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

Re: non-Mexico Mexico

> Bear, you don't know our debaters, know next to nothing about our
> program, and seem overly fond of making shit up.
>
Well, thanks, Mike! I'm always looking for help on those critical
profile checklists. I hope you don't mind if I reciprocate by saying
that inadequate reading comprehension, an imperial nature, and the
inability to see how your "caps" apply to your own proclamations (we
call it hypocricy), are some of your major personality flaws. I don't
think you know too much about the Weber program, either, but we'll
examine that evidence a bit later.

Again, for those shocked by-standers: My problem is not with Cornell,
its with Korcok.

> the "out of eligibility" crap is obvious crap.  Berman and Shaffer
> have gone to USC RR, USC, West Point, and Vermont this semester.
> lost 4 rounds the whole time.  even the mathematically challenged
> ought to be able to see that we're not playing eligibility games.
> Cornell graduates its debaters and does so in 4 years:  some programs
> seem to have a harder time doing that sort of thing...
>
MK, go back to your hard disk and read my posts. I NEVER SAID CORNELL
WAS CHEATING ON ELIGIBILITY. I said it was a shame you used up a
semester of eligibility by going to so few tournaments. Are you
capable of comprehending the distinction? A lot of people at Cornell
seem to be real sensitive to what appears to be a reading
comprehension error on their parts.

> Shaffer, by the way, has a 4.0+ gpa HERE:  one of the reasons is that
> we MAKE SURE that debate accomodates academics.  and if that means we
> have to miss a "Jesuit qualifier" or two, then i think that even you
> might see the point of that, eh?  and for 20 debaters to have a
> cumulative gpa of about 3.5 at Cornell shows that we know what we're
> doing.  however, i promise that those extra trips half-way across the country
> so that we can satisfy your "standards" of "national circuit debate"
> will receive FIRST priority when we schedule next fall.
>
Congratutlations! Every Cornell debater I've ever met seems together
enough to debate and excel in academics. Your proud proclamation
seems totally irrelevant to the issue, however. My point was, is, and
will remain that your academic choices are not a reason why the rest
of us should feel that you needed to be treated "fairly" by us
selecting a new topic.


> by the way, Cornell also competed debate teams at Rochester,
Binghamton,
> and Emporia.  Chud and i also coached at 3 IE tournaments this semester:  we're
> leaving for the American IE tournament in the morning.  we also have
> debaters teach at Ithaca High School 3 days a week, run a campus-wide
> debate tournament, and hosted the British in October.  i guess if you just have a
> couple of debate teams as your teaching load, it's easy to claim that schools with a
> REAL forensics program are "coasting."
>
An excellent example of your imperial-assumptive nature, Mike! The
schedule you list seems like a cake. Trying teaching a full load,
coach six varsity teams, travel a national and regional circuit,
while working with a number of out-of-class novices and planning
multiple HS tournaments and a Round robin. We all got it tuff,
Meester Korcok! I guess if you just had no knowledge of the burdens
of others you might find yourself overburdened.

> the "ivory tower" crap is just more crap.  you know ZILCH about our
> debaters.  about 2/3 of our squad has part-time jobs off campus so
> they can fund their participation in debate, we have no scholarship support,
> the debaters DO have "ivy league" courseloads, and my guess is that
> person - for - person they research and work on debate at least as
> much as ANYONE in the nation.  have you heard our Mexico positions?
> no?  well, then you're making shit up again, eh?
>
More reading comprehension problems. I never said Cornell debaters
were in ivory towers. I said YOU were, Mike. You see, it's that
distinction problem, again. I never critiqued your team's arguments.
Interesting how you interpret things, Mike...  The ivory tower
comment was a direct response to your claim that there are no impacts
in Mexico, beyond some possible bruising. That's really pretty
repugnant, Mike. No wonder so many people hold higher education in
such disregard. Live on the border, Mike, and drink some of that
tijuana water, senor.

> your crap about our oceans research is absurd.  our evidence and
positions on that
> topic were as good as anyone's:  that includes UMKC and Michigan State.  Weber,
> on the other hand, had files no one needed to fear.  2 teams in quarters:  thanks for
> playing.
>
How revealing! You really are incapable of a response that doesn't
commit the same sin that you are attacking me for, aren't you? Having
never judged a Weber team on the oceans topic, how would you know
that no one needed our files? Gee, Mike, consistency just isn't your
cup of tea, is it? We only went to two CEDA tournaments on the Spring
topic, as we were focusing on NDT and Parli at the time. We got to
Octos at GSL (beating two Cornell teams) and finals at an excellent
NW CEDA Championship tournament. In other words, Mike, I think you're
the one coming up a little short when you start making attacks on the
Weber program. Don't even think about trying to claim the moral high
road, Korcok.


> Personal business:  i posted a top-5 reasons to not pick Mexico:
> there was not 1 word denigrating anyone.  you responded with 2
> personal attacks and 4 attacks directed at our program.  WHY still
> escapes me.
>
The fact that you can't see the offensiveness of the claims you have
made from the start is fascinating to me. It has been symptomatic of
almost all communication of yours that i've seen on the L. Sorry that
I react so negatively to your imperial nature, but I don't see myself
changing anytime soon.

I was wrong to involve your debaters and I have apologized. I can
imagine that their angst is insufferable.

It also escapes me why you chose to initate comments directed toward
my sexual choices (your very low-brow necrophilia comments), chemical
stimulation (I reject all man-made chemical stimulants), or make
comparisons about the relative success of our programs. Those were
all strategies initiated by you.

Given the outlandish nature of your responses I could only assume
that they were being offered in the same semi-humorous strain that my
original response was constructed. I was glad to see you back. I am
somewhat amazed to see you so seriously wounded that you are
incapable of non-hypocritical reasoning. And I think your attempt at
moral outrage is pretty pathetic.

> My name is Mike Korcok, not Mikee.
>
I don't care if your name is Ichabob. I can think of a lot worse
nicknames that I could've used. "Lord K" seems to better fit your
mood of imperial outrage.

Relax, Mike, maybe you need that vacation time,

Bear
Michael "Bear" Bryant           Internet: mbryant@central.weber.edu
Director of Forensics           Home:   801-399-4253
Department of Communication     Office: 801-626-7186
Weber State University          Fax:    801-626-7975
Ogden, UT  84408-1605           AOL:    MWBRYANT@AOL.COM
                                Prodigy:UHMH64C@PRODIGY.COM
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page