I'm currently struggling with the past. Not all of it, mind you, but particular bits where people dispute what happened or what was agreed or have odd views about who did what and why.
My S-G role is to make things happen, but it's tricky when people can't agree what has happened before I got involved, and whether it was right or not. Hey ho.
The other thing I was amazed about this week were the reactions I got to a personal post on the NB asking for ideas on how to have a simple practical test for how firm a hoop is. I set hoops a lot (I think I was RoT at 5 A class or championship events last season). I've pondered this off and on for some time - and though it's not a difficult concept, coming up with a very practical simple quick field test for firmness seems difficult. Anyway, I had a number of sensible, reasoned suggestions about what could be done (none quite meeting my requirement for "simple" though) but also a few quite strident responses assuming this was all a plot by the WCF to regulate hoop firmness and in one case extrapolating to ludicrous extremes (like being able to sue the organisers if the hoops failed the firmness spec!). Predicatbly after such a silly statement, the writer then appealed for "common sense". It's a funny old world.
No comments:
Post a Comment