Willy Won't
Michael Miroslav Korcok
mmk1913
Sat Aug 22 01:29:31 CDT 1998
be giving the next State of the Union speech.
i think Michael Miller's argument has remained almost
entirely unanswered. but in the end Bill Clinton will
resign because:
at the House Judiciary Committee hearings, America will see
Monica Lewinsky explain how an adulterous relationship
between the President and an intern begun in November of
1995 was conducted in secret in the private study adjoining
the Oval Office. they will hear the President's words on
her answering machine, they will probably learn that it was
his semen on the blue cocktail dress, and they will be
confronted directly with his perjured testimony and his
lies.
they will watch Kathleen E. Willey describe again how, in
response to her pleading for help in finding a job, he
"embraced her tightly, kissed her on the mouth, fondled her
breast and then placed her hand on his genitals" in his
private study adjoining the Oval Office on November 29, 1993
and they will hear how the White House subsequently
attempted to intimidate her into silence.
they will listen to Paula Corbin Jones describe how, in May
of 1991, Governor William Clinton exposed himself and
asked for oral sex in a Little Rock hotel room while State
Trooper Danny Ferguson stood guard outside. (Terry West's
"he was nowhere near there" story is silliness -- even the
White House hasn't tried that lie and Pamela Blackard, who
was working with Paula Jones at the conference's reception
desk that evening, testified in her deposition that Clinton
had been there)
they will watch as Dolly Kyle Browning, a high school
paramour of Bill Clinton's who helped his brother Roger
Clinton get parole from his prison sentence in December
1986, describes how he ended their multi-year affair in
January of 1992 after she warned him that Star Magazine was
about to print a story about them. and they will hear her
explain that her own brother, a Clinton campaign insider,
told her that if she didn't deny the story that "we will
destroy you" and they will learn of the 30th Reunion at
which
a drunken William Clinton tried to convince her to lie.
they will meet Gennifer G. Flowers again as she explains to
the Committee that in early 1991, William Clinton obtained a
job for her at an Appeals Tribunal and then instructed her
to lie to the committee investigating why she got the
position, the infamous and much-maligned taped phone
conversations, the Clintons' moving 60-Minutes lie will b
played again, and Gennifer will explain again that she
received a series of threatening telephone calls demanding
her silence.
and all of this will occur amidst continuing allegations and
investigations of illegal White House fund-raising and
foreign nations' influence purchased through illegal
campaign contributions. and the White Water land deal will
be back. and the 2000 FBI files of political opponents.
until Monday, a staggering 33% of Americans believed that
Monica Lewinsky was lying: these die-hard supporters,
marvels of naivete and wonders of denial, are still having
difficulty understanding the world. about that same number
believe that Clinton didn't perjure himself (!), that he
didn't suborn perjury from others, and that he didn't
attempt to hide evidence and conceal the truth.
as the anguishingly slow Judiciary Committee hearings wear
on through the Fall, even those die-hard supporters not yet
thoroughly disgusted with Bill Clinton and their own
gullibility will turn.
thank you for reading,
michael miroslav korcok
>From Sat Aug 22 09:08:32 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.22.AUG.1998.090832.MDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
spool id 5250 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:08:35
-0400
Received: from www0k.netaddress.usa.net (www0k.netaddress.usa.net
[204.68.24.40]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id
LAA18856 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:08:33 -0400
(EDT)
Received: (qmail 10085 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Aug 1998 15:08:32 -0000
Received: from 208.158.224.71 by mail.netaddress.com via web-mailer(3.1) on Sat
Aug 22 15:08:32 GMT 1998
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19980822150832.10084.qmail at www0k.netaddress.usa.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 09:08:32 MDT
Reply-To: debatecoach at USA.NET
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Steve Clemmons <debatecoach at USA.NET>
Subject: Non Clinton Diversity Answers
I understand about the importance of Clinton, but I am amazed at the lack of
respose to the question of diversity that the list generated. In the time
that I wrote the letter yesterday, I have had over 50 messages posted to the
list and exactly one response on diversity. I am a grown man, so I can handle
the truth. Is it that we just don't care about diversity? Let me know and we
can move the subject matter back to whether or not Big Willy's semen is on the
cocktail dress. This is killing me on the intellectual level since we are
supposedly debating Title 7
In response to Sarah Chan, she wanted to know who I was or where I'm from, not
to have seen diversity. Well, I started off at SFSU and transferred to Weber
St. I was born and raised in Richmond CA. (You can take the man outta
Richmond, but you can't take Richmond outta the man) I grew up with your
teammate, Marcus Walton, ask him about me. So, to answer the question, I have
been around debate. Now, I now that the question wasn't meant spitefully, and
I hope that the answer is informative, not pejorative. I have seen BOTH CEDA
and NDT at the top levels to know that the diversity that SHOULD exist doesnt.
I proposed a lot of ideas the first time I posted to this listserv several
months ago, and again, got no real discussion. If we were to have a diversity
party, it would be as well attended as the 0-7 pairing at backwater U. The
point is that while it has gotten better, the improvement is supeficial.
Right now, the only sample that we can draw from is yours and mine. I think
that we both need more to figure this problem out. Debate is almost like the
Boston Red Sox of the 70's.
Steve
Richmond CA brotha in MN
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
>From Sat Aug 22 09:58:55 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.22.AUG.1998.095855.0600.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
spool id 5406 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:59:21
-0400
Received: from ns.suu.edu (ns.suu.edu [134.250.2.3]) by list.uvm.edu
(AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id LAA48178 for
<EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:59:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from centrum.cn.suu.edu ([134.250.80.2]) by ns.suu.edu with ESMTP;
Sat, 22 Aug 1998 9:58:02 -0600
Received: from CENTRUM/SpoolDir by centrum.cn.suu.edu (Mercury 1.40); 22 Aug 98
09:59:18 MST7MDT
Received: from SpoolDir by CENTRUM (Mercury 1.40); 22 Aug 98 09:59:04 MST7MDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b)
Message-ID: <199808221559.LAA48178 at list.uvm.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 09:58:55 -0600
Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terry West <west at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU>
Organization: Southern Utah University
Subject: Re: Terry's Nude Modeling, Miller's Morality, &c.
Comments: To: "Michael J.J. Tiffany" <mjjtiffany at ALTAVISTA.NET>
In-Reply-To: <35DE6119.51FE751E at altavista.net>
Michael J.J. Tiffany asks below if nude modeling is in my future. I, and the
rest of the entire universe, certainly hope not. But I guarantee that if
it ever is, you will not see me trotting out with Pat Robertson and
Jerry Falwell proclaiming myself some naieve young innocent.
Actually, I wouldn't hang with Robertson or Falwell anyway, but that's
just me.
Terry
Date sent: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 23:11:37 -0700
Send reply to: "Michael J.J. Tiffany" <mjjtiffany at ALTAVISTA.NET>
From: "Michael J.J. Tiffany" <mjjtiffany at ALTAVISTA.NET>
Subject: Terry's Nude Modeling, Miller's Morality, &c.
To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Have you ever seen a dead horse being beaten? Terrible visualization.
> Why is it being brought to mind?
>
> I've always reacted with a start to people quick to condemn actions as
> "immoral." I find it frustrating when people act with what Sartre
> termed the "aura of seriousness" and assume that their morality is some
> universal law of nature. I find little evidence to suggest that the
> universe has some hard-coded moral rule-system. This means that all
> morality is arbitrary.
>
> There seem to be benefits to moral codes, and as Kant suggests, perhaps
> it's necessary to posit a God. But it's absolutely impossible to claim
> that your morality is universal without getting mystical, and I don't
> think this is the forum for any such mysticism.
>
> I would therefore ask that those who feel the need to use this forum to
> label people with such terms as "immoral" to please understand that
> their moral codes are not inherently superior to any others'. Some
> systems can be more consistent than others (and dead New Englanders
> aside, I think consistency is to be applauded), but that isn't the issue
> here.
>
> There are some that may claim that their recent attacks on a certain
> political figure were based on the law, not morality. Rather than
> respond to that issue here, I'll leave it for when (if) it comes up.
> These recent ad homs are foolish; a discussion about, say, the way
> normative legal procedure actually entrenches the practice of dancing
> very finely around words (as said political figure has done) would
> actually be in greater keeping with this forum.
>
> On a lighter note, I've been worried about the implications of our
> earlier doubt over the existence of Seattle and Shawn Whalen's recent
> interpretation of Burke. Now that the connection between Terry and nude
> modeling has become so firmly entrenched, as more than enough posts
> concerning his characterization of Paula Jones have been made, to what
> epistemological end are we inadvertantly condemning poor Terry? If
> after the name, the idea surely follows, is it likewise true that after
> the rhetorical connection, the physical also follows? Is nude modeling
> in Terry's near future?!?
>
>
> Hermeneutically yours,
>
> J.J.
>From Sat Aug 22 12:29:58 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.22.AUG.1998.122958.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
spool id 5539 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 12:34:35
-0400
Received: from r02n14.cac.psu.edu (r02a06.cac.psu.edu [146.186.15.16]) by
list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id MAA102462 for
<EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 12:34:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from PSUSystem.cac.psu.edu (mica3ppp22.cac.psu.edu [128.118.108.22])
by r02n14.cac.psu.edu (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA34378 for
<EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 22 Aug 1998 12:34:32 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Importance: Normal
Message-ID: <000101bdcdea$1ab2aac0$1dc67680 at PSUSystem.cac.psu.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 12:29:58 -0400
Reply-To: pjg154 at psu.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Pat J Gehrke <pjg154 at PSU.EDU>
Subject: Diversity at CEDA Nats
Based on responses from competitors at the last CEDA Nationals, with
slightly over half the total competitors responding, this is the demographic
breakdown by race/gender, broken out into three groups: (total population,
advancing to elims, and advancing to late elims)
DEMOGRAPHICS OF ALL RESPONDENTS:
Sex/Gender of respondents:
Male: 59.3%
Female: 39.5%
Other: 1.2%
Ethnicity/Race of respondents:
Black, Non-Hispanic: 1.2%
Latino/Hispanic: 5.5%
Asian: 3.0%
Pacific Islander: 1.8%
White/Caucasian: 78.2%
Native American: 1.2%
Other: 9.1%
Ethnicity/race among all male respondents:
Black, Non-Hispanic: 0
Latino/Hispanic: 5.1%
Asian: 5.1%
Pacific Islander: 2.0%
White/Caucasian: 78.8%
Native American: 1.0%
Other: 8.1%
Ethnicity/race among all female respondents:
Black, Non-Hispanic: 3.1%
Latino/Hispanic: 6.2%
Asian: 0%
Pacific Islander: 1.5%
White/Caucasian: 76.9%
Native American: 1.5%
Other: 10.8%
DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS ADVANCING TO ELIMS:
Demographic breakdown of individuals advancing to elimination rounds, with
69 people responding:
Sex/Gender of respondents in elim rounds:
Male: 73.9%
Female: 26.1%
Other: 0%
Ethnicity/Race of respondents in elim rounds:
Black, Non-Hispanic: 0%
Latino/Hispanic: 2.9%
Asian: 2.9%
Pacific Islander: 0%
White/Caucasian: 85.3%
Native American: 0%
Other: 8.8%
Ethnicity/race among all male respondents in elim rounds:
Black, Non-Hispanic: 0%
Latino/Hispanic: 3.9%
Asian: 3.9%
Pacific Islander: 0%
White/Caucasian: 84.3%
Native American: 0%
Other: 7.8%
Ethnicity/race among all female respondents in elim rounds:
Black, Non-Hispanic: 0%
Latino/Hispanic: 0%
Asian: 0%
Pacific Islander: 0%
White/Caucasian: 88.2%
Native American: 0%
Other: 11.8%
DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS IN LATE ELIMS:
Demographic breakdown of individuals advancing to late elimination rounds
(Monday), with 18 people responding:
Sex/Gender of respondents in late elim rounds:
Male: 88.9%
Female: 11.1%
Other: 0%
Ethnicity/Race of respondents in late elim rounds:
White/Caucasian: 94.4%
All other categories combined: 5.6%
Ethnicity/race among all male respondents in late elim rounds:
White/Caucasian: 93.8%
All other categories combined: 6.3%
Ethnicity/race among all female respondents in late elim rounds:
White/Caucasian: 100%
Please note, these statistics reflect the demographic breakdown of the total
respondents to the survey. Individuals who chose not to respond to the
survey are not represented in these statistics. Given the low total
population from which to sample in late elims, generalizing to the total
population based on the information we have about respondents in late elims
may not be possible.
Pat J. Gehrke
Director of Forensics
234 Sparks Building pjg154 at psu.edu
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
http://www.personal.psu.edu/pjg154
More information about the Mailman
mailing list