Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Fri Apr 7 00:20:50 CDT 2006

I think his point is that the sq is literally 100% not in compliance with
the rule while the proposal is an attempt to be more compliant....Either
way, using the ADA as an argument for not regulating non-student research
seems a bit silly...Not that I am necessarily pro-the ADA rule.


On 4/7/06, Harris, Scott L <sharris at ku.edu> wrote:
> Joe I believe you are incorrect.  While the intent of the rule may be to
> limit the number of researchers, the rule as written explicitly authorizes
> the use of researchers and argument writers.  The rule states: At tournament
> registration, schools must identify, by name, the
> individuals who will be designated as their NDT Workers. An "NDT
> Worker" is defined as a person who is not a competitor in the tournament
> and who researches and/or writes any arguments during the tournament,
> including evenings.
> b. Undergraduates. A school may designate any number of
> undergraduate NDT Workers ...
> This wording explicitly authorizes schools to designate non competitors as
> researchers and argument writers.  This wording codifies a violation of the
> code of ethics.  I think it is a clear starter and think the rule as written
> is illegal.
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060407/fbb500c5/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list