dckid80 Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 torn80 I'm still waiting for you to produce the list of the 100 corps that took the field last year. You yourself have done no research nor compiled or presented any statistics to back the varied and changing postions that you have taken in this thread. Your credibility at this point is nil. Your case of denial regarding the current state of the activity is painfully obvious and prevents an honest discussion of the issues from moving forward in a meaningful way. At this point, YOU are the barrier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torn8o Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 (edited) torn80I'm still waiting for you to produce the list of the 100 corps that took the field last year. You yourself have done no research nor compiled or presented any statistics to back the varied and changing postions that you have taken in this thread. Your credibility at this point is nil. Your case of denial regarding the current state of the activity is painfully obvious and prevents an honest discussion of the issues from moving forward in a meaningful way. At this point, YOU are the barrier. Whoa! Hold the phone. Had you done YOUR OWN due dilligance, you would have noticed that I SAID after Northern Thunder's first post that I was not going to post a list. Although, I made the mistake of not posting the reasons. So here goes... - I did not post the list because originally my list was going to include senior corps. The reason it was going to include senior corps was ONLY because I believed the graph did. However, Northern Thunder clarified for me that it did not. Therefore, it would be pointless for me to post a graph that did include senior corps (which does ride around to over 100 when combined with all juniors and I STILL would be happy to post that list if I must). - I did not post the list because it would be time consuming and felt that it would be more appropriate for someone like Northern Thunder who ALREADY HAS done the homework and has easy access to the information to post it the context of the 70s until now and NOT just 2005. So...DON'T GO PERSONALLY ATTACKING ME! K??????????????????????? P.S. "Credibility"? Credibility for what? I have not PRESENTED any statements of my own other than "there are more division I corps than there were in 1995" (which was PROVEN to be true by SkyRyder's post). But, I DID quote a figure as "100" and as I just said was in the context of senior AND junior corps which has been now proven (and accepted by yours truly) as irrelevant. Edited March 30, 2006 by torn8o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 I MAY do that on my own time. It would be fun. HARD! But fun. Yes to both fun and hard.... Get ready to start ripping out hair when you get to anything before 1970. At that point you are at the mercy of what ever info is still around and how well (and how many times) that info has been copied. IMO, a good starting point for internet references on the Sr side are the sites I mentioned a few pages back. Also a nice lady :) has started posting her DC News articles on a blog site. She started with the oldest articles and is still "only" in 1962 which was a whole different world DC wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Scott, no offense, but it comes across as if you're agressively criticizing someone who really tried to do nothing but provide honest, unbiased statistics. It's like you're trying to pin an agenda on someone who would have no real motivation to have one. He comes across as very objective in his postings, and has clearly done tedious research, and I can't tell why you seem to be working so hard to discredit it. exactly. watching this thread, i felt like i was at a #### fight. brian does what he does out of the goodness of his heart. he has no agenda, and let's face it, when it comes to hunior corps, you have 2 distinct eras seperated by one year: before 72 after 72 and, IMO, since all pre DCI history is an after thought when discussing history anymore, 72 is a great place to start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecoats88 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 I just went into Corps Reps (I know it's not 100% accurate) but I figured over the last 10 years it might be pretty close to being right. Here's the results for # of junior corps since 1996. I couldn't figure out how to post a graphical chart so here's the raw data. enjoy Corps Division..........1996.....1997.....1998.....1999.....2000.....2001.....2002.... .2003.....2004.....2005 DIV I....................20.......21.......19.......21.......19.......18.......19... ....23.......24.......24 DIV II...................13........6.......12.......12.......10.......11.......12... .....9........9........9 DIV III..................30.......36.......25.......30.......27.......25.......26... ....24.......18.......18 Not At Championships.....39.......37.......26.......30.......20.......26.......19...... .22.......15.......15 Totals..................102......100........82.......93......76.......80.......7 6.......78.......66.......66 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torn8o Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 brian does what he does out of the goodness of his heart. he has no agenda, I understand that now. As I said, he and I have PMed since yesterday afternoon and we BOTH understand where each other is comming from now and for the most part are on the same page. It's all good. One thing about his purpose in the census that I really admire is his desire to show just how many corps have existed over the years who never got recognition that SHOULD have. Cudos on that effort. I think we can all STOP "fighting" at this point and for sure I offer my own aoplogies for making this thread into that. I will confess that the "fightish" type of dialog was my bad. Not to make an excuse but it was because I THOUGHT there was a negative agenda when there wasn't one. I still would like to know why dcikid80 felt such a need to attack me the way he did though. Perhaps I just had it comming. :) It'a all good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torn8o Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 (edited) I just went into Corps Reps (I know it's not 100% accurate) but I figured over the last 10 years it might be pretty close to being right.Here's the results for # of junior corps since 1996. I couldn't figure out how to post a graphical chart so here's the raw data. enjoy Corps Division..........1996.....1997.....1998.....1999.....2000.....2001.....2002.... .2003.....2004.....2005 DIV I....................20.......21.......19.......21.......19.......18.......19... ....23.......24.......24 This is the part I was trying to get us all to focus on. Look at the growth of Division I. Four new division I corps AT CHAMPIONSHIPS in a decade's time is actually A LOT when you take into account the pressures of Division I. This is a HUGE step forward in my opinion and one that is worth making a positive mental note of. Edited March 30, 2006 by torn8o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torn8o Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 (edited) double...sorry Edited March 30, 2006 by torn8o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecoats88 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 This is the part I was trying to get us all to focus on. Look at the growth of Division I. Four new division I corps AT CHAMPIONSHIPS in a decade's time is actually A LOT when you take into account the pressures of Division I. This is a HUGE step forward in my opinion and one that is worth making a positive mental note of. Also Blue Stars will be DIV I in 2006 (I know we lose Troopers for a year) but hopefully in 2007 we'll have at least 25 DIV I, and if Arizona Academy jumps in 2007 or 2008 that would make 26. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madscout96 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 This is the part I was trying to get us all to focus on. Look at the growth of Division I. Four new division I corps AT CHAMPIONSHIPS in a decade's time is actually A LOT when you take into account the pressures of Division I. This is a HUGE step forward in my opinion and one that is worth making a positive mental note of. Did you look at the rest of it? The non-div. I part of it? Sure it's a huge step forward when you compare it to div. II and III which are getting buried! 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.