Replies

"You won't get very far diminishing people by speaking of the "small" size of a community, nor by characterizing the events and my experiences dismissively as "conjecture, hearsay and opinion". Just a suggestion."

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll consider it, even though it appears that you are attempting to read more into my comments than was intended. I did say that I did not intend to discount your concerns and it certainly wasn't intended to "diminish" you. And I'm sure as hell not defending the Brigadiers. I have no reason to, for I do not know any of them personally and have no insight into any of the things you allege other than what has been printed in the press and the few opinions I read on the usenet group you pointed out.

The fact is that all your evidence so far presented was all conjecture, hearsay, and opinion. That's not dismissive. I commend you that you at least outright clarified your statement about this individual in California that, "no "direct" ties which can be "proven",...". And about the improprieties you allege of the Brigadiers, you said, "there are the rumors and tales of skimming and under-the-table monies". That's more than anti-smokers and tobacco control lobbyists do. But the fact remains that none of that is hard evidence. Calling it hearsay is simply an accurate description of what it is, and that is not diminishing. I'm sorry you perceived is as such. I'm simply saying that I don't know and you haven't proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. He said, she said arguments are hard to prove, especially when the person you're trying to convince doesn't have any insight into the motivations of the parties involved, and I have absolutely none. That said, quite a bit of hearsay does have at least a little basis in fact, and if your allegations are right and proven, then I hope, like you, that the culprits reap the just consequences of their improprieties.

"And there are far more arguments of substance - and a lack of similarly substantive arguments from the other side - on the link to rec.arts.marching.drumcorps I provided."

And I never said there was any there from the opposing side, either. If I did, show me. Look, lady, I'm not taking sides, especially not after hearing from only one side. This thread is not the place to try the Brigadiers bingo people. You feel wronged by them in some way and you informed us. You've done your duty. But the trial and the assessment of the facts will happen in the courts or whatever hearings they will be subject to. And if this were a court, I haven't seen anything in what you said that indicates you would even be called as a witness with inside compelling evidence for the prosecution.

You are obviously very passionate about your opinion. Believe it or not, I am empathetic to that. But you should realize by now, I'm just as passionate about the excesses of the anti-smoking crusades and the way this unfair law whizzed throught the NY legislature without due process. This article was not posted to vindicate the Brigadiers, but to inform others of the possible improprieties of this whole bullshit waiver fiasco with health depts forcing people to open their books to justify a waiver to a law which denies them from exercising their personal property rights in the first place. I'm seen nothing from you yet that indicates you're even interested in that.

Look, I have a little advice for you as well. I have the feeling that you aren't here to learn about the smoking ban at all. You also don't seem to be aware of and may or may not be interested in the hundreds of small business owners across NY feeling the drastic effects of this draconian law on their livlihoods which is diminishing their standard of living. Instead it appears you are here for the sole purpose of trying to hijack this thread and take it on a tangent to try to educate us on what you feel are the excesses and improprieties of those associated with the Brigadiers, who obviously cause you some grief. Until you realize that fighting for the rights of people like the owner of the Middleport Inn who was forced to close down her family owned business because waiver provisions weren't even considered for her and the hundreds out there in similar situations are one of my main concerns right now, and I see you feign a little more than obligatory interest before going into your story, then what makes you think you'll be able to convince me that I should be interested in your story? Think about it for a minute.

Thanks, lockjaw02 - I appreciate your reply and see more sincerity in it than I saw in the first. I apologize for coming back at you as I did; this response appears a bit more on-point. There are still things which bother me about it; but I wouldn't be surprised if you were dealing with the sorts of "techniques" I do. The reason that I did so was because there was a distinct possibility, based upon the style of your reply, could well have been a plant - in order to get information, make more contacts, and quite a number of other fraudulent methods which quite a lot of people making money off drum & bugle corps often employ. One of the reasons these people need their "business interests" in bingo, souvie sales, consulting and other frauds is to keep supporting a network which sews disinformation. We were once told it was so we could have "experts" working full-time on behalf of charitable and service corps interests. We've learned our lessons... and have found that the "full-time, hard workers" we've "gained" aren't working for drum & bugle corps, but for their "business interests". I spent two weeks in upstate NY at job training. I was a non-smoker most of my life, and started smoking about 10 years ago. I find the outrage over second-hand smoke and the resulting smoking bans to be horribly unreasonable, and part of what I think is a larger cultural entrenchment of an expectation and acceptance that government can and should control people - becoming more and more powerful, as well as resulting businesses which rest therefrom. I am also less concerned about second-hand smoke (both when I smoked and when I didn't) as I am about these controls and the money and diminished expectations relating thereto. I am old enough to remember the 1950's and early 1960's culture. And while smoking, drinking and other "sins" aren't something I feel ought to be promoted as "cool" in and of themselves, I believe that if people are upset by such they should appeal to negotiation and education, as well as building mutual respect amongst different people - not the by the force of law, extending the power of government, and increased divisiveness and inflaming issues. Knowing as I do how these people operate, I wouldn't be surprised that there is a lot of corruption and cronyism relating more to a few "business interests" and politics between those who are far more concerned about their power and short-term financial benefits than the issues of costs to more decent people, and fairness and sanity and freedom under the law. As such, I am quite interested in recent allegations being made on RAMD about the Syracuse mayors and supposed allegations concerning the people involved. This is one of the reasons the guy in California got his scam halted - there was a change in leadership, and new people who insisted upon accountability were installed. Of course, all these allegations of cronyism with regard to the bingo game could well be a smokescreen - attacking such are about the only defense these people have (it could *never* be their own lacks). However, if - as you point out - the Brigs were nevertheless able to get a waiver for their little operation and there are perceptions of unfairness and cronyism concerning such - that might be most interesting, with regard to both anti-smoking ban types and we drum & bugle corps people. I am all about exposing unfairness, particularly when such is done by those persons I criticize - because either someone is being exploited, or there's more than likely something "funny" going on amongst not-nice people. Rarely do such unusual transactions turn out to be innocent ones. Invariably what happens with these types in corps is that they inevitably piss off more genuinely-achieving types. DCI and DCA have burned so many bridges over these past three decades - which is why there are so few corps left, hardly any of which even resemble drum & bugle corps. Unfortunately, that means that those who remain are either young kids who have little understanding of what they have become a part of, the naive who want so much to believe what they are being fed (of which I was once one), or the mediocre or corrupted who believe that ethics, decency and fairness are the scams - and one must "do what it takes to be successful". In any case, I am available for any attorney, court or other objective and open process to detail what I know, what I have experienced and what I have been subjected to as a result. I have a host of witnesses thereto. I'm also somewhat active in a couple of other areas of interest, including the international anti-bullying campaigns - which includes corporate strategies, no matter the costs to people. It wouldn't take very many subpoenae at all to provide all the proof of what these people are, and frankly the public responses and silences have been more than enough in most cases. And frankly, the lack of substantive investigation to find out the sorts of people the Brigs are is most illuminating in and of itself. For while quite a lot of disinformation is being spread, I've actually received some very refreshing inquiries from people who, being more adept at such politics, have a better sense of whom and what they are dealing with. These are people who have worked very hard to eliminate "proof" in the clear sorts of ways of letters of admission and the like. However, there are more than enough proofs in what people have witnessed, the inconsistencies, and the style of "advocacy" which details nothing but guilt. I am not here to hijack anything. What I am here to do is to say that this response of yours - of wanting to find out why and how the Brigs got a waiver when other operations don't - is most promising. But when the sort of people I know who benefit from being big-money (compared to your local Elks Lodge, VFW post or other such fundraisers you list on your page - which could well double for the small drum corps which were eliminated by these "clever" corporate types over the last 30 years) bingo operations pretending to be corps fundraisers use their getting a smoking ban waiver as marketing for the alleged respect their organization enjoys, or the effective business relationships they have with government people, I see nothing to be proud of. I would suspect anyone who helped put their request at the head of the list - and be looking more closely at it. I am quite sure that they used their allegedly being a championship drum & bugle corps, and that their bingo "mall" also fundraises for churches and other respectable charities, as promotion for their waiver. Usually, a lot of well-meaning people will buy that. Good people are used to front for scam artists and frauds all the time. And that could be all that this particular waiver was about. Or, it could well be the public marketing spin on some very dirty dealing. Or both. And the outcome of such tactics could well continue to be the elimination of small, independent and genuine groups and businesses - as detailed on your list and as we have seen in drum & bugle corps - and by the same sorts of people who have elevated cronyism and secrecy to a not-so-fine art. -- Catherine