Hmmm...using that argument, you may as well do away with rules 3, 6, 7, 8, and most of 17 while you're at it.If a rule is near impossible to enforce then why have the rule? The rule can go away at anytime.
Hmmm...using that argument, you may as well do away with rules 3, 6, 7, 8, and most of 17 while you're at it.
I am against the pork rule. It just makes no sense or at least no one has been able to explain it in a way that makes sense. In the last couple of years we've gotten rid of the "identifiable" rule - this one needs to go on the trash heap, also.
If some one can explain the reason that this rule was created and why it might still be relevant I might change my mind, but until then I'm against it.
It's not the way I feel, but apparently, it's the way you feel.If that's the way you feel. I was talking about the rule being discussed, but thanks for your insight. I think all rules need to be evaluated on some type of routine schedule and have adequate member input and discussion from cooks and judges.
Enforcing any and or all of the would require(s) micromanagement and we all know how that subject goes. :tape:
It's not the way I feel, but apparently, it's the way you feel.
To answer your question "If a rule is near impossible to enforce then why have the rule" more directly, you have those rules that are hard to enforce because the vast majority of cooks out here will follow them anyway, regardless of the amount of oversight or level of enforcement. There will always be a small minority that will not follow the rules, intentionally or unintentionally, no matter how many or how few rules there are and no matter how great or how lacking the oversight may be, but that shouldn't be the justification for doing away with a rule.
Yes...and I hope they will. Sooner rather than later. I hope they use more logic than just doing away with a rule because it's difficult to enforce.Doesn't KCBS have an obligation to look at those issues and try to address them before the fact?
Yes...and I hope they will. Sooner rather than later. I hope they use more logic than just doing away with a rule because it's difficult to enforce.
Legal pork shall consist of bone in IMPS shoulder #403 and it's derivatives ( 403B, 403C, 404, 406, 406B, 406C, and 407) with a raw weight of at least 5lbs.where the animal has been broken no further rostral than Cervical vertebra C3 and no further caudal than thoracic vertebra T1 (the first rostral rib).
Slamdunkpro,
I appreciate what you have written. It appears to be well thought out. I would say, there could be problems with Reps. being too busy with chicken and rib turn-ins to monitor the 45 minute reheating aspect.
Benny
They aren't too busy at 10am.