Daave Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 You did it now. You challenged the Great and Powerful OZ on his knowledge of all things Drum Corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 2 hours ago, cixelsyd said: Then present your "facts". Better yet, why take either your word or mine? Why not go straight to the source - people who were actually there back then? As Dave Shaw, Cadet alum 1950-1958, describes it (or read the whole webpage yourself at http://theholynamecadets.org/history/history_58.php)... So to review: corps knows church does not want them to go to Nationals corps goes anyway corps "assuming" compromise will go over well proves they did not communicate about their plan to the church corps procures equipment, uniforms corps adopts new name Again I ask, who pulled away from whom? (Spoiler alert - both corps and church pulled away from each other.) To quote Jeff Ream: "Shhh... facts" 💥 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 2 hours ago, cixelsyd said: Then present your "facts". Better yet, why take either your word or mine? Why not go straight to the source - people who were actually there back then? As Dave Shaw, Cadet alum 1950-1958, describes it (or read the whole webpage yourself at http://theholynamecadets.org/history/history_58.php)... So to review: corps knows church does not want them to go to Nationals corps goes anyway corps "assuming" compromise will go over well proves they did not communicate about their plan to the church corps procures equipment, uniforms corps adopts new name Again I ask, who pulled away from whom? (Spoiler alert - both corps and church pulled away from each other.) not disputing what either of you have presented, however one question: the word compromise is used. That would indicate the church knew what was going on would it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 10 hours ago, Jeffe77 said: This thread is still going?!?!?! Over 1500? I guess it's offseason. (Yes I recognize the hypocrisy and irony of me adding to this thread 😎) i'm here for the buffet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 10 minutes ago, garfield said: To quote Jeff Ream: "Shhh... facts" 💥 til i wordsmithed what Mr. Shaw. may he rest in peace, wrote that kinda kills a little of what was presented Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: not disputing what either of you have presented, however one question: the word compromise is used. That would indicate the church knew what was going on would it not? By the wording, only the corps knew of any such "compromise". It was their presumption that the "compromise" would be accepted. Edited December 11, 2019 by garfield 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: not disputing what either of you have presented, however one question: the word compromise is used. That would indicate the church knew what was going on would it not? Compromise, as in both parties working out an agreement in advance of the event? Not in this case. More from that same Dave Shaw account: "All parties connected with the Corps viewed this as a temporary, single-event venture, independent of the Church. The name, the equipment, the uniforms, and the funds from the Holy Name Cadet account were not used. It was assumed, therefore, that when the "Garfield Cadets" returned from Chicago, the Cadets would resume their identity as the Holy Name Cadets once again." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 3 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Compromise, as in both parties working out an agreement in advance of the event? Not in this case. More from that same Dave Shaw account: "All parties connected with the Corps viewed this as a temporary, single-event venture, independent of the Church. The name, the equipment, the uniforms, and the funds from the Holy Name Cadet account were not used. It was assumed, therefore, that when the "Garfield Cadets" returned from Chicago, the Cadets would resume their identity as the Holy Name Cadets once again." Excellent sleuthing, BTW 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 15 minutes ago, garfield said: By the wording, only the corps new of any such "compromise". It was their presumption that the "compromise" would be accepted. gotcha. didn't read that way to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Compromise, as in both parties working out an agreement in advance of the event? Not in this case. More from that same Dave Shaw account: "All parties connected with the Corps viewed this as a temporary, single-event venture, independent of the Church. The name, the equipment, the uniforms, and the funds from the Holy Name Cadet account were not used. It was assumed, therefore, that when the "Garfield Cadets" returned from Chicago, the Cadets would resume their identity as the Holy Name Cadets once again." ok cool, didn't come across that way. great digging! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.