[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
some clarification for steve donald
Just some clarification:
I was not insulting Scott Segal, Paul Hays, Jason Trice,
or John Meany. I was pointing out that their positions
in life were completely irrelevant to the merits of their
topic proposals. I was not slamming anyone, only
trying to expose an unwarranted appeal to authority.
I was also suggesting that there are serious problems
with the advocate for a particular topic saying "hey--
if you pick my topic I'll hook you up with some really
important people." I still think that's a problem. It
means those of us who are unconnected with powerful
groups have less of a chance of getting our topic chosen.
I was also suggesting that many of us would look with
suspicion on such promises, because we feel that
debate is a forum for radical as well as reformist
advocacy, and we know how we'd be treated in such
a forum. Steve suggested that the only way radical
discourse could earn elite respect was to "win the
national tournament" with those positions. I happen
to think that such advocacy is valuable for other
reasons.
If my sarcasm was strong, it was only because the
naivete of such promises and offers was --in my opinion--
so very pathetic. There were NO personal insults in
my post. I made fun of arguments, not people. I even
took the time to say I respected both Mr. Segal and
Steve Donald, and I even put in a plug for CFR.
When you throw an idea into an open forum, it is naive
to think it will not be attacked. Simply defend your ideas
and stop acting like I committed some grave injustice.
--still favoring the civil rights topic, but conceding that
CFR is a great topic (regardless of whether we'll get
to touch base with the elite),
matt stannard
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page