How will you react to the new G8 format?

[soccerguy315]

not going

will not support at souvie booths

will not cheer

have already put my feelings in writing

[BozzlyB]

not going

will not support at souvie booths

will not cheer

have already put my feelings in writing

This attitude does more to devide and destroy DCI than anything the G-8 corps have subscribed to. LAME.

[soccerguy315]

This attitude does more to devide and destroy DCI than anything the G-8 corps have subscribed to. LAME.

seven of the eight G8 corps have put it in writing that they want full control over all DCI decision making, how money is distributed, and to ban the other corps from competing on the same night. Frankly, it's ########. These corps are trying to make DCI into an 8 corps super circuit. I do not want an 8 corps super circuit, and therefore, I will not support these corps in their efforts to see their goals become reality.

:thumbdown:

edit: also, lol at the passive aggressive haters who down vote my posts

Edited December 22, 2010 by soccerguy315

[Jeff Ream]

I will cheer everyone. But I will only attend shows that have corps from top to bottom.

[Hook'emCavies]

I went to the Houston show last year but will not go this year. I want to say its because it's G8 but it's really because I'm going to the Alamodome show where I can see everyone.

Thats exactly what i'm doing this year. As soon as the tickets are being sold i'm buying them... i'm looking forward to the shows this year.

[BozzlyB]

seven of the eight G8 corps have put it in writing that they want full control over all DCI decision making, how money is distributed, and to ban the other corps from competing on the same night. Frankly, it's ########. These corps are trying to make DCI into an 8 corps super circuit. I do not want an 8 corps super circuit, and therefore, I will not support these corps in their efforts to see their goals become reality.

:thumbdown:

edit: also, lol at the passive aggressive haters who down vote my posts

There you go, living in the past again. As for me, I prefer to judge each situation on it's existing merits. I guess there's too much logic in that for you to stomach.

Here's a question for you. If you're so willing to let your opinion of the issue be swayed by the old proposal, why are you so willing to discount the ensuing beatdown and clear message sent by DCI that such a thing would never be tolerated. The original G-7 proposal was a bluff to test the metal of DCI, and it got called big time. So by your own logic there is still nothing to worry about, because it is then every bit is fair to say the proposal would be rejected in similar fashion simply based on the fact that it was already.

[Jeff Ream]

There you go, living in the past again. As for me, I prefer to judge each situation on it's existing merits. I guess there's too much logic in that for you to stomach.

Here's a question for you. If you're so willing to let your opinion of the issue be swayed by the old proposal, why are you so willing to discount the ensuing beatdown and clear message sent by DCI that such a thing would never be tolerated. The original G-7 proposal was a bluff to test the metal of DCI, and it got called big time. So by your own logic there is still nothing to worry about, because it is then every bit is fair to say the proposal would be rejected in similar fashion simply based on the fact that it was already.

ok it lost last year. in "compromise" they got one piece of the pie...shows where they get paid more.

do you think they'll give up? if so, you underestimate the proposers. Some of them have been talking of this since 1997

[soccerguy315]

There you go, living in the past again. As for me, I prefer to judge each situation on it's existing merits. I guess there's too much logic in that for you to stomach.

Here's a question for you. If you're so willing to let your opinion of the issue be swayed by the old proposal, why are you so willing to discount the ensuing beatdown and clear message sent by DCI that such a thing would never be tolerated. The original G-7 proposal was a bluff to test the metal of DCI, and it got called big time. So by your own logic there is still nothing to worry about, because it is then every bit is fair to say the proposal would be rejected in similar fashion simply based on the fact that it was already.

if you vote for politician X because he/she is awesome and then the politician X thinks it would be better if they appointed themselves dictator for life, but the appointment got rejected by everyone else, I should still support politician X, since after all there is no hope of him/her becoming dictator for life? Or should I see politician X for who he/she really was?

I supported all of these corps, but some of them tried to proclaim themselves dictators for life. I am therefore no longer interested in offering my support.

Edited December 22, 2010 by soccerguy315

[audiodb]

Here's a question for you. If you're so willing to let your opinion of the issue be swayed by the old proposal, why are you so willing to discount the ensuing beatdown and clear message sent by DCI that such a thing would never be tolerated. The original G-7 proposal was a bluff to test the metal of DCI, and it got called big time. So by your own logic there is still nothing to worry about, because it is then every bit is fair to say the proposal would be rejected in similar fashion simply based on the fact that it was already.

Yeah, just like amps. Oh, wait....I meant electronic instruments....no, any-key br....oh, never mind.

[audiodb]

This attitude does more to devide and destroy DCI than anything the G-8 corps have subscribed to. LAME.

Really? How is that? The person you object to has not said they aren't supporting DCI, or any of the other 39 corps that weren't parties to the G7 proposal. So you are saying that a fan's failure to attend TOC shows specifically and/or buy souvies from G7 corps is worse than seven corps directors conspiring to attempt a hostile takeover of DCI?