cixelsyd Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Wow, you dug deep to find that. In his defense, that was "pre-concussion". No, that quote came from a discussion about the concussion concerns already prevalent in 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 1, 2015 Author Share Posted May 1, 2015 No, that quote came from a discussion about the concussion concerns already prevalent in 2012. Well, duh, of course it is. I tip my hat to your correction. Even I can't get Brasso a break, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Even I can't get Brasso a break, apparently. He doesn't need one. If there is anyone who can prevent himself from being tarnished, it's Brasso. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) No, that quote came from a discussion about the concussion concerns already prevalent in 2012. No... the football " concussion concerns " of today far, far exceed those present 2012... both in severity of long term impairments, NFL acknowledgement of its long term potential damage, and in recent out of court settlements since 2012 to their new found belief in the evidence. Also, further university studies since 2012 have corroborated the early connection between football concussions and later mental health negative repercussions as a result of these football concussions. So it is entirely appropriate to modify ones remarks over the course of 3 years, when in the course of those 3 years, new info has come to the public square that makes a former 3 year old prediction perhaps not as relevent as the time upon which it was made. We make predictions now for this season. I have not seen the ferocity present to go back to 2012 however to determine if such predictions of mine made in 2012 are still relevent today. But, 2012 predictions of mine ( despite the changes in the intervening 3 years ) seem to be of interest still to a small handful of people here in 2015, so thats pretty flattering, I must admit. Here's another "startling" acknowledgement: I might change my 2015 observations made today by 2018. if over the next 3 years, new info comes to the fore that might persuade me to alter and/ or adjust my previously held observations. How about that, huh ? Edited May 1, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammaster Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 At least NFL has given up their tax exempt status now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 He doesn't need one. If there is anyone who can prevent himself from being tarnished, it's Brasso. Ha; I see what you did there! Bravo!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Looping back in the direction of this thread's original subject, I think this article may be of interest: When Big Companies Sponsor Stuff, Does It Work? The answer seems to be: nobody knows. But it would be nice if DCI could find someone willing to lose $39 million on them, as the Post Office apparently did by sponsoring Lance Armstrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Looping back in the direction of this thread's original subject, I think this article may be of interest: When Big Companies Sponsor Stuff, Does It Work? The answer seems to be: nobody knows. But it would be nice if DCI could find someone willing to lose $39 million on them, as the Post Office apparently did by sponsoring Lance Armstrong. so you're saying DCI needs to use PED's, then scream the tests are tainted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 But it would be nice if DCI could find someone willing to lose $39 million on them, as the Post Office apparently did by sponsoring Lance Armstrong. I hear you, but the post office doesn't need Lance Armstrong to lose stuff these days. They seem fully capable of doing this all by themselves. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Would the Drum Corps meaning of "P.E.D." be "Performably Extreme Design"?? Edited May 13, 2015 by HornTeacher 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.