You should change the name from "eDebate" to "eDe-Trollbait"

Fri Sep 1 15:33:44 CDT 2000

I really only want to answer one part of this:

Dave says:
> > 3) This still doesn't answer the "symbolic demonstration of strength"
> > advantage.  Lets other folks know that we got their backs, and greatly
> > outnumber these bozos.

Doyle says:
>Ah. Must never have occurred to them that they're in the minority on
>this.Go back and thumb through their previous posts ... obviously all of
>those "The debate community makes me sick! You're all a bunch of leftists"
>evidence a mistaken belief that they have lots of support. Glad you cleared
>that up for them. (THAT'S playful sarcasm toward a colleague I respect.)
Ignoring a tantrum doesn't mean assenting to it. If it does, I've assented
to extra desserts and staying up past bedtimes with the nieces and nephews
for years. Oddly, none of them have bitten the dust from sleep deprivation
quite yet. Ignoring a tantrum means withdrawing attention from people who
are inappropriately baiting you for negative attention. I think most people
understand that.

My comment:
Doyle, I get where you're coming from to a certain extent, but I think that
there's a fundamental emotional difference between 5 year olds who want to
stay up late and dave's idea that we should support those being insulted,
marginalized and generally demeaned.  you may think that everyone "knows"
that these kids are in the minority, but does it hurt any less?  It still
feels really good to know that SOMEONE is standing up for me, that it IS a
silent majority, especially when there are over 250 posts in three days and
most of them are critical of a forum to address the exclusion of womyn in
debate.  I can't really get into these discussions because not only do I
have an affirmative to write on a squad with not that many people, I'm not
willing to expose myself to that much emotional trauma.  People who
recognize their privilege and choose to extend support are critical to
maintaining some semblance of community.  So thank you, Dave, and Aaron
Klemz, and Kelly Young, and all others who have tried to show that they
won't stand for harrassment and exclusion.

Katie

---
Katie Kauf
Macalester College Debate '02
katekauf at hotmail.com
kkauf at macalester.edu
AOL IM Kate83080

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

>From  Fri Sep  1 16:38:00 2000
Message-Id: <FRI.1.SEP.2000.163800.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 65325 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:38:49
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.5]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02208 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:38:43 -0400
Received: from CoopDB8 at aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id
 2.56.28212f (4318); Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:38:00 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 120
Message-ID: <56.28212f.26e16da8 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:38:00 EDT
Reply-To: CoopDB8 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: The Coop <CoopDB8 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: You should change the name from "eDebate" to "eDe-Trollbait"
Comments: To: d.breshears at mail.utexas.edu

In a message dated 9/1/00 1:23:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
d.breshears at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU writes:

<< and that they're in for a karmic backlash that'll make Pol Pot's afterlife
seem
 like Mother Theresa's. >>

Well....not that we need to get into it...but Mother Theresa's after-life may
not be the sainthood that many here on Earth think it is.  She was
responsible for the uneccesary suffering of thousands while her coffers
filled with donations....

COOP

>From  Fri Sep  1 16:47:40 2000
Message-Id: <FRI.1.SEP.2000.164740.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 65532 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:48:29
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26226 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:48:24 -0400
Received: from BERCHNORTO at aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.15.) id
 n.bf.6945a82 (3949) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 1 Sep 2000
 16:47:41 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 119
Message-ID: <bf.6945a82.26e16fec at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:47:40 EDT
Reply-To: BERCHNORTO at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Neil Berch <BERCHNORTO at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: New Novice Definition (ADA changed too)

With all due respect to my noble colleague and potential chess playing buddy
from Richmond (hi, Jason!), I must differ with him.  The rule clearly means
that you are no longer eligible for JV (except for JV national tournaments)
the moment you complete your appearance in your third JV or Open final round.
 Evidence for this:
1.  Look at the edebate archives.  That was a focal point of complaint about
the rule after it was adopted.
2.  The ADA rule from which it was adopted carries the subtitle "Progression
during the year."
3.  The exception for JV National tournaments wouldn't be necessary if
immediate promotion were not required.
Whether this is the best rule is apparently a topic for ongoing discussion
(or so I've been told), but this is definitely the situation in CEDA and ADA
as of now.
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University

In a message dated 09/01/2000 2:31:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jstone at RICHMOND.EDU writes:

<< At the ADA meeting we adopted the exact same wording of the definitions.
 Even though we weren't sure about the question that Tuna posted recently
 about The JV wording pertaining staying in JV for a year if you start in JV
 even with 2 final rounds.

 We seemed to think that ment that if you start the year in JV you stayed in
 JV for the year.  Maybe were wrong.  But we changed our def/rule and all
 three organizations should have a consistent novice and JV rule.  As to how
 the JV rule is interpreted is apparantly open to speculation.
  >>