Hopkins Planet?

[X DM]

Nah, I don't think we need a moratorium " for 3 months " on a topic if it's been discussed before. If a topic bothers a poster, my suggestion would be to simply bypass any thread that doesn't interest them and move on to one that does. Obviously the Director of one Corps appears to be a lightning rod for discussion that seems to interest a lot of people based upon the number of threads, views, pages. But again, if this interest on the part of lots of others bothers you, just find another thread that interests you and jump on board that thread. I don't see the big deal. And trying to censor a thread for 3 months or more simply because it doesn't interest you does not seem very tolerant of you. I see threads on here that have been repeated or threads that don't particularly interest me,. This doesn't mean I want to censor " for a minimum of 3 months " others ability to continue to discuss that topic if they are so inclined. Just learn to relax, learn to be a little more tolerant of other's interest on here, and simply scroll on by any thread that doesn't interest you.

Edited August 17, 2007 by X DM

[BigSnareline]

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting a bit tired of this place turning into All Hopkins, All the Time?

People are obsessively rambling on like a bitter ex-girlfriend... or like that scene in Being John Malkovich where he goes inside his head and everything is Malkovich, Malkovich, Malkovich...

You think I'm joking... do a quick search just for TITLES of entire TOPICS with the work Hopkins. It exceeds max number of returns.

So, I propose the following:

A ) An entire subforum dedicated to all issues related to Hopkins. A virtual smorgasborg of zombie topics, an infinite loop of bringing up the same tired thing over and over and over again... allowing the rest of the community uncluttered and undistracted opportunity to have a civil discussion about something that hasn't been discussed at least once per day since this site began.

B ) A moratorium placed on Hopkins discussions for a minimum period of three months.

C ) DCP spins out a new sister site Hopkins Planet

So your answer is yet another Hopkins thread?

[MikeD]

What is this "Hopkins" of which you speak???

:P

[Michael Boo]

But what if George stops being interesting and stimulating? What happens then? To whom would people turn to focus their mental energies? Wouldn't that honk off detractors more?

In short, wouldn't we have to invent a new George? I make reference to this is a tribute I wrote for his 25th anniversary with the corps. It's on his blog.

Here's the link.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Michael Boo

[dieselfume]

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting a bit tired of this place turning into All Hopkins, All the Time?

People are obsessively rambling on like a bitter ex-girlfriend... or like that scene in Being John Malkovich where he goes inside his head and everything is Malkovich, Malkovich, Malkovich...

You think I'm joking... do a quick search just for TITLES of entire TOPICS with the work Hopkins. It exceeds max number of returns.

So, I propose the following:

A ) An entire subforum dedicated to all issues related to Hopkins. A virtual smorgasborg of zombie topics, an infinite loop of bringing up the same tired thing over and over and over again... allowing the rest of the community uncluttered and undistracted opportunity to have a civil discussion about something that hasn't been discussed at least once per day since this site began.

B ) A moratorium placed on Hopkins discussions for a minimum period of three months.

C ) DCP spins out a new sister site Hopkins Planet

Thank You, Danielray, for one of the most salient topics submitted this year. To read DCP, one would think that Hopkins is some sort of Svengali with the other corps directors helpless before his gaze. That may be true but it says more about the other corps directors than it does about Hopkins.

[X DM]

But what if George stops being interesting and stimulating? What happens then? To whom would people turn to focus their mental energies? Wouldn't that honk off detractors more?

In short, wouldn't we have to invent a new George? I make reference to this is a tribute I wrote for his 25th anniversary with the corps. It's on his blog.

Here's the link.

I'd have to disagree with your fans criticism here that "if there was no George Hopkins, we ( the fans ) would have to invent one ".

There was Drum Corps before George Hopkins. There was never this level of heat generated when Jim Jones was directing The Troopers to Titles, Royer with SCV, Warren with Cavaliers, Bonfiglio with 27th, Blue Devils, Phantom, Blue Stars, and the others. Fast forward to today, and there is little controversy among "fans" with any of the other 21 Corps Directors. The fans do not have to invent this. It is not an invention. It was foisted upon fans. And they have responded. The notion that if Hopkins was not The Director of The Cadets, and so influential in the direction of DCI, that we" fans" would invent someone to complain about at this level of intensity is an unfortunate swipe and mischaracterization of "the fans " in my view.

[NakedEye]

I'd have to disagree with your fans criticism here that "if there was no George Hopkins, we ( the fans ) would have to invent one ".

There was Drum Corps before George Hopkins. There was never this level of heat generated when Jim Jones was directing The Troopers to Titles, Royer with SCV, Warren with Cavaliers, Bonfiglio with 27th, Blue Devils, Phantom, Blue Stars, and the others.

There was also not an internet then. A bit harder to spew out off-the-cuff instant reactions that incite other to riot by US Mail.

If there was, you would have had reactions like.."WEARING RUSSIAN FUR HATS IS AN INSALT [sic] TO THE YEARS OF TRADITION OF THE VANGUARD AND SALUTES THE COMMIES!!!!!. I AM PERSINALLY [sic] OFFENDED!!!!"

^0^

Edited August 17, 2007 by NakedEye

[DCIHasBeen]

If Hopkins didn't exist in the activity, someone would probably have to invent him ... Otherwise it would be a dull place.

Bertold Brecht's "Alienation" concept of Theatre basically states that it's irrelevant whether the audience likes or dislikes the play, as long as they are moved to thought and emotion by it.

Hopkins' Planet is a Brechtian experience.

[jcn8]

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting a bit tired of this place turning into All Hopkins, All the Time?

I couldn’t agree more. Enough already! A common theme in many of these topics is that many assert Hopkins is an evil person who only cares for himself and his agenda and one who is out to singularly take control of drum corps. I chuckle at the people who firmly believe this, but who continue to give him “air” time on DCP and elsewhere. If all you allege is true, aren’t you giving him exactly what he wants by incessantly debating his every action? If you believe one of his objectives is to incite the drum corps community, aren’t you publicly validating for him that he is doing a great job? You might wish to consider some philosophies on behavioral reinforcement from the world of behavioral science. I offer that, if Hopkins is everything many of you allege, you are providing him with “positive reinforcement” for his actions. Good job! Expect him to continue to incite you and keep stoking his ego. Conversely, you might wish to consider “extinction” as a form of reinforcement, which would basically mean that taking away the attention you are giving him might influence him to change his behavior. I know, we are talking about George Hopkins and it might be unlikely. However, continuing to give his ideas a forum in which they are repeatedly debated and publicized makes no sense to me whatsoever.

One other point, which might even be more important, let’s assume Hopkins is a loose cannon and that he will continue at all expenses to barrel ahead with his agenda. If this is true, isn’t he already a lost cause and, therefore, aren’t your efforts better directed at the other directors/corps to make sure they don’t adopt Hopkins’ ideas? If you can’t “save” Hopkins, shouldn’t you be trying to save the other directors before they go over to the dark side? I can’t recall the last time I saw a topic that had anything to do with publicly chastising another corps or director for adopting one of Hopkins’ “rogue” ideas. I’m beginning to think that the only purpose for the attacks on Hopkins is so that people can blow off steam when they come home from work. If you are serious about advancing your objections, make a wise decision about to whom you direct your criticism. I do not profess to know if Hopkins is as evil as many allege (although I don’t believe it), but I firmly believe your comments on here aren’t going to change his direction. Redirect your energies and you might have a better chance for success. If, however, your intention is only to b#tch for the purpose of being heard, then have a ball, you’ve come to the right place.

[Piper]

I'd have to disagree with your fans criticism here that "if there was no George Hopkins, we ( the fans ) would have to invent one ".

There was Drum Corps before George Hopkins. There was never this level of heat generated when Jim Jones was directing The Troopers to Titles, Royer with SCV, Warren with Cavaliers, Bonfiglio with 27th, Blue Devils, Phantom, Blue Stars, and the others. Fast forward to today, and there is little controversy among "fans" with any of the other 21 Corps Directors. The fans do not have to invent this. It is not an invention. It was foisted upon fans. And they have responded. The notion that if Hopkins was not The Director of The Cadets, and so influential in the direction of DCI, that we" fans" would invent someone to complain about at this level of intensity is an unfortunate swipe and mischaracterization of "the fans " in my view.

I'll go with that. The contoversy that Hoppy generates is not something that fans just dreamed up in their sleep. There's no happy medium with that guy. His positive ratings are very high and his negative ratings are very low. I can't recall any other director who's managed to put himself in that rather unenviable position. You sleep in the bed that you made.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Piper