garfield

George Hopkins - soothsayer

Recommended Posts

Tell me were George Hopkins is quoted as saying "weapons of war?" Please tell me where this is because it is not in this article. This is what I was speaking to and this is what is be constantly spewed in this discussion.

And c'mon Garfield! we know "weapons" is the common monicker for guard equipment. The fact that he used that term should be as controversial as him calling a marimba a keyboard. Seriously?

It's clear he swings one way or the other on the issue of guard equipment. This is NOT what I was referring to. But people are not adequately representing his position and what he ACTUALLY said. Specifically Stu.

He was referring to "weapon" in the context in which he related Rosie's opinion, that is, the way that a significant number of non-drum corps people understand the term.

I never claimed he used "of war" in his statement, but he did connect it with our military history. And I'm not sure how you connote the meaning of the term "military" without intending to represent war.

You're really parsing the phrase with extreme contortion if you believe GH meant anything other than weapons of military use (which, to my mind, includes "war"). Whichever of those two is actually closer to his intended meaning is not really the point of the thread.

Your claim that the subject is the result of lies and misinterpretation is only your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By a) lying about what was actaully written b) lying that GH actually said it ...

Sorry for doing three posts in a row, but I have to say that nobody's lying here. Yes, there's a 'sky is falling' attitude that under scrutiny retreats to "Well, it is raining. Somewhere." But everyone's points appear to be intended to be accurate.

And, of course, the rain may well pick up, so to speak. So it's a highly relevant issue for the activity.

Edit: Not three in a row, cuz Garfield got his post in long before me. Shows how long I leave a thread open before replying.

Edited by Pete Freedman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the face of a lawsuit, the school reversed its position about the teenage girl's tee-shirt and issued the girl an apology. http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/anaheim-school-will-rethink-dress-code-after-making-student-remove-nra--t-shirt-192831960.html?vp=1

But is George Hopkins off the hook?

P.S. Now watch some of the usual perpetually p.o.'ed posters start posting about lawsuits and the like, rather than Garfield's original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm wondering why DCP seems to tolerate posts/threads directed at George Hopkins on a "clever" but frankly very personal level. Sad to see this... George.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was referring to "weapon" in the context in which he related Rosie's opinion, that is, the way that a significant number of non-drum corps people understand the term.

I never claimed he used "of war" in his statement, but he did connect it with our military history. And I'm not sure how you connote the meaning of the term "military" without intending to represent war.

You're really parsing the phrase with extreme contortion if you believe GH meant anything other than weapons of military use (which, to my mind, includes "war"). Whichever of those two is actually closer to his intended meaning is not really the point of the thread.

Your claim that the subject is the result of lies and misinterpretation is only your opinion.

It's interesting how I don't need to infer or inturpret anything to make my claim but you do. Now who is more likely to misinturpret? It still stands as a fact that no one at YEA or GH said "Weapons of War". It's not that hard to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for doing three posts in a row, but I have to say that nobody's lying here. Yes, there's a 'sky is falling' attitude that under scrutiny retreats to "Well, it is raining. Somewhere." But everyone's points appear to be intended to be accurate.

And, of course, the rain may well pick up, so to speak. So it's a highly relevant issue for the activity.

Edit: Not three in a row, cuz Garfield got his post in long before me. Shows how long I leave a thread open before replying.

Stu is lying. He said GH said "weapons of war" which is false. And there is an issue worth discussing here but there's no need to distort facts. I'm purposefully being specific as my contention is with the phrase being thrown around which is manufactured on DCP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stu is lying. He said GH said "weapons of war" which is false. And there is an issue worth discussing here but there's no need to distort facts. I'm purposefully being specific as my contention is with the phrase being thrown around which is manufactured on DCP.

Making a false statement is not lying. Deliberately making a false statement is lying. It's only a lie if Stu knew that Hopkins didn't say it when he made the quote. I very much doubt this.

And they are in fact weapons of war in the same sense that they are rifles. That is, the symbolic sense. So who cares about the semantics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel reluctant to involve myself further into what is becoming a very immature name-calling thread, but I do because I may bear some responsibility.

In post 6 of this thread, it is I who used the term in explanation about what was previously said in August, not as an exact quote. And in fact, the actual term I used was "not weapons of war."

Please, gentlemen, if this term still applies, in the face of all the world's larger problems, the egos and temper tantrums about all this serves the activity in no positive way.

If any are offended because of the way I termed post 6, it was not a deliberate quote of material nor any offense intended, for at that time much of the thread material was jovial and humorous, almost in jest.

Let us now move on to solutions rather than name-calling.

I will not comment in or about this thread further.

Edited by normy diploome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm wondering why DCP seems to tolerate posts/threads directed at George Hopkins on a "clever" but frankly very personal level. Sad to see this... George.

Why should comments the director of the Cadets made in an interview with the Blue Devils be out of bounds for discussion on a drum corps forum? Especially as the thread's originator has explicitly said that Hopkins's remarks demonstrate his prescience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Bedposts or bassoons? Same thing...;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.