E-mail as evidence?
Mon Nov 24 14:48:36 CST 1997
The only problem (and perhaps the biggest problem) you would have at this
point would be the massive indicts on source qualifications. I'm afraid
that the evidence from "Alexander in '97" just wouldn't be viewed as
standing the test of good evidence! ;-)
Bill Sheffield, Director of Forensics
Dept. of Speech Communication
Northridge, CA 91330-8257
debate room: 818/677-2028
email: hcspc014 at csun.edu
On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, BOB ALEXANDER wrote:
> I'm delighted to learn that all we need to do to legitimize e-mail as
> evidence is to post it to edebate. In that case I submit the following
> e-mail for your approval (from my e-mail acct, how ironic):
> Bob Alexander 11/20/97 (Qual: Foremost authority on Bob's plan)
> "Bob's plan will absolutely solve for everything good, without the slightest
> chance of triggering any negative impacts. Anyone questioning the solvency
> of such a wonderful plan should be rejected at every step."
> Well, now that it's in the public domain, I guess the evidence is legit.
> (Read: I can't believe we're actually considering such a ludicrous process,
> as if there aren't enough sources of information for us to research)
> -Bob Alexander,
> NLU Debate.
> >From: SMTP%"allyson at GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU" 19-NOV-1997 23:51:41.87
> >well, in a backchanneled discussion with elliot, i suggested that the
> >"surprise" element of using private email was a bit unfair. such
> >messages, i feel, are only legitimized if they are made public. i think
> >edebate is sufficient, as all teams are given the option at least to read
> >messages posted here. that way, affirmatives that are worried can do
> >their own research to counter whatever evidence appears in email messages,
> >and this also takes care of the "we didn't know we weren't inherent"
> >problem. secondly, it has become acceptable to use evidence from obscure
> >local newspapers, and we all know nexis has plenty of those, regardless of
> >who published the information. it is amazing to me the standards we are
> >suggesting imposing on email evidence, when we do not hold editorials to
> >the same standard (does joyan, hindu, sept.25, ring a bell?). perhaps
> >email messages should be read with qualifications of the source obtained
> >elsewhere (read: don't base quals on the claims of the private,
> >non-published email, but rather on public information).
> > John W. Stubbs
> > George Washington Univ.
> > P: 202/676-4052
> > A: 2350 H St., NW #904
> > Washington, D.C. 20037
>From Mon Nov 24 16:07:27 1997
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:07:27 -0500
Reply-To: GibsonIII at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Trey Gibson <GibsonIII at AOL.COM>
Subject: Louisiana Lagniappe Swing!
Comments: To: ie-l at cornell.edu, CEDA-l at cornell.edu
If you are planning to attend the La. Lagniappe tournament (Dec. 5-7), could
you please back-channel me with an estimate of your squad size for food
purposes and debate entries for tournament size. Also, if you are planning
to attend the Tyler half of the swing, would you let me know. Looking
forward to seeing each and everyone of you!!!!
Acting Director of Forensics
More information about the Mailman