Jeff Ream Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 21 hours ago, garfield said: I don't think that represents capitalism at all, but I won't derail the thread. Let's just say they were concentrating power and funding among themselves and leave it at that. you proved my point! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Stu said: In the history of all joke telling, the laughing after the need for an explanation is more of a placate reaction than true gut-wrenching explosive laughter. just sayin'. Again, sounds like a personal problem. I got the joke just fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 12, 2017 Author Share Posted September 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Cappybara said: Again, sounds like a personal problem. I got the joke just fine Your personal problem is a joke? Well, ok then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 4 hours ago, Stu said: Seven might, nay 'did', argue that the maximum number in the top class should be seven, as in them, not a dozen. I have no fondness for the actions of the G7, but I don't think this quite right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, if a corps finished in the top eight for three years' straight, the G7 proposal called for that corps to be elevated into the top group. There was, however, no mechanism that I recall for demoting an original G7 member who failed to finish in the top eight for three consecutive years, if that should ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 12, 2017 Author Share Posted September 12, 2017 36 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: I have no fondness for the actions of the G7, but I don't think this quite right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, if a corps finished in the top eight for three years' straight, the G7 proposal called for that corps to be elevated into the top group. There was, however, no mechanism that I recall for demoting an original G7 member who failed to finish in the top eight for three consecutive years, if that should ever happen. There was one sentence on page 9 that stated: “Three years in top 8 equals permanent status.” However, the way the voting power was going to be doubled ‘for just the G7’, the way weekend contests were going to be reserved ‘for just the G7’, the way most DCI revenue, even most DCI revenue generated by other corps, was going ‘for just the G7’, it made that three year in a row stipulation, in all realistic means, unattainable for any corps already outside the G7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Stu said: Your personal problem is a joke? Well, ok then. Apparently reading comprehension is yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 12, 2017 Author Share Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) Since this is the Stu-not-Stu-but-is- Stu thread I want to clarify something. As directors of their respective ‘individual corps’ I have had and still have great admiration for the leadership of BD, Cadets, The Cavaliers, SCV, Crown, Bluecoats, and Regiment. All, especially BD, are run as successful individual businesses with great efficiency and productivity. That is to be highly commended, and all other corps can learn from those individual business practices. Where the problem lies is two-fold: 1) These directors, with the proposal, flew against their own agreements to the collective mission of DCI in which they ‘voluntarily’ agreed to uphold and support; and 2) The governance structure of DCI written in 1972 also was a direct pipeline that fed into this situation. DCI as a corporation should be a separate entity from the corps; because when what is best for an individual corps is not what is best for the governing organization, or when what is best for the governing organization is not what is best for the individual corps, a person who is both a director of the corps and a director of DCI is placed in a huge conflict of interest. And that conflict of interest was a big part of the G7 vs. DCI situation. Edited September 12, 2017 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 12, 2017 Author Share Posted September 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, Cappybara said: Apparently reading comprehension is yours Apparently my sarcasm concerning not really caring about your personal problem with me is beyond your comprehension. But, since an emoji was created for that, well here ya go: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 31 minutes ago, Stu said: Apparently my sarcasm concerning not really caring about your personal problem with me Nah I think we're on the same page 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRapp Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 It's ironic that Boston, who was not included in the G7 and has made a pretty huge statement about it, is now a top 7 corps. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts