Re: Amalgamation - further thoughts -- universitydancesport.com forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6] ]

Subject: Re: Amalgamation - further thoughts

Author:
Ali

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:01:51 05/20/03 Tue
In reply to: Tim 's message, "Re: Amalgamation - further thoughts" on 15:45:54 05/20/03 Tue

>You've misunderstood my suggestion - I've dropped my
>demand for full uni amalgamation. All I'm suggesting
>is that everything be done in advance, by the SC.

Marvellous, I have no objection to that, save that some couples may pull out on the day before and leave other couples in the lurch. Having most of it sorted out in advance would work, as long as we have some flexibilty on the day to pick up the pieces left by last-minute changes (which inevitably happen).

I'm all for getting as much sorted in advance as possible, but I can see couples being left alone through no fault of their own and not being allowed to join the odds for no good reason. If we give the SC a little discretion to alter on the day (as every other TC can if they need to) then it deals with unexpected problems.

>I can see your point, and I think the standing
>committee should have discretion here. It shouldn't be
>allowed for 3 very strong couples to enter the odds
>and sods category.

Agreed.

Phew! We've almost ironed this one out at last! :-)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]