Roger came in out of the barn long enough to write:
> I really expected lots of flames, having stepped on the toes of
> almost all of the special interests;
Voicing a dissenting opinion is not a bad thing - in fact, I often worry about a
vocal minority painting an entirely different picture than the silent majority.
And just because someone hold a different opionion than I - and is not afraid to
voice it - doesn't make them my sworn enemy. :) Reasonable people can disagree,
and still remain friends.
Incidently, those of us who would change the rules or class structure of this
sport would do well to listen to those who have gone before. That doesn't mean
you have to agree with them, but you should listen. :)
> I would ask those, still promoting a particular category/class to look
> at the BIG picture, and define just what is the proper number of classes
> for National competition.
That's an interesting question, with two possible answers. Either we grow the
number of classes without bounds as long as there is sufficient participation to
support them, or we set a fixed limit - which implies that the creation of a new
class, once the limit is reached, requires the destruction of an old one.
Urk! How to make an "I-classer's" job really tough in a hurry. Making the "foo
is needed" cas is hard enough now, adding in "and it's bar that should be axed
to make room" makes it even more of a religeous issue than it is now.
In terms of enhancing participation, "more is (probably) better". In terms of
marketing, logistics, and administrative load, "less is better".
This naturally leads to the "do we really need Lady's classes?" argument. The
"L" classes are STU writ very large - it's the same thing at the core.
And I'm not gonna go there. :)
DG
|