Howdy,
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, James Rogerson wrote:
> This whole discussion started with eliminating marginally subscribed
> classes and along with that changing the definition of what number
> would constitute an under subscribed class, just too make the awards
> dinner shorter.
>
> That led to leave "my" class alone and get rid of all those slow
> undeserving women.
Since I'm the one that started the discussion, let me catagorically say
"you're wrong".
What happened was that people were talking about eliminating marginally
subscribed classes and I looked at national results and discovered that 27
of 30 ladies classes had less than 12 competitors. I then asked the
question / proposed that we should look at eliminating those classes
rather than raising the number of participants bar.
If anyone has gotten the impression that I think women are slow and
undeserving, please accept my apologies. I expressely DO NOT believe
that. That belief, in many ways, leads me to my current position of
thinking the Ladies classes should be either eliminated or made into a
"Novice" set of classes open to men as well as women.
Mark
|