A Message from DCI CEO Dan Acheson

[Terri Schehr]

3 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Read that part and creeped me the #### out. Yeah just let the “kids” beat each other up a bit to make the corps better. And never got that abuse rookies to make them feel like part of the corps “family” crap either. 

They initiated us rookies in Norwood Park but nothing abusive.   I think I got Vaseline put in my hair and I had to eat a grape blindfolded that someone said was a pig’s eye.  I said nah, that’s a grape, 

 

[Terri Schehr]

4 minutes ago, garfield said:

I called you out because you said this:

"Tricia tweeted that there is a forthcoming article but it’s just not ready yet."

If you honestly think that it's not inducing speculation, then I'll apologize here and simply disagree.  I'll even remove you from my list if you prefer.  I mean no particular ill-will; I only want the pitchforks put away.

 

 

I’ve been very quiet on this thread despite being a survivor.  

i only repeated what Tricia tweeted.  

I’ll say no more.  Carry on. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Terri Schehr

[garfield]

1 minute ago, Terri Schehr said:

I’ve been very quiet on this thread despite being a survivor.  

i only repeated what Tricia tweeted.  

Ill say no more.  Carry on. 

Are those little black hearts you're throwing at me?  Aww.

Thank you.  You've been gracious.

[JimF-LowBari]

7 minutes ago, garfield said:

Ah, thanks.  I tried that and I was blocked.  Quite alright - someone here will grab it.

 

Lol gotta try it on the tablet to see if I get blocked too. Freaking technology on different devices

[garfield]

And, not to Terry specifically, I find it reprehensible that some are calling out Dan A for creating speculation by posting ahead of the reporter, when the reporter herself is not called out for causing speculation after responding to DCI's response.

Let's play that game in reverse:  For these purposes, I'm going to suggest that I think her Tweet meant this: "I have more stuff that I just made public to Dan but it's not quite ready yet because Dan wouldn't corroborate any of our story so we'll have to work a little longer to make it Award-winning without corroborated facts."

See, it's not really appropriate for me to speculate about any alternative meaning to her words.  And it's not appropriate to do the same with DCI's "pre-sponse" (I just made that up).  

It seems to me that "Taking the High Road" would suggest giving the benefit of the doubt to the activity's voices, especially in this case because of DCI's structure and all of our knowledge that the new Board Chair has had precious few months to change 35 years of practice.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2018 by garfield

[garfield]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

This is what came out. If this is what Dan references he definitely created an unneeded smokescreen 

Report: Drum corps leader threw things at work, called women ‘little girls’
http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/hopkins-drum-corps-investigation-cadets-sexual-misconduct-20181105.html

 

 

 

Now, that's funny.  My initial response was If this is it, why didn't she reveal it to Dan?

Again, last time: bashed for being late.  This time (REMEMBER: SHE DID NOT TELL HIM WHAT WAS COMING), bashed for being early and "out front".

Is it THIS reporter, or all reporters, who gets the benefit of the doubt above Dan/DCI?

Edited November 5, 2018 by garfield

[MusicManNJ]

4 hours ago, garfield said:

Hers was a perfunctory contact where she knew going in that Dan was not going to talk. 

If she were actually “presenting an opportunity to respond”, she would have spilled her own beans instead of expecting  Dan to do that alone. 

How do you know it was "perfunctory"? Reporters ask questions from an interviewee to gain insight to validate or refute info they may have. 

[MusicManNJ]

3 hours ago, garfield said:

The reporter didn’t share the contents of the story with us.

Here you go... followed by the reporters statement that DCI has refused an interview.

Re: PR... this has been mishandled since May. Continues to be mishandled. Internal staff yelling at reporters. Refusing to speak to multiple reporters. Promising interviews and then reneging . All the actins of an organization with nothing to hide. Again, font take my word for it. Go ask the reporters.

[MusicManNJ]

8 minutes ago, garfield said:

Now, that's funny.  My initial response was If this is it, why didn't she reveal it to Dan?

Again, last time: bashed for being late.  This time (REMEMBER: SHE DID NOT TELL HIM WHAT WAS COMING), bashed for being early and "out front".

Is it THIS reporter, or all reporters, who gets the benefit of the doubt above Dan/DCI?

This is not the report that the reporter was referring to. This is the promised release of the final report of the external investigation to YEA.

[Daave]

Regardless of where one is on the caring continuum and where one falls in their beliefs on this subject...

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.  For those who don't, no explanation will do.

Let the rabbit season, duck season debate continue.