HockeyDad Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said: i've been saying this too. it gets ignored. I'm sure Fred is a nice guy, hence the defense put forward, as opposed to alightning rod like Hopkins. It doesn't excuse a #### thing I'm sure he is a nice guy too. And that actually makes it all the harder. Nice people can be well meaning etc. and still have a blind spot. That doesn't make you a bad person. But if you refuse to listen when you're being told you've made a large mistake, then maybe you're just not the right person for the position. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: i know you arent dense, but you refuse to acknowledge a key point of my argument: yes he is gone NOW. from 2012 til 5/1, he WAS there. And nothing was disclosed. Why is this so ###### hard to acknowledge, especially as this came out, how colossal of a blunder this was? This could have solved the issue provided he behaved himself, which apparently he didn't. You misunderstand, Jeff. I understand and acknowledge your point and it is true and valid. I simply don't place the emphasis on full disclosure in this case that you do. No need to keep repeating it on my account; it simply doesn't carry the weight to me that it does to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 3 hours ago, ftwdrummer said: I'm not sure on your bolded part. I'm reminded of (in a much lower-stakes situation) the discussion of suspected PED users in baseball where "if you just admitted it, it would be fine"...and then when McGwire admitted it, everyone came down on him with a "how DARE you?" I'm less confident that people wouldn't have reacted poorly even if it had been disclosed and he'd behaved. if Fred had disclosed...and Joel had behaved....Fred looks like a hero! He gave an offer of forgiveness and Joel made the most of it. However, Joel didn't, so it's a double whammy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, garfield said: You misunderstand, Jeff. I understand and acknowledge your point and it is true and valid. I simply don't place the emphasis on full disclosure in this case that you do. No need to keep repeating it on my account; it simply doesn't carry the weight to me that it does to you. then you are making the same mistake that has caused DCI these, and soon to be more headaches I'm sure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 3 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said: I don't know for sure what I'd "like", actually--and I do appreciate your pushing back. Here's what I'm wondering: does Morrison not really believe in DCI's new policies? If they would have prevented him from hiring Moody, shouldn't he, if he is consistent that it was right for him to give Moody that second chance, feel that DCI is making a mistake by putting in place rules that prevent second chances? He might very well disagree with the new policy, but I'm sure you're aware that the directors of all of the corps are members and Morrison's responsibility is to make policy based on the desires of the whole group. Perhaps Morrison is simply acknowledging Robert's Rules, and nothing more. Remember, there was no central policy. Now that there is, Morrison is compelled to follow it. To me that says he honored his role as Chair, and he honors the wishes of the greater Board. The Board is responsible for the decisions that protect and promote the whole activity and I'm sure Morrison understood that import as he was helping to draft the new policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 3 hours ago, BRASSO said: Too many questions ( 5 ), too little time. I'll keep it simple with the same reply to all 5 : " I don't know ". However, they're good questions to wonder about imo 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! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, garfield said: He might very well disagree with the new policy, but I'm sure you're aware that the directors of all of the corps are members and Morrison's responsibility is to make policy based on the desires of the whole group. Perhaps Morrison is simply acknowledging Robert's Rules, and nothing more. Remember, there was no central policy. Now that there is, Morrison is compelled to follow it. To me that says he honored his role as Chair, and he honors the wishes of the greater Board. The Board is responsible for the decisions that protect and promote the whole activity and I'm sure Morrison understood that import as he was helping to draft the new policy. OK, thanks for this. That still leaves open the question of whether DCI is right to prohibit second chances, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Eleran said: Can you point to the provision of the new policy that would specifically prevent a hire similar to Moody's 2012 hire? I'm not trying to be snarky - I just didn't see it in there, though I only looked briefly, and I'd like to review it. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 (edited) Thanks - I looked at it again, and I didn't find anything in there regarding hiring guidelines or setting any limits on what backgrounds could or could not be hired. It all dealt with addressing future behavior. Unless I'm missing something, this policy would not prohibit a corps from hiring Scott-Lee Atchison or Joel Moody. Or George Hopkins, for that matter. Edited May 22, 2018 by Eleran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 22, 2018 Share Posted May 22, 2018 3 hours ago, E3D said: Yeah you handled that a little better than I would have. The trouble with the interwebz Message boards / social media's is that when you mention something about family details - sometimes that is taken as cart blanch to speak about another's family. Not saying that is what was done in the post that you replied to but it can and does happen. 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. ) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.