Ed Mercier wrote...
> So you're saying you would be just as likely to make this remark about a male player
> (maybe Buddy Hall?) as a female player (Allison)? If no, it's a sexist remark. If
> yes, you're a dope. Your choice I guess.

The conversation was about Earl vs. Allison. If those two were to match up, which one would be more likely to make an ass of themselves, use sharking tactics, argue calls, etc.?

Now wouldn't that leave the other player in the position of possibly being upset by such antics?

Wouldn't that be a horrible thing for CueTec?

If I'd said Allison might make Earl cry that would make no sense, not because Earl is a man, but because Allison would never behave that badly. Earl does behave that badly, so anyone he plays has to be extra careful to not let him get under their skin.

You can read sexist into my statement if you want, but I think I deserve more consideration than this knee-jerk reaction. It seems to me that your implication that only a "dope" would make this remark about Earl vs. another male player could also be inferred as a sexist stand.

I won't make that inference about you because I've read enough from you to feel that, while you are at times wrong, you at least seem to feel that you have a legitimate reason for your opinions. I doubt you could justify these kinds of sexist feelings to yourself, therefore I doubt that you're a sexist. It would be nice if you could give me the same consideration.