[eDebate] Ledewitz terrorism link to Morrison
Thu Sep 7 11:41:27 CDT 2006
Yes, why is that wrong at all.....Seems better than having someone claim an
internal link that was NOT what the author intended. Plus, I sent it to the
public list so everyone knew. My point was either a) how does it help us
more than you b) why isnt a good thing to actually have author clarification
about claims that are unwarranted/footnoted/explained. I understand not
fishing for an offensive link argument.....dont understand why the
alternative (rounds being decided on an internal link argument that is in
fact not an internal link argument to the impact being claimed) is not
On 9/7/06, Pacedebate at aol.com <Pacedebate at aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 9/7/2006 11:29:58 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> jbhdb8 at gmail.com writes:
> Now, since you have hypothetically accused me of doing this just to help
> my team win - why dont you explain how that is possible given what I was
> posting about.
> Your teams could read it as an internal link takeout to the terrorism DA.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman