perc2100 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Hopefully the non 7 directors will play hardball during every topic discussed from now on even if it's about the easiest item on the to do list. Well, that's certainly one way to play it: usually the wrong one in the end, but a way. Typically the childish "I'm going to pout and fight everything only because I don't like you" accomplishes nothing (see: US Congress), and if that's what the non-7 directors do then frankly it's not surprising the the 7 want to leave... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) Well, that's certainly one way to play it: usually the wrong one in the end, but a way. Typically the childish "I'm going to pout and fight everything only because I don't like you" accomplishes nothing (see: US Congress), and if that's what the non-7 directors do then frankly it's not surprising the the 7 want to leave... :ph34r:/>/> Your reply leads me to believe you're a BHO supporter. My comments stated were because I for one would not trust any of the 7, no matter how "transparent" and sincere they say they are. To me, they still want to reach their initial goals, but are trying to do it from a different approach. Edited January 30, 2013 by Ghost 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) Well, that's certainly one way to play it: usually the wrong one in the end, but a way. Typically the childish "I'm going to pout and fight everything only because I don't like you" accomplishes nothing (see: US Congress), and if that's what the non-7 directors do then frankly it's not surprising the the 7 want to leave... :ph34r:/>/>/> Lets be very clear here... the initial " pouting and fight everything " posture did not originate from the non G7 now did it ? The mature response to all this has been from the non G7 as far as I can tell. It is the G7 that has breeched the trust among its colleague members in DCI and it is up to THEM to demonstate to both their colleague member Corps of DCI and to the Drum Corps fan base community at large that they should be trusted again. Keep in mind if someone or some group meets in secret and behind closed doors to initiate policies and procedures detrimental to you, thats its only natural that in the future its going to be hard for you to trust that person or that group of persons again. Thats whats going on here. Many people, both within and outside of DCI, remain mistrustful of this group. How can you possibly not understand WHY many still remain skeptical and mistrustful of this self created subgroup within DCI ? Edited January 29, 2013 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Your reply leads me to believe your a BHO supporter. My comments stated were because I for one would not trust any of the 7, no matter how "transparent" and sincere they say they are. To me, they still want to reach their initial goals, but are trying to do it from a different approach. "BHO?" What's that? I'm more of a "wait and see" kind of person, especially when it comes to marching band, err, drum corps. I honestly don't know what to think, since I know very little of what's ACTUALLY going on. We've seen a leaked powerpoint from three years ago, and we've seen a leaked email from earlier in the month: I wasn't in the Jannual meetings last weekend, and I haven't talked to anyone who was to hear exactly how things went down. If you already don't like Hopkins, already have an agenda against those directors, or have some personal bias on either side of the coin I can get that one person would have ill feelings. I don't have a horse in the race, other than to say, "I like drum corps: I like drum corps when all parties are competing for a Championship, pushing each other to be better, and constantly reinventing the activity." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Lets be very clear here... the initial " pouting and fight everything " posture did not originate from the non G7 now did it ? The mature response to all this has been from the non G7 as far as I can tell. It is the G7 that has breeched the trust among its colleague members in DCI and it is up to THEM to demonstate to both their colleague member Corps of DCI and to the Drum Corps fan base community at large that they should be trusted again. Keep in mind if someone or some group meets in secret and behind closed doors to initiate policies and procedures detrimental to you, thats its only natural that in the future its going to be hard for you to trust that person or that group of persons again. Thats whats going on here. Many people, both within and outside of DCI, remain mistrustful of this group. How can you possibly not understand WHY many still remain skeptical and mistrustful of this self created subgroup within DCI ? Distrust, I understand. Acting immature and purposefully stalling the process and working against getting anything done? Awful behavior. Which, or course, hasn't happened as far as I know. I'm merely replying to someone else who suggested other Directors act in an unprofessional manner. If other corps want to play the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou game publicly (coughcoughTroopersoughcough), I would expect them to act that way professionally. And, as far as I can see they are. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Distrust, I understand. Acting immature and purposefully stalling the process and working against getting anything done? Awful behavior. Which, or course, hasn't happened as far as I know. I'm merely replying to someone else who suggested other Directors act in an unprofessional manner. If other corps want to play the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou game publicly (coughcoughTroopersoughcough), I would expect them to act that way professionally. And, as far as I can see they are. Are you actually naming Troopers' letter to the BOD as sanctimonious and holier-than-thou? Seriously? (coughcough) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiga Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Are you actually naming Troopers' letter to the BOD as sanctimonious and holier-than-thou? Seriously? (coughcough) The letter from Troopers was professional, well conceived and completely appropriate. The G7 is apparently going to lie dormant temporarily. If they rear their head again in a mutinous manner, the Troopers' letter serves as notice that the others will not tolerate this kind of behavior. Remember, regardless of the board being 4+4+1, the ultimate authority remains with ALL of the corps....by my count, that would 7 against 16. Good luck Seven. The math will NEVER be in your favor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 If other corps want to play the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou game publicly (coughcoughTroopersoughcough), I would expect them to act that way professionally. I figured you'd support the Troopers letter, since they know far more about what's going on than we do... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I figured you'd support the Troopers letter, since they know far more about what's going on than we do... :ph34r:/> I do support the Troopers, if for no other reason for Troop standing up for what they believe in. I'm saying that IF (BIG if) a corps were to write a letter about that preaching what a corps is or is not obligated to do for the good of the activity would then be purposefully disruptive in business meetings, 'blocking' discussion and fighting tooth/nail on every minute issue for the sole reason of being it pain, it would not be cool. Again, I'm responding to: Ghost, on 28 January 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:Hopefully the non 7 directors will play hardball during every topic discussed from now on even if it's about the easiest item on the to do list. Ghost is implying, IMO, that non-7 directors be childish babies: arguably the same behavior that has caused this mess in the first place back in 2010. I would hate to think that someone that would send a letter such as the one Troopers sent out would then turn around and do something as non-productive as what Ghost suggests. **AND AGAIN** I'm responding directly to Ghost's suggestion, not making ANY suggestions that any corps is, or would, act in an unprofessional manner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 (edited) I do support the Troopers, if for no other reason for Troop standing up for what they believe in. I'm saying that IF (BIG if) a corps were to write a letter about that preaching what a corps is or is not obligated to do for the good of the activity would then be purposefully disruptive in business meetings, 'blocking' discussion and fighting tooth/nail on every minute issue for the sole reason of being it pain, it would not be cool. Again, I'm responding to: Ghost is implying, IMO, that non-7 directors be childish babies: arguably the same behavior that has caused this mess in the first place back in 2010. I would hate to think that someone that would send a letter such as the one Troopers sent out would then turn around and do something as non-productive as what Ghost suggests. **AND AGAIN** I'm responding directly to Ghost's suggestion, not making ANY suggestions that any corps is, or would, act in an unprofessional manner ( :offtopic:/> ALERT!! As was mentioned months ago, our input on this site is our opinion(s). There is no need for anyone to add on a regular basis IMO.) Any elected/appointed board, like the US Congress, will have many discussions about how something should be done or passed. As long as it doesn't become one of those Asian countries politicians brawls, it's all good. Those that will have to accept the boards decisions, like the Troopers, have always voiced their concerns via various methods; press, letters, Black Panthers, e-mails, lobbyists, etc. prior to those decisions/votes taking place. Edited January 30, 2013 by Ghost 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.