BI-DIRECTIONAL TOPIC WORDING

[Scott Deatherage <lsd041@nwu.edu>]

I recognize that the committee has posted what was to be the "final" ballot.
That having been said, my plea is for consideration of substance over
procedure.  The final ballot was posted just yesterday; it can hardly be
suggested that reasonable reliance has been made on the basis of Tuna's
wording post.  

Beyond this, my urging is for the committee to take to heart the interest of
producing the best possible wording, and to not sacrifice its best effort
over concern for process.  Put another way, let's not live for the sake of
procedure for an entire season with a bi-directional topic wording when, for
two months, the public debate (list-serve debate, at least) on these
wordings has presumed and praised their unidirectional nature.  

As to Professor Church's note that the committee did consider the
possibility that the "strengthen" change would produce a bi-directional
topic....

I am quite sympathetic to the work of the Topic Committee.  Their job is a
thankless one.  I speak to that from the first hand experienced of having
worked with the NDT Topic Committee for five years.  

But Mancuso's observation is correct.  This change was a last minute one
given little (or no) public consideration.  It was designed as medicine to
fix the split infinitive problem, but is, in my view at least, a drug that
will kill the patient.  This is a last minute change that seems minor at
first glance, but carries with it major implications.  It makes little sense
to reverse field on a central assumption of the topic at this late stage,
particularly given the support expressed earlier from so many quarters for
the "increase" regulation framework.  I suspect that had the topic committee
had the input presently available on the list-serve, they would have let the
"increase" regulation wording stand.  

I the absence of action by the CEDA Topic Committee, then I join in
Mancuso's call for the NDT Topic Committee to adopt the "increase"

regulation wording.  I'm not as concerned as others that such a move would
divide the travel curcuit along traditional lines.  The pedegogical and
economic interests driving merger will still encourage cross-over.  However,
the tension created by this potential wording split can be readily avoided
if the CEDA Topic Committee will reconsider its wording.  

I fully endorse merger.  I spoke forcefully for it and the accompanying
changes in the NDT Committee meeting.  I argued then when procedural
concerns were raised that process should not be valued over substance.  That
same principle applies here.  Let's change the wording, give the negative a
fighting chance, and all go debate!

Scott Deatherage
Northwestern University

---

• Prev by Date: A potential solution to "strengthen"
• Next by Date: Response to Meany RE Animals Wording Paper
• Prev by thread: BI-DIRECTIONAL TOPIC WORDING
• Next by thread: "man" enough??
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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