posted Dec 7, 2008

LOL

But you were wrong, but maybe you don't care about that either?

The points valid, however, and you were attacking thelma, but I guess apologizing to someone else (not me obviously) is beyond you.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 7, 2008

I wasn't attacking anyone, again you bang on about me attacking people which simply isn't true. I didn't notice the date on the post and I provided a link to support what I said.

I was not wrong, the amount of Paralympic funding, nor funding for athletes has been cut. Is it simply the number of those who receive it

Must be a rather empty life for you scouting around on here looking for the podium to stand up on and puff out your chest. Your doing well in the 606 awards tho. Good luck with that.

Your are running the risk of sounding like my stalker, how sad

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 7, 2008

Not at all, I look at the disabled thread a lot, commented more here than most places.
As to commenting on you, again not true, I just can't keep my mouth shut when I see inaccuracies, and you seem to have more than most.

Stop printing rubbish and I won't have to correct you. Oh no, not a stalker comment....couldn't you think of anything original to say?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 7, 2008

well then it's fortunate that I wasn't inaccurate, just responding with facts that were unavailable at the time of the original article.

The number of those on the program has been cut but paralympic athletics and paralympic sport has not had it's funding cut.

Come on, I'm sure you can be more childish than this if you try really hard

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 8, 2008

So you need me to spell it out for you.

UK Athletics - 'The overall number of disabled athletes supported by the UK Athletics World Class Performance Programme (WCPP) has been cut from the previous year of 42 to 33.'

Note...FEWER ATHLETES


OP said - 'However, be that as it may, I think it is incredibly short sighted of UK Athletics to cut the funding to athletes who will be going all out to compete in London 2012. Why are they doing this?.....Does it mean that those athletes left behind for Beijing are now totally written off?'

'How can Team GB shine as they should in 2012 if athletes are forced to quit?'

Note...FEWER ATHLETES



hurdler - 'The amount of money put aside for disability athletics has not been cut at all, where have you read this?

It has actually been INCREASED by over 16 million pounds!'

Note...The amount of money put aside for disability athletics has not been cut at all, where have you read this?. OP never said that, what made you ask that question other than a lack of understanding of the point made.

Note....It has actually been INCREASED by over 16 million pounds. Why highlight INCREASED, it's irrelevant to OP's post and demonstates further misunderstanding of the point made.



hurdler - 'I didn't notice the date on the post and I provided a link to support what I said.'

Note...As said, the link is irrelevant to thread. You didn't notice the date? Oh my, and you contiue to argue, that sums you up.



hurdler - 'I was not wrong, the amount of Paralympic funding, nor funding for athletes has been cut. Is it simply the number of those who receive it'

Note - This is exactly what thelma said, so why your initial post questioning her?



hurdler - 'Must be a rather empty life for you scouting around on here looking for the podium to stand up on and puff out your chest.'

Note...People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.



The bottom line is this. How come you made a sarcastic post (yes I know you'll deny it, but we all know the truth) towards OP on a subject thelma wasn't discussing? Is it arrogance to assume that this discussion should change direction to allow you to use your link? Or is it a misunderstanding leading to an inaccurate assessment of the subject matter, that cause you to make your irrelevant post?


I'm not looking for an argument, but will always correct anyone when thier post is wrong, irrelevant, inaccurate, fallacious etc. If you have a problem with that, then you are open to do 3 things.

1. Stop posting things I can pick up on.

2. Stop posting.

3. Engage in debate and defend your views.



I refer to something I said before. You are entitled to your opinion, and entitled to publish it (within the rules of the site). I am entitled to question you and/or make observations on your posts. This is called a discussion.

I don't insult you, just respond to what you say. I fail to see what you could possibly get annoyed about. So with that in mind, will you continue with the (attempted) insults, desist with your silly comments and engage in civilised conversation, or will you simply just leave the discussion?

Perhaps you could start by commenting on the cuts to the number of athletes being funded for 2012, that is what this thread is about after all.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 8, 2008

Why don't you guys get a FU#KING grip and remember what this thread is all about fools , take it elsewhere . .

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 8, 2008

seavilla,

You will no doubt have read my last paragraph, which states that very thing.

Your post does cocern me, however, as it doesn't contribute to the thread in any constructive way. In fact your first post didn't have anything to do with the OP's subject. By your own admission your

'Not really up on the funding issue'

I at least posted a link to support the OP's initial comment, and hurdler provided a link to show the levels of paralympic funding.

I fail to see the need for the cunningly disguised profanity either, did you specifically need it to add weight to your post?

Perhaps you would like to comment on the funding issue in a constructive manner, rather than having a little rant

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 9, 2008

Thanks for the support and sorry for the negativity. You are right, my main concern is for all those athletes cast adrift with totally no financial support, not the fact that a privileged few will get more support. We need MORE disabled athletes, not less. We must help those people who have done well in the past to continue to improve, and encourage all those up and coming athletes to compete and get the right equipment. I know there is a credit crunch and money is in short supply for a lot of people, but as I said, a weeks salary from a top soccer player would help a lot of deserving cases, a fraction of 16 million.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 9, 2008

Is is unfortunate that money does not come from the footballers. The funding has been tightened and those who provide it have been less inclined to donate if they don't see a return I.e Medals. This money is not like premiership footballers, it's not really a business as the majority of the money comes from the taxpayer through the government and so there is far more accountability for where it goes.

I'm not saying I agree with cutting athletes from the funding but it is clear that we cannot continue to fund any athletes who aren't delivering the performances. Which is what many have been cut from both the lists.

Lottery funding should not be seen as the be all and end all of producing athletes. It should also not be seen as a right. It is a reward, a return on good performances.

Cutting funding should not and will not reduce the number of paralympic or able bodied athletes as getting them into the sport was never due to throwing money at them in the first place. It is down to the work of clubs, coaches and the governing bodies.

Cutting funding will make it difficult for a handful of athletes who will no longer be able to train full time but this is a situation hundreds of athletes are in at the moment. Performances will speak for themselves.

There would be just as much criticism should UKA/UKsport be giving money to athletes who were not hitting the appropriate marks such as international finals

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 9, 2008

Giv eit up hotneedle, we all know you haven't got a clue.

add comment | complain about this comment