Some of Whitneys Inaccuracies
Mon Oct 23 12:11:30 CDT 2000
Dave's previous message says that all his messages were to try and stop
sexual harassment in the community (certainly an important and serious
topic). After zipping through Dave's posts for the last couple of days, I
can certainly see where he draws that conclusion. What follows is a SMALL
sampling of his posts:
my nihilistic little penguin friend.
I try to make my posts short and concise to facilitate ease of reading. I
understand that the trade-off is that many maybe overloaded.
I know what your case said. We copied it out of the Wake caselist and ran it
as a counterplan using the same sources. I even wrote you and told you we
were doing so, but I guess you don't remember.
Wow. Thank you. I wish I could find cool words right now, but you've brought
me to tears.Thank you for caring.
Hey, Pramrod (cool name), I guess your perspective wont allow you to see how
Parcher attacked and offended me, first.
Find me at a tournament and I'll explain it two inches in front of your
face. And even closer if you want to push it.
Yes, I can certainly see how this would stop sexual harassment. Dave's most
recent post has some good advice.
1). posts not on topic are without "meaningful communication" and,
2). posts without meaningful communication and with insults are "whining."
and, Dave comes to a nice conclusion about them: Ignore them. While it's
nice that Bear has set himself up as the policeman of the community, and is
"calling people out," and wants you all to Boycott CEDA Nats (great, you've
already gotten the list abolished, maybe you can do it to the entire
I guess you missed all the posts that deal directly with the issue at hand.
Anyone could put together a highlight reel of Bears angry rants and it would
be a doozy, but again, I ask what is your purpose? What do you think you have
added to the discussion of sexual harassment in debate?
If humor is your point, send that directly to Bear and your friends.
If you cared to actually READ posts, you would have seens Tunas post where he
said to Bear that it was systemic, not one person. even if Bear has split
personas, it wasn't him that caused the end of the list. While you might not
support a strong stance like that, it is a call for action to get some
answers. We should at least have some investigation, before we come to an
overall conclusion on the issues.
the bottom line is that he's merely promulgating hearsay
evidence in an issue in which he has no direct involvement.
WRONG! He has direct involvement in two ways, if you were paying attention.
First, he has a Weber debater who said she was sexually harassed. As a coach
of a program, what easier level of involvement would there be without direct
harassment to the individual?
Second, as a community, sexual harassment is serious and is on the rise on
debate. read the post by Pam Stepp on the issue. If you consider yourself
part of the community, and seeing that you post here, i assume you do, we have
the obligation to deal with the issue. Specifics may not be necessary, but
gereal concepts need to be discussed.
I would also like to call into question the notion of evidence here as well.
A lot of evidence in a legal setting can be considered heresay. The narrative
testimony of people in describing what happened to them in a situation is
heresay. (Unless you have a video camera filming away)But, you have "hard"
evidence in the sense that you have a Professor fromerly of that university
talking about what he did to stop cases and how it was brushed under the rug.
I agree with my buddy Bob in Bakersfield that we need to keep the issues
straight when discussing the story. But, I should would like to hear from
Professor Church on the coverup side of it. The Krueger part, that will come
out in the wash. But, I worry that things have been pushed under the rug.
Here we have not Bear, but a third party WHO WAS THERE AT THE INSTITUTION,
dismissed for investigating such claims. we haven't heard word one about
that. That is something that happened years ago and there is a trail of
"e-mail evidence." I distinctly remember about something along the lines of
smoke and fire going together.
If the people
actually involved in this alleged incident feel strongly about it, there ARE
routes that THEY can pursue. If there are concerns by the CEDA
organization, there are routes that THEY can pursue. Witch hunts may seem
great until you're on the receiving end of one.
So, is your argument that unless it happens to you directly, we shouldn't be
involved in attempting to solve a serious issue? Even if you take the
specific situation out and deal with the general concepts, this is still a
serious subject matter that we as a community should be dealing with. It
seems to me that you fall prey to your own kritik of witchhunt and that is
your fascination with Bear and his posts. If you do not care, they make a
delete button. But, don't try to trivialize the issue by reducing it to your
petty dispute with Bear.
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
More information about the Mailman