>Yep, that is good and I agree with that, I'll let it pass that i wasn't what you were saying earlier giving the context. But it is what I said. >But it still

>Yep, that is good and I agree with that, I'll let it pass that i wasn't what you were saying earlier giving the context. But it is what I said. >But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1". As to whether it is appropriate to postpone or cancel the event, I'd say that's up to the organizers, their goals, etc. If they specifically only want to put on a >=2 event, and they cannot, the justification seems adequate. I'm not sure how, in that context, it equated to discrimination. I'd expect them to have cancelled regardless of the "1" in question, in this case.