BozzlyB Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 So do you hold the same opinion for the G7 attempting to do the same thing by identifying "we" vs. "them", "contributors" vs. "non-contributors"? Newsflash, the G-7 doesn't exsist. You may now go on with your previously scheduled life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 B###S###. There was a ban. Perhaps you should learn to read. Let me quote it for you: do you see this? AA corps will perform MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY. [this means: NOT FRIDAY AND SUNDAY] AAA corps will perform FRIDAY, SATURDAY, SUNDAY AND ONCE OR TWICE DURING THE WEEK. [this means: whenever the f### they want} A corps can compete Saturdays and AS THE SCHEDULE AND GEOGRAPHY ALLOW. [this means: get these weakling corps off of our big boys tour] everything I posted in the post that you quoted was directly from the proposal. You think it sounds terrible because THE PROPOSAL IS TERRIBLE. My post had only facts, no editorializing. The fact that multiple posters believe my post contained opinions against the proposal only shows just how bad the proposal is, because all I did was describe it accurately. for your convenience, I placed my editorializing comments in brackets in this post. psssst......the proposal didn't pass......it's no longer a proposal........come back to the light...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motrouble Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 ooo, ooo, i have a question! arent the G7 corps technically now not voting members in DCI? or did all that get smoothed over? is that why there are so few rules proposals this year? although bluecoats did make a proposal, which doesn't seem to make sense then... who knows the answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan9 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 You two need to talk. On one hand, there's the view that G7 and TOC are two separate and distinct things. Others see a causal link....G7 -> TOC. These views, to the level of detail you have developed them, cannot be reconciled. This illustrates as well as any post in this thread just how far apart reasonably intelligent people can become when burdened with our various prejudices within a conversation. Charlie1223 and I (IMO) are saying similar sentiments but you see them differently because it's what you want to see. He suggested (and I agree) that soccerguy's analysis of the G7 is rife with contempt (glass half empty vs half full) and ignores where we are in the process for specific reason's. Like you, he wants the G7 to be seen as bad in intent and wholely unfavorable to DCI's future. This doesn't make soccerguy and bad soccerguy....we all wear our best wishes. I on the other hand am simply suggesting (and I may be wrong) but I feel that the presentment of the original proprosal (despite what Jeff R. thinks) was designed to "float" the ideas with a clear understanding that they would not be met with open arms. Duh! I additionally believe that this tactic is used everyday within organizations to achieve specific goals (eventually), one just needs to put aside the need for an immediate win in favor of an overall victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Like you, he wants the G7 to be seen as bad in intent and wholely unfavorable to DCI's future. Your mind-reading is a little off. I on the other hand am simply suggesting (and I may be wrong) but I feel that the presentment of the original proprosal (despite what Jeff R. thinks) was designed to "float" the ideas with a clear understanding that they would not be met with open arms. Duh! I additionally believe that this tactic is used everyday within organizations to achieve specific goals (eventually), one just needs to put aside the need for an immediate win in favor of an overall victory. Your theory leaves a couple of key questions. It is pretty clear that the two authors of this proposal "tactic" were Dave Gibbs and George Hopkins. I don't see a coherent strategy behind this tactic for either of them. 1. If Gibbs was so personally invested in the TOC show concept to put forth a proposal like that as a "tactic"....then why did he drop off the BOD a year or two earlier by letting his BOD term expire, and not run for re-election? 2. If Hopkins was so personally invested in the TOC show concept to put forth a proposal like that as a "tactic"....was it worth losing his seat on the BOD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Your mind-reading is a little off. Your theory leaves a couple of key questions. It is pretty clear that the two authors of this proposal "tactic" were Dave Gibbs and George Hopkins. I don't see a coherent strategy behind this tactic for either of them. 1. If Gibbs was so personally invested in the TOC show concept to put forth a proposal like that as a "tactic"....then why did he drop off the BOD a year or two earlier by letting his BOD term expire, and not run for re-election? 2. If Hopkins was so personally invested in the TOC show concept to put forth a proposal like that as a "tactic"....was it worth losing his seat on the BOD? Did Hop know that this would get him kicked off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan9 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Your mind-reading is a little off. Your theory leaves a couple of key questions. It is pretty clear that the two authors of this proposal "tactic" were Dave Gibbs and George Hopkins. I don't see a coherent strategy behind this tactic for either of them. 1. If Gibbs was so personally invested in the TOC show concept to put forth a proposal like that as a "tactic"....then why did he drop off the BOD a year or two earlier by letting his BOD term expire, and not run for re-election? 2. If Hopkins was so personally invested in the TOC show concept to put forth a proposal like that as a "tactic"....was it worth losing his seat on the BOD? I tend to agree with chaddy in that they expected blow back but not to the degree it occurred. However, this didn't change a thing in their thinking. All I can say is to watch as things roll out in the future. If TOC is a bust...and 2 corps west does not produce the numbers vs the cost of logistics, then there will be reason to argue against other components of the proposal. If it produces the numbers....katy bar the door! Also, if I erroniously accused you of a negative spin...I apologize. I think if you re-read your posts you'll see a general drift that "G7 and it's purveyors are not a good thing for DCI". Which, BTW, is a perfectly sane position...I just don't agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I tend to agree with chaddy in that they expected blow back but not to the degree it occurred. However, this didn't change a thing in their thinking. All I can say is to watch as things roll out in the future. If TOC is a bust...and 2 corps west does not produce the numbers vs the cost of logistics, then there will be reason to argue against other components of the proposal. If it produces the numbers....katy bar the door! Also, if I erroniously accused you of a negative spin...I apologize. I think if you re-read your posts you'll see a general drift that "G7 and it's purveyors are not a good thing for DCI". Which, BTW, is a perfectly sane position...I just don't agree. Seriously, dude.... Stop tending to agree with me. All this off-season comraderie might end up spilling over into the summer and I may find myself actually liking a BD show which can. not. HAPPEN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 The remaining point is that the two writers of the original proposal aren't even on the board at this point. The entity that is DCI stood up with a resounding GO F### YOURSLEVES, took control of the situation and padded their interest for the futurer AGAINST such a proposal with the solidification of Dan A's future and a BOD in place that is clearly against what was originally proposed. The current TOC format is NOTHING like the original G-7 proposal, but hey, if people want to continue basing their opinion on old DCI business that never materialized knock yourselves out, but to continue to use it as a reason to dislike the TOC shows is childish, illogical, and an opinion based in unfounded bitterness and jealousy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruckner8 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 The remaining point is that the two writers of the original proposal aren't even on the board at this point. The entity that is DCI stood up with a resounding GO F### YOURSLEVES, took control of the situation and padded their interest for the futurer AGAINST such a proposal with the solidification of Dan A's future and a BOD in place that is clearly against what was originally proposed. The current TOC format is NOTHING like the original G-7 proposal, but hey, if people want to continue basing their opinion on old DCI business that never materialized knock yourselves out, but to continue to use it as a reason to dislike the TOC shows is childish, illogical, and an opinion based in unfounded bitterness and jealousy. Then how did the TOC shows get organized without DCI's approval? How come the TOC shows "coincidentally" include the G7? If DCI's BOD "threw the bums out," how come everything seems to be moving in that proposal's direction anyway? These are real questions. 1 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.