garfield

Members
  • Content Count

    12,785
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

garfield last won the day on November 29 2018

garfield had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,580 Excellent

About garfield

  • Rank
    DCP Fanatic

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Central Ohio

Recent Profile Visitors

2,344 profile views
  1. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    As a good friend said to me and I kind of agree with: "I prefer to be stealthy and under the radar, and deadly effective". Suits my style better than swinging around a pitchfork. Besides, under the circumstances of this organization, talking to the right people can seem difficult and confusing and lends itself well to delays from process mistakes, like contacting the wrong people first. I don't like process delays.
  2. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    Anyone contact Kathy Black?
  3. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    Yea, this makes sense. Fair question.
  4. garfield

    Drum Corps Passwords

    In Mass. of course, it's DCI4EVAH
  5. garfield

    Drum Corps Passwords

    Thanks Mods! Glad you caught it!
  6. garfield

    Drum Corps Passwords

    Don't be a party pooper. Does it create drum corps passwords?
  7. garfield

    Drum Corps Passwords

    Some of these are really good. Some are very cryptic. No harm in sharing what they mean to make it easy to decode here and, more important, remember it if someone uses it.
  8. garfield

    Drum Corps Passwords

    this is really good! And I can remember this.
  9. garfield

    Drum Corps Passwords

    Your second one is invalid: No duplicates easy fix, of course. Love Blu$m0ke That's great.
  10. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    No, that's not an apt analogy. You can do better; the question is valid.
  11. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    I get your point here, we see this the same in general. But, if it's true that the record-scrubbing occurred as a result of the Hopkins suits, is shows a proactive attempt to CYA and hide important information. If this is Morrison's answer to allowing sunshine in, then I just don't think that his viewpoint fits in with the actions DCI has to take. Trying to hide a past robs others from making an informed decision about a potential abuser. That can't be excusable in an activity trying to rid itself of that potential, and not just the optics.
  12. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    Wait, please clarify: You're saying that Morrison paid the scrubbing firm IN RESPONSE to the public announcement of the Hopkins suits? I thought that he scrubbed during the hiring process - not true?
  13. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    There's not a single thing in this post with which I disagree. I would not take the public-shaming route, but your approach is always your choice. Complain on here...
  14. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    The Crossmen BoD surely has a right to know the grievance and I would surely cc: them, but I'd suggest it's time for questions to be directed at the Chair of the BoD, Kathy Black. She's a rational person who's deeply passionate about enacting solutions that protect participants. This is what I'm told by many people, and what I believe I've seen personally. A rational contact, in writing is highly suggested, addressing the situation with your pitchfork put away may surprise you in the answer and acceptance. JMO
  15. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    I only read the first pgh... Let's be clear, it's not a "recommendation" at all, it's a firm requirement. I'll say it as it was literally said to me: "So long as XXXX is a part of the XXXX organization, XXXX will never participate in DCI events. Period." Now, I'll go read the second pgh...