So can we get an honest answer

[Newseditor44]

Okay Stef, I'll bite.

My logic is that those directors and design teams which have jumped on the legality of amplified voice and utilized it in their shows are MORE LIKELY, yes you read that correctly, more likely to be the ones that voted in favour of electronics, and my post was merely a suggestion as to who I thought might have accounted for some of the "ayes". Do you find this to be so unreasonable that it warranted an attack on my logical abilities? Next time you find yourself with a little extra time, try picking up an upper level engineering course in control systems. Then we will talk about logic. Deal?

Now, that is the second time in a week you have called me lazy. I really do not understand where this is coming from. Last week you called me lazy, I defended myself, others refuted your claims, the Oxford Dictionary contradicted your claims, and you were mysteriously silent in that thread until it was locked. I could just as easily throw adjectives around about you, but then again I don't know you or anything about you other than that which is presented on these forums.

Adam - a few words, first, don't call Stef out; you're not in her league. She'll chew you up and spit you out in 2 seconds, I have seen it before, and it isn’t pretty. Just back away while you can. She's good and you're nowhere close.

Secondly, you are assuming that the same directors that voted for amplified voice are the ones who voted for this rule as well. Have you ever heard the phrase "assuming makes an a** out of you and me"? It just isn't right to make assumptions based on theory rather than fact. What's worse is to accuse someone of something with nothing but speculation to back up your claims. Very weak.

Third... Yes, it’s a difficult issue, one that has us all up in arms. But what are we going to do with this information, organize a witch-hunt? "Burn them at the cross I say!!!" Get real folks.

The current BOD is a majority of the same people responsible for the resurgence of this activity over the past 10 or so years. Had it not been for their dedication and hard work, God only knows if DCI would still be around. Its partially because of them that you have this message board and an activity to talk about.

I am as old school as they come. I hate electronics, I hate b-flat instruments, I hate the fact that so much tradition has been swept away over the past 10 years, but these are the facts of life. Things change, people change, organizations change. But in their defense, people who run this show have many more years of experience managing non-profit organizations than you or I combined. I trust that they know what they are doing, and will make the best decision in the best interest of the activity. They love drum corps as much as you and I, and in some cases, more than any of us. They eat, sleep, dream about, and breath drum corps 24 hours a day. They are not only director, but almost all of them are vets as well.

Jeff Fielder, for example, just gave up his career as a teacher to work with the Cavi's fulltime. He was the Cavi's drum major, and has guided the corps to an unprecedented run over the past ten years. He is 110% dedicated to this activity and the young men that become a part of the Cavalier family. Can you honestly tell me that he, or any of the other BoD's, are going make any decision that would knowingly harm the activity? Tell me why you believe they wouldn't give a tremendous amount of thought and insight into the issue before making such a vote. In Jeff's case, he has hundreds, if not thousands of people to answer to... alumni, parents, the Cavaliers BoD, the membership. Imagine that kind of pressure, that kind of responsibility... know tell me why he would make a decision to vote on a controversial issue that, in all fairness, he knows will not be the popular vote? The only logical answer I can come up with is that he, and the other board members (corps directors) see this has a critical decision that will advance the activity in years to come and create a stable, more competitive organization, along with a more creative palate for the corps and the designers.

Do I like the idea... no. Do I support it? Not now. Do I have an open mind? Yes. Do I trust the current people in charge of running the activity? Heck yeah!

And by the way, if the rule gets passed and a few years later we find out that it really was a bad idea... we can always rescind it.

Edited January 31, 2007 by Newseditor44

[Slow Adam]

Adam - a few words, first, don't call Stef out; you're not in her league. She'll chew you up and spit you out in 2 seconds, I have seen it before, and it isn’t pretty. Just back away while you can. She's good and you're nowhere close.

Secondly, you are assuming that the same directors that voted for amplified voice are the ones who voted for this rule as well. Have you ever heard the phrase "assuming makes an a** out o you and me"? It just isn't right to make assumptions based on theory rather than fact.

Third... Yes, it’s a difficult issue, one that has us all up in arms. But what are we going to do with this information, put together a witch-hunt? Burn them at the cross I say!!! Get real folks.

I'm hardly afraid of being chewed up and spit out in 2 seconds via the internet. As for the "she's good and you're nowhere close" and not being in her league, I see gaps and imperfections in her logic same as she does with mine, we are on opposite ends of arguments sometimes, and that's just the way it is.

As for the assumption, you should re-read what I have said...I didn't say anything about who voted for amplification having any bearing on the electronics vote, I said that those who have used amplification, specifically of the human voice, would be likely candidates for voting yes to electronics.

[Scerpella]

And you know what, it's my money, thankyouverymuch, and I'll spend it as I see fit.

The way I see fit is to not support corps who choose to use electronics. Therefore, in order for me to be an informed consumer, I'd like to know the actual breakdown of the vote. It's not an unreasonable request, as this information has been released in the past.

Is it that hard to understand? That if I'm unhappy with the direction of a coprs or organization that I can try and influence it where it matters most: In the wallet?

Twice in one week! Scerpella and Meyer on the same page (philosophically speaking)

[Newseditor44]

As for the assumption, you should re-read what I have said...I didn't say anything about who voted for amplification having any bearing on the electronics vote, I said that those who have used amplification, specifically of the human voice, would be likely candidates for voting yes to electronics.

Still falls under the catagory of speculation and assumption

[L1STEN2311]

Third... Yes, it’s a difficult issue, one that has us all up in arms. But what are we going to do with this information, organize a witch-hunt? "Burn them at the cross I say!!!" Get real folks.

The current BOD is a majority of the same people responsible for the resurgence of this activity over the past 10 or so years. Had it not been for their dedication and hard work, God only knows if DCI would still be around. Its partially because of them that you have this message board and an activity to talk about.

I am as old school as they come. I hate electronics, I hate b-flat instruments, I hate the fact that so much tradition has been swept away over the past 10 years, but these are the facts of life. Things change, people change, organizations change. But in their defense, people who run this show have many more years of experience managing non-profit organizations than you or I combined. I trust that they know what they are doing, and will make the best decision in the best interest of the activity. They love drum corps as much as you and I, and in some cases, more than any of us. They eat, sleep, dream about, and breath drum corps 24 hours a day. They are not only director, but almost all of them are vets as well.

Jeff Fielder, for example, just gave up his career as a teacher to work with the Cavi's fulltime. He was the Cavi's drum major, and has guided the corps to an unprecedented run over the past ten years. He is 110% dedicated to this activity and the young men that become a part of the Cavalier family. Can you honestly tell me that he, or any of the other BoD's, are going make any decision that would knowingly harm the activity? Tell me why you believe they wouldn't give a tremendous amount of thought and insight into the issue before making such a vote. In Jeff's case, he has hundreds, if not thousands of people to answer to... alumni, parents, the Cavaliers BoD, the membership. Imagine that kind of pressure, that kind of responsibility... know tell me why he would make a decision to vote on a controversial issue that, in all fairness, he knows will not be the popular vote? The only logical answer I can come up with is that he, and the other board members (corps directors) see this has a critical decision that will advance the activity in years to come and create a stable, more competitive organization, along with a more creative palate for the corps and the designers.

Do I like the idea... no. Do I support it? Not now. Do I have an open mind? Yes. Do I trust the current people in charge of running the activity? Heck yeah!

And by the way, if the rule gets passed and a few years later we find out that it really was a bad idea... we can always rescind it.

::applauds::

-christopher

Edited January 31, 2007 by L1STEN2311

[GMichael1230]

Adam - a few words, first, don't call Stef out; you're not in her league. She'll chew you up and spit you out in 2 seconds, I have seen it before, and it isn’t pretty. Just back away while you can. She's good and you're nowhere close.

LOL LOL LOL !!! How much did she pay you for this faux statement ?? LOL LOL

~G~

[GMichael1230]

Not a single thing is wrong with it and no it was not an over-reaction at all.. Because it would seem -- at least from a "real world" perspective -- that if you wanted an "honest answer to an honest question", you'd go seek out and ask the people who HAD the answer in the first place. Heck, you might even go find out and come back here and REPORT on the answer you got. Instead, you posted it here. IMO that means you're just waiting to light the torches and storm the castle.

Posting it here like this either means:

1. You just want to ##### about it.

2. You're too lazy to go find out the ACTUAL answer to your question

or 3. You are too lazy to go find out the actual answer and you just want to ##### about it.

I'd tell you which one of those I think it is but I think you probably know without me telling you.

Stef

What nonsense and you know it. You just happen to be in difference of opinion so therefore you can attempt to belittle or "call out" or try and demean those who think and feel different than you. You do it all the time.

Didnt yo just post a question in the "Scouts announce new percussion team" thread ?? Couldn't you find the answer yourself ??

The question is a valid one for all involved. Knowing who supports what so one can decide how they want to continue or not cintinue supporting something they like or not like is valid, and quite frankly you know this. You just wanted another excuse, or not, to get another jab in at those that are against non-traditional changes.

real, dog.

~G~

[L1STEN2311]

i'm curious stef... do you ever ask for directions, how about where things are at home depot?

forums are for questions and discussions... and didn't i just read something from you in another thread about if you not liking it than dont read it? if your only reason to come into this thread was to knock on others, why not just not not not not not not read it... (that was rough)

-christopher

[ducttapedgerbil]

So, you are willing to kill the activity all together? Becuase in a sense, that is what you are saying. You are wiling to sacrifice ten corps, in an already dismal field, in order to voice your opinion? You would actually want these groups to NOT succeed? You would actually want to promote the death of the activity?

I'm just curious.

It's called euthanasia

[Newseditor44]

It's called euthanasia

LOL