In The News – Drum Corps Chairman Resigns Amid Scrutiny Of His Hiring Of Disgraced Teacher

[N.E. Brigand]

38 minutes ago, garfield said:

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."

I know you didn't mean it to be taken this way, but a potential implication of your comment here, and thus worth a response, is that it's the victims' fault that they were abused, because they weren't "strong" enough. Again, that's very obviously not your intention, and I don't want you to read this as any sort of criticism, but it is a message that victims internalize--that only "weak" people get abused--and part of why they often don't come forward: they blame themselves.

Edited May 22, 2018 by N.E. Brigand

[N.E. Brigand]

3 hours ago, garfield said:

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.  )

I gotta stop reading posts backwards. Thank you very much for your kind words here. If I had a daughter, I would trust you with her too.

[garfield]

1 minute ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I know you didn't mean it to be taken this way, but a potential implication of your comment here, and thus worth a response, is that it's the victims' fault that they were abused, because they weren't "strong" enough. Again, that's obviously not your intention, and I don't want you to read this as any sort of attack on you, but it is a message that victims internalize--that only "weak" people get abused--and part of why they often don't come forward: they blame themselves.

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.

 

[N.E. Brigand]

Just now, garfield said:

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.

I'm just not writing very clearly today, since I thought I went to great lengths to make it clear that the potential implication of a comment like the one to which I was responding was far, far, far from how you intended your comment to be understood.

But since you didn't take my remark that way, I must not have been clear at all, so again I must apologize. And I think I should take a break from this thread so as not to cause more offense.

[garfield]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

ah so the issues raised are no concern to you then. And that Fred shot down anyone raising concerns was no concern. Your view is now perfectly clear thank you.

 

and no, DCI shouldn't have had the opportunity because for 6 years, unless people took the time to dig themselves, they had no idea his past, yet he was an assistant director who had the directors blessing with nothing stopping him from feeling that way. yet because some behaviors persisted, while unreported, that makes it all ok to you.

 

the bottom line is lack of disclosure for  years, and an very clear unwillingness to listen to anyone about him show exactly where Morrison stood...and you're ok with that or you wouldn't continue to defend it. You can spin it however you want to, your continued defense shows how you truly feel.

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".

 

[garfield]

2 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I'm just not writing very clearly today, since I thought I went to great lengths to make it clear that the potential implication of a comment like the one to which I was responding was far, far, far from how you intended your comment to be understood.

But since you didn't take my remark that way, I must not have been clear at all, so again I must apologize. And I think I should take a break from this thread so as not to cause more offense.

Ditto, and probably many reading will applaud our decision.

 

[MikeD]

7 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.

Maybe because some people do not consider this to be the case.  You have your own POV. So does Morrison.  Some here are not trying to force their POV on how they think Morrison was supposed to think, but rather are trying to view this through his filter. I'm glad Moody is gone from Bones. But I am not so quick to assign my own opinions/beliefs to Morrison. Apparently he felt it was his job as director to be the sole arbiter and keeper of the keys regarding the staff, so to speak, at least in the past. Luckily, that is no longer going to be the way any corps behave moving forward within DCI.

[skevinp]

27 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I know you didn't mean it to be taken this way, but a potential implication of your comment here, and thus worth a response, is that it's the victims' fault that they were abused, because they weren't "strong" enough. Again, that's very obviously not your intention, and I don't want you to read this as any sort of criticism, but it is a message that victims internalize--that only "weak" people get abused--and part of why they often don't come forward: they blame themselves.

Oh for the love of God.

[MusicManNJ]

22 hours ago, BRASSO said:

 Simple answer ? He was ok.. until he was outed by the Philly Inquirer. If the Philly Inquirer did not reveal this guys sordid past, he'd still be there today.

One this point... this is incorrect. Moody had been removed prior to the article coming out. I would put the impetus on the original Inquirer story re: GH. It was after this series of articles and before the one focusing on Moody that he was let go. 

[N.E. Brigand]

14 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

One this point... this is incorrect. Moody had been removed prior to the article coming out. I would put the impetus on the original Inquirer story re: GH. It was after this series of articles and before the one focusing on Moody that he was let go. 

I thought that the Inquirer article said that just a week earlier, Moody had told Genesis's director, Chris Magonigal, that he would be touring with Crossmen this summer.