LabMaster Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 3 hours ago, garfield said: dis·in·gen·u·ous ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/ adjective not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical "that innocent, teary-eyed look is just part of a disingenuous act" OK, so disingenuous is not a "name". Got it. I'll change my sentence. Disingenuous? What right do we have to call a loyal corps supporter any names at all say anything negative or accusatory about a loyal supporter? So, the opinions here include casting aspersions against at least one corps, and include suggesting that one or more of their donors, sponsors, and contributors are, by putting restrictions on their gifts, being insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; and/or hypocritical. Do I have that right so far? And we haven't even seen the contract. That's your spin. Again I never said anything negative about a supporter. Unlike you. Find me one time where I have "cast aspersions" or said anything specifically negative about a supporter or their favored organization. Find me one thing where I said anything specifically negative about CC. When someone expresses an opinion that you may not agree you lash out with snarky comments? You sir are everything you mentioned in your comments to me. I've never said anything like you are insinuating I did. So keep on spinning YOUR truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabMaster Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 3 hours ago, garfield said: I appreciate your gifting a lot, even if your logic of taking advantage of exiting tax rules baffles me. Your altruism is impressive even if we don't know the extent of your support. Perhaps the size, or lack there-of, prompts you to focus on the altruism. My apologies, I don't believe that. I just wondered if your are familiar with the other end of the pitchfork. There is no evidence that has been shown here, as of this moment, that suggests anything other than Crown is enforcing a contract and some parents are complaining about it. You have no idea what you are talking about. Exiting tax rules? What does that mean? PROVIDE THE CONTRACT. PROVIDE THE SCHOLARSHIP LANGUAGE if you can and so certain it is enforceable. You seem to have all the answers. How about proof to back up your assertions that this is a witch hunt of some sort by BAC supporters. This all started as a very simple thing: The questioning of a revocation of a scholarship and the validity of such a thing. It wasn't even a direct accusation. Many DCPr's stated IF this were true; and it needed to be proven true; and IF it turned out to not be a valid revocation and IF the demand continued, then and only then would it be considered bad taste and not looked upon with a favorable view. But you decided that because I used a word to express an opinion, "Disingenuous", you could attack me and infer I said things I did not. That says a lot about you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 5 hours ago, garfield said: 1. "Unfairly" is subjective in this situation, isn't it? Crown enforced a contract provision, apparently. 2. Crown and which others? Name them or guess them! This is your tale. And these corps conspired to stick it to BAC for enticing away their staffs and kids? (Hasn't that been going on for ages in this activity to one extent or another?) So they agreed as a group to tell DCI's scheduling office that they all had scheduling conflicts with the show? Or, considering that the show is a (presumably) money-maker for BAC, maybe those corps who had their staffs and kids enticed by BAC don't really want to put another nickel into BAC's pocket this year. Can't say as I'd blame them. I guess this is one nice aspect about corps directors being able to select their own tours. I doubt this is a surprise to BAC and, if it is, IMO, it is they who were naive. 3 Well, it is reasonably true that I am potentially being naive. Edit: And let me throw in here that if BAC is ticked off at (a few?) corps for not attending their show, it also means that there are a bunch of other corps who would love to come perform! Unless you're saying that they ALL are "boycotting" the BAC show! Whew! That's some big claim there. The point is that the lineup they get at their show matters little unless it's an activity-wide boycott and not enough corps will be willing to be in the area intentionally to punish BAC. If that's the case, then maybe the tide has turned on the practice of staff-"enticing" (doubt that - they all benefit from a free and open marketplace for talent). 1. I agree "unfairly" is subject to be an opinion...perhaps I could more carefully crafted my response with a better word...BUT...my choice of words (quite mild IMO) is justified and I could have even used a egregious description based upon what has been disclosed...No one has published publicly a contract concerning this scholarship...so that even the existence of a contract about scholarships is actually in dispute...I find it "very troubling" that a contract was made for a "scholarship"...I do believe that more than not...one was made...I find it interesting after reading many of Eleran's posts that there is "serious doubt" that this supposed contract could even be enforced. 2. The Cadets specifically to my knowledge. I can't speak for others and have not personally inquired further as to whether there were more parties involved. 3. You do make a few good points. I do feel though that your characterization and supposition of many of Boston fans is unwarranted. As far as the boycott is concerned in your edit part of your post...Dan Acheson was very aware of this situation...If this was not a volatile and true situation...then those that are the detractors give me a very good reason as to why Mr. Acheson went to Boston to meet with the entire administration at Boston specifically to address this very boyciott...I am not going to divulge any part of the specific conversation...so please don't attempt to solicit the "show me the proof" route again...Any other DCI staff that have expressed that this was all just a"logistical" decision on the part of Crown and Cadets are 100% FALSE reports...especially including but not limited to any email conversations that supposedly were shared with a DCP poster that a boycott did not exist...That poster's claims who was indeed adamant...seems to permeate lot's of fake news stories including the supposition that Crown did not even offer "scholarships"... have been obviously debunked in this entire thread.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 7 hours ago, BRASSO said: While true, my comments above here were directed exclusively to athletic " scholarships " the player receives from the school at the Div.1A level. Not every scholarship at D1a is a full ride, even for athletes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 6 hours ago, garfield said: 1. "Unfairly" is subjective in this situation, isn't it? Crown enforced a contract provision, apparently. 2. Crown and which others? Name them or guess them! This is your tale. And these corps conspired to stick it to BAC for enticing away their staffs and kids? (Hasn't that been going on for ages in this activity to one extent or another?) So they agreed as a group to tell DCI's scheduling office that they all had scheduling conflicts with the show? Or, considering that the show is a (presumably) money-maker for BAC, maybe those corps who had their staffs and kids enticed by BAC don't really want to put another nickel into BAC's pocket this year. Can't say as I'd blame them. I guess this is one nice aspect about corps directors being able to select their own tours. I doubt this is a surprise to BAC and, if it is, IMO, it is they who were naive. 3 Well, it is reasonably true that I am potentially being naive. Edit: And let me throw in here that if BAC is ticked off at (a few?) corps for not attending their show, it also means that there are a bunch of other corps who would love to come perform! Unless you're saying that they ALL are "boycotting" the BAC show! Whew! That's some big claim there. The point is that the lineup they get at their show matters little unless it's an activity-wide boycott and not enough corps will be willing to be in the area intentionally to punish BAC. If that's the case, then maybe the tide has turned on the practice of staff-"enticing" (doubt that - they all benefit from a free and open marketplace for talent). Funny now how all of a sudden poor little Boston is being picked on by the big bad bullies. My god you'd think the corps deflated some footballs however scheduling that time of the year isn't quite so easy as you also have the west getting their last shoes and a swing through the Midwest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 43 minutes ago, Liahona said: 1. I agree "unfairly" is subject to be an opinion...perhaps I could more carefully crafted my response with a better word...BUT...my choice of words (quite mild IMO) is justified and I could have even used a egregious description based upon what has been disclosed...No one has published publicly a contract concerning this scholarship...so that even the existence of a contract about scholarships is actually in dispute...I find it "very troubling" that a contract was made for a "scholarship"...I do believe that more than not...one was made...I find it interesting after reading many of Eleran's posts that there is "serious doubt" that this supposed contract could even be enforced. 2. The Cadets specifically to my knowledge. I can't speak for others and have not personally inquired further as to whether there were more parties involved. 3. You do make a few good points. I do feel though that your characterization and supposition of many of Boston fans is unwarranted. As far as the boycott is concerned in your edit part of your post...Dan Acheson was very aware of this situation...If this was not a volatile and true situation...then those that are the detractors give me a very good reason as to why Mr. Acheson went to Boston to meet with the entire administration at Boston specifically to address this very boyciott...I am not going to divulge any part of the specific conversation...so please don't attempt to solicit the "show me the proof" route again...Any other DCI staff that have expressed that this was all just a"logistical" decision on the part of Crown and Cadets are 100% FALSE reports...especially including but not limited to any email conversations that supposedly were shared with a DCP poster that a boycott did not exist...That poster's claims who was indeed adamant...seems to permeate lot's of fake news stories including the supposition that Crown did not even offer "scholarships"... have been obviously debunked in this entire thread.. No disrespect but the Boston Borg has become so thin skinned, unless someone in the room at said meeting is willing to go public I'm going to ignore the hoopla. Corps have been ###### at other corps and skipped shows for decades for a plethora of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said: Funny now how all of a sudden poor little Boston is being picked on by the big bad bullies. My god you'd think the corps deflated some footballs however scheduling that time of the year isn't quite so easy as you also have the west getting their last shoes and a swing through the Midwest The sad facts are they are bullies but Boston knows how to deal with bullies...so they don't need to play some victim card...it's quite apparent that many just aren't willing to accept the facts...as the kids these days say...it's obvious that Cadets and Crown were "butthurt"... I agree with you that scheduling is not easy...but this is not the corps first rodeo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 1 hour ago, LabMaster said: That's your spin. hey! You stole my coined term...haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, Liahona said: The sad facts are they are bullies but Boston knows how to deal with bullies...so they don't need to play some victim card...it's quite apparent that many just aren't willing to accept the facts...as the kids these days say...it's obvious that Cadets and Crown were "butthurt"... I agree with you that scheduling is not easy...but this is not the corps first rodeo... Well you're doing a fine job of playing the victim card here Mr. Kraft. So they they were butt hurt. I'm sure 27 danced when George and Peggy went to Garfield. Know how to get em back? beat em. On the field. Make them need you. Don't #### and moan on DCp. That's how you win. Remember just oust a few years ago, 7 corps tried to hijack dci, with one of them truly leading the way. Did the other 16 directors come here crying? No. They got their #### together and made sure the others couldn't do it without them. howd that standalone tour of champions thing working out anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 6 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: No disrespect but the Boston Borg has become so thin skinned, unless someone in the room at said meeting is willing to go public I'm going to ignore the hoopla. Corps have been ###### at other corps and skipped shows for decades for a plethora of reasons. That is fine and no disrespect taken...I've just about had it with all the lies from certain individuals...perhaps I've blown a gasket and need a time out...but so many posters who were not in the room as you've alluded here...keep pouring onto these forums a bunch of hooey that is just flat out false...opinions are fine...but outright falsehoods spread IMO are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts