Originally Posted by Scottie
I agree Jorge. I think everyone remained calm and there was no name calling or other things that bring a thread down.
Let's face it, I believe that Lake Dog wants KCBS to conform to what the sanctioning bodies have done? I may be corrected on this, but I know that for sure FBA was formed in the last 10 years and baiscally modeled their body after the KCBS, except for no garnish. Now maybe some sanctioning body in Texas was before the KCBS, but I do not think any of them are still in existence. I don't think that IBCA is older, as I want to say that Lynn stated it was after the KCBS was formed. Garnish in KCBS for their blind judging is unique and that is what separates KCBS from other sanctioning bodies. I guess the way that I llok at it is, if you don't like it, don't cook KCBS contest. Or in the alternative, don't use garnish, as it is clearly stated int he rules that garnish is not required. But to make call to arms over it, I am not sure if that is correct either...
***Please understand that this post was in no way any slight to any other sanctioning body.
> Garnish in KCBS for their blind judging is unique and that is
> what separates KCBS from other sanctioning bodies.
While it is unique, IMHO you think too little of KCBS if this is what
separates KCBS from the others... KCBS is a superior organization,
with SUPERIOR judging, process, flow, etc. SUPERIOR. None
close. MIM was (IMHO), but not there. Then they decided to ditch
it, and so what was left became MBN... I digress.
> if you don't like it, don't cook KCBS contest.
I imagine those who dont like it dont cook in it... What's your point?
Me/us perhaps? In what words above did you perhaps derive that I or my teammates dont "like it"? If I didnt like it, I wouldnt care enough to
pose the question in the first place. Matter of fact, the farthest
contests for me to compete are those sanctioned by KCBS. We go there
because we enjoy them MORE, not less.
> Lake Dog wants KCBS to conform
There! You articulated it. Thanks. Strangely, I hate conformity itself,
because ordinarily conformity breeds bland. It's usually conformity for
the sake of conformity. So, I worded my initial question wrong when
I stated the others are doing it... Conformity be damned (IMHO).
HOWEVER, I am asking that they either re-word the instructions/rules
so as to a) embrace the darned difference that garnish brings and get
it in there, or b) remove it altogether, as there is no way a human can
judge it and not take it into account (the way the rules state it today).
> But to make call to arms over it, I am not sure if that is correct either...
Exactly. I'm not! Didn't! Never did (call to arms). That's what annoyed
me. I'm being raked over the coals for no reason, other than apparently
this is a sacred issue. My bad.
Sarcasm <with a humoristic intent> coming:
There. There's another suggestion. Note the rules in the rule book
that are sacred and question the foundation of the organization. That
way we'll know to not ask the question.