Re: No 1 WDC Amateur League OPEN World Amateur Championships CORRECT POST VERSION
Friday, 04 July 2008 13:06
@keggs
don't beg. As soon as Onyoutoes says good bye, you change your tune and ask for more of the same humiliation, have you a backbone ?
By the way it was Polkadancer, whom you responded in Will2's example, I remember.
Do you really believe that your way (pages of continues arguing, mutual disagreeing and belittling one another ), is finding THE SOLUTION to WDC and IDSF differences which would inspire those who can make things happen ?
In my opinion, those who could make changes may indeed read what is being discussed, and are probably rolling on the ground in a spasm of laughter. Is this is the blueprint how they should conduct themselves during negotiations ?
Lets start another topic, this has gone to a dead end.
Just do not apologize for being and feeling what you are, do not be the amoeba, jelly fish which you cannot poke to draw blood, cause the stick just sinks into the flesh as there is no resistance.
I agree with Jazz , and by the way, I finaly remembered what I wanted to say a few posts earlier.
Let me change the tone and share it with you ( before senility and forgetfulness sets in again ):
If a dancer ( member of IDSF 'family' ) attends a competition which is not authorized by IDSF ( for example ) they would have to cause IDSF harm ( or their organisation).
Only then IDSF (or the affiliated national body ) would have any chance for success to uphold any sanctions taken against the 'offending' dancer, if challenged by the dancer in the court .
What damage would the dancer cause ( other than embarrassment for proving they can do nothing ) to IDSF if they danced in an - unauthorized by IDSF - competition during, lets say, their visit to see relatives in far China ?
I agree what was mentioned earlier and I urge readers to note that IDSF and member associations do not threaten anyone with a specific penalty , punishment or expulsions for breaking their Rules.
They simply suggest that if a member breaks the Rule that there are Policies and Rules in existence which deal with the subject, and spell out specific penalties which could be applied.
They are however very careful not to directly threaten, and they do not say they would punish anyone.
There is a reason for such wording, and I believe that IDSF would rather not be tested.
This is not to say that other Rules pertaining to testing for restricted, performance enhancing substances fall into same category .
But the Rules which are formulated , and it could be argued, with the intent to restrict commerce/ business competition, and to advance monopoly may even be illegal.
Such self serving rules not only restrict the national members and their membership, but it may be argued they cause them harm by limiting opportunity to gain more experience, to improve and to advance, even limit opportunity for exposure, public recognition and associated advantages.Just what opportunities and new careers were offered to dancers participating in various dance reality TV shows ).
That's all.
PS Steeve , we will not leave you to dry out in the sun. If someone wants to depart, just wave good bye, they will come back, they want to talk, and you have the pages of proof.
|