re:tuna and ellingson

[dklein@dailynews.net]

professor snider wrote, partially invoking Glenn Ellingson:

>>>>>>
"1) Our L arguments serve as models for students on how to argue & resolve 
disputes.
>>>>>>

this is fundamentally flawed for several reasons.  there was no social 
contract with subscription to the ceda-l as a dispute resolution mechanism.  
my perception was much more as a free and open forum for discussing almost 
any issue of interest to members of the community.  this is not the journal 
of the cross examination debate association but a listserve.  and we clearly 
have a differing perspective as to the communicative value of obscenity and 
sarcasm.  not every post carries the same function or intent;  this post 
more accurately conforms with the civil discourse model in that the intent 
of the post is partially as persuasive.  the other post obviously had a much 
different intent.
 
>>>>>>
2) Our L arguments can and will be read by people who do and will have
 impact on the overall health of the community. We should put our best face
 forward in this public forum.
>>>>>>

there are several conditions necessary for this to occur.  all discussion of 
problems of non-enrollment of student debaters must cease, an utter 
whitewash of the lack of womyn and persons of color must occur, and any 
issue that reflects badly on the activity must be censored.  

>>>>>>
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. 
>>>>>>

the encouragement of posting does not equate with participation, and the 
intellectual inferiority of students assumed by this position is appalling.  

>>>>>>
4) 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).
>>>>>>

this is amazing.  how does one contribute to discourse without some level of 
prediction of the intent and motivation of others?  funny, i seem to recall 
ellingson making a smart ass remark concerning tuna and my "bonding" 
experience that would violate this standard.

>>>>>>
5) Everyone who does not have a bandwidth problem, please raise your  hand.
Thought so. Reducing the "signal-to-noise" ration  of the L helps everyone to
be more productive.
>>>>>>

so would stopping the rehash of this post on a daily basis. so would a 
censor.  i re-issue my nomination of korcock.

>>>>>>
6) More focused and higher quality argumentation should also produce
 "better" results. "
>>>>>>

this assumes an intent that you cannot define.  at least not without 
violating commandment #4.

>>>>>>
This is an outstanding list. It applies to discussing this issue as well as
all of the other areas on the listserv. I especially believe that as people
involved in argument and deliberative discourse, we have a special
responsibility.
>>>>>>

the time may arrive when jamey or cornell or whomever "controls" this 
listserve changes it to the ceda professional journal.  that is the day i 
unsubscribe.

>>>>>>
EVERY TIME YOU READ SOMEONE ENGAGING IN PERSONAL ATTACKS OR QUESTIONING
PEOPLE FOR HAVING "EVIL" MOTIVES WITHOUT A TRACK RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE 
THAT, WE SHOULD ALL JUST VIEW THEM AS "ARGUMENTATIVELY DISABLED" AND REALIZE 
THAT THEY JUST DON'T GET IT. That's OK, this is an educational activity, and
people learn over time.
>>>>>>

this violates commandments number one and four.  what constitutes the 
brightline for a track record and who is granted the power of reaching that 
conclusion?  nice ad hom, by the way.

>>>>>>
Oh, they have the freedom to do it if they wish, but most reading the L know
that they hate it and views those who engage in it accordingly.
>>>>>>

same as above.

david

---

• Prev by Date: looking for matt taylor
• Next by Date: test--ignore
• Prev by thread: looking for matt taylor
• Next by thread: test--ignore
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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