[eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra
Thu May 24 13:28:07 CDT 2007
Michael, you don't get sugar when you disrespect others. That's the
exception to the rule.
I think your reply just proves my point about your attitude of negativity.
But regardless, the resolutions are what they are. Now adapt.
On 5/24/07, Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Look, I compliment Gordon's shapely buttocks each time I see him. I still
> don't get no sugar for it, though. Well, he winks back occasionally...
> No, I think GM is an apt analogy for the topic committee. I think a big
> part of the problem is that people are working too hard, putting too much
> effort, and committing way too many resources into crafting resolutions.
> Bureaucratic expansion has developed for topic selection and the product
> reflects that. The topic committee, after the huge effort put into
> resolution crafting, would never produce something like "Resolved: The
> United States Federal Government should legalize marijuana." That just
> seems too simple and straightforward, hardly justifying the institutional
> and personal resources devoted to resolutions.
> So we get "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should
> increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of:
> Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia,
> and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security
> guarantee(s) with Israel and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s)." now,
> THAT is a Chevy Avalanche of a resolution, a fazzoli-style pickup/suv/atv
> worthy of GM!!!
> And just like GM will have its fanbois even while the Federal Government
> is putting together the bail-out package, the topic process too, has fanbois
> writing things like:
> "There is no doubt that the topics produced are a little wordy and
> somewhat jargonistic" Yes, a little. And because the Middle East is...
> wordy and jargonistic or something... Good point. I will not cheap-shot by
> pointing out that if the resolutional wording reflects the realities of the
> Middle East, then the Dixie might consider security against resolutional
> "Seriously, have you ever thought about leadership at all and how you
> should lead with praise before you rip into people?" Great advice, Dale...
> but... but... didn't you BEGIN your post with "Michael, Your attitude is
> insulting and condescending... I don't even know you and I'm bothered.
> How does it feel to have someone dislike you just for what you typed on a
> web page?" I am not tasting the honey there, Dale... Where's MY sugar,
> "Your ACADEMIC chairs might understand there is a method to the madness of
> more complicated phrasing." No... they aren't posers, either. They would
> see it for what it is.
> "the reason the committee used a legalistic topic wording choice is it
> creates a more precise resolution - less suscesptible to squirrely affs
> outside of the controversy and less prone to niggling T debates." Yeah, I
> had to look up "niggling" to make sure it wasn't related by blood to... that
> other word... you know... that one of which Akon sings. Yes, these
> resolutions are "precise". They are "precise" in the same way as the
> steering of the Chevy Suburban is "precise".
> Okay, gotta run to the grocery store and get her some cream for her
> Michael Korcok
> Create the ultimate e-mail address book. Import your contacts to Windows
> Live Hotmail. Try it!<http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/managemail2.html?locale=en-us&ocid=RMT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_impcont_0507>
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman