garfield

Members
  • Content count

    12,169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    77

garfield last won the day on April 8

garfield had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,253 Excellent

About garfield

  • Rank
    DCP Fanatic

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Central Ohio

Recent Profile Visitors

1,957 profile views
  1. Ditto, and probably many reading will applaud our decision.
  2. Please be more specific about the "issues" to which you are referring. And, for six years, nobody brought to the director any issues that compelled him to act. In the end, the concerns of staff were unwarranted, weren't they? No issues were reported were they? And to let you know that I'm not blind to your point, I agree that Morrison SHOULD have had a reporting policy that removed him from the process so his staff would not presume his ignoring them was justification for not raising "issues".
  3. Oh please. Now you just stop this and apologize to me for your comment. I said nothing of the sort and you're putting forth positions that do not relate to me. Please correct your contention because I have never made such spurious accusations.
  4. "He" didn't have any issues, did he? It was others who had issues with him and were the reason the article was written. Someone else determined, contrary to his opinion, that he had "issues" that needed addressed by the article. IMO, it was a hit piece that should never have been written because the policy he was drafting in response to Hop's issue and the hue and cry from other directors would have mandated that Moody be gone anyway. I think she jumped the gun and wrote an article without giving DCI the opportunity to address it in house with the new policy. Edit: Beyond the article about Morrison, I think the author has done a wonderful service to our activity that no-one else seemed able to reveal.
  5. Ahh, but it was Morrison who was drafting the new DCI policy as a direct result of the Inquirer "poking around", so it's logical that it was he who took it to Moody with the (new) realization that the activity was going to implement a policy that is contrary to his decision in 2012. And considering the sensitivity of the subject, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Moody thanked Morrison for his support but realized the activity as a whole was aligned against him and he had nothing left to do except resign and move on. All speculation on my part but, as is "plausible deniability", my explanation has at least as much veracity as any other posited here. My Mom taught me that everyone gets the benefit of the doubt the first time and, to my knowledge, this is the first time that Morrison has needed that benefit on this subject. And your mileage may vary. I hope when each of us here deserves that benefit that someone will provide it to us.
  6. I'm pretty sure of both of those and, if your daughter is half as strong as mine is at that age, you'll have nothing to worry about from any future "Moody". "Dad, don't worry. I know where his junk is and how to make it hurt. I'll be fine."
  7. Sorry if I pushed too far. But it does seem as though you are expecting him to arrive at the answer you want him to, or else he's wrong and should be replaced. I'm not sure how else to restate my sentence above to make it sting less. His compliance is what you want and expect, else he should be removed as not being right for the job, right?
  8. I've never contended that DCI is NOT RIGHT to prevent second chances. I may agree or disagree with a policy (like many here), but DCI doesn't invite me to be a part of their votes (or anyone else here). It's their little club and they have the right to set policy according to how their members vote.
  9. This is a mischaracterization of my prior post stating Morrison's history. I expect this from some posters, but not you.
  10. Wait, Morrison is responsible for this malaise (and by extension, I am) because he chose to hire a person who had no issues in the time he worked for Crossmen? How is that? I thought it was a man who molested girls and women that started this kerfluffle. I obviously missed some data along the way (/sarcasm).
  11. He didn't refuse to listen, Dad. He did listen, we don't know who he consulted with, if anyone, and he made a decision. Maybe you should have written, "If you refuse to arrive at the same answer as I, and refuse to act on that answer the way I expect you to, maybe you aren't the right person for the position."
  12. Remember, you're talking about from this point forward and, just as Morrison did, I would bend to the will of the majority. There was not a policy at the time, he followed his gut instinct at the time, his gut instinct was correct for six years, now there is a circumstance not related to his decision that requires him to honor a majority will, and the relationship with Moody was severed. If I'm still acting like him, then there's no problem here, is there?
  13. Well, I know most of the people here, and I know personally N.E. Brigand and would trust HIM with my daughter. He knows that. Only one time, with another poster, did I have a serious concern that his comments about my family were less than honorable and, thankfully, another poster here (also a friend) felt the same and reported it. But this subject is too raw, especially when referring to a 16 year old girl, to let my daughter become the focal point of some discussion. That's why I formally, and strongly, asked N.E. to back off, and he did without hesitation. My kids don't need me to defend their reputations, but I'll always defend their safety. (I can see the fire coming out of Ream's fingertips. )
  14. No, I really can't because I haven't had time to read it. But at least Jim and Jeff have so they may have a better answer although they have said here they consider it toothless. Or perhaps I was just misremembering one of Brasso's posts about the new policy.
  15. This is the single best post I've ever seen from you. Concise, to the point, and no misstated words or facts, no speculation, no embellishment. I've been reading you for years, and I didn't know you had precis in you! Shocked I am!