Dumitri Moceanu=Danny Kwan
I. Austin
<snip>
"Good thing for them Michelle isn't the litigating type, I guess. It
will be interesting to see all the "explanations" for this, but the
painful fact of the matter is that Mr & Mrs Kwan are living pretty well
off of their teenager. "
I'm not sure how you obtained your "facts" - I've not had a chance to
see Mr. and Mrs. Kwan's tax returns, so I can't comment on their
financial standing.
The one main difference between the two situations is that Michelle is
18. If she doesn't like what's going on, she has all the power in the
world to put her money in her pocket and leave. It's as easy as that.
And until she says otherwise, I'll assume that everything at Casa Kwan
is going okay.
Ingrid
Suzanne Lainson
usually a good idea. The situation can influence a family's priorities.
I don't know enough about the Kwan situation to know if Michelle's skating
income supports her entire family.
I think one reason Michelle's situation hasn't raised any red flags so far is
that she seems genuinely happy to be skating and she doesn't appear to be
pressured to skate against her will. She also appears to be reasonably
well-rounded and has said herself that there's more to life than skating.
With other athletes, red flags do seem to be waving. Certainly there were
concerns about Moceanu after Atlanta and her father began building a gym in
Houston.
There were signs of trouble with Capriatti after her first year as a pro.
Similarly, people knew all along that Mary Pierce was in a bad situation. And
if things go badly for Serena and Venus Williams, their father will definitely
be held accountable.
I think the reason people have been more outspoken about Tara's situation than
Michelle's is that she is younger, some of the projects she's been involved
with seem to be done primarily to make a quick buck rather than to ensure her
long term skating career, and she's become a full-time working professional.
While I doubt that her parents are spending her money, there's still some
concern that decisions being made now might not be in her best interests.
I certainly hope Michelle is getting good financial advice. If Michelle is
being exploited, I'm sure we'll hear about it eventually.
Suzanne
sampso...@hotmail.com
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/sports/story.html?s=v/ap/19981021/sp/gym
nast_vs_parents_1.html
An exceprt:
``I kill myself training and going to school, and what is he doing with my
money?'' she said. ``They haven't been working since 1996. Where does their
income come from? Me.''
There is an interesting analogy here - Danny Kwan hasn't worked in the last 4
years, neither does Mrs. Kwan - they have a new house, a boat, etc, etc - Yes,
I know, Danny "Retired"....... what company gives you such a GREAT retirement
at the age of 47 that you can not only live like this, but also put 2 other
kids through college???
Reporter with enough guts to ask: Michelle, where do your parents get all of
the money that they are living so well on?
Michelle: "They haven't been working since 1995. Where does their income
come from? Me."
Good thing for them Michelle isn't the litigating type, I guess. It will be
interesting to see all the "explanations" for this, but the painful fact of
the matter is that Mr & Mrs Kwan are living pretty well off of their
teenager.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
PegLewis
Ricky rides again.
In article <70m18c$f11$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sampso...@hotmail.com writes:
>An exceprt:
<Ricky's standard Kwan income crap snipped.>
Peg
Any request to cancel this post is a forgery.
VisitTheAll-KwanNetwork @ http://members.aol.com/AllKwanNet/index.html
VisitLjudmillia's text archive @ http://home.swbell.net/icedance/millia.htm
Mrs KeanuR
<<There is an interesting analogy here - Danny Kwan hasn't worked in the last 4
years, neither does Mrs. Kwan - they have a new house, a boat, etc, etc - Yes,
I know, Danny "Retired"....... what company gives you such a GREAT retirement
at the age of 47 that you can not only live like this, but also put 2 other
kids through college???>>
Yeah whatever, Lisa. It is obvious that you're too dumb to even begin to
understand the concept of investments and mutual funds, and whatever you do,
you obviously can't even begin to conceptualize jobs that lead to excellent
retirement benefits. Then again, you probably don't qualify for jobs like
that, so you cannot actually believce such jobs exists.
BTW, Moceanu is a minor. Michelle is over 18 and her parents CANNOT control
her money anymore than they can control yours. Even if Michelle's income
contributes to her siblings' education and her parents, it has to be by
Michelle's choice, so no child abuse or whatever there. Michelle, as an adult
has the right to share her income with whomever she wishes and it's none of
your damn business.
Alexa
car...@my-dejanews.com
> Check out this article found today about Dominique suing her parents:
>
>
> There is an interesting analogy here - Danny Kwan hasn't worked in the last 4
> years, neither does Mrs. Kwan - they have a new house, a boat, etc, etc - Yes,
> I know, Danny "Retired"....... what company gives you such a GREAT retirement
> at the age of 47 that you can not only live like this, but also put 2 other
> kids through college???
>
Danny 'retired' around 94-95, just when Michelle and Karen were
hitting the elite ranks. There weren't too many money oppurtunities for
amateur skaters then and they were also putting the son through college before
Michelle or Karen made it big in the elite ranks. They owned a restaurant
and Danny had his job, seems like they were getting along alright before
Michelle had oppurtunities to earn money as a skater.
>
>
> Reporter with enough guts to ask: Michelle, where do your parents get all of
> the money that they are living so well on?
>
> Michelle: "They haven't been working since 1995. Where does their income
> come from? Me."
>
> Good thing for them Michelle isn't the litigating type, I guess. It will be
> interesting to see all the "explanations" for this, but the painful fact of
> the matter is that Mr & Mrs Kwan are living pretty well off of their
> teenager.
>
Michelle is 18 now. I have no doubt she knows how to manage her finances and
the control she has over it. She seems happy to be skating and she's
basically set for life. Since her parents seemed to be able to bear the costs
of two elite skaters and a son in college before Michelle ever made
substantial money as a skater, there is the chance they had a pretty good
savings plan and built up nest egg.
Moceanu, on the other hand, did not even know what her parents were doing
with her money and it wasn't until she took from her new coach from Romania,
that she realized that she was being exploited. Moceanu's parents quit their
jobs after 1996, when Dominique was popular and had made her money. Dimitri
built a gym with her money, the gym where Dominique trains now after Bela
Karolyi retired.
The Kwan's have never made it a point to make their financial situation
public, as it is their private business. There seems to be no indication that
any of the family members and surrounding peers saw a problem.
This is just my take.
Marcusfam1
>kids through college???
>
>
The Kwans did make money selling the family resturant and I'm sure Michelle is
supporting them and glad to do it ! The family did without alot to train Karen
and Michelle . So as long as Michelle enjoys skating and supporting her family
, its her business . I do feel so sorry for Dominque tho !
Harriet
rla...@ziplink.net
Suzanne Lainson <slai...@sportstrust.com> wrote:
> Having a young athlete or actor being the breadwinner of the family isn't
> usually a good idea. The situation can influence a family's priorities.
>
> I don't know enough about the Kwan situation to know if Michelle's skating
> income supports her entire family.
>
> I think one reason Michelle's situation hasn't raised any red flags so far is
> that she seems genuinely happy to be skating and she doesn't appear to be
> pressured to skate against her will. She also appears to be reasonably
> well-rounded and has said herself that there's more to life than skating.
>
>
I think those points are well taken. I would also point out that the most
abusive situations seems to occut when the parent either coaches or is
otherwise personally involved with the coaching, leaving the child with no
other adults to rely on for advice. Frank Carroll is a well-established coach
with a good reputation: I don't think he would allow himself to become
involved in an abusive situation, nor would Lori Nichol, nor would the
managment of a training center like Ice Castles, which has a reputation that
goes beyond one skater.
--Ruth
char...@jadeinc.com
pegl...@aol.comgenuine (PegLewis) wrote:
>
> Ricky rides again.
>
> In article <70m18c$f11$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sampso...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >An exceprt:
>
> <Ricky's standard Kwan income crap snipped.>
>
> Peg
I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was. The
fact is, it DOES have some truth to it, in my opinion...I'll readily admit
that I don't know every little detail about Michelle, but if it's true and
neither of her parents work, then the original statement is not crap. It's
simply an observation.
Now, I certainly don't think Michelle will be suing her parents any time soon,
and her parents seem to have done a much better job with her money than
Moceanus.
(Thought I'd better clear that up.)
Charisma
Visit Charisma's Skating Page!!
http://web.jadeinc.com/charisma
Podium99
>>
>> Ricky rides again.
with peg on his back .
OperettaJK
>I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was. The
>fact is, it DOES have some truth to it, in my opinion...I'll readily admit
>that I don't know every little detail about Michelle, but if it's true and
>neither of her parents work, then the original statement is not crap. It's
>simply an observation.
Repeat after me, kiddo: "Not having a paid job" doesn't equal to "not working",
also doesn't equal to "no income". Learn some basics about finance before
jumping into a financial related topic, would you? I know RJ is your best
buddy, but it's apparent neither of you is old enough to know any finance.
Jas
cgla...@hotmail.com
opere...@aol.com (OperettaJK) wrote:
>
> In article <70u6tr$2dv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, char...@jadeinc.com writes:
>
> >I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was. The
> >fact is, it DOES have some truth to it, in my opinion...I'll readily admit
> >that I don't know every little detail about Michelle, but if it's true and
> >neither of her parents work, then the original statement is not crap. It's
> >simply an observation.
If you'd reread the above, you'd see Charisma not only *admitted* that she
didn't know everything about Michelle's financial situation... or did you miss
the part that said "but *if* it's true"? She wasn't *telling* you, she was
*asking* you. And in return, you gave her quite the gruff answer.
Oh, and Charisma is anything but one of RJ's best buddies. I ought to know,
she's one of *my* best buddies.
> Repeat after me, kiddo:
Repeat after me -- "I will not selectively edit someone's post in order to
make them look worse."
If you hadn't snipped out this part of Charisma's post, then maybe people
could have seen that she was *anything but* in agreement with RJ's Danny
Kwan-bashing.
[Charisma also said]
=====
>Now, I certainly don't think Michelle will be suing her parents any time
>soon, and her parents seem to have done a much better job with her money
>than Moceanus.
>(Thought I'd better clear that up.)
=====
> "Not having a paid job" doesn't equal to "not working", also doesn't
> equal to "no income". Learn some basics about finance before jumping
> into a financial related topic, would you?
Jas, while RJ has long since progressed beyond the point that you have to hit
him over the head with a club just to get his attention, that does not mean
that everyone else has. Learn how to correct people with less of a "go away
you ignorant fool" tone of voice, would you?
> I know RJ is your best buddy, but it's apparent neither of you is
> old enough to know any finance.
Simply telling Charisma you thought she had it wrong was enough, Jas... you
didn't need the flamethrower. And you definitely didn't need the <snip>.
--
Chuckg
char...@jadeinc.com
opere...@aol.com (OperettaJK) wrote:
>
> In article <70u6tr$2dv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, char...@jadeinc.com writes:
>
> >I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was. The
> >fact is, it DOES have some truth to it, in my opinion...I'll readily admit
> >that I don't know every little detail about Michelle, but if it's true and
> >neither of her parents work, then the original statement is not crap. It's
> >simply an observation.
>
working",
> also doesn't equal to "no income". Learn some basics about finance before
> buddy, but it's apparent neither of you is old enough to know any finance.
I wasn't jumping into it because I wanted to dicuss the tiny financial
details. I was jumping into it because a statement was unfairly called
"crap." I wasn't aware that doing so was unacceptable behavior. In the
future, I'll be sure to hold my tongue in similar circumstances. And now, I
will rewrite a section of my original post....the meaning is the same:
...but if it's true and neither of her parents have paying jobs, then the
original statement is not crap.
And BTW, how on earth did RJ get into this discussion??
Charisma
Vespertine
<<Jas, while RJ has long since progressed beyond the point that you have to hit
him over the head with a club just to get his attention, that does not mean
that everyone else has. Learn how to correct people with less of a "go away
you ignorant fool" tone of voice, would you?>>
Gee, Chuckie, this is quite a change from your pathetic posts this past week
begging for someone to tell you that you were "respected"! Whassamatter? mad at
Jas because she didn't give in to your pathetic bid for pats on the head? Grow
up.
Chuckg
Vespertine wrote in message
<19981025145344...@ng101.aol.com>...
>Chuckieg writes:
>
><<Jas, while RJ has long since progressed beyond the point that you
have to hit
>him over the head with a club just to get his attention, that does not
mean
>that everyone else has. Learn how to correct people with less of a "go
away
>you ignorant fool" tone of voice, would you?>>
>
> Gee, Chuckie, this is quite a change from your pathetic posts this
past week
As opposed to your posts, Vesper, which never change at all.
--
Chuckg
OperettaJK
>> In article <70u6tr$2dv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, char...@jadeinc.com writes:
>>
>> >I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was.
The
>> >fact is, it DOES have some truth to it, in my opinion...I'll readily admit
>> >that I don't know every little detail about Michelle, but if it's true and
>> >neither of her parents work, then the original statement is not crap. It's
>> >simply an observation.
>
>If you'd reread the above, you'd see Charisma not only *admitted* that she
>didn't know everything about Michelle's financial situation... or did you
>miss the part that said "but *if* it's true"? She wasn't *telling* you, she
was
>*asking* you. And in return, you gave her quite the gruff answer.
Chuckg, before you questioned my reading ability, maybe you should read
Charisma's post again. Tell me what "The fact is, it DOES have some truth to
it, in my opinion..." means. That's not "asking" as far as I'm concerned. BTW,
I don't edit other posters' posts. I copied Charisma's entire post. If her post
looks bad, that's not my doing.
Charisma, you asked what RJ has to do with your post? You were defending RJ's
post and you're asking me how RJ got into this?
Jas
Podium99
>working",
>also doesn't equal to "no income". Learn some basics about finance before
>jumping into a financial related topic, would you? I know RJ is your best
>buddy, but it's apparent neither of you is old enough to know any finance.
>
>
> WELL IN THIS CASE IT DOES.
>
>
>
>
Podium99
>didn't need the flamethrower. And you definitely didn't need the <snip>.
>--
>Chuckg
well iam going to print this out and put it under my pillow great post good
wording love emaline
Podium99
>at
>Jas because she didn't give in to your pathetic bid for pats on the head?
>Grow
>up.
your torch go out??????>
>
>
>
>
>
>
PUFFY MUST DIE
can't remember any woman landing this combo in say the past 6 years.
---------------------------------------------------------
| Failure isn't failure if a lesson from its learned |
| Garth Brooks - "How You Ever Gonna Know" |
---------------------------------------------------------
Sk8Maven
> How amny women have landed this combo? I'm fairly new to skating and
> can't remember any woman landing this combo in say the past 6 years.
Seems to me I recall Nicole Bobek pulling it off at least once (1995
Worlds short?). It's been done, but not very often.
Who is "PUFFY" and what have you got against him/her/it?
Maven
Chuckg
<snip>
>Chuckie boy is the Sally Struthers of RSSIF: "You respect me! You
>really, really respect me!!" bwahahahaha. He's a great intellectual
>too. He posts on the Marvel comic book and Rush Limbaugh newsgroups.
>He also plays role playing games. You should let him play Dungeons and
>Dragons with your kids.
For as long as I've got people like RJ and Vespertine against me, I'll
know I'm doing something right. :-)
--
Chuckg
Trudi Marrapodi
[snip]
> Chuckie boy is the Sally Struthers of RSSIF: "You respect me! You
> really, really respect me!!"
Uh, that would be Sally Field.
If you're trying to knock someone else's intelligence, Ricky, best to get
your references straight first.
Trudi
Chuckg
SchnellJan wrote in message
<19981025205806...@ng72.aol.com>...
>> how much income could you have wiyh early retirement from phone co
also
>>the sale of the restrant go to sister and father his cash is pale
green
>>compared to kwans >
>Apparently it can be quite substantial.
Apparently it can be. I still confess to having a major curiosity fit
every time I think about it, however... exactly what are the #'s on a
financial arrangement like that?
--
Chuckg (I know, I know, privacy... but you all know about my curiosity
bump)
Kaiju
>
> > how much income could you have wiyh early retirement from phone co also
> >sale of the restrant go to sister and father his cash is pale green
> >compared
> >to kwans >
> >
> >
>
> Apparently it can be quite substantial.
Especially if it has been invested well over time.
But people have said this a few times already, eh?
Kaiju <wondering why some other people still haven't caught on...shall we
refer them to the link for Money Magazine Online?>
--
Microsoft SHOULD include a browser in its operating systems--how else
can you get online to download the bug fixes?
Vespertine
<<Chuckie boy is the Sally Struthers of RSSIF: "You respect me! You really,
really respect me!!" bwahahahaha.>>
Uh I think the allusion you seek is to Sally Field, RJ.
<< He's a great intellectual too. He posts on the Marvel comic book and Rush
Limbaugh newsgroups. He also plays role playing games. You should let him play
Dungeons and
Dragons with your kids.>>
Yeah, yeah, we already know about Chuckie's pathetic posts in those areas.
I guess he got so chewed up on the political message boards that he came back
here with his tail between his leg, begging for "respect". Or maybe it just
took him a month or so to read the Starr report. Guess he has lots of time to
sit around and type given his profession.
But I don't dislike Chuckie because he's a dork --- I am irritated that he
hasn't started posting some of his conspiracy theory posts so we can all have a
good laugh!
And I'm so touched that Chuckie has found a new friend! Hey, he lost your -
er - frienship, RJ, but looks like now he has good ole poddy!
cgla...@hotmail.com
opere...@aol.com (OperettaJK) wrote:
>
> In article <70vl0k$ju9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >> In article <70u6tr$2dv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, char...@jadeinc.com writes:
> >>
> >> >I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was.
> >> >The fact is, it DOES have some truth to it, in my opinion...I'll readily
> >> >admit that I don't know every little detail about Michelle, but if it's
> >> >true and neither of her parents work, then the original statement is not
> >> >crap. It's simply an observation.
> >
> >If you'd reread the above, you'd see Charisma not only *admitted* that she
> >didn't know everything about Michelle's financial situation... or did you
> >miss the part that said "but *if* it's true"? She wasn't *telling* you, she
> >was *asking* you. And in return, you gave her quite the gruff answer.
>
> Chuckg, before you questioned my reading ability, maybe you should read
> Charisma's post again. Tell me what "The fact is, it DOES have some truth to
> it, in my opinion..." means. That's not "asking" as far as I'm concerned.
The fact that she said "but if its true, then..." in the very next sentence
doesn't count? You have to read the whole post, not just the first
sentence... and not just the first paragraph.
> BTW, I don't edit other posters' posts. I copied Charisma's entire post.
BS! You deliberately left out Charisma's entire closing paragraph... the one
where she quite explicitly explained that she did *not* agree with RJ's
opinion of Danny Kwan?
[the missing section]
=====
>Now, I certainly don't think Michelle will be suing her parents any
>time soon, and her parents seem to have done a much better job with
>her money than Moceanus.
>(Thought I'd better clear that up.)
>Charisma
=====
>If her post looks bad, that's not my doing.
Now pull the other one, Jas, it's got bells on.
Charisma's original post:
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=404767440
Operetta's first reply to Charisma:
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=404800730
"I copied Charisma's entire post." -- OperettaJK.
Nope.
--
Chuckg
bmi...@jadeinc.com
> it, in my opinion..." means. That's not "asking" as far as I'm concerned. BTW,
> I don't edit other posters' posts. I copied Charisma's entire post. If her
post
> looks bad, that's not my doing.
Jas, considering that you left out this:
[Now, I certainly don't think Michelle will be suing her parents any time
soon, and her parents seem to have done a much better job with her money
thanMoceanus. (Thought I'd better clear that up.)]
I'd say you trimmed Charisma's post before replying to the part of it that
made her look the way you wanted her to look...... It's nothing new, it
happens here all the time, but saying I copied Charisma's entire post when
her post is here to prove your untruthfulness is somewhat akin to looking a
videotape of oneself robbing the 7-11 and claiming "It wasn't me!! It was a
one-armed man who looked just like me" (Note: Only applies to one-armed
defendants)
Brad
You can kill us. You can bomb our colonies, destroy our ships, murder innocent
civilians. But you cannot kill the truth. And the truth is back in business."
cgla...@hotmail.com
SchnellJan
Why? Danny Kwan has an income. He has his retirement income and income from
the sale of his parents restaurant.
PegLewis
In article <19981025193846...@ng72.aol.com>, schne...@aol.com
(SchnellJan) writes:
How would a skater's parent based in Chicago or Detroit or Aaron Spelling's rec
room know where Danny Kwan's income comes from in the first place?
This was another of those subtle swipes at the Kwans that we talked about the
other day.
Peg, waving at Ben, Hans, Frankie, and the rest, marooned on ShoulderChip Isle
Any request to cancel this post is a forgery.
VisitTheAll-KwanNetwork @ http://members.aol.com/AllKwanNet/index.html
VisitLjudmillia's text archive @ http://home.swbell.net/icedance/millia.htm
Vespertine
<<For as long as I've got people like RJ and Vespertine against me, I'll
know I'm doing something right. :-)
>>
Keep thinking that if it makes you feel better chuckie
SchnellJan
>other day.
>
Yes, and the biggest problem with this whole thread is that there are
absolutely no similarities between the Kwan's, the Lipinski's and the
Moceanu's.
We can't even be sure that all these accusations by Dominique are true. Being
of a suspicious mindset, I am concerned about the influence of this "coach".
Until further information arises, I am more inclined to wait and see.
axel...@my-dejanews.com
PUFFY MUST DIE <ris...@pegasus.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> How amny women have landed this combo? I'm fairly new to skating and
> can't remember any woman landing this combo in say the past 6 years.
I believe Kristi Yamaguchi did this combination at the 92 Olympics in the long
program
aste...@mail.sdsu.edu
squander their daughter's fortune. Furthemore, there have been some wild
accusations about Michelle's and Tara's as with regard to finances.
Some say that Michelle is carrying her families entire financial weight on her
shoulders, paying not only for Karen's school, but her brother's as well,
lavishing her parents in riches, etc.
And as for Tara, some say she will soon follow in Domonique's footsteps by
suing her parents, as well.
Yes, we all offer our opinions about skater's habits, lifestyles, contracts,
etc. But, don't you see a much more serious set of circumstances when an
underage athlete ACTUALLY files a cause of action against her parents in a
court of law?
With this in mind, How can we possibly equate Michelle's and Tara's situation
with that of Dominiques? Regardless, the Moceanu's are indeed innocent until
legally determined otherwise.
IMO, Tara and Michelle WILL NOT sue their parents for past and/or present
misdeeds. Furthermore, I believe the judge will rule IN FAVOR of the
Moceanus. I think the judge will be mortified if and when the facts reveal
that these so called adults encouraged Domonique to leave her parents, rather
than encourage resolve through family counseling, social services, etc.
WITHOUT before even disucssing and/or thinking about a lawsuit.
They accuse the Moeceau's of squandering Domonique's money? Since they are not
her parents, these past and present coaches/advisors of Domonique's {who have
been quoted in the papers} have no business involved in the Moceanu family
financial matters, outside of collecting a fee for their coaching services.
I really hope Domonique is soon reunited with her family. I also hope that
those who are/were so intent on dividing and conquering Domonique also be
made to answer to contributiong to the obviously painful division of the
Moceanu family, IF their accusations are not proven to be factual.
astewart
Podium99
>Why? Danny Kwan has an income. He has his retirement income and income from
>the sale of his parents restaurant.
>
Leonard Ray
: Chuckg, before you questioned my reading ability, maybe you should read
: Charisma's post again. Tell me what "The fact is, it DOES have some truth to
: I don't edit other posters' posts. I copied Charisma's entire post. If her post
: looks bad, that's not my doing.
I agreed with Jas's point about income. OTOH, I agreed with Chuck that
the classification of Charisma as RJ's best buddy was a bit over the line;
are there other posts that led you to believe that?
And, btw, I just went back and double-checked Jas' response to Charisma.
I believe Jas did in fact snip the part in which Charisma said that
Michelle wasn't suing her parents any time soon, and that the Kwans seem
to be doing a much better job as parents than the Moceanus are.
-- Kate
Lorrie Kim
PUFFY MUST DIE <ris...@pegasus.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>How amny women have landed this combo? I'm fairly new to skating and
>can't remember any woman landing this combo in say the past 6 years.
Kristi Yamaguchi in Albertville.
Not sure how many Midori Ito landed, but I think she did at least
one in a pro competition.
Lorrie Kim
lor...@plover.com
Podium99
>rec
>room know where Danny Kwan's income comes from in the first place?
>
>other day.
>
>Isle
>
restrant . and spelling was at the rink every day with tory . and they invited
to skate large rink in side his home people are posting all about kwan here
this is not a swipe its a direct statement what do you mean that we talked
about the other day why don't you take your shoulder brick and stick it.
SchnellJan
>yje
>sale of the restrant go to sister and father his cash is pale green
>compared
>to kwans >
>
>
Apparently it can be quite substantial.
SchnellJan
>sale of the restrant go to sister and father his cash is pale green
>compared
>to kwans >
>
I am having difficulty following your train of thought. Who's cash is pale
green compared to Kwan's and what exactly do you mean by pale green?
I'd also like to know how you can be so intimately acquainted with the
financial setup of the Kwans? They seem to be private people.
As a side note, if I were in the same situation as Michelle, knowing how much
my family sacrificed for me to capture my dream, I'd make darn sure that they
received financial security for the rest of their lives.
Kevin Rushforth
Elena Ivanova landed a 3-lutz/3-toe at the 96(?) World Junior
Championships. It was the only thing of note in her performance.
Nicole Bobek landed a really shaky one, that may have been cheated, at
95 Worlds (I think it was at Worlds). I must admit that I'm surprised
it hasn't become more common. Instead, we have a situation where only
about 1/2 of the top ladies do any sort of triple/triple on a regular
basis.
--
Kevin C. Rushforth | "If winning is not important,
Sun Microsystems | then commander, why keep score?"
| - Lt. Worf
E-MAIL: k...@Eng.Sun.COM |
Virginia Blalock
wrote:
>PUFFY MUST DIE wrote:
>> How amny women have landed this combo? I'm fairly new to skating and
>> can't remember any woman landing this combo in say the past 6 years.
>
>Seems to me I recall Nicole Bobek pulling it off at least once (1995
>Worlds short?). It's been done, but not very often.
Didn't Kristi land this combo at one time?
Virginia
Visit The Skating Rink
http://visions.simplenet.com/skate/index.html
OperettaJK
Sorry, everybody else. Chuckg is making a mountain out of a molehill. I have to
keep all the quotations. Otherwise, I would be accused as "making him or
Charisma look bad". So this is kind of long.
In article <710i80$nlk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
>In article <19981025163758...@ngol06.aol.com>,
> opere...@aol.com (OperettaJK) wrote:
>>
>> In article <70vl0k$ju9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
>>
>> >> In article <70u6tr$2dv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, char...@jadeinc.com
>writes:
>> >>
>> >> >I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was.
>> >> >The fact is, it DOES have some truth to it, in my opinion...I'll readily
>> >> >admit that I don't know every little detail about Michelle, but if it's
>> >> >true and neither of her parents work, then the original statement is not
>> >> >crap. It's simply an observation.
>> >
>> >If you'd reread the above, you'd see Charisma not only *admitted* that she
>> >didn't know everything about Michelle's financial situation... or did you
>> >miss the part that said "but *if* it's true"? She wasn't *telling* you,
>she was *asking* you. And in return, you gave her quite the gruff answer.
>>
>> Chuckg, before you questioned my reading ability, maybe you should read
>> Charisma's post again. Tell me what "The fact is, it DOES have some truth
>to it, in my opinion..." means. That's not "asking" as far as I'm concerned.
>
>The fact that she said "but if its true, then..." in the very next sentence
>doesn't count? You have to read the whole post, not just the first
>sentence... and not just the first paragraph.
She first asserted RJ's accusation DOES (she emphasized the word) have merits,
then pulled an innocence pretence: "....I don't know every little detail about
Michelle, but if it is true..." This making swipe first then putting on an
innocent face is an old trick. I don't buy it.
>> BTW, I don't edit other posters' posts. I copied Charisma's entire post.
>
>BS! You deliberately left out Charisma's entire closing paragraph...
Watch your language!
Her last paragraph has nothing to do with what I was responding to. You may
like to write and read long posts. I like to keep it to the point. I responded
to her first paragraph where she made a point about how Michelle's parents live
off Michelle. If your reading skill is good enough, you should realize whether
Michelle will sue her parents or whether Michelle's parents are doing a better
job in managing her money are completely different points. I was objecting to
the basic premise of her point in the first paragraph, not her second. When you
used the word "edit", I thought it involves shifting sentences around or
snipping sentences within a paragraph. I never thought snipping another
irrelevant paragraph qualified. So, sue me.
>the one where she quite explicitly explained that she did *not* agree with
RJ's
>opinion of Danny Kwan?
>
>[the missing section]
>=====
>>Now, I certainly don't think Michelle will be suing her parents any
>>time soon, and her parents seem to have done a much better job with
>>her money than Moceanus.
As I said above, it is a different point. Janet, can you tell Chuckg the
difference? <sigh>
Now, you made a federal case out of my three sentence comments just because
..........your best buddy's sensibility is hurt by the _tone_ of my voice?
Sheeh.
Jas
Podium99
>green compared to Kwan's and what exactly do you mean by pale green?
>
>I'd also like to know how you can be so intimately acquainted with the
>financial setup of the Kwans? They seem to be private people.
>
>As a side note, if I were in the same situation as Michelle, knowing how much
>my family sacrificed for me to capture my dream, I'd make darn sure that they
>received financial security for the rest of their lives.
>
know imo taht kwan is freely sharing her reward with her family giving back
to them for all the years suport and beleave me it was a lot of money. you pay
for your childs skating for at least 10 years with no help from 12 thousand at
first up to about 30 thousand a year
>
>
>
>
char...@jadeinc.com
> Chuckg, before you questioned my reading ability, maybe you should read
> Charisma's post again. Tell me what "The fact is, it DOES have some truth to
> I don't edit other posters' posts. I copied Charisma's entire post. If her
post
> looks bad, that's not my doing.
Once again, let me clarify my original post. IF IN FACT it is true that
neither of Michelle Kwan's parents HAVE PAYING JOBS, then the original post
has some truth to it. That, in my opinion, makes it a valid observation, not
"crap."
>
> Charisma, you asked what RJ has to do with your post? You were defending RJ's
> post and you're asking me how RJ got into this?
>
I don't see RJ's name anywhere. Or is it that everyone who posts something
about Michelle Kwan that is less than pure and utter praise, it's RJ?? But
hey, it could be, I suppose. *I* don't know any better, so *I* am not going
to make any accusations.
Charisma
Podium99
>post
>> looks bad, that's not my doing.
>
>
thats what i just caught on to all of a sudden i saw that peg was just coping
out of my posts what made her look good not the whole post so in the future i
will try this i was coping the whole post and my girl friend said why are you
posting a second time what they said bad about you .
OperettaJK
>> Chuckg, before you questioned my reading ability, maybe you should read
>> Charisma's post again. Tell me what "The fact is, it DOES have some truth to
>> it, in my opinion..." means. That's not "asking" as far as I'm concerned.
BTW,
>> I don't edit other posters' posts. I copied Charisma's entire post. If her
post
>> looks bad, that's not my doing.
>
>Once again, let me clarify my original post. IF IN FACT it is true that
>neither of Michelle Kwan's parents HAVE PAYING JOBS, then the original post
>has some truth to it. That, in my opinion, makes it a valid observation, not
>"crap."
And I tried to tell you some basics about finances: "Not having a paying job"
doesn't equal to "not working" or "no income". Several posters had pointed
that out repeatedly. But that didn't stop you jumping in.
>> Charisma, you asked what RJ has to do with your post? You were defending
RJ's
>> post and you're asking me how RJ got into this?
>
>I don't see RJ's name anywhere. Or is it that everyone who posts something
>about Michelle Kwan that is less than pure and utter praise, it's RJ??
But
>hey, it could be, I suppose. *I* don't know any better, so *I* am not going
>to make any accusations.
>
>Charisma
I don't keep old posts and I'm too tired to search for it. I remember you
jumped in because another poster wrote something in the line of: "RJ's usual
crap snipped". You said RJ's post has truth to it and shouldn't be called crap.
So you don't even know whose post you were defending?
Jas
HOlson1046
I have a friend who retired early from the phone company in the area I live in,
and she's doing quite well on the salary they pay her. She certainly doesn't
seem to be hurting financially.
SchnellJan
>only
>know imo taht kwan is freely sharing her reward with her family giving back
>to them for all the years suport and beleave me it was a lot of money. you
>pay
>for your childs skating for at least 10 years with no help from 12 thousand
>at
>first up to about 30 thousand a year
So, the answer is Danny Kwan has his own income (albeit not quite as
substantial as Michelle's) and that Michelle may or may not be returning the
favor to her family. There appears to be nothing illegal or immoral about
this.
Kwan is not stealing his daughters money, nor is there indication of
mis-management. Therefore a comparison to the Moceanu situation is invalid.
HILL JANET SWAN
>PUFFY MUST DIE wrote:
>> How amny women have landed this combo? I'm fairly new to skating and
>> can't remember any woman landing this combo in say the past 6 years.
>
>Seems to me I recall Nicole Bobek pulling it off at least once (1995
>Worlds short?). It's been done, but not very often.
Not to get all pedantic about it, but ..... If Bobek did it, it was almost
certainly not a real lutz. (sigh)
janet
--
Virginia Blalock
I have a cousin who retired from a government job a few years back
and her salary is also quite good. There is precedent for getting a
good retirement salary.
b...@davewc.mv.com
>I believe Kristi Yamaguchi did this combination at the 92 Olympics in the long
>program
the last to land it was Nicole Bobek in her 95 Worlds long.
--bc
HILL JANET SWAN
>Yes, and the biggest problem with this whole thread is that there are
>absolutely no similarities between the Kwan's, the Lipinski's and the
>Moceanu's.
Right
Well, there are similarities (they are parents with young daughters
who have been "the best in the world" at an athletic endeavor) .... but so
far as I can tell, the DIFFERENCES are a lot more significant than the
similarities.
janet
--
DesertRoaz
<<Not to get all pedantic about it, but ..... If Bobek did it, it was almost
certainly not a real lutz. (sigh)>>
Nicole Bobek did complete a triple lutz/triple toe in 1995 (overrotated the
second jump, according to Bezic). Whether it was a flutz...I couldn't tell
when I went back and played it after learning about flutzes.
I am a little disappointed that Bezic said that Bobek had a "perfect" 3 lutz/ 2
toe in the short program that year (after all, I believed her), if Bobek
indeed flutzed that one too. She picked on Michelle Kwan's lack of speed
coming out of her combination and Chen Lu's "wild free leg". Oh well.
DesertRoaz
Dream podium 1999: Kwan, Rechnio, Nikodinov *and* Butyrskaya ;-)
cgla...@hotmail.com
opere...@aol.com (OperettaJK) wrote:
> Sorry, everybody else. Chuckg is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Clinton defense team strategy -- engage. (apologies for the off-topic
reference)
'I didn't do it and if I did do it those words didn't technically mean what
you thought they meant so literally speaking I didn't really do it and OK so
maybe I did do it but it wasn't anything really important anyway so quit
making a mountain of a molehill so we can all get back to talking about
important issues...'
> I have to keep all the quotations. Otherwise, I would be accused as "making
> him or Charisma look bad". So this is kind of long.
<mountain of quotes left in snipped... just to make Jas look bad, of course.
(sarcasm alert)>
> She first asserted RJ's accusation DOES (she emphasized the word)
> have merits, then pulled an innocence pretence: "....I don't know every
> little detail about Michelle, but if it is true..." This making swipe
> first then putting on an innocent face is an old trick. I don't buy it.
So you felt free to call her "RJ's best buddy" despite the fact that her last
paragraph went well out of its way to deny any such thing... and then you
snipped her last paragraph... and then you made the claim below.
>>> BTW, I don't edit other posters' posts. I copied Charisma's entire post.
I don't care what else you did say or didn't say, you did not copy Charisma's
entire post. So saying that you did is flat-out wrong. And I called you on
it. And now you try to say that that's making "a mountain out of a molehill"
and that the parts you didn't quote were "irrelevant".
If *I'm* one who's supposed to have the faulty reading comprehension, then why
are *you* the one who apparently thinks that the word "entire" means only
quoting half of a post?
> >BS! You deliberately left out Charisma's entire closing paragraph...
<snip>
> Her last paragraph has nothing to do with what I was responding to. You may
> like to write and read long posts. I like to keep it to the point. I responded
> to her first paragraph where she made a point about how Michelle's parents
> live off Michelle.
Actually, her first paragraph said that *as far as she knew*, Michelle's
income was the only income in the Kwan family. A *polite* response to this
would have been "No it's not, there's something you don't know. There is
also Danny Kwan's retirement income and the proceeds from the restaurant
sale"... instead of the "I know RJ is your best buddy, but it's apparent
neither of you is old enough to know any finance."
> If your reading skill is good enough,
Since I have actually dared to disagree with your interpretation of another
person's words, then by definition my reading comprehension is faulty? Does
the idea that you just might possibly have made a mistake ever cross your
mind? Or are all mistakes automatically other peoples'?
> >[the missing section]
> >=====
> >>Now, I certainly don't think Michelle will be suing her parents any
> >>time soon, and her parents seem to have done a much better job with
> >>her money than Moceanus.
>
> As I said above, it is a different point.
Different point, nothing. "RJ's best buddy" would never have written the
above paragraph, and therefore to omit this paragraph from a post calling
someone RJ's best buddy is not quite kosher.
> Now, you made a federal case out of my three sentence comments just because
> ..........your best buddy's sensibility is hurt by the _tone_ of my voice?
No... because you unjustly tried to label a friend of mine as an inhabitant of
Planet Ricky... and considering what RJ is, saying that someone resembles him
at all closely is a genuine insult to that someone.
--
Chuckg
Chuckg
RJ wrote in message <364c319c...@news1.newscene.com>...
>On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:29:31 -0600, "Chuckg" <cgla...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>For as long as I've got people like RJ and Vespertine against me, I'll
>>know I'm doing something right. :-)
>
>I have integrity.
A plagiarist has integrity? You couldn't even come up with your own
comeback, you had to paraphrase mine. (LOL)
--
Chuckg (I know, I know, "do not feed the troll"...)
ghg...@northnet.org
hil...@spot.Colorado.EDU (HILL JANET SWAN) wrote:
> Sk8Maven <sk8m...@monumental.com> wrote:
> >PUFFY MUST DIE wrote:
> >> How amny women have landed this combo? I'm fairly new to skating and
> >> can't remember any woman landing this combo in say the past 6 years.
> >
> >Seems to me I recall Nicole Bobek pulling it off at least once (1995
> >Worlds short?). It's been done, but not very often.
>
> certainly not a real lutz. (sigh)
>
But, since we're reopening an old discussion, I have never seen any evidence
that when Nicole lands whatever you choose to call that thing that she does,
that the judges dont give her full credit for it. We talk about it here, and
Nicole is only one of several skaters whose lutz technique is not "textbook"
but I honestly feel that judges don't seem to care.
Fred
> --
PegLewis
In article <19981026024734...@ng-fd1.aol.com>, podi...@aol.com
(Podium99) writes:
>
>>I am having difficulty following your train of thought. Who's cash is pale
>>green compared to Kwan's and what exactly do you mean by pale green?
>>
>>I'd also like to know how you can be so intimately acquainted with the
>>financial setup of the Kwans? They seem to be private people.
>>
>>As a side note, if I were in the same situation as Michelle, knowing how
>much
>>my family sacrificed for me to capture my dream, I'd make darn sure that
>they
>>received financial security for the rest of their lives.
>>
> i mean that the father s money is nothing compared to the daughters i
>only know imo taht kwan is freely sharing her reward with her family
>giving back to them for all the years suport and beleave me it was a lot
>of money. you pay for your childs skating for at least 10 years with no
>help from 12 thousand at first up to about 30 thousand a year
Beautiful post. :-)
Sorry... just had to mention.
Peg, positive reinforcement and all that
Alex C Lin
of it this way: even if it's a 3-flutz (i.e. really a 3-Flip), it IS a
3-Flip-3-toe combination. Now ask yourself this: how many other women in
that competition landed such a combination.
Alex
Elizabeth Kell
>
> Sk8Maven <sk8m...@monumental.com> wrote:
> >PUFFY MUST DIE wrote:
> >> How amny women have landed this combo? I'm fairly new to skating and
> >> can't remember any woman landing this combo in say the past 6 years.
> >
The young Japanese skater, Shizuka Arakawa, landed one in her short at
Nagano and it was a beauty. (CBC showed it.) Unfortunately, she didn't
do anything else of note in her short -- even messed up the solo jump --
and CBS showed her long, which wasn't exactly spectacular either. She's
scheduled for Skate America, and I'm curious to see if she goes for one
there.
Teri
> Sk8Maven <sk8m...@monumental.com> wrote:
> >PUFFY MUST DIE wrote:
> >> How amny women have landed this combo? I'm fairly new to skating and
> >> can't remember any woman landing this combo in say the past 6 years.
> >
> >Seems to me I recall Nicole Bobek pulling it off at least once (1995
> >Worlds short?). It's been done, but not very often.
I think Kristi Yamaguchi landed it pretty consistently in the 1992 Olympic
season.. She thought she needed it to beat the "dueling axles".
Teri
Rui Liu
>No... because you unjustly tried to label a friend of mine as an inhabitant of
>Planet Ricky... and considering what RJ is, saying that someone resembles him
>at all closely is a genuine insult to that someone.
way of writing. Let's see, You're a moron, if it turns out that you're truely
a moron. What Jas wrote does indeed have merits, and right on target,
if your friend is really from Planet Ricky, which I do not know for a fact.
mllx...@stud.man.ac.uk
she got it on one foot but turned a couple of times - I think to miss
the barier!
Tony
Podium99
>substantial as Michelle's) and that Michelle may or may not be returning the
>favor to her family. There appears to be nothing illegal or immoral about
>this.
>
>Kwan is not stealing his daughters money, nor is there indication of
>mis-management. Therefore a comparison to the Moceanu situation is invalid.
her skating even sold his house and i would say she is paying him back be
cause she wantsto. and i agree he is not taking advantage of her in any way .
i will tell you in this sport if the skater makes it the whole family makes it
you can expect your family to pay out such serious money and then when you are
doing good walk away think of what you earn a year and off the top is coming
upwords of 32 thousand dollars . my account always says what hell are you doing
with all this money. i say you know ha ha >
>
>
>
>
>
>
OperettaJK
In article <7129ct$kbv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
<major snip since nothing else worth responding to>
>> Now, you made a federal case out of my three sentence comments just because
>> ..........your best buddy's sensibility is hurt by the _tone_ of my voice?
>
>No... because you unjustly tried to label a friend of mine as an inhabitant
>of Planet Ricky... and considering what RJ is, saying that someone resembles
him
>at all closely is a genuine insult to that someone.
When she jumped in to defend RJ's post, she should expect reactions. Not
everybody keeps track of the frictions inside the Tara borg.
And you wrote three epic-length snide posts, not to rebut the points I made,
but to "avenge" your friend. If that's not childish, I don't know what it is.
Well, snide and sulk all you want. The stage is all yours.
Jas
Thuy-Quyen Tran
>
> >I believe Kristi Yamaguchi did this combination at the 92 Olympics in the long
> >program
> Kristi did do this in her Olympic long, BUT she had a step inbetween.
>
> the last to land it was Nicole Bobek in her 95 Worlds long.
>
> --bc
>
I'm pretty sure that I remember that there was no step in between at the
Olympics.
Quyen
Kevin Rushforth
>>I believe Kristi Yamaguchi did this combination at the 92 Olympics in the long
>>program
>Kristi did do this in her Olympic long, BUT she had a step inbetween.
No she didn't. Kristi's 3-lutz/3-toe at the Oplympics was textbook
perfect. Perhaps you are are thinking of a different comp in 92?
>the last to land it was Nicole Bobek in her 95 Worlds long.
Not the last. As I reported in an earlier message, Elena Ivanova did
one at the 96 Junior Worlds. Someone else posted that Shizuka Arakawa
landed one at the 98 Olympics (in the short program).
--
Kevin C. Rushforth | "If winning is not important,
Sun Microsystems | then commander, why keep score?"
| - Lt. Worf
E-MAIL: k...@Eng.Sun.COM |
Ellyn Kestnbaum
>With regard to whether it's a 3-L-3toe vs. 3-flutz-3toe, I like to think
>of it this way: even if it's a 3-flutz (i.e. really a 3-Flip), it IS a
>3-Flip-3-toe combination. Now ask yourself this: how many other women in
>that competition landed such a combination.
Elena Ivanova did triple flip-triple toe at Junior Worlds that year (now I
don't remember if it was clean or not), and has probably done it on other
occasions. But she certainly wasn't at Worlds in '95 and hasn't gotten
there yet.
I can't think of any other women who have tried.
-Ellyn
Wayne Joy
SchnellJan wrote:
> >I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was.
>
> And it has been stated that there is no relevant "truth" in the original post.
> The original post was crap. Opinionated Crap, but still crap.
>
> The rest of your statement clearly indicated that you did not know the
> financial situation of the Kwans. Yet you concluded there was "truth" to the
> allegation that Danny Kwan has been mis-managing Michelle's money (not that
> there is any proof that Moceanu has done that either.)
Here is Charisma's post again:
> I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was. The
> fact is, it DOES have some truth to it, in my opinion...I'll readily admit
> that I don't know every little detail about Michelle, but if it's true and
> neither of her parents work, then the original statement is not crap. It's
> simply an observation.
>
> Now, I certainly don't think Michelle will be suing her parents any time soon,
> and her parents seem to have done a much better job with her money than
> Moceanus.
>
It seems to me that Charisma was saying that there may have been truth that the
Kwans did not work, and not that Danny Kwan has been mis-managing Michelle's
money as pointed out in her second paragraph.
Sk8Maven
> It seems to me that Charisma was saying that there may have been truth
> that the Kwans did not work
Not after Mr. Kwan retired from Pacific Bell and the Kwan family sold
the restaurant, at any rate. "Charisma" (is she Brad's sister, by the
way? She posts from the same address) makes the disastrous mistake of
ASSuming that "not working" means "no income". I guess she never heard
of living off the dividends from one's investments.
If I had substantial investment dividends, I wouldn't have to work
either. Sigh.
Maven
wechsl...@my-dejanews.com
skat...@visions.simplenet.com wrote:
> On 26 Oct 1998 11:49:19 GMT, holso...@aol.com (HOlson1046) wrote:
>
> >>>Apparently it can be quite substantial.>>
> >
> >I have a friend who retired early from the phone company in the area I live
in,
> >and she's doing quite well on the salary they pay her. She certainly doesn't
> >seem to be hurting financially.
>
> I have a cousin who retired from a government job a few years back
> and her salary is also quite good. There is precedent for getting a
> good retirement salary.
>
Esp. if, as I believe is the case here, a person was offered the option of
early retirement because of down-sizing and the like. My step-grandmother was
"given" early retirement due to down-sizing and 10 years later she is still
doing quite nicely. Didn't the Kwans keep the resturant until sometime after
Danny retired?
> Virginia
> Visit The Skating Rink
> http://visions.simplenet.com/skate/index.html
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
wechsl...@my-dejanews.com
schne...@aol.com (SchnellJan) wrote:
> >> i mean that the father s money is nothing compared to the daughters i
> >only
> >know imo taht kwan is freely sharing her reward with her family giving back
> >to them for all the years suport and beleave me it was a lot of money. you
> >pay
> >for your childs skating for at least 10 years with no help from 12 thousand
> >at
> >first up to about 30 thousand a year
>
> substantial as Michelle's) and that Michelle may or may not be returning the
> favor to her family. There appears to be nothing illegal or immoral about
> this.
>
> Kwan is not stealing his daughters money, nor is there indication of
> mis-management. Therefore a comparison to the Moceanu situation is invalid.
something else. I believe the house was up at Lake Arrowhead (and they solf
their other one right?) and made it possible that the whole family live
together under one roof and train. The boat I thought Michelle bought for
herself? I know she bought herself a Jeep. Also didn't Danny give her a trip
to Jenny Meno and Todd Sands wedding as a gift? He must have some of his own
money that thewy would differentiate between what she bought herself and what
he bought her. IF all the money is that same, from the same place, why
bother?
char...@jadeinc.com
> I don't keep old posts and I'm too tired to search for it. I remember you
> jumped in because another poster wrote something in the line of: "RJ's usual
> crap snipped". You said RJ's post has truth to it and shouldn't be called
crap.
> So you don't even know whose post you were defending?
>
> Jas
>
Here, allow me to quote my original post....all of it:
========
I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was. The
fact is, it DOES have some truth to it, in my opinion...I'll readily admit
that I don't know every little detail about Michelle, but if it's true and
neither of her parents work, then the original statement is not crap. It's
simply an observation.
Now, I certainly don't think Michelle will be suing her parents any time soon,
and her parents seem to have done a much better job with her money than
Moceanus.
(Thought I'd better clear that up.)
Charisma
========
OK, if you see, I did NOT mention RJ in that entire post. I didn't say that
it was his post. So, in answer to your question, no, I don't know who I'm
defending for sure. My guess is that I'm defending Lisa Sampson, since
that's the name listed by the original post. But ya know what?? *Who* I'm
defending is irrelevant. I defended the post for what it said, not who said
it.
Charisma
SchnellJan
SchnellJan
>the
>money as pointed out in her second paragraph.
>
However, it has been pointed out that Kwan has worked and that he retired from
his job. He has his own income, quite seperate from his daughters'.
Charisma used the idea that Kwan doesn't have a job (that we know of) to
validate the original post. I simply assert that the state of Kwan's
employment doesn't validate the assertion that he is anything like Moceanu.
cgla...@hotmail.com
opere...@aol.com (OperettaJK) wrote:
>
> In article <7129ct$kbv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> <major snip since nothing else worth responding to>
> >> Now, you made a federal case out of my three sentence comments just because
> >> ..........your best buddy's sensibility is hurt by the _tone_ of my voice?
> >
> >No... because you unjustly tried to label a friend of mine as an inhabitant
> >of Planet Ricky... and considering what RJ is, saying that someone resembles
> >him at all closely is a genuine insult to that someone.
>
> When she jumped in to defend RJ's post, she should expect reactions. Not
> everybody keeps track of the frictions inside the Tara borg.
>
> And you wrote three epic-length snide posts,
Projection again? If someone disagrees with your opinions, they need to learn
more about finance before they should post again. Either that, or they lack
reading comprehension. Yet *we're* the snide ones.
>not to rebut the points I made,
You complain when I disagree with you, and now you're complaining when I don't
disagree with you? Heads-you-win, tails-we-lose... yarite.
> but to "avenge" your friend. If that's not childish, I don't know what it is.
Oh heavens to Betsy and God forbid that I should ever be so "childish" as to
let you slam on a friend of mine without calling you on it, or to notice that
your "entire" quote wasn't actually "entire". If such "childish" concepts as
loyalty among friends and attention to detail didn't exist at all, the world
would be a better place. Really.
> Well, snide and sulk all you want.
Did you remember to pay the Projectionist's Local 807 your union dues this
month?
>The stage is all yours.
Gee, thanks.
--
Chuckg
rnar...@my-dejanews.com
b...@davewc.mv.com (b...@davewc.mv.com) wrote:
>
> >I believe Kristi Yamaguchi did this combination at the 92 Olympics in the
long
> >program
> Kristi did do this in her Olympic long, BUT she had a step inbetween.
Actually 1992 US Nationals was where Kristi put the extra step in her 3lutz-
3toe; the combo was fine in Albertville, and again at that year's Worlds.
Incidentally, the season before, I think she was doing 3flip-3toe in her LP.
Ronald
--
Ronald Narciso ============================== rnar...@my-dejanews.com
RoosterBoy
Leonard Ray
Jas:
: >> BTW, I don't edit other posters' posts. I copied Charisma's entire post.
: >
and then:
: Her last paragraph has nothing to do with what I was responding to. You may
: like to write and read long posts. I like to keep it to the point. I responded
: to her first paragraph where she made a point about how Michelle's parents live
: off Michelle. If your reading skill is good enough, you should realize whether
: Michelle will sue her parents or whether Michelle's parents are doing a better
: job in managing her money are completely different points. I was objecting to
: the basic premise of her point in the first paragraph, not her second. When you
: used the word "edit", I thought it involves shifting sentences around or
: snipping sentences within a paragraph. I never thought snipping another
: irrelevant paragraph qualified. So, sue me.
What do you think it means to say "I copied Charisma's entire post"?
Whether she intended it or not, that last paragraph that you snipped
raises an important point. The issue isn't whether a parent as income
outside of the child -- for all we know, the Moceanus have income
(investment income, retirement income, etc.) much as the Kwans do.
Dominique never really claimed her parents didn't have income -- just
that she was the only person in the family working. The real issue is
whether the parents value the child for something other than their
athletic ability. By all accounts, the Kwans (and the Lipinskis) most
certainly do -- and that's why, as Charisma pointed out, the Kwans can be
characterized as doing a much better job than the Moceanus at handling a
child-athlete, and why, as Charisma pointed out, MK is unlikely to sue her
parents any time soon.
Actually, I thought that last paragraph was pretty relevant. But I
understand that it's up to the poster to decide what's relevant and what's
not in a previous post -- but you really can't credibly claim that you
copied her entire post.
-- Kate
HILL JANET SWAN
>> The rest of your statement clearly indicated that you did not know the
>> financial situation of the Kwans. Yet you concluded there was "truth" to the
>> allegation that Danny Kwan has been mis-managing Michelle's money (not that
>> there is any proof that Moceanu has done that either.)
>
>Here is Charisma's post again:
>
>> I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was. The
>> fact is, it DOES have some truth to it, in my opinion...I'll readily admit
>> that I don't know every little detail about Michelle, but if it's true and
>> neither of her parents work, then the original statement is not crap. It's
>> simply an observation.
>>
>It seems to me that Charisma was saying that there may have been truth that the
>Kwans did not work, and not that Danny Kwan has been mis-managing Michelle's
>money as pointed out in her second paragraph.
YES YES YES. I read Charisma's message as a "now let's be accurate"
posting. All she did was point out that there HAD been at least one bit
of accuracy about the earlier posting (that bit of truth being that
neither Michelle's mother nor father currently holds a job "outside the
home").
It's TRUE. But, .... As others have mentioned many times, the mere fact
that a skater's parents do not hold paying jobs outside the home does not
prove that they have no other sources of income, does not prove that they
are not in essence working as "managers", does not prove that the skater
may not be willingly repaying them as best she can for all that they
sacrificed for her ....... etc.
Some of those who were upset about Charisma's posting may well have read
things into it, based on some of the other postings from other people that
appeared at about the same time. .... so she got tarred with a brush
intended for someone else.
janet
--
maeely
> On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 18:29:31 -0600, "Chuckg" <cgla...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >For as long as I've got people like RJ and Vespertine against me, I'll
> >know I'm doing something right. :-)
>
> As long as I've got a lily-livered turd like you against me, I'll know
> I have integrity.
>
*THAT'S* Intergrity?
--
Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
http://www.talkway.com
HILL JANET SWAN
>> As long as I've got a lily-livered turd like you against me, I'll know
>> I have integrity.
Are we giving awards for the most ironic post of the month? If so, this
one has my nomination. (or ... if it's not quite irony, could this be the
"most oxymoronic" since it is internally contradictory?)
janet
--
Leysia Palen
>>Ri...@xmail.com (RJ) wrote:
>
>>> As long as I've got a lily-livered turd like you against me, I'll know
>>> I have integrity.
>
>Are we giving awards for the most ironic post of the month? If so, this
>one has my nomination. (or ... if it's not quite irony, could this be the
>"most oxymoronic" since it is internally contradictory?)
I second the nomination on both counts! (But what in GOD'S name is a
"lily-livered turd?!?")
Leysia
cgla...@hotmail.com
sk8m...@monumental.com wrote:
> Wayne Joy wrote:
> > It seems to me that Charisma was saying that there may have been truth
>
> Not after Mr. Kwan retired from Pacific Bell and the Kwan family sold
> the restaurant, at any rate. "Charisma" (is she Brad's sister, by the
> way? She posts from the same address)
No, Charisma is not Brad's sister. They don't even live in the same state,
although they do use the same ISP for e-mail service. Let's not infer too
much into too little, please.
--
Chuckg
> makes the disastrous mistake of ASSuming that "not working" means "no
> income". I guess she never heard of living off the dividends from one's
> investments.
> If I had substantial investment dividends, I wouldn't have to work
> either. Sigh.
>
> Maven
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
cgla...@hotmail.com
schne...@aol.com (SchnellJan) wrote:
> >It seems to me that Charisma was saying that there may have been truth that
> >the
> >money as pointed out in her second paragraph.
> >
>
> his job. He has his own income, quite seperate from his daughters'.
>
> Charisma used the idea that Kwan doesn't have a job (that we know of) to
> validate the original post.
Actually, no. Charisma used the idea that Danny Kwan currently doesn't have a
job to validate that *portion* of the original post that said that Danny Kwan
currently doesn't have a job. She then went on, in th second paragraph that
almost nobody seems to have read, to say that just because she agrees with the
original poster that Danny Kwan doesn't have a job, that does *not* mean that
Michelle's money is being mismanaged.
> I simply assert that the state of Kwan's employment doesn't validate the
> assertion that he is anything like Moceanu.
Funny thing is, Charisma asserted the exact same thing. Would you like the
relevant paragraph to be quoted yet again? :-)
--
Chuckg
maeely
wrote:
> >On 26 Oct 1998 05:37:06 -0600 Ri...@xmail.com (RJ) wrote:
>
> >> As long as I've got a lily-livered turd like you against me, I'll know
> >> I have integrity.
>
> Are we giving awards for the most ironic post of the month? If so, this
> one has my nomination. (or ... if it's not quite irony, could this be the
> "most oxymoronic" since it is internally contradictory?)
>
> --
I think RJ could sweep in all the categories.........
loop_...@my-dejanews.com
k...@eng.sun.com (Kevin Rushforth) wrote:
> lor...@plover.com (Lorrie Kim) writes:
>
> >In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.981025...@pegasus.rutgers.edu>,
> >PUFFY MUST DIE <ris...@pegasus.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> >>How amny women have landed this combo? I'm fairly new to skating and
> >>can't remember any woman landing this combo in say the past 6 years.
> >
> > Kristi Yamaguchi in Albertville.
> > Not sure how many Midori Ito landed, but I think she did at least
> >one in a pro competition.
>
> Elena Ivanova landed a 3-lutz/3-toe at the 96(?) World Junior
> Championships. It was the only thing of note in her performance.
> Nicole Bobek landed a really shaky one, that may have been cheated, at
> 95 Worlds (I think it was at Worlds). I must admit that I'm surprised
> it hasn't become more common. Instead, we have a situation where only
> about 1/2 of the top ladies do any sort of triple/triple on a regular
> basis.
>
I thought that at the U.S. Pros in San Jose, Michelle Kwan
displayed enough speed in her opening triple lutz-double toe
combination to have turned it into a triple lutz-triple toe.
She is supposed to be working on a series of triple-triple
combinations again.
-jl John
She's the Pied Piper -- Pegeen in AUNTIE MAME
OperettaJK
In article <713o91$30a$1...@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu>, len...@email.unc.edu (Leonard
Ray) writes:
>What do you think it means to say "I copied Charisma's entire post"?
I thought I copied the entire post. I forgot I left out a paragraph I thought
irrelevant. As I said before, so, sue me. Sheeh.
>Whether she intended it or not, that last paragraph that you snipped
>raises an important point.
It's not relevant to the point I was objecting. She said there's truth to RJ's
claim that the Kwans are living off Michelle's money. That's what I objected
to. Her prediction that Michelle won't sue her parents or her opinion that the
Kwans are doing a better job with Michelle's money is not relevant to the point
I was objecting.
>The issue isn't whether a parent as income outside of the child -- for all we
know, >the Moceanus have income (investment income, retirement income, etc.)
much as >the Kwans do. Dominique never really claimed her parents didn't have
income -- just
>that she was the only person in the family working.
Charisma certainly equals "not having a paying job" as "no income" and hence,
she thinks there's truth to the comparison between the Kwans and the Moceanus.
That IS the issue I was objecting to. You can discuss other issues all you want
in other posts. But please don't tell *me* what is the issue *I* was
discussing.
And where did you read Moceanus' finances are the same as the Kwans'? Dumitri
Moceanu was an used car salesman. Moceanus may have plenty of savings and
investments, but I'm unaware car salesmen get good retirement benefits (Correct
me if I'm wrong). I don't think it's a good idea to draw parrellel between the
two families' finances.
Jas > feel like a parrot
Wayne Joy
Wayne Joy
Leonard Ray
: > The rest of your statement clearly indicated that you did not know the
: > financial situation of the Kwans. Yet you concluded there was "truth" to the
: > there is any proof that Moceanu has done that either.)
Actually, she didn't conclude that there was truth to the allegation that
Kwan had been mis-managing his daughter's money. She asserted that in
*her* opinion, there was *some* truth in the idea that in both cases,
neither parents work. (I actually believe that all 4 parents in question
work for pay, but that's neither here nor there).
And, actually, did Charisma even say anything about income?
-- Kate
Leonard Ray
: > So you don't even know whose post you were defending?
: >
Actually, I think that's fairly common, because people don't always
include attributions...and not all of us can access previous posts and
check who wrote the post that we're responding to. She was probably not
reading RJ's original post, but someone else's post who responded to him.
-- Kate
PegLewis
In article <715ilj$h0d$3...@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu>, len...@email.unc.edu (Leonard
Ray) writes:
>Actually, she[Charisma] didn't conclude that there was truth to the allegation
that
>Kwan had been mis-managing his daughter's money. She asserted that in
>*her* opinion, there was *some* truth in the idea that in both cases,
>neither parents work. (I actually believe that all 4 parents in question
>work for pay, but that's neither here nor there).
Charisma *did* post her opinion (in response to my post, which did have proper
attributions I might note), just as I had asserted my opinion that RJ, in the
guise of Lisa Simpson/Sampson, had posted his typical anti-Kwan crap. :-))))))
And Jas was right, too: no one *can* revise which point in Charisma's post she
was responding to initially.
:-) Now, we've explored this debate about who posted what about as far as we
can, and I suggest there's no more to be gained here. Please... Basingstoke
this thread!
<Sweet, angelic grin> Peg, not demanding, just suggesting, politely
Any request to cancel this post is a forgery.
VisitTheAll-KwanNetwork @ http://members.aol.com/AllKwanNet/index.html
VisitLjudmillia's text archive @ http://home.swbell.net/icedance/millia.htm
PUFFY MUST DIE
who seems to be rolling the dough and enjoying huge success ripping off
other people's songs while people with real talent for writing, signing
and rapping are struggling to get themselves heard.
---------------------------------------------------------
| Failure isn't failure if a lesson from its learned |
| Garth Brooks - "How You Ever Gonna Know" |
---------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Sk8Maven wrote:
> PUFFY MUST DIE wrote:
> > How amny women have landed this combo? I'm fairly new to skating and
> > can't remember any woman landing this combo in say the past 6 years.
>
> Seems to me I recall Nicole Bobek pulling it off at least once (1995
> Worlds short?). It's been done, but not very often.
>
> Who is "PUFFY" and what have you got against him/her/it?
>
> Maven
>
>
Blenda
some people are missing some context.
The original post, by sampso...@hotmail.com implied (in a rather
snide tone, IMO) that Michelle's income was the Kwans' sole source of
money and that they were exploiting her. Here is the last paragraph
of that post, which summarizes its main theme:
>Good thing for them Michelle isn't the litigating type, I guess. It will be
>interesting to see all the "explanations" for this, but the painful fact of
>the matter is that Mr & Mrs Kwan are living pretty well off of their
>teenager.
Note the use of the loaded phrase "living pretty well off of their
teenager." The whole post had a similar tone.
After Peg characterized the above as RJ-style crap, Charisma wrote:
>I honestly don't think that "crap" is really what the original post was. The
>fact is, it DOES have some truth to it, in my opinion...I'll readily admit
>that I don't know every little detail about Michelle, but if it's true and
>neither of her parents work, then the original statement is not crap. It's
>simply an observation.
So Charisma seems to be saying that if neither of Michelle's parents
work, then there is truth to the statement that the Kwans are "living
pretty well off of their teenager."
Jas pointed out that "not working" is not the same as "no income".
Perhaps she wasn't as polite as she could have been, but given the
sequence of postings, I think it's understandable. Charisma appeared
to have agreed with an RJ-style post that implied that the Kwans were
exploiting their daughter.
Now, whether Charisma actually agreed with that part of it or not, I
don't know. But it would be easy for people to think that she did.
--------------------------------------------------------------
~ blenda ~
blen...@hotmail.com
SchnellJan
>don't know. But it would be easy for people to think that she did.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>~ blenda ~
>blen...@hotmail.com
>
Thank-you Blenda. I think you hit the nail on the head!
Leonard Ray
: I thought I copied the entire post. I forgot I left out a paragraph I thought
: irrelevant. As I said before, so, sue me. Sheeh.
Shrug. So, Charisma made a mistake about income, and you made a mistake
when you claimed you snipped her entire post. Perhaps you could both sue
each other. :)
(snip)
: And where did you read Moceanus' finances are the same as the Kwans'? Dumitri
: Moceanu was an used car salesman. Moceanus may have plenty of savings and
: investments, but I'm unaware car salesmen get good retirement benefits (Correct
: me if I'm wrong). I don't think it's a good idea to draw parrellel between the
: two families' finances.
I never said the Moceanus finances were the same as the Kwans' -- just
that both probably had income. But I agree that it's not a good idea to
draw parallels between the two families' finances -- because the larger
issue here (not necessarily in this thread) is not finances. Its whether
money has been mismanaged, and the general question of the relationship
between child-athletes and their parents. And there, as Charisma pointed
out, there seem to be lots of differences between the Moceanus and most
skating parents that we talk about.
-- Kate
Leonard Ray
Jas, you're entirely right -- it's entirely up to you what's relevant and
what's not (I actually said that in this thread, but it bears repeating).
I just thought you came down pretty hard on Charisma, even though, as
someone said, her post could have been interpreted to imply that she
agreed with RJ. And *I* wanted to emphasize that she did draw important
differences between the Kwans and the Moceanus.
Peg, I'm taking your advice and basingstroking myself.
Anyway, Moceanu reached a settlement. Pretty sad, nonetheless.
Obskating: Thank goodness skateamerica is around the corner! Next week I
anticipate post after post devoted to (gasp!) Brittany McConn.
Of course, I have to shop around for a new favorite. Perhaps we could
identify who the viable underdog is in these competitions, a whole bunch
of people could develop a dislike for her or her skating, and then I'd be
right back in business. If she skates really fast to upbeat music and
has good spins, that would help. :)
-- kate
Kaiju
>
> >A plagiarist has integrity? You couldn't even come up with your own
> >comeback, you had to paraphrase mine. (LOL)
> >
> >--
> >Chuckg (I know, I know, "do not feed the troll"...)
> >
> well i guess that means NO FOOD at hot tub!!!!!!!!!!!
And the pod person wonders why he isn't invited. We don't eat our favorite
troll food...we save them to play with later. Proverbially speaking.
Kaiju <sort of like how my hunter cat slaps around the rats he catches before
he kills them...>
--
Microsoft SHOULD include a browser in its operating systems--how else
can you get online to download the bug fixes?