[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: What I believe in...

On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Hopper Gregory G wrote:

> 
> Who are you people and why did your parents see fit to concieve you? I 
> believe <some> of the links to positions that we have ran. For instance, 
> I believe that a huge increase in governmental funding for some ocean 
> technology could anger Japan and could hurt relations...I think that 
> switching to an OTEC based fuel economy would  affect the oil market...I 
> think that if congress passed a huge spending bill today without 
> discussing it for a couple of weeks it could upset the market. All of these 
> things are rational and realistic. The problem comes from the 
> impact/internal link (depending on the position) level. Relations with 
> Japan are always hurt, India and Pakistan are always on the brink, 
> Islamic fundamentalists always think we are the great satan and (hey 
> chico...militarism is always good.) These are reality. A brand new March 
> 19 brink card is interesting just because it helps you tell a story on a 
> tenuous link but that is it. We look at it...call our friends to hear 
> it...and wait to break it on UMKC...but it is just bullshit. We are 
> always on the brink. That is what makes life interesting.
> 
> As far as consciousness positions go...and you know who you are...these 
> are probably true at a theoretical level. Feminism (as advocated on a 
> macrolevel complete with all the whistles and bells of disarm and peace 
> ethic and rejecting the dominating hierarchical male nuclear missle 
> loving mindset) would be a nice world to live in. We aren't there yet 
> though. A personal rejection won't make it happen anymore than not buying 
> pizza from dominos will make religeous fanatics in Kansas stop waiving 
> picket signs that say abortion is murder realize that they too should 
> embrace choice. We all work for our causes in one way or another...we 
> will try to convince others that our position is right and if we get 
> enough people to believe it may just come about...but to say that these 
> arguments are true is probably incorrect...and certainly in today's world 
> where we are constantly hovering on the brink.
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> Just because you were born 20 years before us doesn't make you right...it 
> doesn't make you smarter...it just makes you old.  ---from the movie North
> 
> 
> Just because Chico got 2 people to vote for them doesn't make them smart, 
> it doesn't make them right...it just means nationals is a screwjob.
>                                                    ---from me
I like Matt and Pat--I'm glad they got a chance to debate on Monday at
Nationals.--I think they deserved it as much as you--and that was just a
bummer of a pairing in doubles.  I think they're a good team, and I'm sorry
you disagree with the decision.
You may wish that I was in the federal building in Ok City when I say this
but I know one of the critics who voted against you, and frankly that
person does a number of things that makes that person a good critic.  No.1
That person has no pre-conceived notion and No.2 That person votes on
arguments in the round.
No, that person didn't win the NDT last year, but is still more qulified
than many. Those two statements above qualify that person to judge just
about any time.
You may disagree with the decision, but until we have requirements like
the NDT (where I'm not sure if I'm qualified to judge) then we have all
types of critics.  Within that subset, one of the critics who dropped you
is fair and honest and works at their decisions; which makes that person
one of the better critics to get a round in double octos at nats.
Two other notes that you can go off at me for (if it will make you feel
better)--If you'd have stayed in another round, who knows why tournament
would have been diff't?  If Ben and Fred win another coin flip in Semis, is
there a final round?  If aliens land in the mezzanine would UMKC's space
position been less debateable?  I, however, remember Michigan State winning
Nationals.  I congratulate them.  I think revisionism gets us nowhere.  
I have some hesitancy in  posting this b/c I know you are expressing your
bummed-ness but I don't want silence to enforce an idea that Matt and Pat
didn't deserve to debate on Monday.  They did. I felt all year long they
deserved it.  I don't want to get yelled at for it, though.
There is no cure for people thinking that there are bad decisions, ever.
(and besides, just to get everyone all pissed off at me--if you had
debated in other regions than the midwest maybe at least one of the other
critics would have been familiar with you.  I know critic that I'm am
mentioning above would have liked to have known who the hell you were, and
had judged Pat and Matt many times and was familiar with the concept that
they were good--sometimes all of the elements involved in a national
championship aren't there--not competing in all of the very strong regions
of the country may have been an error)

Now, we can go all round the mulberry bush on whether thats right or wrong
and what that has to do with the round, but I think we all know that that
would miss the point.  The point is, is everyone in the country familiar
with you?  Is it a national championship run, or were you just good
enough, but lost to a team that was `more national' (whatever the hell
that means).  I know you're good, I heard many great things about
you--yet still only saw one speech in your career (amazingly it was in
doubles at Nats)---who am I subconciously more likely to vote for? 

I know that I am opening up a Pandora's box, I just don't think in terms
of that round, that in your career, all of your bases had been covered.
So shoot me.
I'm out of town for a week, so be gentle.
Tony M Penders
> 


> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page