garfield Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 15 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: So the examples to prove the falsehood are...... tired of wasting my time watching a freaking ping pong game and this ain’t a ####### game Never said it was. If it were, then the inaccuracy would be easier dismissed. There is no justification in piling inaccuracies on top of important claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
year1buick Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 12 minutes ago, barigirl78 said: Most will be protected by the "I know of someone, but I'm not willing to say their name" phenomenon that seems to dominate such a discussion. I’ve seen so many wink-wink, in the know comments in the past months that I feel like must be the only one who doesn’t know who everyone is talking about when they say, “wait till you see what comes next,” or “this is only the tip of the iceberg.” 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, garfield said: I also have direct knowledge of a corps that was DISCIPLINED for skipping a scheduled food delivery to a host school. The kids had no dinner meal before or after their show. Then there was the time a corps was disciplined and their director was made to write a letter of apology to a host school for allowing its senior staff to exit the school after lights-out to "go have a few beers", leaving junior staff tech in charge. When the janitor returned (after locking all the doors) to find doors propped open (in the middle of the night) and kids literally laying on top of one another in the gym... The principle and his staff were on FIRE. DCI disciplines corps ALL THE TIME on participant safety issues all the time. But, as one prominent director wrote recently, most of what comes out of DCI was flat-out ignored by the member corps. Was it that #### hard to post or was having a word splitting contest with Jeff more important. Irony is part of the problem is priorities as corps are putting other things about members safety. Seeing same priority issue here with some posts 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjoakes Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 30 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: we got it several weeks ago. i was shocked at the names not listed And this isn’t exaggerated? Meaning there really is likely more on the horizon? If so, it seems legitimate to question the sustainability of DCI as currently organized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, Hook'emCavies said: Will I turn my back on the organization? Absolutely not! I still plan to go to shows and be the fan I am, but I hope that DCI can clean themselves up and do things right in the future. Then see as many as you can HC, because there is no guarantee that DCI is going to survive what's been going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted December 13, 2018 Author Share Posted December 13, 2018 14 minutes ago, Hook'emCavies said: Everyone... I am shocked after reading this. I know for a fact that I am going to get a phone call from my family that lives around Philly. I admit that I am greatly disappointed in DCI at the moment. Will I turn my back on the organization? Absolutely not! I still plan to go to shows and be the fan I am, but I hope that DCI can clean themselves up and do things right in the future. Let’s hope for a good scrubbing. No more half measures. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 Sadly, this article combined with DCI's perfunctory press releases of late shows one thing: there is no true governing agency for drum corps. That is the problem. Until there's a solution to that problem, the failure to protect will continue. To heck with the "well shucks, there's just nothing we can do" approach. To heck with the half-baked "community code" that was already poorly enforced this past summer. It was never intended to be a solution. It was going through the motions and hoping the problem would magically disappear. Corps obviously aren't going to do basic vetting for sexual predators and other felons on their own, or worse, they're continuing to intentionally hire them anyway. Yes, people can slip through the cracks with state patrol/FBI background checks if they'e never been convicted. That's not an excuse. It takes only a couple of minutes for Joe Internet User to conduct a records search on any individual that goes beyond a state patrol/FBI check. If a corps doesn't do it for every person they hire who comes in contact with kids, it's either because they're lazy, or they don't care and want to hire them anyway. Failure to protect, indeed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatzzz Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 21 minutes ago, garfield said: Never said it was. If it were, then the inaccuracy would be easier dismissed. There is no justification in piling inaccuracies on top of important claims. I think it is quite clear what the intent was in the article. Your objection is not only misplaced but not welcome. If you just want to argue to be argumentative I suggest you head down to the local playground where that type of back and forth is found more acceptable. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 21 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Was it that #### hard to post or was having a word splitting contest with Jeff more important. Irony is part of the problem is priorities as corps are putting other things about members safety. Seeing same priority issue here with some posts Why the H-E-Double-Drumsticks should I HAVE to make proofing statements? I made the point that the article is incorrect. If the paper is going to release these accusations into the public, they dang-well have an obligation to be fair, balanced, and truthful. Little ole' me pointing out three errors in an article of this import should raise some eyebrows, and not because it's me. Jeff used incorrect words to make an invalid point. Sorry if that twisted your boxers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Spatzzz said: I think it is quite clear what the intent was in the article. Your objection is not only misplaced but not welcome. If you just want to argue to be argumentative I suggest you head down to the local playground where that type of back and forth is found more acceptable. Thanks for that! Facts don't matter! Rejoice! Please demand accuracy from the author with the same vigor with which you sharpen your tines and thrust them at me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts