audiodb Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Constant misrepresentation of this quote only serves to dilute any other point that is being made, imo. Which, it would seem, is the goal in that case.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) Which, it would seem, is the goal in that case.... Not necessarily -- the original quote was a long time ago (in DCP-time), so it could easily be innocently mis-remembered. More than one person has made a similar interpretation and sometimes these things take on a life of their own, so I just thought I would take the opportunity to pull the actual quote back up to clarify, that's all Edited February 11, 2008 by Liam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Bari Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Yes, I know companies do that. How is that remotely equal to George making proposals to the BOD at DCI, people he has dealt with for decades in some cases?I have had some VERY good tapes from judges who just are not the best extemporaneous speakers....and some lousy ones from well-spoken folks who have nothing of import to add, but add that "nothing" very well. and of course...vice versa. I read his proposals. I find them reactionary and against the traditions of drum corps to go backwards. One of the best things to me has been the decades of progress and new ideas that help drum corps get better and better. Are you saying that Tim was justified in having an "attitude", if indeed he had one, because no matter what he said his proposals just were not going to fly? What "opportunity"? Apparently the caucus thought the ideas were DOA, and I agree. Why should they waste valuable time on items they have absolutely NO interest in? Esp if the presenter was coming off like "Howard Stern"? What does knowing people for decades have to do with being professional? Does that mean Senator Kennedy can deliver a speech on the Senate floor that rambles and has no point to it? (oops, bad example ) Does it really hurt much to clean up one's work for public consumption? I guess so. (see last sentence of my prior post.) So, Tim is one of those well-spoken folks with "nothing of import to add". Got it. Again, we see the fallacy of the progress-ratchet: keep submitting proposals to change, no matter how badly they lose; then when one gets through, declare that no further proposals on the issue should be heard - "backwards" is anathema. What drum corps "traditions" could you possibly believe in? There is only one: the "tradition" of change, which is a contradiction in terms. It is honoring tradition in the breach. It is a useless term. You seriously using the terms tradition and drum corps positively in the same sentence is laughable. Did I say anything about justifying his "attitude"? (stipulating that he had one.) No, and if indeed he had one, it was not professional either. Just emphasizes the uselessness of the Caucus. I agree with you that they saw him and his ideas DOA. But what does it say about an organization that passes unprofessionally presented ideas, shuts out ideas that don't comport with the groupthink (regardless of the presentation), and misses opportunities to end divisive debates once and for all? (Sounds like the English Rump Parliament of 1648 - 1653.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Bari Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Not necessarily -- the original quote was a long time ago (in DCP-time), so it could easily be innocently mis-remembered. Mor than one person has made a similar mistake. Just thought I would take the opportunity to pull the actual quote back up to clarify, that's all Except that MikeD keeps using that as justification for believing that Tim had an "attitude". (I doubt I have to quote all the usages to prove that.) So, Liam, you're being unreasonably generous about this particular usage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 OK.If I write something, I always get it edited, just like I always edit others' work. It's impossible to edit your own work objectively in business, there are always checkers and editors. George's proposal wouldn't have seen the light of day in that form in the real world. Ideas are important, but so is presentation. (Or was all of that discussion earlier about how Tim approached the Caucus meeting a waste of time and oxygen?) Maybe you are saying that DCI is really a low-rent business where professionalism is in such scarcity that it's a bother? No, I am saying that those anti-George folks like to use his lack of writing polish as a hammer to hit him over the head with, and IMO it's silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 What does knowing people for decades have to do with being professional? Does that mean Senator Kennedy can deliver a speech on the Senate floor that rambles and has no point to it? (oops, bad example ) Does it really hurt much to clean up one's work for public consumption? I guess so. (see last sentence of my prior post.) Why should he? It's his and DCI's business. Not yours or mine. So, Tim is one of those well-spoken folks with "nothing of import to add". Got it. I did not say that, though IMO his proposals were lousy ideas, no matter how well written. Maybe he has others that are not as reactionary and backwards. Again, we see the fallacy of the progress-ratchet: keep submitting proposals to change, no matter how badly they lose; then when one gets through, declare that no further proposals on the issue should be heard - "backwards" is anathema. Yes, at least in these cases it is, 100%...IMO. What drum corps "traditions" could you possibly believe in? There is only one: the "tradition" of change, which is a contradiction in terms. It is honoring tradition in the breach. It is a useless term. You seriously using the terms tradition and drum corps positively in the same sentence is laughable. Go ahead and laugh. I meant what I said. Drum corps has had a tradtion of NOT standing still or moving backwards since my first year, 1964, and before that as well, as far as I can tell. So yes, having a history of 'change' does make that part of the tradition of the activity. Did I say anything about justifying his "attitude"? (stipulating that he had one.) No, and if indeed he had one, it was not professional either. Just emphasizes the uselessness of the Caucus. I agree with you that they saw him and his ideas DOA. But what does it say about an organization that passes unprofessionally presented ideas, shuts out ideas that don't comport with the groupthink (regardless of the presentation), and misses opportunities to end divisive debates once and for all? (Sounds like the English Rump Parliament of 1648 - 1653.) I don't see any 'divisive debate' except here on the internet, which is not relevant to how they operate. Certainly not in DCI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) People know Howard and how he asks questions. IMO if he said Howard Stern that is who he meant. If he wanted to say someone else's name he would have. And if he wanted to say "how he asks questions" rather than "more like one that Howard Stern would have asked" he would have. Please, Mike .... Again: Tims question was more like one that Howard Stern would have asked. Straight to the point on a controversial subject. I know that you're a big believer in taking people at their word -- i.e., what they say, not what someone else thinks they say. You are constantly correcting people for commenting not on what you said, but on what they "think" you said. I don't see anything in this quote about "how (Howard Stern) asks questions" -- Just about the type of questions he asks -- namely "Straight to the point on a controversial subject." Hearing the name Howard Stern and attaching all the bad things you associate with that name is just as bad as that people do that with the name George Hopkins. I swear, if someone came on here and said they passed Mr. Hopkins on the street yesterday, someone else would find fault with George for that somehow because just hearing the name sets them off an "everything that's wrong with George Hopkins" rant. Can't we just take this one quote at face value using the words that were ACTUALLY used? Doesn't really change your overall point one bit to my eye .... (edited for my atrocious typing !!!!) Edited February 11, 2008 by Liam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 (edited) Yes, I know companies do that. How is that remotely equal to George making proposals to the BOD at DCI? IT'S A BOARD OF DIRECTORS! DO YOU REALLY HAVE TROUBLE SEEING THIS????? Edited February 11, 2008 by Tank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 Actually, it is noted on the Music Ensemble sheet. Noted, yes. Actually judged . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted February 11, 2008 Share Posted February 11, 2008 (Or was all of that discussion earlier about how Tim approached the Caucus meeting a waste of time and oxygen?) Bingo. 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.