garfield Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: Note I didn’t assign who the wholes belong to. After all I sent you the letter Ok, thanks for the clarification. Glad to say we see the same holes. I also have had some corroboration of one side of the facts. We should give Cadets and their reps the room to work through this situation without inflaming the circumstantial conclusions. Edited July 10, 2019 by garfield 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Dixon Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said: They honored the investigation exactly - we are talking about an incident between two minors Just now, Spatzzz said: The design choice to show an assault on the field with the tearing of clothes that could be construed sexually. It doesn't matter the sex on the individuals involved. That moment was ill-advised given their history. If you can't see that I can't help you... and the perception was immediately understood and it was removed from the show. First year design teams are not perfect. I agree, it was an unwise choice. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Spatzzz said: It doesn't matter the sex on the individuals involved. Reason why names Sam and Taylor were used in scenario I stated..... M/M, M/F or F/F it doesn’t matter. Glad Cadets realized it was a bad decision to have that piece in the show and corrected. Edited July 10, 2019 by JimF-LowBari 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Spatzzz said: The design choice to show an assault on the field with the tearing of clothes that could be construed sexually. It doesn't matter the sex on the individuals involved. That moment was ill-advised given their history. If you can't see that I can't help you... In other words, "If you don't agree with me, we don't have anything to talk about", right? Typical. OK, lead the torch parade. Be sure to look behind you to see who's following. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatzzz Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 minute ago, George Dixon said: exactly - we are talking about an incident between two minors and the perception was immediately understood and it was removed from the show. First year design teams are not perfect. I agree, it was an unwise choice. Glad you see that. My question is where was the corps director or other senior staff to stop it from happening at all. That it even happened is a problem IMHO and I understand others may not feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, garfield said: Ok, thanks for the clarification. Glad to say we see the same holes. I also have had some corroboration of one side of the facts. We should give Cadets and their reps to room to work through this situation without inflaming the circumstantial conclusions. Agreed. There’s a lot more that needs to come out to put the whole picture together and the letter and the little bit YEA has said shows there’s more. granted anything coming out will be lawyered to death especially now that the letters out mom/ guardian didn’t do a good job redacting things. Or hiding that she tried to friend every cadet parent they could find on social media 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Reason why names Sam and Taylor were used in scenario I stated..... M/M, M/F or F/F it doesn’t matter. Glad Cadets realized it was a bad decision to have that piece in the show and corrected. But they were "tone deaf" at the same time, say some. Amazing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, garfield said: In other words, "If you don't agree with me, we don't have anything to talk about", right? Typical. OK, lead the torch parade. Be sure to look behind you to see who's following. Let’s be honest it was a stupid decision 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatzzz Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, garfield said: In other words, "If you don't agree with me, we don't have anything to talk about", right? Typical. OK, lead the torch parade. Be sure to look behind you to see who's following. I think you are too close to the organization to think clearly. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 9 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: I wonder how much more press like this (deserved or not) the Cadets (specifically) or the activity (as a whole) can take? Not much more, I’m guessing. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts