LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > The Fashionable

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 482
0 members and 482 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 05-15-2003, 06:22 PM   #11
Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Moderator
 
Oliver_Wendell_Ramone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Rose City 'til I Die
Posts: 3,306
Singh apologizes to Sorenstam

Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why is it different?

And the "well, it just is" answer won't suffice.

not7y(slippery slopes are very slippery)S
The slope doesn't look so slippery from where I stand. Probably just because I have yet to spill my drink on the slope. But anyway, the 14-16 league is for kids up to age 16; if a 12 year old is good enough to play with the big kids, no harm. The 12 year old league is for kids up to 12. I see no issue with not allowing the fat talentless 15 year old to play with the younger kids.

Similarly, and I could be wrong about this, but I don't see the word "men's" in the PGA. It is the tour for the best golfers in the world, period. What's her name may not meet that definition, but if a sponsor with a free pass wants to give her a chance to try, so be it. The LPGA, in contrast, is expressly for "ladies." It acknowledges that most, and probably all, of its participants couldn't hack it on the PGA tour. I see no problem with letting the top chick try to play with the big boys, while denying some hack from the Nationwide tour the opportunity to play on the LADIES Pro Golfers' Association tour.
__________________
Drinking gin from a jam jar.
Oliver_Wendell_Ramone is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20 PM.