[eDebate] ans Young

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Thu May 24 09:13:30 CDT 2007


Sir,

you clearly fail to respect the innovation involved in this resolution.

This years process has moved signifignatly past the buffet method of
resolutions past.

I beleive, though my research on this is not fully developed,  the topic
committee is using a method known as the double buffet,also know as "the
fazzoli method", and a close relative   "the restricted fazzoli method".

These indicate a signifigant change from a topic in which you simply could
choose a country or an unrelated policy, but had to take one line. In the
Fazzoli method you have two sets of choices,to use an analogy you choose the
pasta, then you choose the sauce...In the restricted fazzoli method your
choice of sauces is limited, but you can still choose this pasta(this is
usualy reserved for food courts and catering).

Does that clear it up?

A

PS- i left before the topic committe, couldnt watch any thing, but more
importantly if i had been at the topic meeting and had argued that to many
words and to much research make a bad topic what exactly would have
happened?




On 5/24/07, Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Huh.  Nonetheless, I am still pissed at the lousy topics you all put out.
>
> First, you are right, I could have had input and did not.  None.  I am not
> pissed at Mancuso, or at Young, and certainly not at Stables.  Not even at
> Chief, who I am almost always pissed off at.  I am not feeling
> disenfranchised or silenced or unrepresented or otherwise victimized.  I
> feel fine about life, about the fact that 10% of Americans are now atheists,
> and even about Jordin winning American Idol this year.  I am nonetheless
> pissed off that you all produced bird crap for topics.
>
> Second, you all are the topic committee and you write topics.  I am not on
> the topic committee and I do not write topics.  Think of it this way:  you
> are General Motors and you make cars.  I am Joe American and I buy one
> of your cars.   If I buy your Pinto and it explodes, I get to complain about
> what a shitty car you made.  And you don't get to respond with "HEY!!!  I
> didn't see you at the engineering meetings!"
>
> Third, the meeting was at the end of our finals week and no way was I
> flying to the Hills Have Eyes Mountains.  More importantly,  Glen Frappier
> got married to Cynthia Wells and it was a lovely ceremony.  All the best
> people attended.  Didn't see you there, but I ain't sayin that means
> nuthin.  And I did try on 5 separate occasions to get the live webcast.  I
> even downloaded that POS quicktime spamware but NO GO.  Tried different
> security and firewall settings and so on, but I only got that stupid
> spinning Apple icon.  I went to that Topic Blog URL for the first time after
> Gordon posted the topics - I will never go to that awful place again.
> EVER!  I now refer to that blog as THAT PLACE WITH THOSE HORRIBLE FUCKING
> TOPICS.
>
> Fourth, Jessica just suggested how my dismay could be communicated to
> you.  If every member of the topic committee were required to roleplay a 2
> minute explanation of the resolutions to the President of their University,
> then stuff like this would never get produced.  Look, I know most of you.  I
> am pretty sure not one of you could, at this moment, even recite each of the
> 4 resolutions without at least 5 errors.  That's because each one is a
> twisted wreckage of the english language at least 40 words long.  What the
> hell is wrong with you?!?!  Aren't you CERTAIN that every one of the 20
> English professors you consulted about the topic wording started laughing
> out loud as soon as they stopped talking to you?  I am.  The Cornell English
> major sitting next to me is still snickering.  And yes, she was on the topic
> committee.
>
> Fifth, the resolutions you produced are novice recruiting nightmares.
> "What is the topic Professor Korcok?"  "Unh, well, Promising Bright-Eyed
> Newbie debater, it's "Resolved: The Us Federal Government should legalize
> pot!" "GEE!  That's great!  Sign me up, Professor!"  "Well, unh, I was
> mistaken.  It is actually Resolved: that the United States Federal
> Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government
> of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority,
> and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security
> guarantee(s) with Israel, and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s), and/or a
> substantial increase in foreign assistance." "SCREW YOU OLD MAN!!! I'm gonna
> join the Chess Team."  Thanks Topic Committee.  Thanks a lot.  WHAT THE HELL
> WERE YOU THINKING?!?
>
> Sixth, aww the hell with it.  I am going to spend some time thinking of
> what we could do to prevent these meltdowns in the future.  Things like
> warning labels at the bottom of every topic paper: "THE COMMUNITY VOTED
> FOR THIS TOPIC, NOT FOR THIS TOPIC PAPER." (the NO HOLY TEXTS Rule).  Or
> things like changing the system so every topic paper clearly identifies 3
> resolutions as those resolutions which will appear on the resolutional
> ballot along with 3 resolutions which the topic committee crafts (the 3+3
> Rule).  Or things like a 25 word resolutional limit: because the word
> RESOLVED should not be the first word of a FRIKKIN INCOHERENT NOVEL.  Things
> like that.  Because this is the first time in 15 years that I miss those
> days of yore when the topic was decided by Michael Bartanen sitting down in
> his couch 2 days before the topic release date and thinking about what
> resolution he was going to throw out for us.
>
> Gonna go for a long walk now,
> Michael Korcok
> Bakersfield College
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Download Messenger. Start an i'm conversation. Support a cause. Join Now!<http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_MAY07>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/a3142981/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list