I have no reason to question Bob's numbers. If 52 only rode one ride
and 82 rode more than one we need to know how many more than one. There
were 992 one day 100 mile riders last year. Even if the 82 rode 3 each
that brings it to less than 300 - less than one third of the number of
100 mile riders.
The AERC Int members (of which I am one ) accounts for less than 10% of
the members. That means that 90% of the riders pay for the AERC. That
means that 90% of the riders support the ride managers and ride their
rides.
I believe that we should be involved in international and I support
it. I also believe we should not have the 90% exercise what you could
be called the "tyrannry of the majority" that would negatively impact
the riders with international aspirations. The international protion
of the sport has it's place, HOWEVER, internation is the minority by a
significant percentage and as such is not captain of the ship. It is
the 90% that drives the the ship. I think sometimes that is is lost.
Truman
John Teeter wrote:
>
....Thus my statement of biased reporting.
Your facts sound right:) It would be interesting to see the ratio of
FEI100milers_to_AERC100milers. Apples.2.Apples as one could get.
your conclusion of biased reporting though is showing a desire for
editorial bias on your part:)
Your editorial bias seems to be for all reports concerning the
convention to include information about all aspects of the AERC with
detail proportional to the membership participation in that area of
Endurance riding?
I think my bias would be for anyone who has something to say to be able
to say it:) Your welcome to publish your report as well. I hope it
would be as factual and straight forward (i.e. not trying to hide any
biases:) as what Pamela presented.
johnt
============================================================
By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is
noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by
experience,
which is the bitterest.
~ Confucius
