[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: What I believe in...
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Hopper Gregory G wrote:
> > 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.
> Sure...I wouldn't wish anyone not to debate on Monday. As far as who
> deserves it I don't know why YOU are qualified to make this claim.
My status as a living breathing mostly human being gives me the right to
have opinions. I am not qualified to do more than scrub fish tanks.
> guess I missed the CEDA executive council meeting where you were
> appointed the person in charge of who breaks at nationals and who makes
> it to which rounds.
Its an opinion. Are we allowed to have opinions, or express them? If we
didn't have opinions why did you get such a round of applause on Sunday
night from all? Most of us thought the same thing I wrote in my
post--`bummer of a pairing'. Do you deny this, or suggest that I'm the
only person in the country with opinions (or the only one crazy enough to
I don't think that you are very popular though. You
> should probably not tell anyone else that you were in charge of this.
> The people that didn't do as well as they would like at nationals might
> be pissed.
Wrong. The problem is that you misidentify the bitterness you feel with
everybody else in the country's feelings of sadness. Man, there were a
number of teams who took their defeats professionally and I haven't seen
them in this forum demenaning other's achievements. Pissed? Maybe the
people who are confused about the meaning of justice.....
You seem to equate losing with anger. Oh, well--Didn't you know that only
two people were going to feel great? Didn't you know this could happen?
I do think that I will sleep better at night knowing that you
> did it to me though. I hope that all of CEDA appreciates your diligence.
Hey if you have someone to focus your anger on, it will speed your
> > 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.
> I don't have anything against the critics that "judged" us in that round.
> Frankly, I am sure they are nice people who I wouldn't mind drinking with
> at some other time. I think your lack of consistency in logic is
> interesting but I will point that out later AND you are not telling the
> truth either...or maybe you just misunderstand what a preconcieved notion
> is. The person you are refering to couldn't have been genetically
> programed from birth to be more anti-thetical to our model of debate.
I do not think that I wish to discuss the panel anymore--its inherently
`Our model of debate'-- What makes it so different than what is going on
in other forward thinking regions of the country...like the
Northwest....Are we just doing it wrong?
> > 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.
> Oh that qualifies them...the person is more qulified than most. Well...I
> just won't post anymore...I apologize.
Look, I didn't feel like getting overly descriptive, okay--The bottom
line, is that our tolerance for decisions that fit your `model of debate'
or don't fit it as the case may be is remarkably different. I'm sorry for
the sarcasm on your end.
> > 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)
> Hmm...you mean the critic that has no preconcieved notions...the critic
> who is inherently fair...the critic that is more qualified than
> most...would have been swayed had the person seen us before...wow. That
> is consistent logic on display.
HA HA HA HA--The problem is I admit the contradiction in my first post--do
you think you are discovering something? That is why I say that it
probably was an error to make the last argument in my own post--because it
admits that intangibles play a part in decision making.
Well, no shit Sherlock.
I guess it is a problem to be honest on the L, b/c people will think it is
grounds for argument.
I can independently defend critic as all of above things (and do heartily)
and still say that all critics who fit above descriptions will also be
swayed by intangibles.
They just might not admit it--ever.
Big deal. What is the revelation here?
I contradict myself because it is true-- you can be honest fair and
objective and still subconsciously swayed. Do you deny this?
> > 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 hope you really don't believe that that is what the national
> championship is all about. If you do...may God have mercy on your soul.
All national championships have parts. Some parts are big and some are
small. Who knows what part this might have played? Maybe none at all.
As for being what its all about... how you draw that conclusion is beyond
me. Maybe I'm not so sensitive.
> > 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.
> Shoot you. Militaristic language is what cost us the round. Obviously your
> fair minded colleague was incorrect...rejection of our case didn't create
> a world of peace and tranquility where all people could sing songs and do
> dances and live in harmony with one another. Pity.
> > I'm out of town for a week, so be gentle.
> Have a nice time...I will miss you.
In a world where children go without food, and mothers watch with hopeless
eyes as daughters are led away by the rape gangs in Bosnia, we should keep
a mindful eye on what small things are hearts are crying about....
Anita Eckberg, 1995
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page