Re: more continua for CEDA-NDT

[Love Child <DSRADER@uga.cc.uga.edu>]

I do differ with a few of the continua, although not as many as one
might expect. I agree that differing publicly would be a waste of time,
because the measurements are completely subjective. I still don't think
this justifies complacency about the current framework.

Yes, the different formats meet different needs to varying degrees. The
problem is that all the students have all the needs. All of the students
need to socialize, need novice opportunities, need a local circuit, AND
need quality judging, high quality argumentation, etc. I defy any of you
to demonstrate that the divisions perform a positive function. The
schism does not PROMOTE novice opportunities, socializing, local travel,
higher quality judging, or anything else. It simply enacts the political
shortcomings of a group of coaches (both in CEDA and in NDT) who cannot
work out their differences and have stopped trying. If anyone can prove
to me that the different needs addressed OVER and OVER and OVER again on
this thread could not be addressed by the cooperative efforts of all of
these coaches, all bright people, if they could only once and for all
put aside their petty squabbling, then I will give up and praise the
schism along with the rest of you. Until that's proven to me, I will
continue to maintain that a merger would be a good thing. There's the
final challenge: go at it.

Love Child
H: (706) 548-6041
W: (706) 542-3238

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Disclosure
• Next by Date: Re: #2(2) CEDA-L digest 96 and Yuval Malchi and CEDA/NDT
• Prev by thread: more continua for CEDA-NDT
• Next by thread: Learning as an aquired process
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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