BRASSO Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) has nothing to do with respect or what a member can and cant do......everything to do with adults and their right to post... So at what age of adulthood does one become eligible to read whats posted on DCP ? 35 ? 45 ? 18 ? 21 ?... or if the adult staff allow it ? What if you are 23 and on the staff ? Is that ok, because you are staff ? or still too young by age requirements still not fulfilled ? Or is this just a silly requirement restriction altogether ? Edited March 25, 2014 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Because KFC is a multi-billion dollar, international empire. DCI is three dudes in an office compared to that size. They have the resources to completely re-brand themselves, it would be similar to DCI going from Drum Corps International down to just DCI. I know, I'm the one that suggested to you that DCI wasn't a big corporation. ...and that was my point that I was suggesting in DCI going down to just DCI. ...and it wouldn't be that expensive since most of their marketing is already "DCI". Anyway, this has just become silly to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) We, as a culture, do not impose current modern definitions of words and values on the past? Are you kidding? Where do you think the term 'Living and Breathing Document' came from as it applies to interpreting the Constitution of the United States? It is not called ‘Living and Breathing’ by academic scholars because we can amend the thing; it is called ‘Living and Breathing’ because those who subscribe to that philosophy, like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, maintain all of the words, all of them which are penned in the document should be interpreted differently 'as the culture changes'. Whereas Antonin Scalia, with whom I agree with by the way, maintains that the words contained in the document should be interpreted only through the original intent of those who authored the document or authored each amendment. So Ginsberg, using your words from above, must be juvenile to impose current modern definitions of words and values on the past; correct? Stu, you and your absolutist philosophy are incorrigible... You get incredibly dramatic... when here we're talking about the definitons of the word "gay" you suddenly start talking something as complicated and nuanced as the interpretation of the constitution. They are incomparable. It's lunacy to even compare but you did... incorrigible! I hope that you will take a moment and take in the nuance of my post so as not to embarrass yourself when you jump of a cliff of irrationality and hyperbole. The constitution is called a "living document" because it can be amended and "living and breathing" is NOT a "philosophy" or judicial interpretation of the constitution. Ruth Ginsberg does not believe that "words contained in the document should be interpreted differently as the culture changes". She believes "Rather than regarding a judge as constrained by the original understanding (or original expect application) of a constitutional provision, she expressed her belief that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time, as each generation of Americans seeks to perfect constitutional ideals that were originally articulated by Founders." It's extremely different than what you generalized as the "meaning of words". Her philosphy does not hinder on the meaning of a word but instead on the larger explicit and implicit constitutional ideals and how they play into the complicated social and cultural landscape of the United States. you asked "Is Ginsburg juvenile because she imposes modern definitions of words and values on the past?" Leading question. She does not impose "modern definitions of words" though she does impose modern values... though not on "the past" but on the constitution, a document though written in the past is a part of our modern government. No, she is not juvenile because she interprets the constitution in a progressive way but that is not what you were asking. Let's bring this back down to the original point and not go into archaic dramatic nonsense like in the last thread (I bet you cannot constrain yourself). A Bernstein piece has "gay" in the title. You should not assume that the song is about homosexuality because, 1. it wasn't socially used as term for homosexuality when the song was written and 2. gay has multiple meanings today. Therefore It would be juvenile to assume the song was about homosexuality because there is no indication that it could be about homosexuality. (Even though Bernstein was gay so I guess we'll never really know what the song was about..........) How does this relate to drum corps. "drum corps" in 1950's is different than "drum corps" in 2014. "gay" in 1950's is different than "gay" in 2014. Same word, different definitions. For drum corps I would say its the same word though different implications. Language is wonderful. Edited March 25, 2014 by charlie1223 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 But for historical context, this was 1970 afterall, and many of those Princeton U undergrads were dressed like filthy hippies and acted more like pampered and radicalized Commies to some people back then too ( that later showed up on Wall Street, Big Biz, Law Firms, Big Gov't, etc we might add ). But so what ? And what does 1970 have to do with anything here in 2014 ?... and why the resistence here in 2014 to an appropriate name change to reflect a simple grounded reality that you and others have already acknowledged to begin with ? It was showing the poster who spoke about the past as if drum corps was somehow loved by the masses then, as opposed to now...it wasn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I'm only " hung up over " the fact that I have no idea what you are asking me. That makes two of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 You failed to answer my post. Please go back and re-read what was posted. Besides can you come up with anything else in the other circuits that existed for decades? You seem to be grasping/justifying as usual without any basis in fact. I understand you post often, but that doesn't make them correct by sheer volume. I answered your post...which was this... "You would have a point if you can point to another musical marching group that has exclusively used non-chromatic g horns in a drum corps circuit. If you can do that you have a point, otherwise you are grasping and deluding yourself." You can sit here and make personal attacks on me all you want; it doesn't change the fact that YOU are the one grasping here, not me. I gave facts to support my view...you make snide personal comments. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) No, but I'm not asking them to change their name and calling it a caricature. They're obviously satisfied with their name, but running the business would give you the ability to change the name to whatever you want it to be. . No it wouldn't. DCI is not a dictatorship that would allow you, me, or anyone else to change the name. That takes building consensus, and getting the votes. I already stated above ( quote ) " I don't care what DCI calls themselves ". Perhaps you did not read that above. In any event, I'm only expressing my opinion that the name is silly and a false caricature. Neither you nor me... nor anyone else for that matter... is required to serve as Executive Director of DCI in order to express their opinion on things. If the qualifyer to express an opinion on here is that one serve on the BOD of DCI, than that certainly eliminates your qualification to express your opinion on here on just about anything, and leaves it up to the relatively handful that have such qualifications to express whatever they want to express as their opinion on here. Edited March 25, 2014 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) It was showing the poster who spoke about the past as if drum corps was somehow loved by the masses then, as opposed to now...it wasn't. I really don't want to get into a discussion on whether or not Drum Corps was ever " loved by the masses ", as thats a nonstarter for me. Of course it hasn't ever been loved by the masses", as first off, it has never attempted to ever appeal to " the masses ". Its not even worth discussing either now, as it is irrelevant to anything at all on this thread topic. Edited March 25, 2014 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I know, I'm the one that suggested to you that DCI wasn't a big corporation. ...and that was my point that I was suggesting in DCI going down to just DCI. ...and it wouldn't be that expensive since most of their marketing is already "DCI". Anyway, this has just become silly to me. That actually makes the most sense. Similar to WGI, no one calls it Winter Guard International anymore. It's just WGI. Just keep the logo and acronym, and move on from there. Of course, that won't make some people happy unless it's SMBI(Summer Marching Band International) Or like MTV dropping Music Television for the acronym. Kids these days don't have time to read full names, it's acronyms or nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) So at what age of adulthood does one become eligible to read whats posted on DCP ? 35 ? 45 ? 18 ? 21 ?... or if the adult staff allow it ? What if you are 23 and on the staff ? Is that ok, because you are staff ? or still too young by age requirements still jot fulfilled ? Or is this just a silly requirement restriction altogether ? they can read what they want...not post.or engage..and has nothing to do with being an adult..i worked with a DCA corps that also warned their members to not post or be very careful and they prefer their member NOT........believe me Ive mentioned DCP night...there are far less than you think are here on DCP and even less who care whats said ....its sad but true... Edited March 25, 2014 by GUARDLING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts