Gretsch Events

ATTENTION! How about we go a Fur Peace for 2017 Roundup? Read and d…

26

Kilt and fez are OK, however.

– Proteus

Don't never do it without the Fez on.

27

Just to be helpful...I read a blog of Jorma's discussing AA and his commitment to his sober life. And this, taken from their FPR website...This experience includes an important policy that the ranch premises are entirely drug and alcohol-free.

28

So because he had a problem, he feels the need to deny those who might enjoy responsibly?

That's like me saying, "I suck at playing guitar, so no one else is allowed to play guitar, even when I'm not around."

29

So because he had a problem, he feels the need to deny those who might enjoy responsibly?

That's like me saying, "I suck at playing guitar, so no one else is allowed to play guitar, even when I'm not around."

– JBGretschGuy

Although I wholeheartedly agree Josh, I can respect his sentiment to a certain degree... his private property, his rules. I view it much in the same way that I view "no smoking", "no guns", or any other prohibitive policies of certain private establishments. As an individual, it's up to me to choose for myself whether patronizing such an establishment is worth it to me-- but if I do choose to do so, I will somewhat grudgingly (but respectfully) observe the rules.

I may not agree with the rules, but If I do go, I certainly plan to respect them, and that's a call that each one of us will have to make.

30

I'm in, not a big drinker but what no heroin either?

– Curt Wilson

This is the first I'm hearing about heroin! Damn, what else?

31

His castle, his rules.

I get it, and don't have a problem respecting that.

I don't let people smoke in my house. Smoking killed my parents. No big whoop.

32

"I suck at playing guitar, so no one else is allowed to play guitar, even when I'm not around." -- JBGretschguy

Is there something wrong with that philosophy? I have employed it for many years now, with varying degrees of success. Inevitably, there will be some joker who pulls out a guitar just to show me up. Grandstander!

33

Fur Peace? Yup it's sho nuff 100 miles more of a fur peace from me then Clarksdale.

34

Maybe more like surviving a grinding car wreck, watching friends and loved ones pulled dead and maimed from the wreckage, and opting not to host demolition derbies...

35

I don't question his motives or even that he has rules. You should see some of the rules I have! The only question is if I want to subject myself to his rules for a weekend next year which it seems most of us are willing to do so, even though some of us wish we didn't have to.

This isn't a big deal. It doesn't matter what the rules are as long we know what the rules are.

36

After sobering up, hanging out with drunks is annoying. Haven't been to a family reunion in years. Still, as a business model, it IS a bit dictatorial. I worked at a "dry" university. I knew of three wine cellars in the Student Union, and I can guarantee you that if a trustee wanted a martini at dinner, he'd get one. It's only a dry campus if there's no football game.

37

It's no big deal. We are just a group that is averse to rules, which is why Hachland Hill was a great stomping grounds.

38

I'm pretty sure I can go 3 days without booze,,,any more than that and it's pushing it though. Now where exactly is this Ohio place,only been as far East as Memphis.

39

I'm betting most of us can abide by the rules or drive to the local bars. Minor distraction; that's all. It honestly seems like a cool place that we might all wonder about had we never tried it.

Having only gone to one National Roundup rather than being a "regular", I can agree with CBell's logic that my vote might = .5, but it seems like an interesting place.

40

Only a 3 hr trip for me. I'm in!

41

Ain't no halfsies about it, Cam and Joe. You've both been to your share of GDP community events, if not this particular wingding. If you're considering attending this one next year, then you have a 1.0 stake in what's decided, just like everyone/anyone else.

Paul/FF909

42

He's not telling you not to drink. He's saying he doesn't want drinking at his place. Why is that infringing on anyone's personal freedom?

43

He's not telling you not to drink. He's saying he doesn't want drinking at his place. Why is that infringing on anyone's personal freedom?

– Bob Howard

There's a difference between having a rule, not a law, for your own home such as no smoking allowed [where it's legal] but anyone who's there is there by invitation of the owner and therefore subject to their rules. A place such as this ranch, while certainly private property, has made itself available to the public, for a fee, to stay there. Now while a no smoking policy may be in effect it is not, I assume, due to the wishes of the owners, is considered a public place and as such fall under State Law.

Having a rule that no liquor is allowed does come under the dictatorial category for me. I most certainly have no problem having a policy that if anyone is found to be disorderly due to being drunk, they have to leave immediately. I've no sympathy for anyone abusing the privilege of being allowed to enjoy a drink. I could go without having anything to drink till I die so it's not about needing to drink at such an event as this, it's being dictated to that I can't. To me, it assumes you're going to be disruptive.....and that smacks of possibly the behavior of the 'reformed' person setting this no alcohol policy. Judge others by their behavior not their possible behavior.

I realize it's not possible to attend but there are plenty of opinions here on this policy so I just added my take on it.

44

Always respect the "Innkeeper's" rules. Pretty simple really.

Makes no difference "why" or "how come", it's just the "rules" that the owner has set for his place of business.

One can disagree and not like the rules, but that's life.

It's a "go" or "no go" decision. Again, pretty simple.

45

Always respect the "Innkeeper's" rules. Pretty simple really.

Makes no difference "why" or "how come", it's just the "rules" that the owner has set for his place of business.

One can disagree and not like the rules, but that's life.

It's a "go" or "no go" decision. Again, pretty simple.

– J(ust an old Cowboy)D

so, John, are you thinking of going ?

46

There's a difference between having a rule, not a law, for your own home such as no smoking allowed [where it's legal] but anyone who's there is there by invitation of the owner and therefore subject to their rules. A place such as this ranch, while certainly private property, has made itself available to the public, for a fee, to stay there. Now while a no smoking policy may be in effect it is not, I assume, due to the wishes of the owners, is considered a public place and as such fall under State Law. -- Windsordave

No. This is a private establishment which can set its own rules as it sees fit. The only exception is if there is a restraint that violates a Constitutionally-protected right, then the restraint can be set aside. Short of that, you have agreed with him (by contract) that you will not engage in the specified behaviour. State law provides you no safe harbor here.

47

As a footnote, Jorma brings in some well known players to instruct the clinics.

My opinion...Half rehab, half paycheck...so, they get back on track.

I'm sure many would go off the wagon in a heartbeat being offered "whatever" from starstruck guitar hero fans...

48

so, John, are you thinking of going ?

– Sgt Rock

Hey Brent, I sure would like to. Next year may be a better year to get to do some travelling.

Looks like a pretty cool place to hang out for a few days.

49

Selfishly speaking, I'm all about it since I live so close. I've known Hurly (John) for decades, since his days at the Record Connection in Cbus and we've done many gigs together. Gotta love the guy.

The no-booze thing is a non-issue for me. I'm more shook up about having to wear mens' clothes for that long.


Register Sign in to join the conversation