Update

After several attempts, my post from yesterday was published on Yahoo Sports! Maybe creating this blog has helped in getting my voice heard.

Here I Come Again....

Yahoo Sports (Tennis) has decided to ban me again! They published my original post, but refuse to allow me to respond to my critics or my supporters. Hence, doing the needful here:

In response to deluded folks of a particular hue (or rather the lack of it) constantly declaring that the melanin-deprived female tennis players are always pleasing to the eye, while those blessed with melanin are ugly, I confidently wrote that in my opinion the exact opposite is the truth! I criticised the physical appearances of those megalomaniacs and lauded the pulchritude of some members of the "colourful" group. I received a couple of responses to my comment, but am being denied the right to relay my thoughts regarding those responses. Here are the replies to my original note, followed by my forbidden retort & acknowledgement:

1) John T says: Gee, guess the rest of the world forgot that there is only one standard of beauty and you own the rights to it. Get OVER yourself. By the way, what was the last beauty pageant *you* won?(crickets)
Exactly.

My "censored" response: John T, I'd love to discuss my own dazzling beauty in vivid detail, but a character flaw of mine prevents me from doing so. You see, I'm humble to a fault!

2) Nightwing69 says: YOU ROCK, OneWiseWoman!

My "censored" response: Thanks, Nightwing69. The Yahoo Sports guys are often banning this unassuming "rock"-star, though; hence the dire need for this blog!

Golden Words HAVE TO BE Repeated!

OK, here we go! Yahoo Sports (Tennis) website....one of the primary offenders! They flatly refuse to publish the following post of mine. Other posts keep streaming in, though, and in comparison to some of the inane comments, mine sounds almost Shakespearean in quality! Also, other sites are posting my messages, hence the fault definitely doesn't lie with my connection. The article in discussion bears the heading:

"INTERVIEW-Tennis-Clijsters to play on for maximum two years"

The subject in discussion: Australian Open champion Kim Clijsters plans to play on for a maximum two years following her remarkable run of success since returning to the tour in 2009 after taking time out to have a baby.

Here's my "offensive" post that those sanctimonious upholders of virtue deem unprintable. Nothing great, but a gem in comparison with some of the obtuse remarks that ARE deemed worthy:

"I have mixed feelings about this matter. While I totally respect Kim Clijsters's decision to plan her own future, I also feel that this doesn't reflect too well on professional women. It's not just sports....you hear complaints about women from a variety of professions simply quitting for family or personal reasons upon reaching their peaks in their respective fields! When your talent is noticed by your experienced superiors and you are groomed for greater responsibilities & success, then it's natural for your bosses to expect serious dedication to your job. I deplore sexism & prejudice against women, but have to acknowledge that when mentors repeatedly find their male proteges displaying far greater ambition & devotion to their professions than their female counterparts, they are bound to prefer the former to the latter! These days women get annoyed if they are asked about their future family & marriage plans during interviews for highly demanding jobs. However, in all fairness, from the boss's perspective, it's necessary to determine if the talented & qualified person they are planning on training & preparing for a demanding career is serious about dedicating his/her life to it! Can you imagine the waste of time & effort (not to mention the setbacks to the department itself) if your golden girl, about to be named your honoured successor, suddenly decides to bid adieu to her career because she'd rather focus on a hubby + cute little babies??!!"