LAMystreaux Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 ???? He said his proposals, not his proposals concerning amps. HH is pwning you guys. Good job! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueemrld8 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Yes, it only took a dozen years for him to convince enough of the BOD to approve amps...and that is WITH the support of the instructors. Some "ability". are you saying that he just keeps pushing untill the BoD gets too tired to bother? (real question... please treat it as such, i was to know) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAMystreaux Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 are you saying that he just keeps pushing untill the BoD gets too tired to bother?(real question... please treat it as such, i was to know) How hard is it to vote your conscience? You guys act like he has forced people to vote a certain way. That is an insult to the other directors. I mentioned this months ago in this same kind of thread. I know this example is far-fetched, but still speaks to this point. If someone was presenting legislation session after session trying to legalize the sale of crack cocaine, I would continually vote it down, no matter how many times it was presented, or what angles were presented in the discussion of it because at my core I feel it is wrong. Let's stop selling these other directors short, please. It is insulting to them and shows the short-sightedness of some of us on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 (edited) 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 Well played my friend. You know I always think back to that 1997 broadcast and the Brass Roots video where most of the original founders of DCI were talking about the formation of DCI and why it developed. Part of that reason was the continual desire to push for change. I wonder if these same directors still feel the same way now that DCI is now embarking on amps and electronics. Kind of like, "I created a monster" sort of mentality. Just from the outside looking in, since I don't know any of these guys personally, I feel they support the direction DCI is going. Maybe not full fledge, but they still support. I feel Hopkins is only continuing on in the tradition of why DCI was formed after all. Edited January 12, 2008 by Whiskey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 HH is pwning you guys. Good job! Hey Glory, you have a cheerleader, a fan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancerlady Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Well played my friend. You know I always think back to that 1997 broadcast and the Brass Roots video where most of the original founders of DCI were talking about the formation of DCI and why it developed. Part of that reason was the continual desire to push for change. I wonder if these same directors still feel the same way now that DCI is now embarking on amps and electronics. Kind of like, "I created a monster" sort of mentality. Just from the outside looking in, since I don't know any of these guys personally, I feel they support the direction DCI is going. Maybe not full fledge, but they still support. I feel Hopkins is only continuing on in the tradition of why DCI was formed after all. This may be how YOU feel but certainly not how I saw the video, Some of it was about money and them not getting that money they deserved from the competitions. That was on the video of Brass roots. The reason why DCI was formed was not just about "change" but to break away from manipulation of others making money off of them. That part seems to be coming full circle doesn't it? So yeah, maybe it is time for a new circuit. There is no need for "continual" change, what is the activity "changing" into? It's actually changing away from drum corps all together and going into a money making project for some. But if some of y'all don't want to see that now, I understand. To me, personally it's changing into Band. I attended a BOD meeting and I can tell you not all the directors voted as some on here would like to think. Alot of them did vote to stop some of these silly proposals but were out numbered by a few persistent members. Sometimes all it takes is 1 person to make it a majority. Have you guys thought about that aspect of the voting procedure? I didn't think so. It is not DCI that is embarking on amps and electronics but one man who is submitting these same proposals over and over. And he has said numerous times he will not give up until he gets the votes he needs. He says it in his blogs and other publications. I know at least ONE of those men personally on a mentor level and I know how he feels but it is not for me to post. I have met some of the others and again it is not for me to post their thoughts. HH Pwning me? No, I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAMystreaux Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 I attended a BOD meeting and I can tell you not all the directors voted as some on here would like to think. Alot of them did vote to stop some of these silly proposals but were out numbered by a few persistent members. Sometimes all it takes is 1 person to make it a majority. Have you guys thought about that aspect of the voting procedure? All it takes is 1 person to make a majority? Could you please explain this one further. All it takes for a majority is, well, a majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeM Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Maybe he does. But just maybe he has ulterior motives. That is possible too......isn't it? You'll have a hard time getting the borg to admit this is a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMichael1230 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 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)! Or striking out at each "at-bat". Depends on how you look at it....... ~G~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancerlady Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 (edited) All it takes is 1 person to make a majority? Could you please explain this one further.All it takes for a majority is, well, a majority. Sure, I'll explain. You have a certain amount of members who can vote on things. For example, Let's say you have 13 members who can vote and 6 of those vote yes but 6 of those vote no that means there is that one vote left that can be persuaded. All it takes is for one member to carry the majority of the vote. That's what I mean. So for all of those who seem to think that all of the bod members voted on these "changes" is simply not true. Edited January 13, 2008 by Lancerlady 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.