Submiting 8 Out of the 10 Rule Changes.....

[Triple Forte]

Maybe he just wants to make DCI drum corps better.

Maybe he does. But just maybe he has ulterior motives. That is possible too......isn't it?

He operates within the structure of the organization to present the proposals that he thinks will improve drum corps, and when they are not passed he lives with that. How is that a problem?

I don't think he "LIVES" with anything. He appears to be driven (Seems to be to the point of obsession) to have it his way all the time. That's not good......IMO.

[glory]

I think it is safe to say that believing drum corps has improved is a matter of opinion. Some items about the activity are better......some are not.....IMO.

You say that as if drum corps didn't change previously to reach the point you're satisfied with. It did change to reach the the 70s, 80s or 90s standard. Drum corps has always been changiing. It's not change we're quibbling about. It's only the specific change that's at issue.

That's why the Hopkins focus is misguided. He wasn't changed anything by himself. Leading the charge isn't the same as sole responsibilty. The activity did change because a majority of those empowered to guide it chose to do what they thought was best for now and the future.

HH

[glory]

I don't think he "LIVES" with anything. He appears to be driven (Seems to be to the point of obsession) to have it his way all the time. That's not good......IMO.

So how would that be different from you. You want it your way. Is that wrong of you?

And let's drop the ulterior motive stuff. There's no cause for that. And it leads places we shouldn't go. Places that torque me off ...

HH

[Lancerlady]

Maybe he does. But just maybe he has ulterior motives. That is possible too......isn't it?

It is very possible. And if people don't want to agree with that it is fine.

What I don't get on here, on this forum is that people think that those who don't agree with Hopkins' reconstruction of the activity seem to think we're living in the time warp or something. I just don't get it.

Can't we just not like the changes and not think they are good for the activity? Is that a feasible idea?

Edited January 12, 2008 by Lancerlady

[Triple Forte]

So how would that be different from you. You want it your way. Is that wrong of you?

Everyone would like things to go their way. But when something is not going my way, I listen and observe closely why it is not going my way. And just maybe, it shouldn't go my way...........

And let's drop the ulterior motive stuff. There's no cause for that.

Do you know his motivations? I don't. So for all we know he could have very strong ulterior motives. All I am saying is that it is a possibilty. Until I know.....I won't "Drop it" (If you don't mind) from the discussion......

And it leads places we shouldn't go. Places that torque me off ...

HH

Torqued off ??? Take a breath..............

[Triple Forte]

It is very possible. And if people don't want to agree with that it is fine.

What I don't get on here, on this forum is that people think that those who don't agree with Hopkins' reconstruction of the activity seem to think we're living in the time warp or something. I just don't get it.

Can't we just not like the changes and not think they are good for the activity? Is that a feasible idea?

Could not have said it better..........

[whitedawn]

I think you need to reassess your ability to read. I said, "Obviously an extreme example..."

so you don't deny making the comparison -- you just call it "extreme" in order to feel better about it.

way to go.

Or, maybe you need a refresher course in critical thinking?

uh, nope.

If you take notice again (with more care than you did the first time), you'll see I referenced the actions of Hopkins (submitting new rules for DCI) to the description of what he was doing (working within the organization's structure), as related by someone else. Then, I subjected the basic demands of Hitler (i.e. to be made Chancellor) to the same criterion (working within the government structure). That's all.

com·pare (kəm-pâr') Pronunciation Key

v. com·pared, com·par·ing, com·pares

v. tr.

To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken.

To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of.

remind me again how what you did was anything except comparing a drum corps director to the leader of the third reich.

My point is to show that just because one works within the rules doesn't automatically make what one does right.

you could have just said that, but instead you used the most absurd, inhuman example possible. way to go.

What's legal is not necessarily what's correct, moral, ethical, etc.

of course, but most laws are based on societal norms.

Any other supposition of commonality between the two men is pure inference on your part.

absolutely not. everyone who invokes hitler has some sort of ulterior motive. if you were solely trying to say that george is a great politician, maybe you could have used a comparison to a great consensus builder who wasn't, you know, a freaking mass-murderer.

IOW, if you think the reference to Hitler is ridiculous, then that just points out the ridiculousness of defending Hopkins by simply stating that he's working within the structure of DCI.

how can that be? i refuse to even dignify the comparison between the two organizations, but the distinction between the two organizations is clear to anyone who is willing to use some critical thinking skills.

Really, I think some of you need to turn down the level on the "Shock & Outrage Detector" and turn up the level on the "Logic Detector", or maybe even turn it on. Does the mere mention of the name "Hitler" really scare you that much? Instead of shouting "Boo!" at the haunted house, maybe we should yell "Hitler!" to scare the young'ns.

absolutely it does. absolutely. it ought to scare anyone.

THIS IS DRUM CORPS INTERNATIONAL, NOT THE THIRD REICH. the gaping chasm between the two is simply amazing in all aspects -- constitution, structure, purpose... everything. i can't believe that anyone would advance such a comparison. in germany, this would even be a crime!

the point is this -- george hopkins very often advocates change. the guy is thick-skinned, but no human deserves comparison to hitler.

[glory]

It is very possible. And if people don't want to agree with that it is fine.

Someone throws out rank speculation on the possibility of an ulterior motive and you respond with "It's very possible." Not just "It's possible." You add the "very" to make it "It's very possible." And you get that insight from where?

I'll answer that. From nowhere. You don't like his ideas. Fine. But until you can certify you can read his mind, don't go poking around yours for conspiracies for why he does what he does.

HH

[glory]

What I don't get on here, on this forum is that people think that those who don't agree with Hopkins' reconstruction of the activity seem to think we're living in the time warp or something. I just don't get it.

Can't we just not like the changes and not think they are good for the activity? Is that a feasible idea?

I can't speak for the other people you're referring to, so I'll just speak for me.

You dislike the changes Hopkins suggests. That is your right. I support your right to disagree. I will even concede that it is possible your view of what drum corps should be might be superior to mine or to his.

Where we disagree, and where you don't understand what I and others like me are saying, is your apparent view that he or I are doing something wrong in voicing our views as if we're not entitled to do precisely what you're doing. What Hopkins is doing is fundamentally the same what as you're doing. You're both pulling. You're both pulling as hard as you can because you believe the effort is worth it. You just happen to be pulling in different directions.

Think of it this way. Amplification has had the support of a majority of the corps for several years now. Yet you and those like you persist in trying to change the status quo. Doesn't that make you the same as Hopkins? Aren't you persisting for years in seeking a change that most directors aren't supporting just as Hopkins did?

I'll answer again. The difference - the only difference aside from inside/outside status - is you want a different standard for yourself than you would afford Hopkins. You want us to recognize that you're genuinely trying to protect the activity while simultaneously intimating "ulterior" motives to a man who is equally convinced he's doing the right thing.

It's possible both of you are right. It's also possible you're both wrong or that only one is right. The main thing is it's entirely feasible for all factions to respect one another - something sorely lacking in the way too many view Hopkins, a man who deserves better than y'all care to give.

HH

Edited January 12, 2008 by glory

[rut-roh]

Glory...wow! Just, wow! Like Reggie Jackson hitting home run after home run in the 1977 World Series. Standing ovation from me, sir. Well said (on ALL the posts)!