[eDebate] Geez - We have no method......

debate at ou.edu debate
Sun May 7 14:54:51 CDT 2006



So let me get this scenario straight here.  Ken makes a post targeted at me and I respond.

I say he is kissing ass if he does not believe shady shit happens in this community  (not necc at the topic 
meeting).

Then josh chimes in cuz I was too harsh on Ken and never discusses any of the resolutions or discussions or 
issues that ken or I was talking about.

Then, Josh calls himself "aka Topic Committee Asskisser"   - so I refer to him as this, and now I am the one who 
has did all this serious bad stuff?

I guess things just arent gonna work out in my favor huh?

No answers no apologies?  For what ? Being harassed by you?

I cant type anymore, I am laughing so hard.

Massey

> Typos not relevent.....guess what never mentioned them....what are you
> talking about?
> 
> "Topic Committee Ass Kisser" comment proves my point...getting mad 
> at me for
> calling out your rudeness is not exactly a successful tactic.  Nor 
> does it
> change the subject from your rudeness to the committee and its 
> members to
> your hatred of me...Not playing.
> 
> Dont need me to interpret anything - I used direct quotes from you 
> that you
> dont even try to explain your way out of.  Pure contempt.  No 
> answer, no
> apologies, just more rudeness and unprofessionalism.
> 
> Broad resolutions, cool, go for it....Not the point...Once again 
> you can
> keep obfuscating but the point is you have contempt for everyone 
> and were
> rude to Ken for no reason.
> 
> Josh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/7/06, debate at ou.edu <debate at ou.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Topic Comittee Ass Kisser,
> >
> >
> > Did the typo errors bother you?  I guess that proves I cant live 
> up to
> > your standards.
> >
> > Should I wear a scarlet letter A to the meeting, so everyone can 
> know i am
> > the egocentric dumbass that knows
> > nothing about debate and must have josh hoe interpret what I say so
> > everyone can understand.
> >
> > Us dumb people that like broad resolutions and dont need it 
> explicated in
> > the resolution might need directions
> > to KC, you got any josh?
> >
> > Jackie
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Josh Hoe <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
> > Date: Sunday, May 7, 2006 11:59 am
> > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Geez - We have no method......
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Two things were exposed by this email:
> > >
> > > 1.  People who support traditional topic construction are sheep
> > >
> > > "I think this explains how the cattle is herded, but what are the
> > > pillars of
> > > pedigogy utilized to create a topic wording."
> > >
> > > It sure is nice that Jackie is around to set us all straight about
> > > what the
> > > liberatory pedagogy is...Golly gee, and before I met Jack I looked
> > > and acted
> > > just like sheep...Thank goodness for the Jackie method....Thank 
> God> > he is
> > > coming to save us all with his liberatory methods.  Jack brand
> > > Topics "thank
> > > goodness."
> > >
> > > 2. The topic committee and relationship to the larges community 
> are> > mostcharacterized by shadiness.
> > >
> > > "If you want to say nothing "shady" happens in this community
> > > dealing with
> > > rules, what the topic areas are and other issues, then you are
> > > really just
> > > kissing some a$$ right now."
> > >
> > > Yes, its true, even though he is leaving the community he just HAD
> > > to smooch
> > > some ass before he left.  You are so wise....Your backhanded "I am
> > > surepeople really try" stuff is exposed for what it is nonsense.
> > > You are on a
> > > crusade and the topic committee will feel your crusading presence
> > > soon.
> > > Most important, you are right, I know when I was on the topic
> > > committee we
> > > got together in our secret community circumventing meeting 
> prior to
> > > the open
> > > meeting....We planned out the arguments we would have before hand
> > > so it
> > > would appear we didnt have a real common agenda....We agreed on
> > > which topic
> > > we would write ahead of time and the other topics were just
> > > smokescreens so
> > > that we would never have a broad topic again.
> > >
> > > Most important, it is obvious that you have contempt for the 
> people> > and the
> > > process.  Not sure why anyone should give you the consideration 
> you> > expectof them given your open superiority and contempt.
> > >
> > > Maybe that wasnt what you intended?  If not, your frustrations 
> with> > theprocess are igniting some reactions that maybe are a bit 
> over> > the line?
> > >
> > > I am looking forward to the "Post Topic Committee" Jackie report
> > > which I
> > > suspect will read like somewhat like the Weekly World News.
> > >
> > > Frankly, this isnt even about broad or limited topics....As you
> > > know, I like
> > > limited topics, but I am more than willing to go with a "Jackie"
> > > topic once
> > > as an experiment...I, for one, cant wait to see the miraculous
> > > effects.
> > > Josh
> > > aka topic committee ass kisser
> > >
> >
> >
> 





More information about the Mailman mailing list