----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 4:19
PM
Subject: RE: [Sndbox] Here's what
Merriam's says about Cheerleader Debate
If one person doesn't like the sermon it
*IS* discouraging. It doesn't cause me not to preach, but when someone
is not satisfied and vocalizes it, yes it is
discouraging.
It's irrelevant whether or not the
discouragement results in failure. The fact still remains that the job
of a cheerleader is *ONLY* to encourage the team and the fans.
She...errr...he...has no other function. If they do something contrary
to that function intentionally then they should be removed.
Yes, I'm sure that the negative publicity,
and potential loss of money from donors had a huge impact on the decision to
cut him from the squad. Maybe even an overriding impact on it. It
does not change the point I've made from the beginning that a cheerleader who
intentionally demoralizes the team (which *is* what happened) needs to be
removed.
There are numerous reasons he should have
been removed, including the potential for lost revenue. I like Tim's
reason too, because he's an idiot.
I'm simply saying that his actions
demoralized the team. It may not have demoralized them to the point it
affected their performance, but the result is irrelevant.
Charles
Mims
In a message dated 11/26/2003 5:10:53 PM Eastern
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, the appropriate choice
was discourage. And yeah, any team that has it's own cheerleaders
rooting for the other side is going to be discouraged by it. I just
really don't see how you don't realize that. I mean it's like saying
if your own friends and family won't support you who will?
