Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (40190)	5/19/2003 3:45:16 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57110

if she didn't have to qualify, then I would object to her being in the tournament.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (40190)	5/19/2003 3:53:13 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

Just think of all the problems this will create. There will be guys talking about stiff shafts, big heads and clean balls. No doubt this is a sexual harassment case waiting to happen <g>

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (40190)	5/19/2003 3:59:42 PM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57110

Sponsor's exemptions are used for players that would not have made the tournament for whatever reason so for Vijay to say she is taking the spot of a more qualified player I think is wrong. She is taking the spot of another man that wasn't good enough to make the tournament of his own accord. Tiger never went to Q school but rather was granted the maximum of I think 6 sponsor exemptions in the hopes that he would win enough money to be granted status that way. He did of course and the rest is history but Tiger was given his opportunity rather then having to earn it by attending Q school so I think this argument is just plain wrong. And again the sponsor has exemptions to allow people in for their benefit and this will certainly benefit the sponsor.