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

Re: CEDA "culture"

despite being raged on by my supposed ceda collegues, i once again have to
wigh in supporting the illustirous monte.  you see, we only got the chance
to debate once.  apparently, it was in high school.  however, i was too
pathetic busy drooling over sullivan and monte's swass three button suit
to remember.  regardless of your ceda/ndt biases, there is a substantial
movement of us who fell like we got screwed over by the split and we
wholeheartedly support the merger, even if it involves a rough transition.

becky

On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, monte r johnson wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 DRTUNA@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > Monte Stevens sez:
> 
> First of all, while I am flattered with the mistake, I am only Monte 
> Johnson, not the illustrious Monte Stevens...
> 
>  > "On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 
> DRTUNA@aol.com wrote 
> > > The CEDA culture is one of a larger community and of being a bit more open
> > as
> > > a result, perhaps, than NDT. Time and again I have heard people from NDT
> > > programs say "don't bring that out in public." What I want to know is, why
> > > not?
> > 
> > What does this mean? Cultured CEDA people are more "open" (with their 
> > mouths?)? This is divisive and, frankly, asinine."
> > 
> > I am surprised that you are not aware of more than one meaning for a word, or
> > culture vs. cultured. The point I am making is that I have noticed that CEDA
> > folks are more likely to bring "rumors" out into the open to confirm or deny
> > them. I base this on reading all of the listservs since they began. Feel free
> > to disagree if your sample is different. It is not divisive. Understanding
> > differences helps us understand each other.
> 
> If by "open" you only meant "more likely to bring out rumors" then I 
> probably don't have the evidence to disagree. On face it doesn't make 
> much sense, however. Why would NDT "folks" be any less likely to bring 
> out rumors? Why would CEDA people be more? Hypothesis: CEDA started 
> cross-examination when NDT didn't have it; CEDA people are thus more used 
> to directly sharing their feelings with each other directly; If NDT had 
> adopted cross-examination earlier, their "people" would be more likely to 
> bring out rumors.
>  	But by "open" I detected, and still detect a bit more patting on 
> the back for oneself and one's organization than the definition "bringing 
> out rumors" would imply. Your contrast with NDT implies that it is 
> "closed" which means a lot more than "not likely to bring out rumors."
> 
>  
> Monte continues: > 
> > "> I salute Josh Hoe's commitment to openness in our activity.
> > 
> > Hey Tuna, let's try making the activity really "our" activity, i.e. to 
> > include all debaters, and not just those of the culturally refined 
> > acronyms. Whatever you mean by "open" applies to everyone now; whatever 
> > "closed" might mean applies to the attendees of both the CEDA and NDT 
> > Nationals. The attempt to make a distinct debate "culture" out of an 
> > acronymic affiliation is separationist.."
> > 
> > Despite your desires, differences exist. We ignore them at our peril. "Open"
> > vs. "closed" applies to people, not acronyms.
> 
> My point exactly. CEDA and NDT (even if you append "folk") do not refer 
> to people (i.e. individuals), but to organizations which run national 
> debate tournaments.
> 
>  Over and over again I and
> > others are told not to bring things up on the L but to let them lie. Why
> > don't you try dealing with that (whether we should or not) instead of
> > posturing. I do not understand how my affirmation of Hoe-ish openness is
> > refuted by your above comment.
> 
> I'm not telling you to lie (obviously). But I might ask you to be more 
> careful with your language. If you are refering to people who are open or 
> closed, name them (otherwise you ironically exemplify the closedness 
> which you pretend to condemn. If you mean "bring out rumors" say that, 
> and not "open."
> 
>  > "FUCK CEDA, FUCK NDT: LONG LIVE DEBATE" > 
> > Your crude language fails to hide your innocence in this matter. If you
> > believe that academic debate in America can prosper in the absence of
> > effective organizations then start running an anarchy counterplan.  Please
> > support the argument that we don't need organizations. Where would topics
> > come from? Who would organize the two nationals tournaments? I bet you would
> > be the first to complain when they were poorly organized because they were
> > simply throw-together affairs.
> 
> CEDA and NDT have been reified into "cultures"- which is what I object 
> to. When NDT and CEDA debaters answered arguments by "go do [CEDA or NDT] 
> debate, when coaches and institute teachers condemned the other activity 
> (in recruiting, workshop instruction, etc.), when WE COULDN'T DEBATE 
> AGAINST OUR COLLEGUES AND FRIENDS BECAUSE OF AN INANE ORGANIZATIONAL 
> DISPUTE, WE EXISTED DISTINCT CEDA AND NDT "CULTURES". A few were able to 
> transcend the difference (Weber, Emory, etc.). Most of us just got 
> screwed. Cultural differentiation of CEDA and NDT was the source of the 
> sickest divisiveness.
>  
> > Send this message to someone else, Monte. I and others made the shared topic
> > possible. I spent months fighting for my constitution and bylaw revisions
> > which made it possible. I fought for it at business meetings while you were
> > cutting cards or fast asleep somewhere. As well, I have tried to show respect
> > and understanding for all formats of debate. Do you feel the same about parli
> > as policy in your exhortation for long life?
> 
> Yes I do. That's why I have debated in that format both in the U.S. and 
> throughout the U.K. Let's get the parli people in here and debate. Tuna, 
> do you feel the same way about Parli (1. as you do about CEDA, 2. as you 
> do about NDT)?
>  
> > Sure, I am in favor of cooperation, crossover, and all the rest, but I will
> > not bow to a new god-myth that in order to do that I must remain silent and
> > blind to differences which I feel need to be discussed or addressed.
> 
> Unfortunately, labeling CEDA more "open" and thus NDT more "closed" helps 
> perpetuate differences. I am discussing and addressing it, you should be 
> happy. THE MYTH IS THAT THERE IS SOME CULTURAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CEDA 
> AND NDT. The reality is that, before the merger, a lot of us got fucked 
> by this myth. And we aren't going back...
> 
> > If you believe this, then I expect you to prove it by refusing to accept any
> > awards from these organizations that you wish to "fuck." I'll be watching.
> 
> Neither organization is likely to give me any awards anytime soon. Unless 
> CEDA nationals (which I will be at for the first time this year, but not 
> the NDT) gives some kind of award for the best dressed judge...:-)
> 
> > Tuna
> 
> Nice talkin' to you Tuna, we should meet sometime!
>
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page