oldestoftheold

George Hopkins removed from DCI Hall of Fame

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Oh I saw it, to me it looked like a serious answer...

It wasn’t. It was the typical DCP answer to posts we don’t like. The brush off. The - why are you posting here go look it up. Or go contact so and so. Or go ask such and such. Don’t pretend we’re being sincere. This is a forum for discussion. I thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

It wasn’t. It was the typical DCP answer to posts we don’t like. The brush off. The - why are you posting here go look it up. Or go contact so and so. Or go ask such and such. Don’t pretend we’re being sincere. This is a forum for discussion. I thought. 

Why not go to the primary source and ask the hard questions instead of yelling at the clouds because they're raining on you? I'm certain Rich and Larry would provide a well-worded and truthful response.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigW said:

I'm certain Rich and Larry would provide a well-worded and truthful response.

#### central PA/Westshoremen mafia with Bob Z included lol

Edited by JimF-LowBari
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BigW said:

Why not go to the primary source and ask the hard questions instead of yelling at the clouds because they're raining on you? I'm certain Rich and Larry would provide a well-worded and truthful response.

Sure. I’d love to read the well worded and truthful response that justifies keeping Hopkins in the WDCHOF. What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 10:18 AM, HockeyDad said:

It wasn’t. It was the typical DCP answer to posts we don’t like. The brush off. The - why are you posting here go look it up. Or go contact so and so. Or go ask such and such. Don’t pretend we’re being sincere. This is a forum for discussion. I thought. 

it was in no way a brush off. you know if i wanted to brush you off, I'd do it, do it well, and royally tick you off. I gave you a straight, blunt honest answer. You didn't like the answer, and as is your MO, you try and make a mountain out of molehill over it.

 

However if it helps you sleep better at night, I saw Hall member tonight. I asked why Hop is still in....he said as far as he knew the board was watching and waiting. Makes sense. Also asked why Bonfiglio wasn't in. The response: " Good question. Wonder if he was ever nominated".

 

there, same answer, more words. Oh, and still could give a rats ### about the Hall, because of the associate member things and how cronyism it looks.

Edited by Jeff Ream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HockeyDad said:

Sure. I’d love to read the well worded and truthful response that justifies keeping Hopkins in the WDCHOF. What a joke.

The precedent is there in other sports/activities to keep people in the Hall of Fame despite legal issues that later ensued. 

One perfect example is O.J. Simpson.  He remains in the Pro Football Hall of Fame despite all that has happened after his playing days were over.  In that particular case, it was stated that "on field" achievements and/or contributions were the only factors that are taken into consideration with respect to membership in the Hall of Fame. 

Another example is Michael Jackson.  The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has refused to remove him based on similar reasoning.  They indicated that his excellence in music and impact on rock and roll merit him being in the Hall of Fame.

Given the significant contributions/effects that George Hopkins had on the drum & bugle corps activity, they could rather easily justify him remaining in the Hall of Fame just by following the logic used in the high profile examples listed above.

Edited by rjohn76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

#### central PA/Westshoremen mafia with Bob Z included lol

One thing I learned fast from both of them 40 years ago. One might not like what they say, but they're very truthful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Sure. I’d love to read the well worded and truthful response that justifies keeping Hopkins in the WDCHOF. What a joke.

You may not like what they say, but they will respond. Sneer all you want. At least do something instead of complaining to people who have no influence or power over their decision making.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Sure. I’d love to read the well worded and truthful response that justifies keeping Hopkins in the WDCHOF. What a joke.

So the better option is to gripe on DCP...

Seriously why waste heartbeats b-wording if all you do is throw insults when people try to answer you. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, rjohn76 said:

The precedent is there in other sports/activities to keep people in the Hall of Fame despite legal issues that later ensued. 

One perfect example is O.J. Simpson.  He remains in the Pro Football Hall of Fame despite all that has happened after his playing days were over.  In that particular case, it was stated that "on field" achievements and/or contributions were the only factors that are taken into consideration with respect to membership in the Hall of Fame. 

Another example is Michael Jackson.  The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has refused to remove him based on similar reasoning.  They indicated that his excellence in music and impact on rock and roll merit him being in the Hall of Fame.

Given the significant contributions/effects that George Hopkins had on the drum & bugle corps activity, they could rather easily justify him remaining in the Hall of Fame just by following the logic used in the high profile examples listed above.

I would offer that the very same reason/logic you cite as a comparison for him staying (contributions/affects he had on the activity) would be same reasons he should be/have been removed.  The other examples for NFL or Rock and Roll HOF’s, were not factors because the behaviors or actions were definitely outside of the activities/orgs and clarified  by rules for inclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.