RE:Monte and Menzies

[Heather L Walters <hwalters@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>]

> Now TD responds....
>  
> that made me wonder.  I know very little about the finer points of the CEDA 
> eligibility rules, so everything I wondered about could very well have been totally 
> "above board", but it seemed odd to this simpleton from Kentucky.  For example...I had
> debated at 3 tournaments in JV in 1990 for Vanderbilt (my only other CEDA
> experience), yet Linda insisted that I debate novice at SMS in the Fall of 1995.  My
> partners and I won that tournament..easily.  I am not sure if she did it to because I

Yup you are a simpleton alright. Unless you were in finals at all three
tournies not only are you eligible but your points count. TWO semesters
for novice. People often debate junior all year and then debate novice at
our tournamnet if they are eligible in MARCH.

   I can comment on any of Linda's practices after I left UMKC but I NEVER
knew her eligibility standards to be KNOWINGLY lax. I was an eligibility
transfer nightmare and she always played above board with me. I do not
know of any other person in the days I debated to be given extra
eligibility either. 
   It is pretty small of you to make accusations and inuendo and claim not
to want to give specifics because you fear retaliation. Thank you Mr
McCarthy but you and your list of names can....well you figure it out I
have taken on a nicer list personna. What like accusations with out claims
would not get retribution? Please Tim

Sincerely,
Martin Che Harris

---

References:

• RE:Monte and Menzies
• From: "Tim, not tim" <TBARNES@CCTR.UMKC.EDU>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: a good week for TD
• Next by Date: RE:Monte and Menzies
• Prev by thread: RE:Monte and Menzies
• Next by thread: Eligibility
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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