"Sir. I don't know about you but the satisfaction which I, as a spectator, derive from the Olympics does not evolve solely from watching Carl Lewis run faster than Ivan Gregoriovich. Yes, I enjoy witnessing the finest athletes in the world striving to beat one another. And, yes, I can empathize with them when that opportunity is destroyed, because their governments use them as political lever age. And upon first instinct, I too, condemn the politicization of the Olympics.

"But, then I delve deeper and I stumble upon the true meaning and significance of the Olympics. I believe that athletics are only a forum which allows diverse, diffuse and struggling nations to surmount their differences and come together. The Olympics symbolize the ability of such nations to overcome political disputes to achieve a common end. To me, politics are just as an important element of the Olympics as are the events."

"Hold on a second, sir, We've listened long enough, says one of the men as the atmosphere of the room grows tumultuous again. "How can you contend that politics and the Olympics should have anything to do with each other."

Sir, when you gentlemen complain that politics have ruined the Olympics, you overlook the fulfillment of a need which we all receive by accepting the political significance of the Games Recently, it is true, politics have dampened the sprit of the Olympics, and it's quite easy to accentuate such failures. But by doing this, you all ignore the political benefits which we can and do gamer from the Games. These benefits aren't as starkly noticeable as the failings which political association potentionally entails, but they are just as profound Isn't it soothing to know that the world can organize itself without decay? Only through such association can we grasp such profound successes."

"I have trouble accepting this. What you speak of is wholey unconventional. We've always scorned the Olympics for its impurities. Day in and day out we intellectualize and mourn its political nature. It's hard to even appreciate your ideas," one of the baffled men admits.

"But wait a minute," interjects a still very angry man. "It's been years since we have achieved the political conciliation and unity of which you speak. Every Olympiad since 1976 has been marred by boycotts and international squabbles."

"Yes, that's true," answers the stranger. "But taken in a historical context, three Olympiads marred by political disputes isn't such a grave development. History goes in cycles it has been said. In 1936, Hitler's regime processed the Munich Games into a format which only exposed his propaganda globally. And World War II prevented the sponsoring of the Games in 1940 and 1944. But, from 1948 until 1972 the Olympics had succeeded in allowing nations temporarily to ignore their political vitality. True, the 1968 and '72 Games had their political incidents, but neither of them signaled the inability of nations to associate with one another."

"Hey, he's beginning to make some sense I know that when I watched the 1984 Winter Olympics I found it striking to witness ABC television cameras surveying the culture of a communist country and interviewing its people. Perhaps we have underestimated the significance of such an occurrence which only the Olympics can provide. It, indeed, is admirable that all countries could come together, despite the fact that the Games took place in a country which can ambiguously be described as a Soviet satellite."

These men, no longer angry, now speak in an empty murmur.

The stranger distances himself from the table and proclaims. "Gentlemen, think about an Olympics where the best compete against the best, but without associations with their countries. Yes, it would lack the sometimes burdensome political ramifications of the Games, but how empty such an Olympiad would seem, how pointless."

And the stranger leaves