From:                   Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]>
>
> I've scoured the Bible and the Koran on this one.

Well, there's your first problem; you didn't consult  the Talmud ;-)

> I'm still at a loss and I'd still appreciate the thoughts of anyone
> whose greater understanding of right and wrong explains why, when
> conflicting winning objectives are involved, only one can be
> justified,    . . . and which one.

I suppose any answer that denounces intentionally losing a game
will defy "logic", but then, so does the mere presence of sport. It's not
a rational necessity of life, but in fact is a sort of idealogical
microcosm of life, an experience played by a fair and just set of
rules, and governed by objective officials overseeing all facets of
play, but still requiring a voluntary bilateral focusing of might and
energy within the framework of these guidelines. It's like life, but
not. Ultimately, isn't that the appeal of sport? Fighting until the
bitter end, but maintaining your dignity, having perhaps gone down
in a fair fight, displaying all the qualities of fair play and
sportsmanship? It's what we all too often *don't* have in everyday
life, but we can look forward to it when watching our favourite
teams go at it on the weekend; taking pride not just in vicrories but
in effort. Organized sports at any level is nothing without fans or
interest, and it is an insult to sport itself to, at *any* time,  *not*
engage in the spirit of competition; for without that spirit, there is no
essence of sport, no driving force to get you to that game that you
are thinking about intentionally losing. In that sense, I see this issue
as a no-brainer.

But then, I could be wrong.

Robert