Author:
No name
[ Edit | View ]
|
Date Posted: Monday, July 01, 01:56:27pm
>>Morgan is very very MAO 2.0 - one of the big problems
>>up front is the way MAO markets the competition, and
>>the other is what people interpret from that. When
>>they say “talent is 50%” some people stop
>>listening and paying attention to what’s really
>>going on. I wish MAO would STOP with the percentages,
>>because if you watched Miss America in September, it
>>was obvious that talent was not a primary factor. It
>>can be used as a differentiator, but as we can see,
>>not always.
>
>>Some girls and their families have put THOUSANDs of
>>dollars into a talent, going as far as to get college
>>degrees in the field, only to be beaten by a girl with
>>a last minute dredged up talent. They don’t get it
>>because that’s their perspective. They feel cheated,
>>but that’s on them.
>>MAO 2.0 is about social change. Body positivity. The
>>underdog changing the world. The woman set out to cure
>>cancer. The girl aspiring to be president. If you are
>>pretty, or blonde, or naturally thin, welcome to the
>>new handicap. You BETTER have a plan to save the
>>world, beat the odds, raise money for the children,
>>etc. or you.won’t.win. And Don’t think because you
>>just showed up with a great talent, or natural hair,
>>or you’re winning the sympathy vote that THAT is all
>>you need. You better be the “new” complete
>>package, it’s NOT a pageant anymore and you either
>>approach it traditionally and get frustrated, or get a
>>new plan and become competitive.
>
>Sorry, but when the organization announces a
>competition, with certain selection criteria (such as
>talent being 50 % of score), they should hold the
>competition within those rules. It is not
>disrespecting anyone to say the other 50 ladies, and
>their sponsors, prepared for the rules as they were
>announced. But it insulting the preparations of the
>others and their efforts; the fund raising, the work
>on their platforms, rehearsing their talents, and
>spending money, to say they didn't understand the
>change in the rules, and only politically correct and
>properly sponsored competitors will be eligible for
>the crown. The SC organization told none of the girls
>or LED's that talent wouldn't really matter. That is
>disrespect. Fifty women were insulted by the choice
>of an untalented young lady in a competition in which
>talent was supposed to be 50 % of the deciding factor.
> If your "rules" are the new normal, hold a
>convention, have debates, and have your constituency
>vote for their choice, but don't use the title of a
>once proud organization.
Then she should have done a science experiment on stage for her talent like a candidate in a different state pageant did and spared all of us our hearing. It was not even music -it was offensive. A good coach would have steered her in a different direction for talent. I saw a few dancers that were obviously lacking greatly in technique. I saw two very good dancers total one mediocre and lots below average. So dancing is obviously open to interpretation. Do that. Don’t wail in a mic, sound like that and not expect backlash. thats not reality, either. I haven’t seen anyone attacking her intelligence and she’s obviously beautiful - but her “singing” was worse than an elementary school talent show. Even some Clemson fans have said the same.
|
Feedback: 