25th March 07:29
Why hardbaters are evil selfish hate-mongering s***
If you're referring to the necessity of psychiatric treatment to rid
myself of being evil selfish hate-mongering "hardbater (sic)" s***, I
believe you would have me be sent to Bellevue, not Bellview, Hospital
in New York City.
I wrote and you snipped
To which you asked the question:
To which I replied, "going back to hardbat" might attract them, and
cited a number or reasons why: hardrubber rackets are less expensive
for both children and institutions where table tennis is played, hard
rubber play is more conducive to social play in a non-competitive
atmosphere, children should be taught to play, even if not potentially
Olympic-eligible candidates, at at least a minimally competitive level
with simple and balanced and user-friendly equipment.
You chose to ignore addressing the validity or soundness of my
reasoning and chose instead to beg the question, saying in effect, case
closed, the USOC isn't funding USATT to produce hardbat playing
children, it's psychotic to even think about it.
Well, gee. The USATT 2003 Table Tennis Budget Summary tells us that
we're getting a little over $307,000 in USOC revenues. We spent about
$120,000 on elite program expenses. We received about $225,000 in
membership income. We have about 8 junior girls and 2 junior boys who,
according to the Nov.-Dec. 2003 issue of USA Table Tennis Magazine, are
currently Olympic-eligible players.
That's 10 Olympic-eligible children, presumably paying an average or
around $20 per year for a junior USATT membership. Roughly a total of
$200 in income to USATT coffers.
$120,000 of the total 2003 expenses is devoted to elite programs. If
you had 6,000 hardrubber playing juniors at an average of $20 a year
for a junior membership, even if as a group they were only averaging
1200 USATT-level "ping pong", you could cover 2003 elite program
15,350 1200-level hardrubber junior "pingpong(ers)" at $20 a pop per
year would match 2003 USOC revenues.
11,250 of these 1200-playing hard rubber socialized kids at $20 a pop
per year would match 2003 USATT membership revenues, or just about pay
for headquarters expenses (around $227,000) as well.
Again, about 10 currently Olympic-eligible juniors are contributing, at
$20 a pop for a yearly junior membership, about $200 towards USATT
projected yearly income. The USOC is giving USATT around $307,000 "not
to produce children playing pingpong." If USOC were to be giving USATT
around 307 grand solely to try to produce eventual Olympic medalists
from today's juniors, based on current junior Olympic eligibility
(around 10 juniors) it's gonna need about 13,340 more juniors, at $20 a
year for a junior membership, to match several hundred thousand dollars
in its grant relative to about $200 in Olympic-eligible junior