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

Re: Billy's grammar confusion re: "pimping" (fwd)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 11:53:47 -0500
From: RACE --- <race@MIDUSA.NET>
To: Multiple recipients of list NDT-L <NDT-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Billy's grammar confusion re: "pimping"

i think don dripps started it.  just another hearsay rumour.  there is a
difference between arguments and pimps.  technically the difference as
it originally was intended is as follows:  Analytical arguments were
only made by Northwestern teams.  Pimps referred to most non-evidenced
and some evidenced arguments made by fly teams.  fly teams referred to
anyone that didn't debate for the Evanston Wildcats.

alan is correct that much evidence is just some stupid journalist who
hasn't studied the question as much as the debaters.  especially given
the journalistic tendency towards hyperbole.  but journalists, according
to some, might be news or language "pimps" in a more traditional sense
of the term "pimp" in which case this goes full circle and "pimp" would
be an appropriate term, unless the argument is made by a Northwestern
debater from the mid-70s.

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