Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

a rather interesting strategy is posting for the first time to say "goodbye"  take care! Things change, it's called life. I preferred the acoustic activity in G - loud as crap and FANTASTIC, but

For several years my delight with Drum Corps has been waning.  My first experience with Drum Corps was in 2004 at the invitation of Dr. Thomas Root.  It was electrifying for me.  The sound had ma

See, there's so much you could have said without punching him in the nose in the process.  Daggers are not necessary. He has his opinion - you've been trumpeting your incredulous attitude towards

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"

💥:excl:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, garfield said:

To quote Jeff Ream:  "Shhh... facts"

💥:excl:

til i wordsmithed what Mr. Shaw. may he rest in peace, wrote that kinda kills a little of what was presented

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by garfield
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.