corpsband Posted March 12, 2008 Author Share Posted March 12, 2008 I really don't understand why you seem to be attacking a person who has clearly stated that she doesn't really know the reason for it, and isn't affiliated with WGI, but is trying to find some rationale for the situation. Bad form IMO. Sorry didnt' realize there was anything more than an open-ended discussion going on. Where did I "attack" anyone? It's true I have an opinion about why WGI took these actions but I don't see anything personal in any of my replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastGuard Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Really? Why do they issue VIDEO PASSES to units? It is against policy for INDIVIDUALS in the audience to video performances at WGI. Many of the videos posted on Utube are taken from the side or back...captured by individuals in the audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrishDish1002 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I know that we at DCP/CGP DID hear from the good folks at youtube at one point b/c someone posted WGI videos on CGP using youtube as the host (third party) - saying that we weren't allowed to post those videos b/c of copyright issues. I would say just stay away from the whole issue and if you need to post videos for your kids - use a private user name and password ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toby Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Really? Why do they issue VIDEO PASSES to units? So that the staff can watch the performance later and be able to accurately see what the judges called them out on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 So that the staff can watch the performance later and be able to accurately see what the judges called them out on.. Which, of course, serves as a basic learning tool for the guard, itself. It's the broader distribution of such a video that becomes a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zackiedude Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Which, of course, serves as a basic learning tool for the guard, itself. It's the broader distribution of such a video that becomes a problem. Ding ding ding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Sorry didnt' realize there was anything more than an open-ended discussion going on. Where did I "attack" anyone? It's true I have an opinion about why WGI took these actions but I don't see anything personal in any of my replies. There are lots of different ways to attack other posters. There's no problem with posting dissenting opinions, and in fact I believe that's welcome here. But characterizing others' comments with "nice speech" and "totally non-responsive" is crossing the line with baiting-style remarks. The thing you have to keep in mind is that sometimes, when replying a particular post, our comments may only address portions of a post because that's all we feel comfortable addressing. It's not about "ignoring" a point or deliberately trying to be non-responsive. It's about responding to those points that we feel we can respond to. Characterizing others' posts implies you're reading something sort of intent into what we're posting, other than genuinely doing our best to respond to the topic at hand. Right or wrong, that can be perceived as a thinly veiled attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 12, 2008 Author Share Posted March 12, 2008 (edited) There are lots of different ways to attack other posters. There's no problem with posting dissenting opinions, and in fact I believe that's welcome here. But characterizing others' comments with "nice speech" and "totally non-responsive" is crossing the line with baiting-style remarks. The thing you have to keep in mind is that sometimes, when replying a particular post, our comments may only address portions of a post because that's all we feel comfortable addressing. It's not about "ignoring" a point or deliberately trying to be non-responsive. It's about responding to those points that we feel we can respond to. Characterizing others' posts implies you're reading something sort of intent into what we're posting, other than genuinely doing our best to respond to the topic at hand. Right or wrong, that can be perceived as a thinly veiled attack. I've been on DCP a LONG time and RAMD way before it. I think I understand netiquette and I don't think I was crossing the line. You were defending WGI's actions and I was assigning motive to them. The nice speech and non-responsive comments were accurate; almost all of your post had nothing to do with the post you replied to. Sorry if it's bad form pointing out bloviating but there it is. There's no hostile intent or thinly veiled attacks and I kind of resent being characterized that way. I'll say AGAIN -- show me the personal attacks or hostile words and I'll be glad to mea culpa. Guess some people just don't like others to disagree with them HEY MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD !! Edited March 12, 2008 by corpsband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I've been on DCP a LONG time and RAMD way before it. I think I understand netiquette and I don't think I was crossing the line. You were defending WGI's actions and I was assigning motive to them. The nice speech and non-responsive comments were accurate; almost all of your post had nothing to do with the post you replied to. Sorry if it's bad form pointing out bloviating but there it is. There's no hostile intent or thinly veiled attacks and I kind of resent being characterized that way. I'll say AGAIN -- show me the personal attacks or hostile words and I'll be glad to mea culpa. Again, something doesn't have to be overtly hostile in order to be an attack. Same with baiting. You feel such assessments are accurate? Welcome to the wonderful world of subjective opinion. In my opinion, it's inaccurate, and I was trying to explain why from my point of view. But I can see that we're going to go around in circles on that, so I'll let it drop. Guess some people just don't like others to disagree with them If that's what you want to believe, fine. But there's more to it than that. In my rather long posting history here on DCP, and long before on RAMD, there are plenty of people with whom I've disagreed, but in most cases we've been able to discuss these things without making personal characterizations, which leads to productive discussion . . . even when we disagree. HEY MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD !! Why? There are legitimate issues being discussed. I think that anytime we delve into the complex world of copyright, and a little enlightenment comes out of it, that's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 (edited) Again, something doesn't have to be overtly hostile in order to be an attack. Oh so I'm guilty of the infamous STEALTH hostility.....I see. I've asked you twice to quote the personal attack. You failed to do so. I've asked you to quote the hostility. Failure again. How about a quote on the baiting? IMHO your just whining about being asked stay on point and didn't like it when you were called out on it. You're accusing me of: personal attacks, hostility, and baiting. I'd suggest that your the one who's righteous indignation and false victimization is crossing the line and is close to violating the DCP standards of behavior. If you don't talk about the topic in a thread just avoid it. Don't come in, post a long mostly-off-topic sermon, and then complain when the original poster points out that your off-topic !! You may not make personal attacks on other Community members or non-members. Harassment of other members is not allowed. Flame-bait, trolling or flaming posts will be edited or removed, and action may be taken against the author. Issues and posts directed at a single member should be handled via our built-in Private Messenger feature. Irregardless of your post count on DCP, you're pretty clearly accusing me of a lot but can't substantiate any of it with any meaningful evidence other than some (miscomprehended) vague accusation of baiting (which by ANY definition you can find on the net you will not be able to find in this thread). As I said I don't know what your beef with me is but I consider your unsubstantiated accusations harrassment and will be reporting it as such. Edited March 13, 2008 by corpsband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts