At 10:51 AM -0800 2/22/1999, K.C. Babb wrote:
>History of non-protesting doesn't mean a configuration is legal. It
>may just mean that there was a "gentleman's agreement", or that those
>who might have cared didn't think it was a significant performance
>issue. Somebody obviously did care this year.
This reminds me of a conversation I overheard is the lunchline at the
runoffs many years ago. Two stewards were talking. One said that in their
region they didn't enforce the X rule because it was clearly stupid. The
other pointed out that stupid rules MUST be enforced, so protests are
generated, and then the stupid rules can be changed.
pZ
--
Paul Czarnecki
Listen. Do. MacSpeech.
http://www.macspeech.com/
|