[eDebate] facey wolmer
Wed Apr 2 17:56:32 CDT 2008
Let me first address the issue of bias: I know I debated with wolmer. Rest
assured no one has wished she'd die a painful death more than me. Second,
there are several e-debate posts that say potentially compromising things
about me. I have not ever tried to get these removed despite a few non
debate people googling me and then asking if I was really a male prostitute.
However, in an ideal world I would think that if I wanted them removed
because they could potentially damage my career, I would like to think that
the parties responsible would remove them unless they had a compelling
reason not to. If they refused to remove them, I probably wouldn't fly over
the top and ask for them to be removed from their position as Kacey has, but
on the other hand her frustration is pretty justified.
Moving on, you 2 are being Guinness book of world records stupid.
"the purpose of the edebate archive is so that people in the community
to access previous discussions can do so. it is a valuable resource
into meta-debates about our community "
Yes it is. The post in question serves this function in no way, next.
"we have a man running (and leading his party's nomination process)
of the US who has openly admitted to consuming pot and cocaine."
Good for him, I'm sure hippies everywhere are rejoicing. There is a
difference between ADMITTING you did something and someone else writing
something about you that is untrue, not even contested to be true by any
"if admitting to doing hard drugs hasn't forfeited his application for the
highest office in the land, i seriously doubt dumbass message board
by college students would keep any qualified person who knew how to not come
across as a pompous ass in an interview from getting a job"
While I'm sure your lifetime of experience in the legal field contributed to
this well thought out opinion, I will have to disagree. This isn't just
wolmac going on a rampage cause she is bored and needs a cat. Someone at her
last firm found the post in question and made an issue of it. I know it's
hard to fathom but in some fields of employment outside of debate a person's
reputation actually counts for something. And while I'm sure the two of you
have applied to many law firms and know more about it than me, from my
limited experience with law schools/firms (and by experience I mean
listening to everyone I know who goes to them/works at them complain) it
seems they are actually pretty image conscious places.
"is someone who can't explain that difference to a potential employer
really qualified to have a job that doesn't involve saying "Welcome to
Are you qualified to have a job outside of walmart? You are defending
someone who will not remove a blatantly untrue, possibly sexually harassing
and damaging post from an internet archive based on... what? What the hell
is your point about why this should stay up? It's not a question of how good
you are in an interview, it should never be an issue. And odds are the
employer won't say "hey, can you please explain the crack addiction we read
about when we googled your name", it will most likely never be raised as an
"Phil Kerpen deserves our thanks, not our scorn. he has basically run edebate
as a non-profit service for the community. to blame him is an insult - to
the work he has done and to the intelligence of anyone who has reasonable
perspective on the matter. "
Yes, heaven forbid we criticize a war time president for doing something
stupid... Are you insane? Yes he has done a lot, that doesn't change the
fact that this is an important issue to someone that could be easily fixed
with like 3 mouse clicks. And it isn't just wolmer- several other people who
have been affected have issued similar requests and have not even been so
much as emailed back.
"to reiterate, no decent employer is going to make a job decision
based on WHAT
OTHER COLLEGE STUDENTS POSTED ABOUT YOU ON A MESSAGE BOARD WHEN YOU WERE IN
COLLEGE. yes, they may, and perhaps should, judge you by what YOU POST, but
that means the dummies who post stupid stuff on here should recognize the
consequences of their actions. if law firms (or any other fancy business)
started making hiring/firing decisions based on whether someone had bad
stuff said about them while they were in college, there wouldn't be any
lawyers in the world (oops, is that an impact turn?) ""
"Anyone that makes a hiring decision based off a an internet list probably
isn't worth working for. ""
Oh my, I forgot you were in charge of all hiring's ever. And heaven forbid
if some "moron" would want a job at a place that would judge them based on
what others have said. WTF is your offense?? Why leave it on there???
There are few people less sympathetic than myself, in general- but also in
this particular circumstance, I can't even believe I have to be the voice of
Are we really surprised at the number of women who participate in debate
when one of them comes to the community with an obviously serious concern
about her debate careers potential to damage the rest of her life and is
asked "WTF is wrong with you?"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman