So you say you are disagreeing with me and then you go on to cite an almost perfect example of one way in which track's leadership failed to consider the public interest. I got ya.
Trackrunner wrote:So you say you are disagreeing with me and then you go on to cite an almost perfect example of one way in which track's leadership failed to consider the public interest. I got ya.
Oh, dear. All I did was point out your error that there was no change.
Pego wrote:Public's tastes are usually cyclical, so that may happen at some point in the future. What I maintain is that to make it happen is not in our power to induce. You may argue to the contrary until blue in face, but that is the reality. Sure, innovations are great, they may help the athletes and the existing fans, but they are not going to dramatically enlarge the fan base.
Uh oh, how many precedents must I cite where someone (or group) was not willing to accept the status quo as an inevitable reality that was not in anyone's power to change. Look at the (literally) unbelievable powerful paradigm shifts that occurred on MANY fronts in 1960s America. If you want to see what one man can do, look at Gandhi or MLK, Jr.. Changing something as trivial as the way USA T&F is presented is a whole lot easier!
Trackrunner wrote:So you say you are disagreeing with me and then you go on to cite an almost perfect example of one way in which track's leadership failed to consider the public interest. I got ya.
Oh, dear. All I did was point out your error that there was no change.
I never said that. I said there was resistance to change and little consideration of recommendations that may improve the product being offered to the public. The example you cited actually helps to make my point that the public is given very little consideration by track's leadership.
.
