charlie1223 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I cannot remember the last time I read a proposal from George Hopkins that I thought was in the best interest of DCI as a whole. I'm sure there have been some, but I either didn't read them or have long since forgotten. I don't think he is evil. We're just unlikely to ever agree about who the activity needs to be serving and how that should be done. That's how normal people should react to differences in ideals. You compromise. Look at the proposal 2 years ago. How was that managed? It was compromised. Who says this wont also go the same way! Clearly the 7 directors are looking more for that than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 That's how normal people should react to differences in ideals. You compromise. Look at the proposal 2 years ago. How was that managed? It was compromised. Who says this wont also go the same way! Clearly the 7 directors are looking more for that than anything else. You do understand that we have a world for what some of these "7" have been doing and it could be called malfeasance with the intent to take over. Compromises have been made and look where we are today with the same people running the show. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 GH Lightening Rod post. Do you really hate the letter or GH more? Would you have even known who "wrote it" if the OP had said it was from Hopkins Email? George's writing style is extremely distinctive. Examples of it are all over if you follow DCI. That letter is him, 100%. Signed off on by the other corps, sure. But written by Hop, there can be no doubt. Not to mention that everything we know about the G7's plans is almost straight out of proposals Hop was making in the 90s. GH has always been a public visionary on where he thought drum corps should go. Good for him! And he's had lots of success at moving DCI in that direction for the past several years as well. Hopkins and Gibbs appear to be the leaders within the G7--which makes sense as they've got the biggest, strongest, most long-lasting, and most stable organizations. George is a strong leader and would not be pulled along a path he doesn't agree with. The letter was clearly written by him and the agenda matches his. We have very little information about what the other directors think, other than that they're okay with going along with this letter. I guarantee we'd have seven very different letters if each director of the G7 were to take on the task of communicating this proposal to the board. If George wrote it, you can be sure he agrees with 100% of it, and you can be sure the other six don't. They may agree with 99% but I'm sure they'd all have a different spin on things. So why is it unfair to call out Hop specifically when criticizing a letter he wrote? The only reason to argue against naming Hop is that he has a bad reputation already. But his past efforts and proposals are critical to understanding what this G7 takeover plan is really about. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 You do understand that we have a world for what some of these "7" have been doing and it could be called malfeasance with the intent to take over. Compromises have been made and look where we are today with the same people running the show. Compromises have been made and compromises will continue to be made. If its malfeasance than DCI will do something, if its not DCI won't. The G7 realizes that DCI is more powerful a body with them onboard and DCI realizes its there to support the member corps. There's no indication that the G7 are brash. They have radical proposals but only to start important conversations. No matter the side level heads will prevail I am certain. And where are proposals from the bottom corps? Clearly they don't have the same concerns as G7 but what are there concerns? Are they content to operate DCI as it is with 2 corps going down in a year? I hope even they realize change is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 The letter from Hopkins? Did I miss something? I know the letter from seven corps on that date. Is there more than one letter? Because if not, it appears to me there's more than one author. Or are you suggesting the other six were somehow coerced into signing? Kind of like how a majority voted for electronics but only one is to blame? HH Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Why do people feel their opinions are more important than everyone else's they need to spot light their opinion on a new thread??? Why do you object to that? This is a discussion group. People create threads....that's how discussions start. If you don't like that, you can create your own thread to complain about it. I mean c'mon this belong in the other G7 threads!!! Just because you've been silent doesn't mean your thoughts are worth more than 2 cents! We have multiple threads about the Cadets in this forum....always have. Should all news, talk, media and predictions about the Cadets also be merged into the G7 thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnZ Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Sorry all. Cleaned up some chaff, onward with discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 The looming question is if the other six directors/organizations - or if even one of them - disagrees with Hopkins letter (even a small portion of it), then shame on him for sending it without 100% consensus, and shame on them for not calling him on the carpet. Then again.... Mr. Hopkins has not been the greatest at building consensus. let's just say in 2010 parts of the powerpoint wasn't known to all G7 members when they first saw it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 So which is it? Is there some sort of invidious, super-natural mind control going on here where one director forces the other six to consent? Extortion maybe? Or perhaps a hoax? Or - it's a reasonable alternative - there actually is consensus among the seven? HH it wouldnt be the first time he spoke the name of all 7 when not all of them knew it was coming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) Why do you object to that? This is a discussion group. People create threads....that's how discussions start. If you don't like that, you can create your own thread to complain about it. We have multiple threads about the Cadets in this forum....always have. Should all news, talk, media and predictions about the Cadets also be merged into the G7 thread? Please allow me to respond to the questions I was asked or remove his post aswell. New threads are for New Topics. This is a discussion of another thread with the same topic. Edited January 18, 2013 by charlie1223 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.