Michael Boo Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 SCV was twirling bedposts in the 70’s (maybe 80’s) for this very same reason *someone may need to verify this, maybe they were just into bedposts but that’s what I recall They had them in 1978, but I was told it was because they just fit with the show. I'll have to check about 1979. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Wait... What? You don't get the connection? The title connotes that GH was prescient in his decision to get rid of rifles and, instead, toss curly-things. (But Yes, everything that has anything to do with drum corps has something to do with GH. He told me so himself. ) Really Mike? You don't get it? The world has gone mad... Okay, I get it now. It's difficult to stay atop all the things we relate to George Hopkins. By the way, do you think the country is overplaying the reaction to HopkinsCare? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckH Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 HopkinsCare? Would that pay the fees for kids who wouldn't normally be able to afford to join a world class drum and bugle corps? :-P 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 So presumably a "This is My Rifle" t-shirt from Cavaliers would also be verboten. I sense a new marketing strategy for Rosemont's souvenir staff - "hey kid, wanna buy a t-shirt guaranteed to get you out of school?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammaster Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 And what does this have to do with George Hopkins? Or, does everything that has anything to do with drum corps automatically have something to do with George Hopkins? Or, is the title of this thread something conjured up to get people to read it? We're treading close to DCP's prohibition on current events. What he said. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Each school's dress code is a matter for the school community, including the board, the administrators, teachers, parents, and students to decide. Well, speaking of the need for " consistency ", wouldn't it be a step in the right direction for progress to let the local taxpayors, local school officials, parents, students, administrators to decide LOTS of issues for themselves, not only " dress codes" ? If we are in suppport of local decision making for appropriate "dress codes", can we likewise be in support of lots of other decision making powers to be made at the local community level as well, instead of those decisions being made by faceless bureaucrats thousands of miles away from these local communities ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 (edited) They had them in 1978, but I was told it was because they just fit with the show. I'll have to check about 1979. This is 2013, don't we think that if a Corps that is sensitive about some reaction to toy wooden rifles in their Corps ( that they've had for over half a century with no complaints ) might also be sensitive then to their name " the Cadets ", as well as their military style uniform choice, and its depiction as a " Corps " ? How many self described and named " Cadets" units that don military style uniforms utilize " curly thingys " in their marching ? How incongruous is that ? Also, what should the " 7th Regiment " Corps do ? drop their rifles and go with " curly things " only too for their " 7th Regiment Corps" ? This whole thing is so silly to me. If you don't like wooden faux toy rifles in your Corps... ( silly non issue to me)... then just go all the way and be true and consistent to it all... drop the phoniness name of being " the Cadets " wearing military style uniforms, with military bearing, military salutes by the DM, etc and still calling yourself a " Corps ", with a " Guard " etc. Either you are full in, or you are all out. Don't be half arse, imo, which only confuses most of the public at large because you are apparently confused now and in some sort of identity flux and apparent uncomfortableness with your unit's 75 year long classy traditional " Cadet- Style" visual look image to a few misguided folks now among the public at large. Edited October 4, 2013 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 This is 2013, don't we think that if a Corps that is sensitive about some reaction to toy wooden rifles in their Corps ( that they've had for over half a century with no complaints ) might also be sensitive then to their name " the Cadets ", as well as their military style uniform choice, and its depiction as a " Corps " ? How many self described and named " Cadets" units that don military style uniforms utilize " curly thingys " in their marching ? How incongruous is that ? Also, what should the " 7th Regiment " Corps do ? drop rifles and go with " curly things " only too ? This whole thing is so silly to me. If you don't like toy rifles in your Corps... ( silly to me)... then just go all the way and be true and consistent to it all... drop the phoniness name of being " the Cadets " wearing military style uniforms, with military bearing, military salutes by the DM, etc and still calling yourself a " Corps ". Either you are full in, or you are all out. Don't be half arse, imo. I'm not sure why you're responding like that to my comment, "They had them in 1978, but I was told it was because they just fit with the show. I'll have to check about 1979." Did you really mean to respond to my quote, or was it just collateral damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure why you're responding like that to my comment, "They had them in 1978, but I was told it was because they just fit with the show. I'll have to check about 1979." Did you really mean to respond to my quote, or was it just collateral damage? It was an oblique M& M move.... ( haha)... no, my comments were generic in nature, and really was a response to GH decision to apparently eschew the use of wooden toy rifles in his musical unit in the future as he is worried and nervous what a few people,... somewhere,... might think and say. Its all so silly to me, frankly. In retrospect however, you need not have been the recipient of my verbal shot across your bow.Mea Culpa. Edited October 4, 2013 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 It was an oblique M& M move.... ( haha)... no, my comments were generic in nature, and really was a response to GH decision to apparently eschew the use of wooden toy rifles in his musical unit in the future as he is worried and nervous what a few people,... somewhere,... might think and say. Its all so silly to me, frankly. In retrospect however, you need not have been the recipient of my verbal shot across your bow.Mea Culpa. It's all fine. I just wanted to know I could go to bed without waking up to find the head of one of my prized race horses in bed with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts