N.E. Brigand Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 45 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: What names weren't listed? Might as well blow it all up into the open now. Any posts that mentions a name like this will be deleted, because DCP doesn't want to be sued by ____ _______ (or one of the others). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook'emCavies Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Ghost said: Then see as many as you can HC, because there is no guarantee that DCI is going to survive what's been going on. That is what I am afraid of.... 😕 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullethead Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, garfield said: I don’t know what post you’re speaking to. “Disciplined” She said no corps have been disciplined over participant safety issues. False. So let's just allow DCI to maintain the status quo due to a questionable wording in a news article....is that what you are hoping for? Does it really make any difference if a corps has been disciplined....for whatever? Does it disprove the events described in the article? Before this current barrage, had a corps been "disciplined" for things relating to staff/member - inappropriate issues of a sexual nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 8 minutes ago, garfield said: I don’t know what post you’re speaking to. “Disciplined” She said no corps have been disciplined over participant safety issues. False. Word smithing. You win 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 Just now, bullethead said: So let's just allow DCI to maintain the status quo due to a questionable wording in a news article....is that what you are hoping for? Does it really make any difference if a corps has been disciplined....for whatever? Does it disprove the events described in the article? Before this current barrage, had a corps been "disciplined" for things relating to staff/member - inappropriate issues of a sexual nature? Don’t use logic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 9 minutes ago, garfield said: I don’t know what post you’re speaking to. “Disciplined” She said no corps have been disciplined over participant safety issues. False. Curious, in the cases that you mentioned, what did the discipline consist of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 17 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: so he's right it's about word smithing. You're the new Brasso!! OH!! NOOO!! lol It’s about demanding accuracy and fairness in reporting. Words have meaning. Has any corps ever been ejected (or any of the words you used - still waiting, right?) because of not protecting participants from sexual harassment? No, not to my knowledge. Has any corps been disciplined because of participant safety issues? You betcha, and I gave examples. I don’t understand this motivation to let details pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: Word smithing. You win Word Smithing? Ha! I’m perfectly happy to win on accuracy. Accuracy matters, except at some national banks, of course. 😏 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmolnar Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, garfield said: I don’t understand this motivation to let details pass. Because these "details" are not what we should be focusing on here. That fact that you continue to harp on them says a lot about your character. Edited December 13, 2018 by jeffmolnar 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, garfield said: OH!! NOOO!! lol It’s about demanding accuracy and fairness in reporting. Words have meaning. Has any corps ever been ejected (or any of the words you used - still waiting, right?) because of not protecting participants from sexual harassment? No, not to my knowledge. Has any corps been disciplined because of participant safety issues? You betcha, and I gave examples. I don’t understand this motivation to let details pass. Details matter, but some wrong things in this article don't make the rest of it--the major points--untrue. Your posts in this thread are being read by others as claiming that Nadolny's mistakes undermine the heart of her reporting. Almost all of your comments here have questioned the article's flaws and almost none of them have acknowledged its achievements. It's as if you're judging the article using the tick system. Edited December 13, 2018 by N.E. Brigand 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts