Jeff Ream Posted April 8, 2019 Author Share Posted April 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: Slow down there, professor, I don’t get it. Just kidding. What I meant to say was: BINGO! sorry, I'm in semi big word today...or using fancy four letter words instead of the usual ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted April 8, 2019 Author Share Posted April 8, 2019 Just now, JimF-LowBari said: And don’t forget the “our of district non tax paying” bit that HD brought up. 🙄 I live in Jeff’s old school district and taxes vs school budget is the usual hot button.... and this is a highly rated district well that district has the label of a wealthy tax base...they aren't viewed that way because they spent willingly LOL. if it was Lincoln and Schaeffer elementary schools would have been torn down when I attended them 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 On 4/6/2019 at 1:02 AM, Stu said: Local area, local news, local issue. Yep, rather prominent. And that could likely create local housing problems for other corps. But I bet a dollar to a doughnut that while this issue is broadcasted to the world via the internet, across the country this is not viewed as a systemic problem throughout the entirity of DCI. In case you missed it: https://www.philly.com/news/a/drum-corp-international-sexual-assault-misconduct-mike-stevens-george-hopkins-cadets-20181213.html You can also use this article to start your head count for answering one of your other questions: On 4/6/2019 at 12:04 PM, Stu said: How many 'known convicted' sexual preditors have been directly involved with any of the corps involved with DCI from 1972- present? That answer will show why I believe this is not a systemic problem within DCI. You can believe whatever you want. But with articles like this one being published, it is not hard to see how someone else might get the impression that sexual predation is a systemic problem in the DCI activity. And yes, I agree with your several subsequent posts saying that it is neither fair nor accurate to extrapolate these anecdotal incidents across the entire activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 Ok I wll bring this back to my post prior to going down the perception trail. My contention is still that any school board reaching out for the remote possibility of sexual preditor as an excuse to deny a corps from being hosted was/is reaching out for any excuse they can conjer up because they do/did not want the corps hosted there in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: L. if it was Lincoln and Schaeffer elementary schools would have been torn down when I attended them Yeah they were in such good shape no one wanted to buy the buildings.... So district had pair of albatrosses for years taking up $$$ for heat and upkeep. Now... what’s this “all important” thing about an outside drum corps wants to convince us to use the facilities? Here’s all the time I have... (blink)... that was it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, Stu said: Ok I wll bring this back to my post prior to going down the perception trail. My contention is still that any school board reaching out for the remote possibility of sexual preditor as an excuse to deny a corps from being hosted was/is reaching out for any excuse they can conjer up because they do/did not want the corps hosted there in the first place. How about the decision maker e.g. the superintendent simply says “no”. He/she doesn’t owe anyone an explanation as to the reason for the “no”. Just the way you frame the statement- “deny a corps from being hosted” - demonstrates an entitled attitude. These corps should feel darn lucky if a school allows them to stay there. What’s in it for the school, after all? A few bucks? The potential downside far exceeds the upside for the school. These corps aren’t entitled to anything. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 34 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: sorry, I'm in semi big word today...or using fancy four letter words instead of the usual ones I never thought any of them were fancier than the others. Possible exception being the French Canadian 'sacres'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said: if you haven't paid attention to anything in this world, truth very rarely counters perception, right or wrong. While I realize you live in a black and white hard stop world, of course except for when you need to split words and phrases to sub atomic particle levels, the rest of the world doesn't. Ergo, if any schools perceive it's an issue, it's a problem. And schools don't have time or energy top scroll through DCI's website and read a statement that often leaves a lot to....perception. Curious regarding said statement: Does it have more than three or four strong powerful bullet points? Edited April 8, 2019 by BigW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weaklefthand4ever Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 32 minutes ago, Stu said: My contention is still that any school board reaching out for the remote possibility of sexual preditor as an excuse to deny a corps from being hosted was/is reaching out for any excuse they can conjer up because they do/did not want the corps hosted there in the first place. Though I would certainly not be surprised if that was the case in SOME circumstances, I don't see how it would be FAIR to say that ANY/ALL of the school boards or administration would fall into this category. It seems as though you are using the same judgement that you so abhor in the above statement. I, for one, will simply not pass judgement on a group for making a decision based on their assessment of risk whether perceived or imagined. Perhaps I am naive. /shrug 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted April 8, 2019 Share Posted April 8, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Weaklefthand4ever said: Though I would certainly not be surprised if that was the case in SOME circumstances, I don't see how it would be FAIR to say that ANY/ALL of the school boards or administration would fall into this category. It seems as though you are using the same judgement that you so abhor in the above statement. I, for one, will simply not pass judgement on a group for making a decision based on their assessment of risk whether perceived or imagined. Perhaps I am naive. /shrug I can see predator problem as one of multiple issues/concerns a school district would have. Some would have said no before this came up. And others may have seen this as the “last straw” in deciding to say no. Personally feel the district would take the predator issue #### seriously. IOW when the school hears “remote possibility “ they would concentrate on “possibility” a lot more than “remote” Edited April 8, 2019 by JimF-LowBari 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts