I drove around today and could not find the burned area. I didn't see anything burned on the course.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I think adding women is good, there is a demand, and it looks right to do.
It started by somebody shooting off a rocket. We saw them shoot off the rocket then a few minutes later we saw the fire about where it had landed.
Is that why you sweep the leg of anyone who tries to launch a rocket at WYCO?
Therefore I believe that the plan that Joe is working on aligns with the demands of attention the women seek in this event.
Dag nabit, here I am all puckered up with nobody to make up with.Dang you to lovebirds still going at it. . Come on kiss and make up. and before you start i am trying to be helpful.Nah, I've seen enough. I know that any argument with him is going nowhere, because he's arguing in bad faith, so I'm just not going to engage anymore.
There's a few people who like to talk sh1t on the forum, but every experience I've had in KC disc golf with real people face-to-face has been a positive one. (Well, minus one time, but that was someone who sh1t-talks me on the forum too, so go figure.)
I'm not insulted Joe. I simply believe that you were being rude and not helpful. We were responding to a request for us to express our interest. Somehow, that turned into you making personal attacks. I hope you have a nice day. It's my birthday weekend and as a famous singer once said, can't nobody break my stride.I'm sorry if I wasn't being helpful. But, you are incorrect, I did not start any personal attacks. I very simply asked 2 questions and Nova didn't like
That's not an apology, that's an accusation that starts with the words "I'm sorry." I'm not insulted easily, but I am offended when someone is deliberately rude to me, and then doubles down on it. The correct response to this is, by the way, anger. And I am angry at you, because you've behaved abhorrently and rudely, and insulted me to my (forum) face.
%$#@ you, pal.
Of course it wasn't an apology, you're not very quick.
And as for this, %$#@ you, pal. Nope, you are not my type. Come on, that's funny.
I want to summarize some thoughts that have been shared this morning and start a discussion:
For a tournament that is designed to showcase KC's "best of the best," it's important that women earn a place (by defeating other women), and not get there by default." Having a qualifier/qualifiers is totally reasonable. But 3-5 women is a decent showing, even for a large local tournament, and that's from the metro as a whole. Setting a requirement of six women from each state feels like we're being set up to fail. From the most recent PDGA demographics report, the membership was 92% male, 8% female. Using the teams of 16 men as a starting point, that means that adding just one woman to each team, and a qualifying event of 2-3 women would be more likely to succeed, particularly in the shadow of last year's drama (that last fragment is completely my (Amy's) opinion).
Perhaps a better starting place would be 3-4 women minimum (per state) competing for 1-2 spots on each side, with 1 getting the alternate spot. This would convey a sincere interest in opening the event to women, and therefore are encouraging more women to try and qualify.
Lastly, I would remind anyone reading this that I said my intent is to "start a discussion," not to demand rule changes.
This is not helping at all. This is deliberately stirring the pot, and point number two is a blatant insult.