re: ellingson (warning:obscenities)

[dklein@dailynews.net]

professionals refrain from obscenties?  kiss my ass.

>>>>>>
I (Glenn Ellingson) wrote:
>>I'm not interested in this sort of namecalling. I would hope that you can 
>>find your way past the ad-homs to debate the resolutions on the ballot.

David Klein responded:
>perm: do both

First of all, I grant that this is 3 words with little context. However, 
I think the sentiment expressed here is representative of the attitudes 
of many: as I paraphrase it, "if you don't like me, delete me, but I'm 
going to do whatever I want."

I strongly disagree with this sentiment, as I understand it. From my 
perspective, poor argumentation, personal attacks, posts made in anger, 
posturing for personal benefit, and many other forms of L-behavior do 
have real disadvantages. No, small children probably won't die. But I 
don't want to "do both", in Klein's language.
>>>>>>

that is certainly your option.  many smiley faces in your general direction.  

>>>>>>
Let me be clear: I'm not against people having some fun, even though I 
don't follow basketball :). However, I think that when we are discussing 
issues facing the forensic community, we would do well to choose our 
arguments carefully and to hold ourselves to the issues at hand. I 
believe that we should strive to make our L-discussions examples of good 
argumentation. While I freely admit that "good" is a term that lacks a 
great deal in precision, I think that there are standards of 
argumentation that most if not all of us participating here are familiar 
with and would grant some credence to.
>>>>>>
yes, we should all conduct ourselves like white upper class males and only 
use the language used for centuries to exclude womyn and persons of color 
for centuries.  i applaud your elitist sentiments.

>>>>>>
Here are my arguments against Klein's perm, and in favor of adding a bit 
more professional character to our L-discussions:

1) Our L arguments serve as models for students on how to argue & resolve 
disputes. Shouldn't we provide our students with models that we would 
like to see them emulate?
>>>>>>

yes, oh glory to imb clones.  your vision should reign indefinately.

>>>>>>
2) Our L arguments can and will be read by people who do and will have 
impact on the overall health of the community -- Deans and future deans, 
people considering entering or leaving CEDA, coaches who are currently 
and will later be forced to balance committment to this community with 
other professional obligations, and others. We should put our best face 
foward in this public forum.
>>>>>>

lets appoint a censor now.  i nominate korcock for the post.

>>>>>>
3) People have noted the low student participation on the L. A skill and 
a willingness to participate in on-line repartee should not be a barrier 
to participation on the L. Especially for people who are already in a 
1-down power position. But any student who reads the L for a month and 
doesn't think they risk flames if they contribute is brain-dead. We 
should welcome students not just by empty promises, but through our 
actions -- we can create a much more welcoming environment if we choose 
to do so.
>>>>>>

many happy faces in your general direction again.  forbid that a student's 
first introduction to the term fuck ought occur on the l

>>>>>>
4) Less virtiolic L arguments would help our community. I'm just 
*ecstatically* looking forward to talking with David Klein, and I'm sure 
he & Tuna are sharing a particularly close bonding experience as well 
:-). While I think we can all take a lot of this with a grain of salt, 
etc., why should we have to? I think it is especially important for us to 
maintain a separation between people and their ideas, and to refuse to 
attribute motivations to people whose motivations we cannot know 
(basically, anyone but ourselves).
>>>>>>

nice double turn.  don't presume what you don't know.  please, a 
pyschobabbling discourse on my motivations.

>>>>>>
5) Everyone who does not have a bandwidth problem, please raise your 
hand. Thought so. Time is a limited resource, especially (I'd wager) for 
the people on this list. Coaching, researching, publishing, teaching, 
taking classes, practice, parties, pleasure reading, friends, family, 
golf, mountain-climbing, sleep,.... Reducing the "signal-to-noise" ration 
of the L helps everyone to be more productive.
>>>>>>

read the shining sometime.

>>>>>>
6) More focused and higher quality argumentation should also produce 
"better" results. I applaud David Klein's post on the difficulty of 
defining "deep eco" and difficulties inherent in the "ecological 
narrative". His post should be the beginning of 2 productive discussions. 
I think that is most likely to occur if everyone remains civil and 
focused on the task at hand.
>>>>>>

gotta go buy a new hat.


>>>>>>
Nearly everyone who posts on the L had or is having a successful debate 
career. As the activity is structured, to have such a career all but 
requires one to be a bit thick-skinned; to be skilled in confrontational 
communication; to expect challenges to one's ideas and to react strongly 
to defend oneself; to be verbally combative; to have a fairly respectable 
ego. These qualities are admirable, for the most part. But they shouldn't 
be prerequisites for membership and participation in the community, and 
they are certainly not an exhaustive list of beneficial qualitites :-). 
>>>>>>

neither is a corncob up one's ass when speaking or writing or thinking.


>>>>>>
I want to be clear:I don't mean to place myself "above" anyone else. I 
was a debater too, and I've been told my ego might not fit in just any 
breadbox. I've done my share of posturing as well, here and elsewhere. 
However, I don't think my lack of perfection should stand in the way of 
my working to improve. I hope y'all agree. 
>>>>>>

define improve please.  my webster's is oddly missing

>>>>>>
In addition, I don't mean to malign anyone -- most of our list discussion 
is productive, professional, and persuasive. I'm guessing our L would 
compare favorably with many others.

Lastly, I am strongly opposed to any form of censorship other than 
self-censorship. I don't want a moderated list, and I'm certainly not 
trying to shut down any individuals, debate perspectives, etc. I'm 
offering suggestions with a justification, not rules to be enforced under 
penalty of silencing. Again, just trying to be clear.
>>>>>>

taken under due consideration......

>>>>>>
>From now on (at least for a while) I'll try and respond to extraneous 
arguments via personal email rather than on the L (a good technique in 
general for electronic bulletin boards), instead of dumping another long 
diatribe like this in everyone's box. But, I wanted to put these ideas 
out for consideration.
>>>>>>
clap, clap, clap.
david

---

• Prev by Date: Topic bib.
• Next by Date: How to Reach Scott Jensen
• Prev by thread: Topic bib.
• Next by thread: How to Reach Scott Jensen
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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