... Pete (nice try, though! ).

>> The belief that a policy allowing non-attendee pre-registrants to receive their pre-registration
>> package would result in an significant increase in future non-attendee pre-registrations is a
>> reasonable one.

I agree.

>> Although it is possible this would not be the case in the scenario which you put forth
>> were the Casino Freebies are removed.

I agree with that, too.

>> It is not fallacy to reject a policy on the basis of projected negative consequences.

I agree with that, too.

BUT, there are no projected negative consequences to allowing someone else to pick up the packets this year (or mailing them out) as long as doing so does not compel doing so again in the future.

>> The slippery slope argument would be something more along the lines of:
>> Well if we do it for non-attendees who preregistered we have to
>> do it for . . . and then we have to do it for . . . etc.

I would formulate the slippery slope argument as:

"If we do it for non-attendees this year, then we have to do it for non-attendees next year ... and the year after ... etc."

Which is, of course, the thrust of the "it sets a bad precedent" argument.

Hence, I still see it as a slippery slope argument! And, my head doesn't hurt!!

Apologies to those who are not in on the inside joke!

----- jim o\-S