Re: NCRS Judging Records
[QUOTE=Dave Perry (19643);813281]I don't think the Judging "Standard" has changed much, if at all. (I'd be curious to know when the Judging Standard in use today was first written).
Dave, I'm not sure a semantics lesson was appropriate in this particular discussion with a new member, but, if we're correcting each other, I wrote "standards", not "standard".
So, let's be clear: one definition of "standard", (I used its plural), is: "an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations". The number of "things" actually physically described the 1988 judging manual, with the intent that they be used as models in comparative evaluation (i.e.: judging), is significantly different than the number of things listed in subsequent judging manuals. Period.
Jeeez. After the "sticker" thread and semantics lessons in this one, I'm just about done posting here... This forum used to be an exception from the troll-filled discussions all over the internet.
[QUOTE=Dave Perry (19643);813281]I don't think the Judging "Standard" has changed much, if at all. (I'd be curious to know when the Judging Standard in use today was first written).
Dave, I'm not sure a semantics lesson was appropriate in this particular discussion with a new member, but, if we're correcting each other, I wrote "standards", not "standard".
So, let's be clear: one definition of "standard", (I used its plural), is: "an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations". The number of "things" actually physically described the 1988 judging manual, with the intent that they be used as models in comparative evaluation (i.e.: judging), is significantly different than the number of things listed in subsequent judging manuals. Period.
Jeeez. After the "sticker" thread and semantics lessons in this one, I'm just about done posting here... This forum used to be an exception from the troll-filled discussions all over the internet.
Comment