"WTC is losing the PR battle on this one. Had they just made a decision and provided equal slots (whatever the number is ....35/35, 40/40, etc) the issue would be over."
as i have stated, i don't think so. i have asked, of the appropriate people, and have not yet gotten the answer to: "what if a cohort representing AG women make precisely the same argument next year; what will TriEqual's leaders commit to saying to that cohort?"
i have not gotten an answer to this, except to get shouted down and insulted just for asking the question. my question is never answered. rather, i am just attacked because i ask the question.
about the most civil response i've gotten, so far, to this question is that we'll work on fixing a broken AG qualifying system later; that's no reason to delay giving pro women what it is they deserve.
but that's not an answer. it's a dodge.
now, maybe pro women do deserve the extra 15 slots. maybe that's the best resolution. i'm good with that. but this resolution cannot, in my opinion, occur without a universal agreement, committed to by all sides, as to what the posture of ALL sides will be going forward. is there still a commitment to proportional representation, and the female pros are the one cohort not obliged to follow this rule? that's fine. i absolutely understand the argument in favor of pro women not being held strictly to the proportional representation model.
but until the TriEqual leadership speak to this question i do not think it's just as simple as adding 15 slots and the problem is solved. i promise you, what i will get for writing what i just did is a toilet flushed on my head. but i will not get a meaningful answer to the question. and that speaks to the quality of the debate.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
as i have stated, i don't think so. i have asked, of the appropriate people, and have not yet gotten the answer to: "what if a cohort representing AG women make precisely the same argument next year; what will TriEqual's leaders commit to saying to that cohort?"
i have not gotten an answer to this, except to get shouted down and insulted just for asking the question. my question is never answered. rather, i am just attacked because i ask the question.
about the most civil response i've gotten, so far, to this question is that we'll work on fixing a broken AG qualifying system later; that's no reason to delay giving pro women what it is they deserve.
but that's not an answer. it's a dodge.
now, maybe pro women do deserve the extra 15 slots. maybe that's the best resolution. i'm good with that. but this resolution cannot, in my opinion, occur without a universal agreement, committed to by all sides, as to what the posture of ALL sides will be going forward. is there still a commitment to proportional representation, and the female pros are the one cohort not obliged to follow this rule? that's fine. i absolutely understand the argument in favor of pro women not being held strictly to the proportional representation model.
but until the TriEqual leadership speak to this question i do not think it's just as simple as adding 15 slots and the problem is solved. i promise you, what i will get for writing what i just did is a toilet flushed on my head. but i will not get a meaningful answer to the question. and that speaks to the quality of the debate.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman