Re: Mail from Canadian Dancesport Federation.

26 listopada 2007 21:21

think of me:

No problem Aspirin to answer colourful answer.  Polkadancer has one opinion,  I have another.  But if you wantb to see hypocrit  just consider and compare Polkadancers  comment against the CDDSC Rule which quicktime2 ('I believe '  posted above ) 

***************************************

Dear Think of Me

I will await but never receive the apology I deserve.  My words are very clear and I stand by them.  All of them.  You seem to be increasingly desperate to discredit WDC.

Let me say again.  Are you 100% sure that the CDDSC Rule has not been withdrawn?  If it has not then I condemn it totally since it is totally against WDC Policy BUT it applies only to Canada..

I respect that each country can have its own rules but those rules should be in accordance with the parent organisation to which it belongs. 

Incidentally do not confuse CDDSC registered Adjudicators with WDC registered Adjudicators.  WDC Registered Adjudicators would work under WDC rules.

This "Rule" is not the only difference between CDF policy and WDC policy why pretend differently?.

Why do you avoid making comment on the statement made by the four persons regarding "the"  rules.  The 4 who condemn one sde and then support another who has far greater restrictions and far more "bully" tactics.

There is a word to describe their and your attitude...  

]

Re: Mail from Canadian Dancesport Federation.

27 listopada 2007 03:35

We are totally confused Sambatogo.

Are you saying  that Dancesport Atlantic Association document was incorrect, and that CDDSC has never had such a rule ?

Are we talking same language ? One report quoted a specific CDDSC Rule, another poster used the Rule as an example of 'Action causing a Reaction', suggesting WDC and IDSF act in similar way,  another contributor agrees the Rule saying it would  not be in line of WDC thinking, yet sambatoge rejects under the 'we' protecton  the whole discussion stating the Rule has never existed.

Do I not recall a BC ( Cnada ) organizer posting an open letter to CDDSC on line, complaining about this Rule ( or something very similar)  and his inability to earn living ubder CDDSC  ?  Let me dig this one up and post here from the archives, if you do not mind.

This is indeed quite confusing, and it seems both WDC and IDSF and  also  the contributor  change their Rules and opinions just as do the poster in this Forum. No wonder people at large are confused and do not understand what is going on.

Allow  me reprint from the post offered by Quicktime 2 :

Below is a document on the Dancesport Atlantic Association website. It says:

The following are recently received information via email.
They are in the format as received:
Responce to CDDSC Policy Letter Dated 31st March.doc

Re: Mail from Canadian Dancesport Federation.

27 listopada 2007 08:17

sambatogo:

To Polkadancer and others,

The CDDSC does not have to withdraw this rule because:

 It was never a rule to begin with, to have to change. And never became one.

In fact there have been events sanctioned by both CDDSC and CADA since that time I understand. CADA are trying to kill this arrangement however.

Dear sambatoga

Thank you for the very clear statement that the proposed rule did not become reality.

The clarification is there for those with the will to read and think. .

What I find amazing is the number who were prepared to condemn without having knowledge as to whether it had become fact. I am sure that you also noticed that whilst people were prepared to "jump all over" the RULE they avoided making comment on the ludicrous CONCLUSION.

Summed up it was "We say  we hate bullies but to protect our own  linterests we are supporting the real bullies".

Whilst I do not support restrictions in this case it could have had real benefits for the good of dance in Canada.. If ALL Canadian Professionals had supported such action CADA would have very quickly had to re-consider its restrictive regime

You like me will have noticed there is lots of smoke screening going on but still no answers.

Re: Mail from Canadian Dancesport Federation.

27 listopada 2007 18:30

Our investigation confirms yet again that this "Policy Statement" never became a rule.

The letter from lightandeasy is again a false represenation of ALL the facts.

It is easy for anyone to take parts of a document and put their own representation on the subject. Rather than show the whole document. An old CDF tactic. 

As to Mr. Wongs dramatic letter. Even if the "Policy statement" did come into effect it would be difficult to fathom even under the worst circumstances, that all the ills he claims could become reality. Fortunately, for him. If Mr. Wong dissagrees with these supposed CDDSC bully tactics and the like, then he must be totally against the CDF/CADA/IDSF policies?  As the CDDSC must be by far, the lesser of two evils. If this is the worst the CDDSC can dish out?  

What one should question is: Why would the CDDSC make such a policy announcement? What circumstances would lead to this? I have every confidence that there was a good reason? 

We know it also hadsomething to do with CADA bans of competitions. And its dishonouring prior agreements to have CDDSC sanctiong of Adjudicators at all its competitions.

But the "Policy Announcement" was just that. An announcement of a policy change that would potentially come into effect {In six months time}. If CADA would not honour its agreements with CDDSC, And also and stop bans of CDDSC Amateur competitions. {USA DANCE tried something similar with the NDCA with out success!}

CADA never did of course agree to any CDDSC demands.  CADA only make demands. 

CADA President, Sandy Britton had, and continues to have an "Arrangement" and agreement with the CDF directors. So there is no need to negotiate and honour the CDDSC, when you have powerful friends on side, right? 

Re: Mail from Canadian Dancesport Federation.

28 listopada 2007 07:48

Dear quicktime2

You and I are united in the wish that the dance world works together united and strives for the good of all members reardless of whether they are Professional  Amateur or Athlete, World Champion or lowly medallist. Splits, chasms, misinformation damage our dance world which is already a "minor" activity.  We cannot afford for this to continue.

I never wanted to see a "dance" and a "dancesport" world both doing exactly the same things making us look ridiculous to the mass public and the media.  For many many people dance is simply "entertainment". 

However  rather than the current situation maybe it is better to walk along their own roads - but showing respect for the other and sticking only with the truth.  We will have "dance" which will work for the members and allow all to make their own choices whilst "dancesport" will have its bans and boycotts,  restrictions and drug problems with their athletes...  

I think that the major problem is that there are so many who simply do not wish to accept the facts and they will cling on to what they were fed.  It is impossible for some to accept that they were wrong.   

 know I have been and apologised and I am sure I will be in the future but facts are facts and I have an open mind..

I agree that Canada is not the only country with problems.  These have lead to the resurrection of the IDU and the establishment of the IDSA and other associations for Amateurs. 

So many dancers credit IDSF with giving them their competitions.  This is simply not true. 

Is there only ONE competition in  the Netherlands?  The IDSF proudly proclaim it is the only IDSF licenced competition.  What about all the other events in which Netherland couples compete?

What huge benefits do the Netherlands dancers derive as a result of their Amateur Federation being part of IDSF? They even had to fight a court battle to dance in one of their oldest competitions (certainly the most enjoyable and highest profile worldwide) against the wishes of their own federation who were acting under orders and threats from IDSF

It is the same in England and other countries where IDSF licence very few and in some NO competitions.. 

It is so simple if Amateurs all competed in non sanctioned competitions and did not enter "sanctioned" events this would oh so quickly bring about a change.  No national association could survive if it banned all its members..   Promoters and entrepeneurs will continue to provide competitions and adjudicators will continue to judge.

Why can so many not see this very obvious fact?

I salute the brave Danish couples who did believe in and respect themselves.

As you will see from the immediate previous post I believe that the distorted image many have of the CDF and CDDSC and that non existent "RULE" the matter deserves a "Topic" in its own right.  It would be great if you or sambatgo could start the ball rolling.  

Dear samba togo

Thank you for again making very clear the facts about a non existent "Rule".

Will those who were misled now have the courage to acknowledge that.

I was highly amused when Think of Me decided that they would be clever (ignore all the points I made() and try to use against me my words about accepting the "principles" of the WDC and the CDDSC membership.  Think of Me is like a drowning person clutching a matchstick to stay afloat.  Each country will adopt certain rules - rules to suit local conditions and circumstances in their own country but you must have the same principles.  Principles are not rules!   At least we know "the rule" never became reality so that removes that song from the "Hate song book"..

Perhaps Think of Me will now explain how CADA is part of IDSF when CADA do not follow IDSF in basic principles and rules.. 

Should Canada have a new Amateur Society that will impose ALL IDSF Rules Regulations and principles including the destruction of the "professional dance world".? 

It seems clear that few were interested to read the "Power Point Presentation" but they will insist on repeating false facts and misinformation.. 

It would be great if we got back to the original topic

that RIDICULOUS and petty Public Announcement from CDF signed by all their members. - although it seems they never gave permission for their names to be used -.

and see if the answers to the question it prompted can be answered.  To date it seems either NOT or unwilligness.

The annoucement wished to make clear that CDF wanted no part of the CDDSC proposal at the WDC AGM.  What was the terrible proposal?  Simply that Amateurs had the opportunity to dance free of bully tactics and power freaks. 

Makes a nonsense of the "CONCLUSION" publicly proclaimed by 4 people from CDF.