Since religious organizations never modify their schedules according to the wishes of sporting organizations, why should it be done the other way around?
Is there not this little concept, "Golden Rule"?
Mr. Epee offered a reason based on customer service, which is perfectly valid provided that the numbers of religiously interested fencers are sufficient. However, if that is not the case, can anyone advance another reason?
No organization is by any means obligated to avoid a given date; I was only hoping individuals on fencing.net would perhaps discuss it.
There is no good reason one shoudln't do it except for consideration for other individuals. If you really want there's no reason why you shoudln't be allowed to prance around in the plaza wearing festive garments and intentionally singing "La Donna Mobile" completely off key while juggeling small loud, obviously agravated creatures which you are causing no physical or emotional trauma beyond immidiate discomfort.
Then again I doubt other people would be happy with you. Often schools will ask teachers (though not enforce) to abstain from holding tests on days students cannot come for one reason or another. For me it makes little sense to hold a tournament when one is losing some of the fencer base, and if it is not substantial, then I suppose it really isn't an issue.
Beyond that, we all know the Golden Rule doesn't work in it's positive form, the excistence of individuals who commit suicide or are masochists keeps it from being what it should be.
The Golden Rule definately is better stated:
"Do not do unto others as you wouldn't like done to yourself"
A much less active idea that avoids the hasseling of others.
It's a bit like if a friend of yours decided to plan some massive celebration on the other side of the world on the night of you wedding, eventhough he knew when it was going to happen. The fact he can't attend and has better things to do, and you can't go and celebrate the festivities...his choice...your problem.
Since religious organizations never modify their schedules according to the wishes of sporting organizations, why should it be done the other way around?
Is there not this little concept, "Golden Rule"?
Mr. Epee offered a reason based on customer service, which is perfectly valid provided that the numbers of religiously interested fencers are sufficient. However, if that is not the case, can anyone advance another reason?
Have a nice time!
Peter Gustafsson
Since I'm hardly a religionist, I don't know why I would speak on behalf of them. Still, there's no presumption of permanence with regards to sporting events. Even the venerable Duel In The Desert is not planning to be around this coming season. There's no need for religions to make room for sporting events in this particular case.
On the other hand, Sunday has been reduced in relevance as a day of rest or whatever and is used as a primary sporting activity day. I guess that's one situation where the religions have ceded to a more popular culture activity.
If you really want there's no reason why you shoudln't be allowed to prance around in the plaza wearing festive garments and intentionally singing "La Donna é Mobile" completely off key while juggeling small loud, obviously agravated creatures which you are causing no physical or emotional trauma beyond immidiate discomfort.
Trust me - I would never sing that. I am a bass, not a tenor! Shudder. BTW, La Donna é Mobile goes to another thread which I am currently active. BTW2: When I try to picture it it reminds me of the TV footage of a Pride event.
Originally Posted by dbl90
Then again I doubt other people would be happy with you.
We are in agreement.
Originally Posted by dbl90
Often schools will ask teachers (though not enforce) to abstain from holding tests on days students cannot come for one reason or another. For me it makes little sense to hold a tournament when one is losing some of the fencer base, and if it is not substantial, then I suppose it really isn't an issue.
Substantial being the operative word, which brings me back to my previous question about how many fencers in PCS would be affected by this scheduling. Any guesstimate? As I indicated before, it is a complete non-issue over here, so I have nothing to relate to. Would moving the events to dates which do not conflict with the Jewish calendar lead to larger fencer demographical segments getting problems?
Originally Posted by dbl90
The Golden Rule definately is better stated:
"Do not do unto others as you wouldn't like done to yourself"
A much less active idea that avoids the hasseling of others.
That is a very good point, it is much better stated thusly.
On reconsideration, I did not check that thing about the golden rule before writing. I did not consider the possibility that such a concept does not exist in other religions than Christianity, which goes to show my biased knowledge.
Originally Posted by dbl90
It's a bit like if a friend of yours decided to plan some massive celebration on the other side of the world on the night of your wedding, eventhough he knew when it was going to happen. The fact he can't attend and has better things to do, and you can't go and celebrate the festivities...his choice...your problem.
I find your comparison quite inapt. Your friend can ba asked to know your preferences, while the PCS leading committee can not be expected to know of your preferences outside of fencing.
Substantial being the operative word, which brings me back to my previous question about how many fencers in PCS would be affected by this scheduling. Any guesstimate?
Looking at the Men's Epee entries to the Pacific Coast Championships, I know of only 2 out of 60, but neither of them has traditionally Jewish last names (Hedges and Pearce), so I am guessing there are at least two or three others. That would be at least 3%, but probably more like 6%. However, since one of the two is unobservant, it is probably only like 3% who would miss events on the Holy Days. But with numbers so small, and fencers often joining in families, it wouldn't take much to throw those estimates off.
C'mon, you forget the high holy man, Richard King. He's my second-in-command in telling me whether an event date is good or bad with respect to Jewish holidays. Joel Kaufman? Gary Zeiss?
In WE: Chelsea Ambort? Rosenberg-Wohl? Slikas? (I'm shotgunning here, of course.)
Actually, the main point of this is to keep track of the top referees and people like that, because it'd be foolish to change how I do things because some newbie from Central North Dakota said it should be one way, but very different when an FIE A says the same thing. That's why the Ref's Ratings are a field. The fencer ratings are just idle curosity.
[thread jack]
So what do you do in the case of people that may on track to move ratings the next year. How do you know whether to treat B as a 2 or a 3 when it comes to taking his advice vs. someone else's? (Since the upgrade wouldn't be made until Sept. the year after he earned it effectively)
I now dangle to the left....my tassle. Get your minds out of the gutter.
"Martin was not an optimist; he was a prisoner of hope." Optimism is about assuming there's evidence that justifies your outlook while hope is about creating the evidence and procuring your own happiness or vision of the world. - Professor West
Is the competing advice from an FOC? Then I go with what they say. Is the contradiction from two people roughly equal in rank? (2s and 3s are roughly equal in my mind) Then I go with the one I like better, or is more likely to evaluate me personally. It's not like I'm considering your rating a multiplier or something.
Is the competing advice from an FOC? Then I go with what they say. Is the contradiction from two people roughly equal in rank? (2s and 3s are roughly equal in my mind) Then I go with the one I like better, or is more likely to evaluate me personally. It's not like I'm considering your rating a multiplier or something.
But you must admit that a multiplier system for determining the validity of an individual's opinion would be rather entertaining.
Also, I kind of wonder just how acurate your database system is...hmm...
I now dangle to the left....my tassle. Get your minds out of the gutter.
"Martin was not an optimist; he was a prisoner of hope." Optimism is about assuming there's evidence that justifies your outlook while hope is about creating the evidence and procuring your own happiness or vision of the world. - Professor West
It be fun. Hm. (11 - (referee rating))*(x) = outcome?
Where x is "Do I agree with this" on a scale of 1-5. So Bill Oliver on the attack in foil:
(11-1)*(4) = 40 value points, while Brad Baker
(11-3)*(5) = 40 value points, while Joe Schmoe
(11-10)*(1) = 1 value points...
hmm. Tie-breaker to Brad because he's tall, and everyone knows tall men get promoted faster, or to Bill because he's setting the rules?
I now dangle to the left....my tassle. Get your minds out of the gutter.
"Martin was not an optimist; he was a prisoner of hope." Optimism is about assuming there's evidence that justifies your outlook while hope is about creating the evidence and procuring your own happiness or vision of the world. - Professor West
Originally Posted by Purple Fencer
BTW2: When I try to picture it it reminds me of the TV footage of a Pride event. 
