JimF-LowBari Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 And with the fb account we used deactivated can’t get to the postings... or at least can’t find them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Bluzes said: . when dci suggests using technology the innocents stand in the way of protecting the kids. The " innocents are standing in the way of protecting the kids" ? What" innocents" are standing in the way of protecting the kids in DCI ? Got any examples of this in DCI for us ? Edited January 2, 2019 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, JimF-LowBari said: And with the fb account we used deactivated can’t get to the postings... or at least can’t find them My guess is that the FB page is essentially this: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Stu said: Do you, Bluzes, hold to the belief that the innocent holding firm to unalianabe rights actually place kids in harms way and are thus standing in the way of protecting kids? Apparently so. He did say the innocents are the problem as they are not willing to give up their Bill Of Rights, and you can't have both the innocents rights protected in DCI along with safety for the MM's. He said its one of two choices, and we have to decide which we want... safety of marchers, or the loss of innocents rights to privacy protections for themselves under their Bill of Rights. Its a rather chilling assessment, and something he believes only provides us 2 choices, with one having to be forfeited. The notion that the " innocents " stand in the way of better safety for MM's in DCI however seems ludicrous to me. The assessment that in order to have better safety for MM's in DCI, the " innocents " have to give up their "Bill of Rights" is not only Unconstitutional, its nutty, imo. But he's also more than willing he's already told us ( for one example ) to give up his wife's FB and social media info if that what it takes to personally get himself a job, so I suppose he's far more willing to sacrifice others Bill of Rights here than perhaps others are. Edited January 2, 2019 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 18 minutes ago, BRASSO said: Apparently so. He did say the innocents are the problem as they are not willing to give up their Bill Of Rights, and you can't have both the innocents rights protected in DCI along with safety for the MM's. He said its one of two choices, and we have to decide which we want... safety of marchers, or the loss of innocents rights to privacy protections for themselves under their Bill of Rights. Its a rather chilling assessment, and something he believes only provides us 2 choices, with one having to be forfeited. The notion that the " innocents " stand in the way of better safety for MM's in DCI however seems ludicrous to me. The notion that in order to have been safety for MM's in DCI, the " innocents " have to give up their his words ( "Bill of Rights" ) is not only Unconstitutional, its nutty, imo. But he's willing to give up his wife's FB and social media info if that what it takes to get himself a job, so I suppose he's far more willing to sacrifice others Bill of Rights here than perhaps others are. Within the The Essential Issue thread he also stated, "Privacy is only there to protect the guilty." I responded that people who subsribe to that notion frighten me to my soul. People with that mindset are more than willing to attack the unalienable rights of the innocent without due process under the pretense of a false sense of security. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Stu said: Within the The Essential Issue thread he also stated, "Privacy is only there to protect the guilty." I responded that people who subsribe to that notion frighten me to my soul. People with that mindset are more than willing to attack the unalienable rights of the innocent without due process under the pretense of a false sense of security. Yes. The assessment he has made that " privacy is only there to protect the guilty " is indeed frightful... as well as cynical and misguided, imo. We assume " there " refers to the US Constitution. If thats his " there ", he apparently does not understand why the Revolution was fought, and why the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights were provided for us in the first place. It most certainly wasn't fought and written so that" Privacy protections are only there to protect the Guilty. " All our laws are written with the fundamental guiding principle to protect the rights of the "innocents".. Some of that privacy protection for the " innocents " perhaps has been lost of late, but his comments here demonstrate he wants the " innocents " to apparently give up even far MORE ( example.. in DCI ) moving forward. Yes, these people with such beliefs regarding our inalienable Rights granted to us, and for whom they are written with spilled blood to protect, " frighten me to my soul " too. But they are out there, Stu. DCI needs to handle better the bad apples that have found safe haven in DCI for too long. Its not the " innocents " fault the predators and their enablers found that safe haven in DCI. Its up to the overwhelming numbers of the " innocents " now to reclaim their DCI, and giving up their privacy protections or other Bill of Rights in order to do so, should be both unnecessary as well as non negotiable, imo. Edited January 2, 2019 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, BRASSO said: The " innocents are standing in the way of protecting the kids" ? What" innocents" are standing in the way of protecting the kids in DCI ? Got any examples of this in DCI for us ? 4 No examples the comment is referring to a general conception by some posters that any social media monitoring of staff will affect the rights of the innocent people who participate. So much that what dci is asking is breaking the camels back on rights issues above those that already surround us today. If this one reason was enough to stop someone in their pursuit and passion for the arts. They would not have chosen this career path, not slighting them at all, just putting myself in their place. That the youth view this differently than other generations. They have social demands that force them to find a balance between transparency and privacy. Since this is a discussion I questioned how the rights of the innocents trump the safety of the kids?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 8 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: Is anyone on here going to the big DCI pow-wow (aka Januals) later this month? Would be good to have a report that is not filtered through DCI. Would be even better to have someone there asking the hard questions no but sometimes birdies send messages 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 5 hours ago, Terri Schehr said: In addition, I have no affiliation with any drum corps and I understand there are costs involved with these meetings. If a corps representative(s) is attending and voting in the meetings, of course they should pay the full cost. But I do believe the wellness and safety seminar should have been offered to all drum corps at a reduced price. edited for what should be 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Bluzes said: ... I questioned how the rights of the innocents trump the safety of the kids?. The very nature of how you are asking this question speaks volumes. It presumes one trumps the other, it presumes the innocent sacraficing their unalinable rights is a noble way to keep kids from harm. Wow, just wow! Edited January 2, 2019 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts