympics, but not the best skater.
>> I may not necessarily want my favorite skater to win but for the
>> best skater to win. That would be Michelle Kwan who is also by
>> the way, my favorite. No such coincidence. I'm just being fair.
>
>Sorry, but you are not being fair... your reasoning is based on the
>assumption that if Tara Lipinski and Michelle Kwan both skate clean
>at Nagano, Tara will lose.
Forgive Jam, she is truly blinded by her love for Michelle (can't you
tell).
>Admittedly, Tara has come in second in the *past* when both her and
>Michelle skated cleanly. (The free skate placements at Lausanne come to
>mind.) But Nagano is in the *future* -- can you predict the future with
>certainty?
Of course not! Michelle losing at Worlds wasn't predicted at all.
>And if we open the field to 16 and 17 year olds (which is how old
>*Michelle* is now/will be after Nagano)... well, that lets in about half
>of the Magnificent Seven,
No actually there were only two members of the Mag 7 who were 17 or under.
Everyone else was 18 and 19.
>BTW -- if "real fans" are supposed to hope that their favorite skater
>*doesn't* win -- then why do *you* want *your* favorite skater to win
>gold?
Good point! This all puzzles me since I'm not a fan of any specific
skaters. I myself just want what is best for Tara and I don't think
winning the gold medal as a 15 year old phenom. I don't think it is
healthy. I never did. This is coming from a child gymnast and skater. As
for Michelle, she does *appear* more poised to handle the championship and
she is a better packaged skater. As well as she is much more mature. None
of that matters though, because it is out of our hands.
>> >But neither you nor I are Tara's parents. If she *wants* to subject
>> >herself to this, and her parents consent, then *we* don't have any
>> >"right" whatsoever to say that she *shouldn't* try to do this, "for her
>> >own good." And Tara wants that gold medal like she's wanted few things
>> >in her entire life.
>
><snip>
>
>> >Furthermore, Tara has a far better 'support structure' in place than some
>> >other skaters have had to help her deal with the possible consequences of
>> >winning it.
>>
>> True, but could she still handle it? Do you want to find out?
>
>*Tara* sure wants to find out, or she wouldn't have spent her entire life
>trying to get on top of that podium.
>
>Think about it -- would it *really* be best for Tara to be told that her
>entire life's effort was wasted, because she's not going to be 'allowed'
>a chance to win at all? "For her own good?"
>
>NOT!
I don't think anyone is denying that Tara will eventually be a gold medal
champion if not in Nagano then Salt Lake City (if all goes well). What I
think Jam is trying to say is that winning at such a young age and still
developing emotionally, mentally, and physically.
>And, *assuming* Tara wins, I think her odds of handling success well are
>at least roughly equal to Michelle's or Nicole's odds of handling it...
>remember, not only is this *their* first Olympic opportunity as well, but
>Michelle is only two years older than Tara (true, Michelle is a very
>level-headed person, but has anyone noticed that Tara is quite
>level-headed herself?)...
Actually, Michelle has been to the Olympics but never skated (I'm
nitpicking I know, sue me.)
>(And we have both assumed here that Tara, Michelle, and Nicole will be
>the top three finishers at 1998 Nationals. When for all we know right
>now, Zaphod Beeblebrox could do a flyover with the Infinite Probability
>Drive at full throttle and the 1998 US Olympic Team will end up being
>*Karen* Kwan, Synde Vogel, and Tonia Kwiatikowski.)
Now I love Karen's style, but I just that is quite a stretch, I'd put
Angela N. ahead of her. And what about Amber Corwin?
>Fair IS fair... if I have to 'let' Michelle have a chance, you have to
>'let' *Tara* have a chance.
Jam? Fair? Never :)
>Nagano, 1998. May the best skater win.
>And may *all* the top contenders show up.
Now there's a fat chance!
Pamela-Marie
NLathy
Pamela Marie writes:
<<In honesty Tara has only been the "best
skater" for two days at Nationals.>>
What about Champions Series Final (where she won the short and long
programs) and Worlds?
Nat
Cycys22
>>BTW -- if "real fans" are supposed to hope that their favorite skater
>>*doesn't* win -- then why do *you* want *your* favorite skater to win
>>gold?
I'm not pulling just for my favorite skater but for the other deserving
skaters out there. It just so happens that my favorite skater is the
most qualified. There are numerous skaters that I would like to
see win olympic gold, here are some: Michelle, Nicole, Chen, Irina,
Kriztina, Maria, and even Surya. Of course, have a lesser chance
than others and some that I didn't list have a greater chance.
If Michelle doesn't win, I'll be just as happy if Surya takes the gold!
Cycys22
In article <5miimj$atm$1...@news3.snfc21.pacbell.net>, Pamela-Marie
<pamel...@juno.com> writes:
>Forgive Jam, she is truly blinded by her love for Michelle (can't you
>tell).
>
>
I may show that I like Michelle, which I do, but I always remain
fair nevertheless.
>>Jam? Fair? Never :)
I understand you're only trying to be funny, Peg.
cgla...@hotmail.com
(the below is from my reply to cyc...@aol.com)
> >Let's get this straight -- in your personal opinion, Tara Lipinski is
> >not the best skater... and has *no* chance of *becoming* the best skater,
> >even if only for two days, by February 1998?
In article <5miimj$atm$1...@news3.snfc21.pacbell.net>,
Pamela-Marie <pamel...@juno.com> wrote:
> You can't be the best skater for two days. That is impossible. To be the
> best skater includes consistency.
Tara has already shown plenty of consistency, so I'm not worried about
that end of things.
> In honesty Tara has only been the "best skater" for two days at Nationals.
> She can be the best skater of the Olympics, but not the best skater.
My point exactly. I was simply pointing out to Jam that Tara only needs
to be the best for two days in order to win an Olympic gold medal -- said
medal and the possible consequences of winning it being the original point
of our discussion.
As far as "Who's the best skater, period?" -- that question is as hard to
settle as "Who's the best skater EVER?". (How many years has the .ng been
debating that one, with no results?) And for the same reason...
... there IS no 'one best skater' (IMO), because the same person who wins
one comp might come in second in the next one, and then win the one after
that, and then do the human zamboni all over the third one, and then win
every one for the rest of the season. (Long season, wasn't it?) :-)
The question of "Who's the best skater?" is one without any *exact* answer
at all, because it keeps changing from day to day.
Now, you can make *some* comparisions with certainty -- when you're
comparing the very top of the field to the middle/bottom of it, it's
easy to draw *broad* distinctions.
Drawing those *fine* distinctions is nearly impossible, however... of the
top three or four skaters in the world right now, any one of them could
possibly beat any other one on any given day... depending on how things
work out that day. This makes selecting the "ONE best skater" impossible.
(and if somebody else gets *really* lucky, ALL of the top skaters could be
beaten on a given day, so not even the distinction between 'leaders of the
pack' and 'also-rans' is completely absolute!)
IMO.
<snip>
> >And if we open the field to 16 and 17 year olds (which is how old
> >*Michelle* is now/will be after Nagano)... well, that lets in about half
> >of the Magnificent Seven,
>
> No actually there were only two members of the Mag 7 who were 17 or under.
> Everyone else was 18 and 19.
You're right... the only two who were under age 18 at Atlanta were Jaycie
Phelps (then 16) and Dominique Moceanu (then 14). I'd misremembered Amy
Chow's age (thought she was 17 then, she was actually 18), which is why I
gave the figure of "about half". Whoops.
> >BTW -- if "real fans" are supposed to hope that their favorite skater
> >*doesn't* win -- then why do *you* want *your* favorite skater to win
> >gold?
>
> Good point!
And I really wish that Jam would explain to me why Michelle is so
'certain' to handle success well but Tara isn't. (In Jam's apparent
opinion... I say 'apparent' because I'm not entirely sure what her
opinion IS.)
>This all puzzles me since I'm not a fan of any specific
> skaters. I myself just want what is best for Tara and I don't think
> winning the gold medal as a 15 year old phenom. I don't think it is
> healthy. I never did. This is coming from a child gymnast and skater. As
> for Michelle, she does *appear* more poised to handle the championship and
> she is a better packaged skater. As well as she is much more mature. None
> of that matters though, because it is out of our hands.
This brings us to the basic philosphical question, "How young is too
young? Where *exactly* is the dividing line"?
If anyone has a *provable* answer to that one, they're WAY smarter than
I am. This one ranks right up there with "Who's the best skater EVER?"
as far as "questions that have been debated forever with no results" are
concerned.
Re: your second point, about Michelle's being significantly more mature
than Tara.
In her *skating* style, yes.
But let's not confuse skating style and basic personality... as far as
that category goes, Tara and Michelle *both* seem to me to be very
level-headed and mature young ladies. One is older and probably wiser
than the other one, but not by as wide a margin as is commonly believed.
(NOT implying that Michelle is more immature than people think... just
saying that Tara is more mature than people think. Even if she's not 100%
as mature as Michelle is, she IS mature enough and in a good enough
'situation' to have very nice odds of emotionally surviving the Olympic
experience.)
IMO.
<snip>
> I don't think anyone is denying that Tara will eventually be a gold medal
> champion if not in Nagano then Salt Lake City (if all goes well). What I
> think Jam is trying to say is that winning at such a young age and still
> developing emotionally, mentally, and physically.
One must always consider the alternative... what happens to the mental
and emotional development of someone if they are *denied* their chance to
achieve their lifelong dream? Especially when they've literally spent
their entire life working towards it?
If anyone *wanted* to destroy Tara Lipinski emotionally, I could think of
no more certain way than letting her get this far along in her skating
career, and have worked this hard for this long... and *then* telling her
at the last instant "No Olympics for you, because we don't think you're
old enough to take it. Wait four more years... IF you're still skating
as well then as you are now."
The reason I so strongly support the "let the young lady go, already!"
school of thought is because it is, IMO, far LESS emotionally hurtful
than the alternative.
It's one thing to *plan* for your first Olympics to be in 2002 (as she
originally did)... it's another thing entirely to surpass ALL your own
expectations, become a top Olympic contender *years* before you thought
you could ever be, and THEN get suddenly 'held back' at the last minute.
IMO, that big a heartbreak would hurt her even worse than going to Nagano
and doing the human Zamboni could... we at least know that she has at
least *some* ability to lose big and come back. (1996 Worlds).
I admit that being suddenly rich and famous has the potential to hurt
a person that young. But *nothing* could hurt a competitive and talented
prodigy worse than being denied her fair chance to compete and to enjoy
whatever rewards she can earn.
The *only* philosophical alternative to saying that "Tara should be
allowed to risk winning and the consequences of winning" is to say that
"She shouldn't be allowed to go for her own good." And that second
alternative, as 'merciful' as it appears, is actually the far crueler
one.
<snip>
> >(And we have both assumed here that Tara, Michelle, and Nicole will be
> >the top three finishers at 1998 Nationals. When for all we know right
> >now, Zaphod Beeblebrox could do a flyover with the Infinite Probability
> >Drive at full throttle and the 1998 US Olympic Team will end up being
> >*Karen* Kwan, Synde Vogel, and Tonia Kwiatikowski.)
Whoops -- BIG typo. That was supposed to be "Infinite IMprobability
Drive."
> Now I love Karen's style, but I just that is quite a stretch, I'd put
> Angela N. ahead of her. And what about Amber Corwin?
That last paragraph was intended to be a joke. Do you really think
someone would put a _Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" reference in
anything *serious*? :-)
> >Fair IS fair... if I have to 'let' Michelle have a chance, you have to
> >'let' *Tara* have a chance.
>
> Jam? Fair? Never :)
Noted. :-)
And now that you've got my curiosity roused (never a difficult task) :-),
how's my 'fairness' rating doing?
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <19970529003...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) wrote:
>
> In article <8648596...@dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >In that thread, cyc...@aol.com was making the point to me that if I was
> >a "real fan" of Tara, I'd be hoping for her *not* to win Nagano, so as to
> >'spare her' all the hype, stress, etc. (puzzled look)
> >
> Not a "real fan", a "caring fan".
If winning Olympic gold would be *good* for Tara, why shouldn't a 'caring'
fan hope for her to win?
> >(And cycys22 seemed to be certain that Tara would crack, or at the very
> >least find it so unpleasant that it would be "for her own good" NOT to
> >win.)
>
> Uh, no.
Sorry, but I'm still wearing my puzzled look... because if you are *not*
saying that winning Olympic gold at 15 would be bad for Tara, then why
should even the most caring of fans NOT hope for her to win?
As far as I can tell, your opinion is that a 'caring' fan should
hope for Tara to NOT win at Nagano...
... which strongly implies that you believe that winning at Nagano would
be bad for Tara, because caring people hope for bad things to *not*
happen to the people they care about. But if that's not what you're
saying, then why *should* Tara's fans hope for her to *not* win the gold?
Jam, I will quite cheerfully discuss (or not discuss, as you prefer)
your opinion with you as soon as I can figure out what that opinion IS.
Because you seem to be really contradicting yourself here. And I'm
really getting confused.
Pamela-Marie
cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) wrote:
>In article <5miimj$atm$1...@news3.snfc21.pacbell.net>, Pamela-Marie
><pamel...@juno.com> writes:
>
>>Forgive Jam, she is truly blinded by her love for Michelle (can't you
>>tell).
>>
>>
>
> I may show that I like Michelle, which I do, but I always remain
>fair nevertheless.
>
>>>Jam? Fair? Never :)
>
> I understand you're only trying to be funny, Peg.
>
>
>
> Jam
Why did you call me Peg when you clearly know who said this Jam?
Pamela-Marie
Cycys22
>And I really wish that Jam would explain to me why Michelle is so
>'certain' to handle success well but Tara isn't. (In Jam's apparent
>opinion... I say 'apparent' because I'm not entirely sure what her
>opinion IS.)
Okay, fine. I don't really care who could handle success well.
I just want the better skater to win. I don't want some skater
to win just because three other skaters had a bad night.
Of course, I have no control over this. I want the next olympic
champion to be well-rounded, mature, and able to do a decent
double axel. What else could you ask for?
>This brings us to the basic philosphical question, "How young is too
>young? Where *exactly* is the dividing line"?
I don't really care how young you are just as long as you can
do all the above.
>Re: your second point, about Michelle's being significantly more mature
>than Tara.
For now Michelle is more mature than Tara. Michelle might always
be more mature than Tara but Tara could pull a *Michelle Kwan*
and surprise as all next year more than what's happened this year.
Another point is that, it's really hard to see this little girl as
mature. Unless Tara looks more mature next year, my opinion
will still be the same. Also I want to be able to go up to our
next olympic champ and say "Excuse me, would you mind helping
me with my double axel?".
Cycys22
In article <5mmnr5$mab$1...@news1.snfc21.pacbell.net>, Pamela-Marie
<pamel...@juno.com> writes:
>Why did you call me Peg when you clearly know who said this Jam?
>
>Pamela-Marie
Oh, I'm sorry. My eyes weren't working. Also, it's time for new
contacts.
Cycys22
>
>If winning Olympic gold would be *good* for Tara, why shouldn't a
'caring'
>fan hope for her to win?
Read my other message.
>>As far as I can tell, your opinion is that a 'caring' fan should
hope for Tara to NOT win at Nagano...<<
Yes, you've got it right. But also read my other message.
>>Because you seem to be really contradicting yourself here. And I'm
really getting confused.<<
Read my other message, I hope that'll clear a few things up.
PegLewis
In article <19970529220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) writes:
>>>Jam? Fair? Never :)
>
> I understand you're only trying to be funny, Peg.
>
>
Whoa! My Smilies have noses!! ----> :-)
Peg
(PegL...@aol.com)
===========
"Losing to Tara isn't a nuclear blast; it's life, it's sport. Michelle's
not always going to be perfect, she's not the queen of May, she's not
wearing a crown like some Venus de Milo. We're talking about Michelle Kwan
skating the best she can for herself, not for mommy or daddy or Frankie."
- Frank Carroll at Champions Series Finals pre-event press conference,
February 28, 1997
===========
"Treading on your own dreams is truly insane." - Kenneth Atchity, "A
Writer's Time" (p.23)
Louis Epstein
PegLewis (pegl...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <19970529220...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
: cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) writes:
:
: >>>Jam? Fair? Never :)
: >
: > I understand you're only trying to be funny, Peg.
: >
: >
:
: Whoa! My Smilies have noses!! ----> :-)
Mine usually do too,but I really pity NotDeby's version,whose heads must
have been cracked open with an axe to be at such an odd angle!
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <19970530182...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) wrote:
>
> In article <8649505...@dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >
> >If winning Olympic gold would be *good* for Tara, why shouldn't a
> 'caring'
> >fan hope for her to win?
>
> Read my other message.
Date and subject heading, please? You've posted more than one message
here since I've last been on... which was Friday May 29th. I'll need a
few more clues than this to know exactly *which* message is the right
one.
> >>As far as I can tell, your opinion is that a 'caring' fan should
> hope for Tara to NOT win at Nagano...<<
>
> Yes, you've got it right. But also read my other message.
Your other message, as I understood it, is what I *reiterated* in my
immediately prior post ("On Support Systems", 5/29/97)... the one you are
disagreeing with.
Ergo, even if I *do* find your original post, I probably will still not
understand it. Because, according to you, I didn't the first time.
> >>Because you seem to be really contradicting yourself here. And I'm
> really getting confused.<<
>
> Read my other message, I hope that'll clear a few things up.
I'll try... but we could save a lot of time if you just sent me the
Cliff's Notes... I didn't get the 'book' last time and may not this time.
(Assuming I actually find it at all.)
Cycys22
>Date and subject heading, please? You've posted more than one message
>here since I've last been on... which was Friday May 29th. I'll need a
>few more clues than this to know exactly *which* message is the right
>one.
>
>
I forget, too bad. I'm not in the mood of trying to find it or retyping
it.
Alli8491
I posted over a month ago about skaters and the net......Anyway, I had
mentioned that a friend of mine had been speaking with Boitano and that he
mentioned the "internet"......My friend did not say that Boitano had said
anything negative about the "net" or comments made on any newsgroup. In
fact, he had mentioned it in a casual manner.....It was obvious that he
knew about people discussing skating on the net.....It was myself who had
speculated what the skaters might feel about comments made about
themselves or other skaters......It is interesting that so many of you
made the assumption that Boitano was upset....He simply mentioned the
internet several times in his conversation in a light and casual
manner.....
Revjoelle
Alli8491 writes:
Honey...NOBODY made the assumption Brian was upset about what is said
about him on the net. In the first place...we were skeptical about your
whole purpose in posting what you did and we were making JOKES about the
idea of him being upset because the idea was so ludicrous.
You have very selective way of reading responses to your post.
Joelle
"I feel 100% confident that I can overcome this disease and be
back on the ice within a few months" - Scott Hamilton
Kathleen Bratton
Alli8491 (alli...@aol.com) wrote:
> I posted over a month ago about skaters and the net......Anyway, I had
> mentioned that a friend of mine had been speaking with Boitano and that he
> mentioned the "internet"......My friend did not say that Boitano had said
> anything negative about the "net" or comments made on any newsgroup. In
> fact, he had mentioned it in a casual manner.....It was obvious that he
> knew about people discussing skating on the net.....It was myself who had
> speculated what the skaters might feel about comments made about
> themselves or other skaters......It is interesting that so many of you
> made the assumption that Boitano was upset....
No, that's not what many of us assumed. Many of us understood your post
to indicate that *you* speculated that Boitano might be upset (if I
remember correctly, many of us speculated that *you* might not be the best
judge of what someone else thinks).
Hope you still find our interpretation "interesting".
> He simply mentioned the
> internet several times in his conversation in a light and casual
> manner.....
Skaters are well adjusted and don't read too much into discussions by a
wide range of viewers of their performance? Skaters don't let people on
the net determine their self-esteem? I'm shocked, simply shocked. I
gotta tell you, I thought Brian Boitano was probably *glued* to the
computer reading this ng for affirmation [not].
-- Kate, who suspects that this person just likes to stir up a brouhaha
HILL JANET SWAN
>themselves or other skaters......It is interesting that so many of you
>internet several times in his conversation in a light and casual
>manner.....
I don't think it's at all surprising, since my recollection of your
original post was that it strongly implied that he either was or certainly
would be upset, and that it "scolded" us for our behavior here *because*
of its real or possible impact on skaters who would read our musings. Our
individual and collective reactions to such a message could have been
predicted.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your coming back and clearing things up.
janet
hil...@colorado.edu
Connie Hynes
I was reading everone's opinions and it came to me in a skater's flash that
one of you ice skating fans might know the answer to the burning question.
Where is Christopher Bowman?? Sure he had a bad Olympics but surely he is
good enough to at least skate in a professional show once in awhile.
ace
MorryS
Christopher is teaching the Detroit area. He is married and soon to be a
father. Christopher had students entered in the 1997 Junior Olympics in
California. He has signed to do some comentator work this next season.
He has no plans to skate in competition
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <19970603223...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cyc...@aol.com (Cycys22) wrote:
>
> In article <8653049...@dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >Date and subject heading, please? You've posted more than one message
> >here since I've last been on... which was Friday May 29th. I'll need a
> >few more clues than this to know exactly *which* message is the right
> >one.
>
> I forget, too bad.
As ever, your politeness and graceful phrasing is an example to us all.
Wouldn't a simple "Sorry, I can't remember" been a better idea than the
above response?
> I'm not in the mood of trying to find it or retyping it.
OK.
Not pursuing this thread further isn't exactly going to kill me or
anything. And since you asked so "politely", I'll be glad to consider the
subject dropped.
Nice speaking to you... mostly.
Trudi Marrapodi
In article <01bc7160$2f2e64e0$0e5ee8cd@conniehy>, "Connie Hynes"
<conn...@northnet.org> wrote:
Hi, welcome to the newsgroup.
You probably don't realize this but this is so common a question asked
here that it is actually part of the FAQ. The FAQ is posted here monthly,
and it's also available on the SkateWeb page, whose address escapes me
right now, but I think it's http://www.frog.simplenet.com.
Trudi
www...@getridodispart.frontiernet.net
Previous spamproofing unsuccessful--take two! To mail me, get rid 'o "getridodispart."...
"Some men think strong opinions are a sign of PMS..."--TV commercial
"...and if you don't believe it, you can ring my doorbell and smell my toilet." --another TV commercial
Virginia Blalock
Thanks for the update! I have always had a soft spot in my heart for
Chris.. I have not seen him as a commentator yet, so that will be very
interesting to see!