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

See Tuna get insulted; see me object

     Steve,
     
     I fail to understand why you attacked Tuna so vehemently.  He is quite 
     capable of defending himself, and I believe he has done so, but I 
     would like to add my two cents as a person who values the debate 
     community very highly, and Tuna in particular.
     
     Steve:
     <I am disgusted that an academic would act in such an unseeming 
     <manner, and then try to defend himself by claiming greater authority 
     <on discourse than a college student.  Shame.
     
     I never saw Tuna claim in his posts to be some sort of higher 
     authority who is more intelligent or more informed than students 
     simply because he is a professor.  Could you please quote me that 
     passage?
     
     Here's what I read.  Tuna attacked the ideas stated by Dave.  Dave 
     claimed that is would be a good idea to bomb countries who might have 
     been involved with the Oklahoma bombing.  Tuna said that was wrong; 
     bombing innocent people (you can't only hit military people when you 
     bomb) is unethical.  Personally, I think that killing military people 
     is wrong too, as I am a pacifist.  But anyway, no where in his post 
     did he use ad homs against Dave personally.  He made strong objections 
     to that type of mindset.
     
     Then the issue of Tuna's cross-posting to CEDA-L was raised.  I don't 
     see how he could possibly have taken a statement out of context, as he 
     quoted Dave's whole post.  The issue was raised by another person (not 
     you, Steve) as to whether the whole post was taken *out of the context 
     of the discussion*.  Somehow, Tuna was supposed to know that Dave was 
     making some sort of sick joke and/or just trying to start some 
     discusion by making a radical claim.  I didn't see any thing in the 
     post that indicated that it was intended to be humorous, or that he 
     was trying to play devil's advocate.  That may be a result of this 
     method of communication (email) in which the tone of people's postings 
     is often misunderstood.  
     
     Steve:
     <p.s. Oh, and Mr. Snider, please feel free to cross-post this to 
     <CEDA-L... I think they would enjoy hearing how people not under your 
     <sway feel about you.  If you think you are so respected, ask those 
     <that don't fear your treatment of them, and then hear the truth. 
     
     I did not enjoy hearing you ridicule a man I respect and care about 
     deeply.  I don't fear Tuna, and I'm not under his sway.  I don't think 
     you could find anyone who would claim to be; although you should feel 
     free to ask around.  
     
     < My oh my, you should hear what some of your debaters have to say 
     <about your integrity and maturity.
     
     I was one of Tuna's debaters.  And my husband Glenn and I have been 
     helping to coach the Vermont debaters and provide judging for them at 
     tournaments since we graduated four years ago. Here's what I have to 
     say about his "integrity and maturity."
     
     The man you are ridiculing, whom I'd guess you've never met, had made 
     a huge difference in my life and the lives of many, many other 
     debaters.  He helped me to learn how to debate.  He gave me a hug when 
     I won, and a hug when I lost.  He gave me honest feedback.  
     
     He believed in me. He supported me emotionally through a battle with 
     bone cancer which began in the middle of my sophomore year of college, 
     and lasted almost until I graduated. He hired me to work at his high 
     school institute when I was bald, on crutches (the cancer was in my 
     right leg), and having chemotherapy three times a week, because he 
     felt that I had something to offer.  And I did.  He pushed me to 
     excell to the best of my ability, and I did.
     
     Tuna upheld a high standard of academic honesty, and he expected his 
     debaters to do the same.  Tuna relentlessly pursued an evidence 
     fabrication case my senior year ('91), because he believes in the 
     integrity of the activity.  He has given his time and energy to this 
     acitivity for many years, and he has helped to empower many of his 
     debaters.  
     
     Not everyone agrees with his views.  Good -- this is a community 
     founded on the idea of open discourse.  I have never seen Tuna turn 
     down an opportunity to engage in open and civil discourse.  But I 
     don't know anyone who doesn't respect the work he does.  Feel free to 
     call the Dean at UVM if that's what you want to do.  I'm not sure why 
     you feel you need to threaten Tuna that way.
     
     A few weeks ago, the UVM team had its annual banquet.  Graduating 
     seniors thanked Tuna for all he has helped them accomplish.  They 
     cried.  I cried. Parents and their children beamed with pride at 
     everything the debate team had accomplished.
     
     I just thought you should know a little more about Tuna, whom you seem 
     to hold in complete disdain.  He is my friend, and it hurts me to read 
     your vicious attack on him.
     
     Peace and Love,
     
     Laura Ellingson
     Former Vermont Debater
     Hired Judge by weekend, developmental editor by weekday
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page