MikeD Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Oh, it's not rude - it's hypocritical, in your case.When the amplification proposal was paraded in front of the BOD for 14 consecutive failures, you defended Hopkins' right to propose it over and over and over regardless of it's chances of passing. When even more overwhelmingly-opposed ideas like woodwinds came up, you defended Hopkins' right to propose them too. Some pointed out that it would be a waste of time to deal with a proposal that was known to be opposed by 80% or more of the BOD, and you countered by saying there's no way to know how the final vote will go, so it's not a waste of time. You defended the concept only as long as the proposals were ideas you agreed with. The instant we have a proposal you are against, now you contend that it's a waste of the BOD's time. IMO, that is a hypocritical stance. It is MHO that it is a waste of time. Of course Tim is free to do as he pleases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 So, like Mike, it will only count if pro amp judges, instructors and directors say it. As I said to Mike, that's a very narrow field of people. Well, if an anti-amp person makes vague statements about indirect comments from judges, then yes, I do look at it differently than if a pro-amp person made the same statement. You would do the same, IMO, in a reverse situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kdiggy Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Just take the voice out and I'll be happy. My two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Well, if an anti-amp person makes vague statements about indirect comments from judges, then yes, I do look at it differently than if a pro-amp person made the same statement. You would do the same, IMO, in a reverse situation. Well, thanks for admitting to your double-standard. But could you let Dave speak for himself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Well, if an anti-amp person makes vague statements about indirect comments from judges, then yes, I do look at it differently than if a pro-amp person made the same statement. You would do the same, IMO, in a reverse situation. I don't think so. When someone says, I was there, I heard them say it, this is what they said..., I'm not so stubborn to immediately dismiss it just because the other person has a differing point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAMystreaux Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I don't think so. When someone says, I was there, I heard them say it, this is what they said..., I'm not so stubborn to immediately dismiss it just because the other person has a differing point of view. Who is them and they? What exactly did they say? When did this take place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I don't think so. When someone says, I was there, I heard them say it, this is what they said..., I'm not so stubborn to immediately dismiss it just because the other person has a differing point of view. But Adam's comments were along the lines of judges making indirect comments about needing amps, not direct ones...so he was using his own interpretation of what was being said and coming up with the conclusion that he did. That is the primary reason I am not just going to automatically buy into what he said. I'm not saying he is wrong, and I am not saying his interpretation is right. I am saying that for me his comment is less meaningful than it appears to be for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Well, thanks for admitting to your double-standard. But could you let Dave speak for himself? Dave can speak for himself just fine...I put an "IMO" in my statement. It takes more for someone to post something that goes against their own position than it does to make a post along the lines of their normal posting history. If someone as pro-amp in his or her posts as Adam is anti-amp made a comment along the lines that Adam did, then to me it would require a lot for the person to do so. On the other side, if an anti-amop person made a comment that is pro-amp in nature then I would give that a good amount of consideration as opposed to someone like me making that same pro-amp comment. If that is a double standard to you, than fine, think what you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 It is MHO that it is a waste of time. Of course Tim is free to do as he pleases. I still don't understand why you think this is a waste of time. I'm not trying to challenge you here -- I'm honestly just trying to understand why. I get that you're against this proposal. That's fine. There are (and have been every year) proposals that I am against, but I would never say that discussing them is a waste of time. Is it because you think it has no chance of passing that you think it's a waste of time? Or is it because you think it's a waste of time to re-visit a rule passed in a previous year? Or is it a waste simply because you don't agree with it? Again, I'm not trying to bait you here -- I'm really trying to understand your reasoning -- that's all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I still don't understand why you think this is a waste of time. I'm not trying to challenge you here -- I'm honestly just trying to understand why. I get that you're against this proposal. That's fine. There are (and have been every year) proposals that I am against, but I would never say that discussing them is a waste of time. Is it because you think it has no chance of passing that you think it's a waste of time? Or is it because you think it's a waste of time to re-visit a rule passed in a previous year? Or is it a waste simply because you don't agree with it? Again, I'm not trying to bait you here -- I'm really trying to understand your reasoning -- that's all A mix of reasons...I find these to be just someone who is PO'd trying to make some sort of point, knowing that they have no chance of passing. That's my primary reason. And yes, since I am pro-amp that colors my thoughts....I am pro-anything that brings DCI into the 21st Century. It does grate on me to see proposals that want DCI to move back in time. So it's probably not the specific of any one proposal, but the mindset that DCI should be moving backwards and not forwards that REALLY colors my opinion on the proposals. 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.