Are the new timings constructive in creating popular appeal to spectators?

[ThatReallyHurt]

Originally Posted by Alan

If only his majesty and his excellency cared more about the opinion
of a majority of foilists, this would not happen.

Wait, I'm lost - who is "His Majesty", and who is "His Excellency" again?

I thought Mr. Roch was "His Majesty"...

[Alan]

Originally Posted by ThatReallyHurt

Wait, I'm lost - who is "His Majesty", and who is "His Excellency" again?

I thought Mr. Roch was "His Majesty"...

You are right for Mr Roch.

And his Excellency :

Two new Vice Presidents have been nominated for the next
four years (2004-2008) in this, the first Committee meeting
after the elective congress in December: H.E. Saoud Bin
Abdulrahman Al-Thani from Qatar and the Rumanian Ana Pascu were
elected. “His Excellency has greatly helped to develop
fencing in the past three years, since he became
president of the Qatar Fencing Federation”, Roch said.

from
http://www.fie.ch/download/press/200...%20Doha_nr.pdf

[ThatReallyHurt]

Ah. Thanks.

Cleared that up nicely.

[JackSparrow]

I think we should refer to Roch as 'His Eminence'. It has a much more evil, scheming Cardinal Richelieu feel to it.

[Inquartata]

Yes, except Richelieu actually did his kingdom some good on occasion...

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by JackSparrow

I think we should refer to Roch as 'His Eminence'. It has a much more evil, scheming Cardinal Richelieu feel to it.

I think that we should refer to Rene Roch as "Mr. Roch" because even though he made some decisions that we may not agree with, calling him names doesn't do anything for us.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I think that we should refer to Rene Roch as "Mr. Roch" because even though he made some decisions that we may not agree with, calling him names doesn't do anything for us.

Sorry but the constant photographs and naming of his Eminence in the latest issue of "Roch Magazine" makes him deserve this title.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I think that we should refer to Rene Roch as "Mr. Roch" because even though he made some decisions that we may not agree with, calling him names doesn't do anything for us.

Only a few people are calling names. Boy does that get boring, over and over again. Everybody else seems to understand the principles of representative democracy.

Alan wants Roch to be a direct proxy for Alan's whims. Roch ought not be able to make a decision without Alan telling him yes or no. This is not how the world works. The reality is that Roch was elected to act in our interests, not to be passed around like a handpuppet where every fencer gets to make him talk for 5 minutes a year. "We" chose him because we believed he had the ability to exercise initiative based on circumstances. He's doing what he's been tasked to do.

There remain the questions of how FIE officials are elected, whether Roch is doing a good job, and whether the timing change should be a referendum. But the stuff Alan repetitively complains about is not connected to the real problems.

Alan will write back: "You think my points are repetitive. I think YOUR points are repetitive."

[Alan]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Alan wants Roch to be a direct proxy for Alan's whims.

Alan will write back: "You think my points are repetitive. I think YOUR points are repetitive."

No. I don't want him to back my advice but the advice of a majority of adult *foilists*. PERIOD.

Of course his Eminence will not dare to organize this kind of consultation because he knows that a large majority of foilists are against these broken test timings.

And yes your points and my points are repetitive.
(for once i agree with you)

But the awful Foilepee matches we see day after day are even more repetitive.

And the repetitive reforms of his Eminence to spoil foil are repetitive also.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

"We" chose him because we believed he had the ability to exercise initiative based on circumstances.

By the way "We" didn't chose him in a democratic manner.

One country = one vote is an heresy.

The number of votes of a country should take into account
the number of fencers in the country.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Alan

By the way "We" didn't chose him in a democratic manner.

That is precisely why the "we" is in quotes. In English, quotes used like this mean not really. There was another clue when I wrote: "There remain the questions of how FIE officials are elected, whether Roch is doing a good job, and whether the timing change should be a referendum."

The number of votes of a country should take into account the number of fencers in the country.

You're off topic. You're criticising Roch, but what you really want to change is the political structure of the FIE? So then, what's the point of calling Roch names 30 times a day? &etc. &etc. The reason you can post message after message is because your reasoning is circular.

Lastly, you're wrong about my point being repetitive. That was the first time I'd brought up representative democracy. You can't say things just to say them -- words mean things.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

That is precisely why the "we" is in quotes. In English, quotes used like this mean not really. There was another clue when I wrote: "There remain the questions of how FIE officials are elected, whether Roch is doing a good job, and whether the timing change should be a referendum." You're off topic. You're criticising Roch, but what you really want to change is the political structure of the FIE? So then, what's the point of calling Roch names 30 times a day? &etc. &etc. The reason you can post message after message is because your reasoning is circular.

Lastly, you're wrong about my point being repetitive. That was the first time I'd brought up representative democracy. You can't say things just to say them -- words mean things.

I meant your arguments to defend these broken test timings
are repetitive.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Alan

I meant your arguments to defend these broken test timings
are repetitive.

You're off topic. The point at hand is how the FIE is functioning as designed, and how meaningless it is to call Roch names.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

You're off topic. The point at hand is how the FIE is functioning as designed, and how meaningless it is to call Roch names.

Well i think it is not meaningless to call him his Eminence
because he deserves it (and probably wish it) as attested in the latest issue of "Roch Magazine".

Just don't do that if you think it is meaningless.

[wflaschka]

Originally Posted by Alan

Well i think it is not meaningless to call him his Eminence
because he deserves it (and probably wish it) as attested in the latest issue of "Roch Magazine". Just don't do that if you think it is meaningless.

Off topic again. It's already very clear that you think it's meaningful to call Roch names. The point is that it is not meaningful.

Let's review. You haven't disagreed that the FIE is running as designed. You haven't disagreed that Roch is doing the job according to the job description. You haven't disagreed that the FIE is structured along the lines of a representative democracy. You haven't disagreed that there are big questions about [1] how FIE officials are elected, [2] whether Roch is doing a good job, and [3] perhaps the timing change should be a referendum.

Other people may disagree with my assertions above... but not you. You see? You haven't been saying very much all along. The only reason you post is to call Roch names, and say "Foilepee" all the time. Are you even a fencer? How can you look at threads about "How to parry", "Footwork technique", "Good/bad blades" and not once want to join the discussion?

[Alan]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Off topic again. It's already very clear that you think it's meaningful to call Roch names. The point is that it is not meaningful.

Let's review. You haven't disagreed that the FIE is running as designed. You haven't disagreed that Roch is doing the job according to the job description. You haven't disagreed that the FIE is structured along the lines of a representative democracy. You haven't disagreed that there are big questions about [1] how FIE officials are elected, [2] whether Roch is doing a good job, and [3] perhaps the timing change should be a referendum.

Other people may disagree with my assertions above... but not you. You see? You haven't been saying very much all along. The only reason you post is to call Roch names, and say "Foilepee" all the time. Are you even a fencer? How can you look at threads about "How to parry", "Footwork technique", "Good/bad blades" and not once want to join the discussion?

Who are you to give me lessons ???
You haven't even read that i have said before.

I have explained clearly that i thought about the FIE and the broken test
timings and all the questions you are speaking about.

Feel free to ignore my posts if you don't understand what i am saying.
I think they are many people which share my views as the different polls
clearly show...

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Other people may disagree with my assertions above... but not you. You see? You haven't been saying very much all along. The only reason you post is to call Roch names, and say "Foilepee" all the time. Are you even a fencer? How can you look at threads about "How to parry", "Footwork technique", "Good/bad blades" and not once want to join the discussion?

Actually, on topic (I hope), the FIE seems to be doing the best with a crappy hand. I think that the timings are a decision by comittee to fix something that is indeed broken. Foil, under the old rules, either resembled sabre or spastic fencing. Attack, off-target, ad nauseum. Indeed, I think, to a certain extent, even sabre under the old timings was broken (and certainly with the off-target lights). The comittee realised that these repetive actions were killing the sport, both for beginners, and for those with experience. The ability to get hit then, at leisure, finish an attack with a flick and get the point, was assinine. Tightening the timings is something that's been long overdue, especially as whether it is technically possible is also long dead.

The purpose of fencing is to fence. The purpose of fencing with electrics is to make the adjudication of fencing easier. It's not to make foil, foil. Nor is it to make epee, epee. Nor is it to make sabre, sabre. It's to fence.

In that light, the current composition of the FIE is a good mix. If you have a system where only fencers get to vote on fencing matters, then you have a static system that can't change. It's not good for the sport, they'd scream, and really mean, crap, overnight, I'm not going to win anymore. Conversely, it's not good to have the FIE as a true representive democracy. If that were the case, only those fencing countries, would ever fence and again, fencing would stay static.

I personally think Roch is doing a good job. He's taken a lot of flak over the foil timings and, instead of backing down to pressure, he's stuck with it, for the better I think. There are some fundamental problems with the game right now and they need to be addressed. I'd rather have him in office, with his experience at the job, fighting to keep fencing an Olympic sport, then someone else who doesn't give a darn about Canadian fencing, for example, because there aren't as many of us as there are American fencers.

Take it easy.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Actually, on topic (I hope), the FIE seems to be doing the best with a crappy hand. I think that the timings are a decision by comittee to fix something that is indeed broken. Foil, under the old rules, either resembled sabre or spastic fencing. Attack, off-target, ad nauseum. Indeed, I think, to a certain extent, even sabre under the old timings was broken (and certainly with the off-target lights). The comittee realised that these repetive actions were killing the sport, both for beginners, and for those with experience. The ability to get hit then, at leisure, finish an attack with a flick and get the point, was assinine. Tightening the timings is something that's been long overdue, especially as whether it is technically possible is also long dead.

The purpose of fencing is to fence. The purpose of fencing with electrics is to make the adjudication of fencing easier. It's not to make foil, foil. Nor is it to make epee, epee. Nor is it to make sabre, sabre. It's to fence.

In that light, the current composition of the FIE is a good mix. If you have a system where only fencers get to vote on fencing matters, then you have a static system that can't change. It's not good for the sport, they'd scream, and really mean, crap, overnight, I'm not going to win anymore. Conversely, it's not good to have the FIE as a true representive democracy. If that were the case, only those fencing countries, would ever fence and again, fencing would stay static.

I personally think Roch is doing a good job. He's taken a lot of flak over the foil timings and, instead of backing down to pressure, he's stuck with it, for the better I think. There are some fundamental problems with the game right now and they need to be addressed. I'd rather have him in office, with his experience at the job, fighting to keep fencing an Olympic sport, then someone else who doesn't give a darn about Canadian fencing, for example, because there aren't as many of us as there are American fencers.

Take it easy.

I second every single word. Rep point!

[Alan]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Actually, on topic (I hope), the FIE seems to be doing the best with a crappy hand. I think that the timings are a decision by comittee to fix something that is indeed broken. Foil, under the old rules, either resembled sabre or spastic fencing. Attack, off-target, ad nauseum. Indeed, I think, to a certain extent, even sabre under the old timings was broken (and certainly with the off-target lights). The comittee realised that these repetive actions were killing the sport, both for beginners, and for those with experience. The ability to get hit then, at leisure, finish an attack with a flick and get the point, was assinine. Tightening the timings is something that's been long overdue, especially as whether it is technically possible is also long dead.

Well it is your opinion. But if a majority of foilists like this "crap" they should have the right to decide.

They don't need to be forced out of this crap by his Eminence if they don't want too.

By the way, this "crap" is a hundred times more interesting than the calamitous Foilepee we are seeing with the new timings.
(Just have a look at the final in La Corugna ...)

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by wflaschka

Off topic again. It's already very clear that you think it's meaningful to call Roch names. The point is that it is not meaningful.

Snip

The only reason you post is to call Roch names, and say "Foilepee" all the time. Are you even a fencer? How can you look at threads about "How to parry", "Footwork technique", "Good/bad blades" and not once want to join the discussion?

Walter,

I don't understand your facination with asking if people are fencers?

I would love to see you try to participate in a French Language Fencing Forum, and try not to sound like a warbbling jackass.

Working in a second language is not easy, and I appreciate the effort that Alan makes to participate in this discussion. Is he repetitive? yes. Does he like to hate on Roch? yes. Are we all entitled to our opinions? yes.

I'm amused by how worked up you get about his posts.

I have actually met Mr. Roch briefly, and was personally impressed with his sense of self-importance.