Jump to content

A Great Article on The Cadets


Recommended Posts

40 years ago is a long time, yes. But DFTK was still a thing back then.   We shall see how this turns out. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

40 years ago is a long time, yes. But DFTK was still a thing back then.   We shall see how this turns out. 

Indeed, sir. I reflected on my Rookie season with Jim F. in 1979, and there were three instances of questionable things going on that would have raised absolute Cain nowadays and for good reasons. Things also like that went on with a lot of HS Band programs in period, and instead of jail time, it was usually a quiet resignation and moving on to another school or in some cases I remember, something more lucrative. (Then again- that wasn't hard if one was a public school teacher)

It was more or less shrugged off. What the heck did I know? I was a 16 year old kid. Jim will tell you, I was pretty naive about stuff in general except for playing Bugle. I got un-naived (made up a word, sorry) quickly in DCA. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a great read. However, Vanguard wasn't announced in 2nd place at semifinals in 1987. That's not the way semifinals worked back then. Perhaps the author meant to say that the crowd went crazy finals night, which I would disagree with. Both were extremely popular in '87 and both are still perhaps my two favorite shows of all time.

Madison also wasn't 0.6 down from them in '85 semifinals because the top 3 were flat. Madison was very good in '85 and had victories over Garfield during the season and remained close. Madison was flat in finals and dropped further behind because of that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Vuitton said:

It was a great read. However, Vanguard wasn't announced in 2nd place at semifinals in 1987. That's not the way semifinals worked back then. Perhaps the author meant to say that the crowd went crazy finals night, which I would disagree with. Both were extremely popular in '87 and both are still perhaps my two favorite shows of all time.

Madison also wasn't 0.6 down from them in '85 semifinals because the top 3 were flat. Madison was very good in '85 and had victories over Garfield during the season and remained close. Madison was flat in finals and dropped further behind because of that.

You have a great memory.  I was there in 87 and I can remember hardly anything besides being there. I wasn’t there in 1985. I had a baby that week. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vuitton said:

It was a great read. However, Vanguard wasn't announced in 2nd place at semifinals in 1987. That's not the way semifinals worked back then. Perhaps the author meant to say that the crowd went crazy finals night, which I would disagree with. Both were extremely popular in '87 and both are still perhaps my two favorite shows of all time.

Madison also wasn't 0.6 down from them in '85 semifinals because the top 3 were flat. Madison was very good in '85 and had victories over Garfield during the season and remained close. Madison was flat in finals and dropped further behind because of that.

i saw both at Allenton...back to back, morning and night. electric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2024 at 12:08 PM, Slingerland said:

That guy who was your lab partner in High School 40 years ago? Turns out he did something awful back then that just came to light. Why didn't you stop him? You should have known, after all, you worked together. 

Right? I mean, if ignorance isn't a defense. 😎

The Michigan case has zero bearing on this. A mother of a disturbed kid bought him a weapon designed to (checks notes) kill people, after which he (again, to the notepad) killed people. She provided him the tools and had direct responsibility for what happened. 

DCI's office in Chicago had no knowledge of the hiring of the alleged attacker, and certainly no control over the specific incident in which the situation occurred. They had no more implied or specific culpability at that period of time than you did over your lab partner.  The whole suit is filled with "should have knowns" as the basis for the complaint, and in front of a jury, if it finally gets that far, they are going to have to prove that belief with something besides shoulda/coulda/woulda.

If it gets to a jury, do they really need to "prove"?  Or will "persuade" suffice?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...