garfield Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 This is a poor and clearly swayed summary of the proposal. The Best advice is just to read the proposal yourself than get all your info on "the PROPOSAL" alone. I'd like for you to expound on your contention that this is a "poor and clearly swayed summary of the proposal". Besides direct quotes, the summary points appear to me to be right on the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 It is a somewhat accurate account sans is sounding like you didn't like the proposal... i am fairly certain there would have been no inflamatory intent or language used in such a proposal. I don't see any inflammatory intent or language in the explanation. Clarify, please, with details (or opinions). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Now you really are parsing and beginning to sound like Clinton. "Here's what we propose to do, and we're really serious, and we intend to start now" is as pretty darn clear as they could be. Sinister is a little too strong for my taste - I don't think they are evil, just corrupted by their power and misguided in their intentions. Their initial attempt to take over the activity was done precisely because (IMO) they need the structure, the name, the recognition, the licensing rights, etc of the DCI organization to have any real shot at making their plan work. I think you can be sure that if they thought they could do it without DCI they'd be doing it this season. Many on here think that the G7 is placating DCI by staying around - as if the other directors begged them to stay. Although I have no first-hand evidence (and that fact makes my opinion nothing but speculation), my hunch is that the G7 recognized that they couldn't do it on their own, that it's DCI that is placating the G7 (with a touch of altruistic "can't we all get along" thrown in), and that DCI holds the trump card - their name, history, and presence in the market. I don't have any idea what the future brings, but now just 9 months from the bru-ha-ha I think it's unwise to presume that the opinions of the G7 have changed and that they can be trusted to play nice with the rest of the corps. I've said it so many times on here: You can change the stripes on a zebra from vertical to horizontal, but it's still a zebra. The TOC events is a shotgun marriage of convenience, IMO, that does not indicate a change of heart among the original proponents. I guess it is possible that they are corrupt and misguided. I think it's also possible that they proposed something that they knew #### well was out of the question and weren't going to get in the hopes of meeting in the middle. If you go to your boss wanting a 10% raise, do you ask him/her for 10%? Or do you start with 15%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) I'd like for you to expound on your contention that this is a "poor and clearly swayed summary of the proposal". Besides direct quotes, the summary points appear to me to be right on the money. The direct quotes are directly quoted from those parts that "soccerguy" thought were important. It was not objective at all. My contention is that you can digest the entire proposal based on those direct quotes because many other contentions were made in that proposal and its best to read the proposal yourself than rely on someone's subjective interpretation of what is significant. A few of the points made were stated in a way that had an inflection towards a certain perspective of viewing this proposal. The reason why they didn't appear to you is because you agree with those inflections. I've read the proposal and I feel that the points do not offer enough insight into the proposal, it's intentions and it's purpose. Though I do not agree with everything in the proposal I do think it deserves to be looked at objectively. That is all that I'm saying. Soccerguy is probably the most passionate guy AGAINST the proposal and with all do respect probably does not have the capability (nor do any of us) to correctly summarize a proposal that is basically a summary in itself. I just encourage people to get their information from the Primary source since its so readily available and under much contention. But again, lets remember... its was just a Proposal... Edited January 21, 2011 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImperialSound_Director Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 All you need to know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 It's become politicized. I agree. And I'm no fan of it either. But we don't live in a world where drum corps is happily self-sustainable, DCI makes perfect decisions (LOS?), attendance is booming, etc.... Naturally, there will be people within the activity that will try and pull it in a direction THEY see as more viable. Others will disagree, resist, or try and pull it in a different direction. It's a game. The problem is, at least as I see it, is many of the changes put into place in the last 10 years did more damage than the model going before it. National touring. Equipment Needs that require an outlay of cash. Raising the membership limits. New uniforms every year in some cases. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Yes, I think it's called....the Congress (also known as..Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Banks...) Actually, I think this works in marriage as well! let's see...divorce rate isn't exactly low, and we see Congress's approval ratings. so tell me why this is a good thing? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Ingratiating flattery (as much as it's appreciated ) doesn't occlude the fact that both burglary and attempted burglary are criminal offenses. Now, the G7 directors are not criminals in the legal sense. But your connotation is that the fact that they attempted burglary and were busted by the cops means that they therefor are not prone to attempting burglary again in the future, and we can all relax and trust the attempt won't happen again. That, to me, is a dangerous viewpoint when you're trying to protect something that is meaningful to you. If you are willing to ignore the inclinations of the G7 directors simply because they were caught and stopped, I would suggest altering your understanding what "IS" is (oohh, bad political memories). It is the fact that the founders of DCI put into place a mechanism in the Bylaws of DCI that allows for the prevention of a takeover exampled exactly by the G7. The fact that there are now eight instead of seven means that the group is one closer to reaching the majority necessary to, potentially, change those Bylaws. Where would that slippery slope lead? Do you think that, just because the G7 was stopped, that they no longer feel the way they did when they wrote the G7 proposal? The takeover did not happen, true. And the IS isn't all that bad at the moment. But without vigilance the G7 group has shown a willingness and desire to tear apart the apparatus that we now celebrate as having prevented the coup in the first place. Do you trust that they've lost that desire? As Reagan said to the Soviets: "Trust, but verify." And verify does not mean ignore what has occurred. maybe it's time to change the super board back from 9 to 23 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 You're saying they were caught.... They PROPOSED what they wanted to do. I wish the ######## that broke into my place last year gave me a powerpoint presentation, a call, a facebook message, a text.... ANYTHING to give me a heads up what their intentions were. If they were as sinister as many on here make them out to be, why bother with a meeting? Why not just jump ship and form their own circuit with no notice?? And while I tend to get bogged down in analogies, my point is this.... That there are those on here who seem to revel in continuing to condemn the G7 as though they have succeeded in their evil intentions, while ignoring the reality of what actually IS. I agree with you... "trust, but verify". It is quite possible that we will be having this same conversation again next year if Powerpoint II: The Sequel pops up. But unlike some on here, I don't have a crystal ball, and am not much one for prognostication. do remember tho...their proposal was never supposed to see the light of day or leak. and it did. I know, I got a copy and got it to people who got it on here 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindap Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 do remember tho...their proposal was never supposed to see the light of day or leak. and it did. I know, I got a copy and got it to people who got it on here I read the powerpointpresentation draft months ago. It certainly was drafty. Modern technology or draw it on paper? It's easier to see drafts the old way by the pile of crumpled paper on the floor. Do put the word Draft on the front page of the PPP and do add the R otherwise it's Daft. um something I liked watching the other day; enjoy:-) 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.