Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I'm still curious about everyone's take on the water proposal. It's interesting that there isn't any discussion going on about that one. First water was allowed, then it wasn't, and now it's maybe alowed again. I'm not sure which way is moving backwards and which way is moving forwards anymore -- seems to me that DCI (instructors, directors, whatever) are continually examing this issue to see what works best. Why has all this back and forth gotten a pass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I disagree. They are not positive in any way, inc group dynamics.

Please disregard my comments about bando-fication, which might be distracting your attention from my main point.

Going back to my post prior to the one you quoted, I discussed how individuals might react to proposals based on factors beyond the actual content of the proposal.

And in the post you quoted, I was just making the point that putting an anti-amp message in proposal form has the potential to solicit a different reaction from the group than the same message posed as an informal comment spoken against a formal pro-amp proposal. The positive energy of a proposal as compared to the negative energy of a rebuttal. The message context can make a difference.

If you don't like the terms positive and negative, proactive and reactive will suffice for me. I wasn't attempting to impart a value judgment in my terminology, any more than the positive and negative terminals on a battery have any inherent goodness or badness.

But separate from my point on group dynamics, I still like the proposals. :tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still curious about everyone's take on the water proposal. It's interesting that there isn't any discussion going on about that one. First water was allowed, then it wasn't, and now it's maybe alowed again. I'm not sure which way is moving backwards and which way is moving forwards anymore -- seems to me that DCI (instructors, directors, whatever) are continually examing this issue to see what works best. Why has all this back and forth gotten a pass?

It's Adolf Hitler's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Adolf Hitler's fault.

Actually, it's my fault. I have been secretly using George Hopkins in a mind-control experiment to perfect my device that will install the Fourth Reich. :ph34r::tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forgot the IMO. Twice, actually. But again, as no one has proposed reviewing any of those other changes, I don't see why you bring them up in this context.

Why not? As I said, they are all items that improve drum corps...and yes, it's MHO. Removing any of them is regressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please disregard my comments about bando-fication, which might be distracting your attention from my main point.

Going back to my post prior to the one you quoted, I discussed how individuals might react to proposals based on factors beyond the actual content of the proposal.

And in the post you quoted, I was just making the point that putting an anti-amp message in proposal form has the potential to solicit a different reaction from the group than the same message posed as an informal comment spoken against a formal pro-amp proposal. The positive energy of a proposal as compared to the negative energy of a rebuttal. The message context can make a difference.

If you don't like the terms positive and negative, proactive and reactive will suffice for me. I wasn't attempting to impart a value judgment in my terminology, any more than the positive and negative terminals on a battery have any inherent goodness or badness.

OK...got you now.

But separate from my point on group dynamics, I still like the proposals. :tongue:

And I still hate them. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey no need to go crazy on the rollbacks.....

At least let me use my 1 valver :tongue:

Hey, 3-valves are just an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is useless to engage you on the topic, as you obviously weren't grasping the point after two tries. I am not going to let this thread turn into a debate on the barbarity of Nazi Germany.

Defending Hopkins' from claims of having an ulterior motive by merely saying that he works within the DCI system is the same as defending Hitler because he worked within the system of the Weimar Republic to achieve his ulterior motive. Not that their motives are the same, not that their results are the same.

If that small point is too obtuse for you to understand, I have nothing further to say.

You were the one who turned this into a discussion about Hitler, so we need not let lie your over-simplification and outright mistakes. No one should misunderstand Hitler’s history as you’ve presented it.

Hitler was not a genius politician as you would have us believe. He was a thug who led a band of thugs to power by intimidation and criminal manipulation. Your effort to sanitize this history should stop.

(Read my previous post disputing his version of history.)

And to be sure, you’re welcome to think me obtuse if indeed you actually do have nothing further to say on this topic.,

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...