“once again, above, how on earth is accepting an award, even monetary even remotely similar to selling koi or a koi related product,” Childers wrote.
Here you quote an interpretation of a rule apparently suggesting its interpretation is universal. Later you comment that rules are interpreted differently.
“Standard for what John? Awards or dealer status, again, not the same thing,” Childers wrote.
As you note further down there is no rule, but guides that can be interpreted however a club chooses.
“There is a uniform guide for each club to use in determining dealer status, but each club is their own club and has the rights to modify as they see fit,” Childers wrote.\
A guide isn’t a rule.
“The ZNA is one club with many chapters all operating under one set of rules, but still different and often times even then interpreted differently by some clubs, get over it,” Childers wrote.
Rules, interpretation, get over it you say? I shouldn’t ask questions about them, but get over it you say? Can I quote you on that Steve Childers?
“Do all states in the US have the same state laws? Nope,” Childers wrote.
Indeed, they do have many of the same laws with congruent standards and overlapping local and federal jurisdicitions. Where legislators representing their constituencies create diametrically opposed laws they are written down and enforced by law enforcement and interpreted by the courts. In certain instances such as the Interstate Transportation Clause federal law and jurisdiction supercedes local and state law and authority. I’m one who believes laws and rules alike should be recognized and understood by those who come under the jurisdiction of those laws.
Have you ever read Harvard Law Professor Lon Fuller’s “Eight Ways to Fail to Make Law”? Fuller describes a scenario through a tale of a legislator and judge named Rex who tried to right a kingdom, but failed. The failures included: 1) failure to actually create specific written rules and rather use power to control proceedings on an ad hoc basis, 2) where there was to be a rule it was not publicized in order that those effected could be expected to use it as a guide for behavior, 3) retroactively penalizing participants for what was previously not against the rules (or publicized), 4) Where there were supposedly rules they were not understandable, 5) contradictory rulings where one could not be compliant, 6) beyond the ability of subjects to comply, 7)frequent changes in rules, 8) where announced the supposed rule was not similarly administered. While this scenario is a bit more complicated than your analogy it is applicable to any organization that by definition might expect to succeed to its utmost potential.
“How many times doe your questions need to be answered? The answers are the same each time but you just keep on going thinking that there must be another answer that you may agree with,” Childers wrote.
Excuse me? If you tire of responding to specific questions I’m asking in a thread about the San Diego show, which as a quite unique set of circumstances please stop trying to answer them.
Plus, you noticeably failed to provide comment in follow up after I provided you the affiliation of the head judge. Will the show then run by Shinkokai rules?