Hi Bram,
Can you write up the exact wording of the two proposed changes (or an
all or nothing if you prefer) so that class members know exactly what
they are voiting about.
Thanks,
Christian
BDally6107@xxxxxxx wrote:
Keith,
You have some good points, however, I suspect Rousseau died before the
revolver and the subsequent game of Russian Roulette became popular.
A couple of your "mights" have evolved into "highly probables" with
actual experience and consequences (perhaps four or five of the six
chambers with bullets in them).
I'm the very first person to avoid excess government, however, I'll
always trade a little government now for a lot of government later.
This proposed rule change was made for the combined purpose of keeping
the boat from becoming too difficult to sail (except for elite
sailors) and to ensure that we protect the spirit of striving toward
continued improvement. It "might" be better to avoiding punishing
those who spend their time and money doing the R&D by outlawing their
inventions.
The problem with the word "might" is that it is devoid of any measure
of probability. On the other hand, I have little doubt that the
majority of the class will come to dislike these very long blades
because they are indeed proving to be faster in light and medium air
and I can tell you with certainty, they will be significantly harder
to deal with single-handed. If we don't act now, we will be faced
with the choice of pissing off those who've invested the time and
money to do the research or those who simply can't deal with them
(likely most who sail from beaches). Given the choice, I'd prefer to
piss off neither by acting now.
The box rule is good in most cases, however, it may stifle innovation
more than a maximum length rule.
In any event, I live in an area where Swift Solo fleet racing will
become a reality soon and where R&D is a way of life. I would like to
ask the class to vote on the issue and to live with the outcome of
the vote.
Best regards,
Bram
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
|