adman

What happened to Madison?

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, ftwdrummer said:

Demonstrate to us how being forbidden to sit a year to change corps is not a significant impedance to members' ability to march.

 

 

Forbidden to sit a year?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Stu said:

Oh, and I never had any student loan debt. Received academic scholarship and worked full time; graduated with a 3.89 GPA. Take care. Back to DCI discussion. And God Speed to ya.

You mean you were responsible with your money? What a novel concept these days....

Those poor students who just had to incur 140k+ in loans to get their underwater-basket-weaving degree that hasn't produced a livable income!

If only there were a glut of nanny-staters promising forgiveness for these unavoidable situations! 

Edited by GiveMeLibertyorGiveMeDebt
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stu said:

Forbidden to sit a year?

Shows what I get for not proofreading...

I'll revise and extend here with the note you pointed out corrected, in the hopes that you won't dodge the rest of the post this time.

Demonstrate to us how being forced to sit a year to change corps is not a significant impedance to members' ability to march, especially in an activity with a mandatory retirement age.

Also demonstrate to us that members would be guaranteed slots if they returned, instead of having to audition the following year, at which point they might be cut but are unable to move to another corps while their "reserve" year is in place.

Members commit to march at a corps for one year. That's what's contracted. The contracts you're stipulating would basically be equivalent to implementing the old MLB reserve clause--which, if I recall correctly, you quoted yourself as being firmly against. I fail to see why something that got pushed out of sports where the performers (which, let's face it, professional athletes are) are compensated for their time and effort should be applied to an activity where the performers compensate the activity for their time and effort.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ftwdrummer said:

Shows what I get for not proofreading...

I'll revise and extend here with the note you pointed out corrected, in the hopes that you won't dodge the rest of the post this time.

Demonstrate to us how being forced to sit a year to change corps is not a significant impedance to members' ability to march, especially in an activity with a mandatory retirement age.

Also demonstrate to us that members would be guaranteed slots if they returned, instead of having to audition the following year, at which point they might be cut but are unable to move to another corps while their "reserve" year is in place.

Members commit to march at a corps for one year. That's what's contracted. The contracts you're stipulating would basically be equivalent to implementing the old MLB reserve clause--which, if I recall correctly, you quoted yourself as being firmly against. I fail to see why something that got pushed out of sports where the performers (which, let's face it, professional athletes are) are compensated for their time and effort should be applied to an activity where the performers compensate the activity for their time and effort.

 

Impead desire for immediate self gratification and a life lesson in you can't always get what you want? Yes. Impead actually performing with a corps each season? Nope.

As for guarenteed spots. There are no guarentees anywhere in life. Another life lesson.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stu said:

Impead desire for immediate self gratification and a life lesson in you can't always get what you want? Yes. Impead actually performing with a corps each season? Nope.

As for guarenteed spots. There are no guarentees anywhere in life. Another life lesson.

SO the rule you're putting in place tells the performer "if you join this corps for one year, you can only spend your money to perform at the highest level with this one corps. If you have any interest in ever performing with another corps at this level, you will be forbidden from performing at this level at all for one year, which could potentially include your last eligible year to march. And if we decide that you're not good enough for us to take your money anymore, you still won't be allowed to try and sign on with another corps at this competitive level for a year."

Just to make it clear, this is your position on the matter, yes?

Also, I find it interesting that choosing to spend next year differently than you spent this year constitutes "immediate" self-gratification. It's not like members see that the corps they signed on with is coming out of the gate slow and are leaving the last week in June to march at surprise-corps X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stu said:

You still have not showed me where I said they were 'forced' to stay in a situation they hated. That was your claim.

re-read your words.

 

And anyway, your argument is inane and will never happen, so I am done debating it with you

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HolyNOLA said:

Please elaborate on this 

spring training is now what 5/6 weeks? not cheap.

corps eat far better now...extra food...not cheap

corps now have to pay for housing pretty much everywhere. not cheap

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FlamMan said:

Jeff, what the heck are you talking about here? Who got tour housing for free, and who didn't eat healthy?

many corps. well documented too. But why argue facts with you? In your eyes we coddle kids and everything now is done poorly

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rufus67 said:

Any time someone uses this quote, correctly I might add, gets an immediate thumbs up from me.

well ya know Norm....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GiveMeLibertyorGiveMeDebt said:

You mean you were responsible with your money? What a novel concept these days....

Those poor students who just had to incur 140k+ in loans to get their underwater-basket-weaving degree that hasn't produced a livable income!

If only there were a glut of nanny-staters promising forgiveness for these unavoidable situations! 

Must be nice to have blinders on

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.