[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Cambridge adjudication

To: <brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Cambridge adjudication
From: "JEREMY P WISE" <jeremy.wise@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 11:35:17 +0100
Priority: low
Reply-to: brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

----------
> From: Kevin Williams <willi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: brass-band@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Cambridge adjudication
> Date: 27 May 1998 21:38
> 
> I think you've missed the point here. The Masters is the best organised
> contest of the lot so why all the fuss over an adjudication system that
> the bands were given the choice to vote for or against - the same that
> happens each year for the testpiece. The organisers should be
> given credit for trying something different. It's no good whingeing
> about it afterwards - you should have voted against it in the first
> place if you didn't like it. I don't see your problem - if you get
> placed anything above 15th you're almost guaranteed to be invited back
> next year anyway. Anyhow, it's all about winning - and none of you would
> #of#  (have) managed that under any system !! 
> 

Presumably you didn't see the contributions from Martin Irwin of Brighouse
then!!
> 

Cheers,
> Kev.
> 
> 
> --
> unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help'
to
> listserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--
unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help' to
listserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Prev by Date: Re: Cambridge adjudication
Next by Date: Re: Versatility and Doubling (was Vibrato)
Previous by thread: Re: Cambridge adjudication
Next by thread: Re: City of Oxford appeal - walking on eggshells...(long!)..
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread