[eDebate] and...

Michael Korcok mmk_savant
Sat Nov 3 18:11:25 CDT 2007


SW ended with: "PS - Our aff does not make "threats of sexual violence against female debaters."
Well, good.  I was quoting an earlier post which used those words.  That post did not claim that the aff, per se, makes those threats, but they have not chosen to present specific details.  Since my previous post, I have been told a bit about what occurred.  That information didn't seem to me to include "threats of sexual violence against female debaters" either.  But I don't pretend to have the full story.
 
We do agree that would be beyond the pale no matter how much you think it might advance your cause, right?  Even if you have supporting theory from someone who argues that's what's needed to shake people up, right?  For LOTS of reasons, including that it is a really, really shitty thing to do to someone, right?  Even if it weren't illegal, right?
 
SW wrote: "My original post indeed made no reference to the specifics of the controversy at all."
Come on.  You began that post with "Last weekend, San Francisco State University debaters were accused of behaving illegally." You then clearly wrote about those events.  True, you didn't provide any specifics, but you sure were writing about what occurred.  Like when you wrote "My students and I feel strongly that these accusations are a grave threat to our academic freedom... " and " I remain distressed and saddened by the lack of support that seemed to exist among my colleagues last weekend... " and "These accusations have forced us to seek the support of university administrators... " and even "We are gratified that our administrators have chosen to support our academic work... "  Those are not generic, theoretical, policy comments: they are remarks about what actually occurred.
 
SW wrote: "I was concerned by the way that invoking "illegality" is managed in debates and the inability of the debate round to ajudicate such claims.  I remain concerned."
 
That does seem like a difficult question in the abstract.  We aren't officers of the court, after all.  But if the facts are as they were conveyed to me, I don't think I care much about the general question, you know, in the abstract.  In fact, if the facts are as they were conveyed to me, then... really... "not helpful".
 
Michael Korcok
 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Boo!?Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071103/b6c49850/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list