[eDebate] Prof. James J. Unger, R.I.P.

Art Kyriazis akbiotech
Fri Apr 4 17:14:02 CDT 2008


As a graduate of the Georgetown Debate Institute of the mid-1970s, and 
as someone who worked with Prof. Unger in his later years as an 
assistant traveling debate coach at American University in the 1990s, 
let me note the following;

(1)  I was enormously influenced by Prof. Unger's theories and lectures 
on debate;
(2)  I was also enormously influenced by the lectures and theories of 
Prof. Unger's debaters such as Charlie Chafer, Tom Rollins, Stewart Jay, 
Brad Ziff, et al. 
(3)  The Georgetown Debate Institute became a focal point in my life 
every summer for a period of time.
(4)  Everyone fought to get to play tennis with Prof. Unger back then.
(5)  It was cool that they had shot the Exorcist on the Georgetown 
campus and you could see the stairs where the priest had been thrown out 
the window and died.
(6)  It was pretty easy to get served beer if you were underage in 
Georgetown in the 1970s.
(7)  Bob Shrum, McGovern's speechwriter from the 1972 convention, judged 
me during the 1973 Georgetown Debate Institute Tournament.  I was a 
little freaked out.  The same guy who wrote "Come Home America" speech 
was judging us piddling little debaters because he was friends with Jim 
Unger.
(8)  In his later years, Jim Unger was very kind to me.  He sent me 
christmas cards and personal notes of all kinds.  Also, due to him, I 
was able to establish good contacts with Jim Copeland at NFL when I was 
in the process of founding the first urban debate league in the United 
States in Philadelphia in the 1980s and getting Phillips 66 Petroleum 
grant funding for it in connection with the Philadelphia Bar Association 
Debate League for the School District of Philadelphia, which was 
influential in Atlanta and later was blueprinted throughout the NAUDL.
(9)  Were it not for Georgetown Debate Institute, and Prof. Unger, I 
would never have improved at debate, and without improving at debate, I 
would never have gotten into Harvard, and without Harvard, my whole life 
would have been different.  Consequently, it's fair to say that 
Georgetown and Unger opened the first set of doors that set me on the 
path that led me to Harvard, to law school and later to success in life. 
(10)  while that path may be well known today, it wasn't well known so 
much in the 1970s, and I had no idea who Unger was before going to 
Georgetown.
(11)  unknown to many, I made a lot of tapes of Prof. Unger lecturing 
during the first institute I went to, because we took him so seriously.  
This seems funny in retrospect, and the quality of the tapes was 
horrible, but I will never forget how terrific Jim Copeland's lecture on 
cross-examination was, or how great Unger's lecture on counterplans was. 
(12)  My whole concept of debate as a war of two policy proposals is 
obviously and clearly highly influenced to this day by Prof. Unger. 

Unger and the late Bobby Fischer perhaps share some things in common.  
They were brilliant when young, they dominated their field until around 
the age of 40, and thereafter had a long period when they sunk from 
view, obscured by history or events.  Yet in their respective heydays, 
they were champions and the best at what they did.

A moment of silence for the late, great James J. Unger.  Requiescat in 
pacem.  May his soul have eternal rest and be granted heavenly unction.

--Dr. Arthur Kyriazis, Philadelphia

edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com wrote:
> Send eDebate mailing list submissions to
> 	edebate at www.ndtceda.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of eDebate digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: archive deletion debate (Ryan Bach)
>    2. Re: Edebate Comment about Joe's Rankings (Josh)
>    3. Re: In defense of Hester (Josh)
>    4. Re: Edebate Comment about Joe's Rankings (Jim Hanson)
>    5. Re: Edebate Comment about Joe's Rankings (Morris, Eric R)
>    6. Fwd: Please forward to edebate - from Elliot Tarloff
>       (Brent Culpepper)
>    7. Re: Fwd: Please forward to edebate - from Elliot Tarloff
>       (NEIL BERCH)
>    8. Re: Edebate Comments in general (David Glass)
>    9. Archives (Doyle Srader)
>   10. Re: Edebate Comment about Joe's Rankings (Paul Strait)
>   11. deleting edebate from mirroring archives... (Michael Korcok)
>   12. seasons over huh (jesus christ)
>   13. Re: seasons over huh (Your Boys Moschiach & Muhammed)
>   14. Re: seasons over huh (Your Boys Moschiach & Muhammed)
>   15. wow someone gets up early (jesus christ)
>   16. a small postscript (jesus christ)
>   17. if we're an indicator, yes, women get up early, it seems.
>       (Your Boys Moschiach & Muhammed)
>   18.  deleting edebate from mirroring archives... (Phil Kerpen)
>   19. ur dumb... (jesus christ)
>   20. James Unger (David Glass)
>   21. Re: seasons over huh (Omri Ceren)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:55:56 -0700
> From: Ryan Bach <solistus at mac.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] archive deletion debate
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<D27FD80F-0119-1000-A0E9-3E4287236416-Webmail-10006 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I read up to Korcok's gold star post and stopped.  If any of this has already been said, I apologise, but I don't have all afternoon to follow an edebate argument.
>
> As a techie, I think a few things ought to be commented on:
>
> 1. It is pretty difficult to get rid of something that's on Google.  Simply removing the original post won't get rid of Google's cache of the page.  This occasionally happens quickly, but can sometimes take months, even years.  This doesn't really have much of a bearing on how we choose to deal with problem posts, except to bear in mind that there is no perfect, immediate solution.  Think before you post.
>
> 2. Charging for something like this doesn't make much sense.  In IT, the way you deal with problems that may reoccur is not to pay a bunch of money every time, but to streamline and automate the process.  Also, what if someone can't afford to drop a few hundred dollars to erase some edebate messages?  Maybe those at high-powered and image-conscious law firms scoff at $50 a post, but many of us are, well, college students.  If Kerpen isn't willing to do this for free, I bet someone else is.  Kerpen has done an excellent job thus far, BECAUSE HE HAS RUN THIS LISTSERV FOR FREE.  If we're going to start paying for edebate, we could pay Kerpen or someone else a small fee to run the whole thing rather than charging for every post that needs to be removed.  Hell, if this is supposed to be a free market solution, I'll set up a listserv and delete posts for only $40!  What a steal.
>
> 3. Someone said a tech pro doing anything for $50 is a gift.  This is silly.  If we were talking about building a website, or doing custom graphics work, or, you know, something that's difficult, this may be true.  Removing a post from an archive is the tech equivalent of stamping a form.  Would you pay $50 for someone to sign for you on the dotted line, just because a handful of other people might make the same request each year and that would be "unreasonable" to expect for free?
>
> 3. Building on that, an easy solution would be to build in a new option to the user configuration page (the place you set your password, digest option, etc.) to remove posts by that user.  I don't know how Mailman (the listserv software eDebate uses) is set up, but in most modern web apps, something like this should not be that difficult.
>
> Kerpen - what's the code written in?  If it's PHP, I would be glad to volunteer to try to implement a feature like this.  If it's not, what's the data stored in?  If it's database-driven with something like MySQL, I might be able to write a PHP script not attached to Mailman that could manipulate the archive database directly.  
>
> This is a simple technical problem and should have a simple technical solution.  I'm a little surprised/amused that a community of people who pride themselves on logical argumentation have been debating about creating a per-use fee to do something as simple as to manage previous posts on a listserv.
>
> Finally, if we can't find a easy solution to this problem, here's an idea: why not replace eDebate with a full-featured forum?  Most people I know use eDebate's online archive, not daily or per-message email delivery.  Unless a lot of people are really attached to receiving all eDebate postings as email rather than at a website, forums offer far more features and would make things like this trivially easy - you could simply edit your previous posts.  Also, we could have moderators with varying degrees of authority to make edits in cases where, for example, another party posted something compromising about you.
>
> Also, whether we make any of these changes or not, why not just put a nobots.txt in place to prevent archiving of eDebate by Google at all?  What's the benefit to having the archives on Google?
>
> --Ryan Bach, UofR debate
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:33:54 -0700
> From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Edebate Comment about Joe's Rankings
> To: "J T" <jtedebate at yahoo.com>
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com, michael hester <uwgdebate at gmail.com>
> Message-ID:
> 	<f6ec14bb0804031133n10616b2fg3c7e4a14e3b3537d at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello,
>
> Behind the scenes, I have been consistently agitating for reform of the bid
> ranking process (first and second round)...especially the last four years.
> At some point there was consideration of a committe whose job was to at
> least compiling the different methods that people used and giving new
> members a set of methods when they are elected to the committee.  The vast
> majority of rankers seem to follow similar systems.  The problem is wild
> disparities.
>
> I, and I assume from this discussion Hester, are in agreement for the need
> for this kind of bid ranking steering committee. I volunteered to serve on
> it last year and would certainly volunteer again this year were such a
> committee created.
>
> Oddly enough this interest started for me not because a team of mine didnt
> get a first round bid.  Rather, it was because a team of mine who cleared at
> Wake and was 5-3 at UK, had an above .500 win percentage, and was first
> alternate out of districts....Didnt get a second round bid because some
> people ranked them like 14th 15th is second round bids.  So self-interest
> got me involved...but over the last several years there have been some very
> hard to explain anomolies (that had nothing to do with Michigan).
>
> The bid process is about trying to accurately reward people for worthy
> seasons.  That makes it a very sensitive subject because you dont want to
> rain on the parade of people who were successful or publically call out on
> behalf of people who were excluded.  I do think some polling on what factors
> should be counted, how they should be valued, as well as work on
> standardizing methods would help.
>
> As for Joe, he knows this isnt backhanded, he is a great person, great
> scholar, great debate coach, and really fun person to hang around with.
>
> Hope everyone is doing well,
>
> Josh
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:23 AM, J T <jtedebate at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Sorry--I'm with Hester on this one.  While there are numerous methods
>> directors choose in ranking, I see no reason NOT to call people out if one
>> sees the need.  And while you're at it...look at 2nd rounds as well...how
>> many of you paid attention to the note about districts not counting against
>> win/loss record?  I've got nothing against Zomp (really, a great guy), but
>> when one set of ranking stands greatly askew from all others, something
>> should be said---these things SHOULD be discussed...openly...what would
>> anyone have to hide?
>>
>> Caution:  this is not a call to openly bash and ridicule people---"WTF?"
>> is a call out
>>
>>
>>
>> *michael hester <uwgdebate at gmail.com>* wrote:
>>
>>  1) I'm sorry, i should have clarified the purpose of my post.
>>
>> Yes, I think these rankings -  as well as the numerous backchannels i've
>> received either supporting my condemnation of this year's rankings or giving
>> examples of previous Zomp rankings that made no sense - are evidence that
>> disqualify Joe Z from future Bid rankings. Whether it's because he doesn't
>> travel enough to the tournaments where Bid applicants compete, or whether
>> it's because he has some arbitrary system of ranking that creates poor
>> choices, the fact is his rankings are absurd.
>>
>> 2) Being really bad at doing one thing in debate doesn't mean you're bad
>> at everything, or that you are not very good at a lot of other things. my
>> disparagement of Joe's ability to accurately assess Bid applicants should
>> not be construed as any knock on his coaching ability or his efforts in
>> building programs in tough circumstances. i have no doubt he does a great
>> job with his other duties. and i KNOW he's a better communications scholar
>> than i. probably a better administrator, and several other things as well.
>>
>> for example, my posts in the last 24 hours are clearly evidence i'm not
>> very good at public relations. i'm a smart ass, and not very politically
>> correct, and am more than willing to say something that ends up causing a
>> public brouhaha. i would be a horrible choice for any committee or position
>> which required pumping sunshine up someone's butt.
>>
>> 3) although my "wtf?" was more of a rhetorical question, i don't think
>> there's anything wrong with calls for a public defense of one's decisions in
>> debate. we are a communication activity. why shouldn't someone be able to
>> explain their rankings publicly?  while you're correct that calling someone
>> out on edebate isn't the most constructive way to alter someone's behavior,
>> that wasn't the intent of my post. as the backchannels i've received make
>> clear, Joe has been asked via backchannel about his rankings and they didn't
>> get any better. they aren't likely to be any more accurate next year.
>>
>> whether it be poor judgment in ranking teams, or even bad points in a
>> given round, i don't think it's a bad idea to be ready to defend yourself.
>> the "good ol' days" where judges made decisions and didn't give any
>> post-round RFDs weren't good at all. they sucked. they encouraged and
>> allowed bad judges to make intentionally bad decisons without ever having to
>> explain themselves. this is not to imply that Joe's rankings had evil
>> intentions. sure, he may have homered for NU FW, but the other ones don't
>> follow any logical pattern, malignant intentions or otherwise.
>>
>> 4) You're 100% correct about the potential deterrent of people being
>> willing to serve on committees. And for that, I am sorry. The community
>> needs most of these committees, and the people who sacrifice their time and
>> effort to serve should be applauded. I'd hate it if someone was reluctant to
>> serve b/c of potential crap they may have to deal with from loudmouths like
>> me.
>>
>> perhaps the solution would be to remove "Bid ranking" from those duties.
>> the skills necessary to make positive contributions on such committees
>> appear completely independent from the skills one needs to accurately rank
>> Bid applicants. maybe it means just stripping the regional reps of their
>> ranking responsibilities. maybe it means creating a completely new panel to
>> do rankings. not sure.
>>
>> 5) this issue is important enough for public chastisement. to be clear,
>> i'm not a cheerleader for Harvard RW (more like neutral swiss). heck, given
>> that i've never even judged Tripp, i'm guessing they struck me (which means
>> they probably think i'm not a very good judge, at least for them). so this
>> isn't a case of me sticking up for my buddies. and geez, i've applied for
>> the NU job and my post knocked his rankings for having FW too high at #2
>> (sorry Matt & Matt's partner, you know i love you guys). so my willingness
>> to ruffle feathers is clear. but i do recognize a travesty when i see it,
>> and feel it's worth mentioning, even for trivialities for things like 1st
>> round bids.
>>
>> hester
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Justin Stanley <jms787s1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Hester,
>>> This is Justin Stanley, Director of Debate at Illinois State and
>>> colleague of Joe Zompetti.  I disagree with your comment on Edebate about
>>> Joe's rankings.
>>>
>>> One caveat to my response to you:  Maybe you and Joe have a friendship
>>> that encourages public shit talking to one another in much the same way Ozzy
>>> and Bricker shit talk on this site.  If that is the case then I apologize
>>> for the following comments as I am clearly overreacting.
>>>
>>> I also don't care how correct you are that Joe's rankings were
>>> incorrect.  My problem with your posting is that I don't think your post
>>> serves any purpose other than a harmful one
>>>
>>> The entire post seems to be you asking for a public explanation of his
>>> rankings.  I don't ever recall anyone else ever having to give such an
>>> explanation. I also don't understand why such an explanation could not of
>>> occurred via private email between you and Joe.  If what you really wanted
>>> was an understanding of his thought process then maybe you could of gotten
>>> that in a different, less harmful, private way
>>>
>>> Maybe your purpose was to ridicule someone so that they don't get
>>> elected or choose to serve on any committee.  If that is considered common
>>> practice then I would doubt anyone would ever want to serve on these
>>> committees. Why would you choose to serve on a committee in which you really
>>> don't benefit from and instead only open yourself up to public ridicule from
>>> your colleagues.
>>>
>>> Maybe your pupose was to publically shame Joe into taking more time and
>>> put more thought into his rankings in the future.  This is also something
>>> that could have been accomplished privately and based on your tone, I would
>>> doubt he chooses to serve on such committees in the future.  Also, you may
>>> not understand or be aware of  all of the personal issues that effect an
>>> individual and how that may effect their decisionmaking.  You don't know why
>>> he made decisions and a private request of such an explanation may have been
>>> warranted in this circumstance.
>>>
>>> Your post is full of unnecessary sarcasm and is overly specific to the
>>> point of diminishing returns.  I don't understand the difference between
>>> this type of post and a forum that is open to people ridiculing judges
>>> decisions or speaker points that were given. Can you imagine a post that
>>> said, "You gave Ozzy a 28.5 and the JV debater from Vanderbilt a 28.5.  A
>>> blind monkey throwing darts could clearly see that Ozzy is a better speaker
>>> than any JV debater"  Yet,such unexplainable points happen all the time.
>>>  If sarcasticly ridiculing somone for rankings in debate was
>>> considered common practice then we would drive even more people out of this
>>> activity than we do know.
>>>
>>> Joe has built a program at ISU that was dead before he got there.  The
>>> program has increased in numbers and quality since his appointment as the
>>> DOF.  He also overseas a speech program that has won numerous National
>>> championships.  I believe that public ridicule on such a "trivial" issue for
>>> no reason is an insult to the service that he provides to the community.
>>>
>>> I don't know you well, but everyone that I do know respects you as a
>>> coach and a person.  Your service to the community should also be
>>> applauded.  I think that sometimes when someone who contributes so much to
>>> something we love does something we disagree with they deserve better than
>>> sarcastic, public, insensitive ridicule.
>>>
>>> Whether you disagree with me or not, I still respect all that you do for
>>> the activity and wish you a wonderful end to your semester.
>>>
>>> Justin Stanley
>>>
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------
>>> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
>>> Total Access<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47523/*http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com>,
>>> No Cost.
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> JT
>>
>> Asst. Debate Coach
>> Emporia State University
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
>> Total Access<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47523/*http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com>,
>> No Cost.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20080403/5409f6a7/attachment.html 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:36:02 -0700
> From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] In defense of Hester
> To: "Michael Korcok" <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>
> Cc: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID:
> 	<f6ec14bb0804031136y12a24765xa49fecf768dca2b0 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I was there that summer too, its true,
>
> Josh
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Michael Hester needs no defense.  He is like Chuck Norris in that regard.
>> I don't know much about Hester other than the occasional smile and howdy at
>> the rare tournament.  Except I know this.
>>
>> When Hester was a camper at the Arizona Debate Institute one summer about
>> 29 years ago (it may have been only 15 years ago), there was an "incident."
>> One evening, like 10pm, the sirens started to blare and the police began to
>> swarm all over the Howard Johnson's, the ADI hotel.  They told all of us in
>> public areas that we needed to go to our rooms and lock our doors
>> immediately.  Apparently there was an evildoer running about and we were
>> much better off behind doors than out by the pool or in the lobby or milling
>> about.  I was an instructor and so went to my room as instructed to hang
>> with a few folks.  We waited and waited and waited.  It took a couple of
>> hours to get the all-clear from the police.
>>
>> It turns out that a suspect in a murder had escaped police custody some
>> blocks away and had been on the run.   This guy had run into the Howard
>> Johnson's and the police had followed him.  We were on lockdown until they
>> finally caught the guy.  As folks talked to each other about the events of
>> the evening, the reports of sightings began to accumulate:  one camper had
>> been thrown out of an elevator by him, one camper saw him sneaking through
>> the stairwell, one camper had peed on themselves when that guy pounded on
>> their door, and so on.
>>
>> The most memorable account was by a couple of folks who had witnessed an
>> act worthy of a Bronze Star of Debate Geekhood.  The aforementioned alleged
>> murderer was running around on an upper floor when he saw a red-headed guy
>> sitting in the hall on the floor, paper strewn all around him.  He ran
>> toward this kid, yelling obscenities and threatening bodily harm while
>> brandishing a knife.  Something to the effect that if he didn't get lost he
>> would kill him.  The kid, rather than running into his room, looked up and
>> told Mr. Alleged Killer Running Amok "I'm not going anywhere.  I'm a debater
>> and I need to finish cutting these cards."
>>
>> The collective narrative had it that the Foul Murderer, stunned by this
>> display of Nerdiness, simply shut up and walked away.  He was apprehended by
>> the police a short while later on a different floor.
>>
>> True story.  Michael Hester needs no defense.  Well, that I know of
>> anyway...
>>
>> Michael Korcok
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:12:55 -0400
>> From: stevendamico at gmail.com
>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>> Subject: [eDebate] In defense of Hester
>>
>>
>>
>>  Hey folks,
>> Back off on Hester a bit.
>>
>> Hester is one of the kindest, most welcoming (and most fun) souls I have
>> met in debate. Yes he said one thing a few of us extremely disagree wit, but
>> that doesn't justify the vitriol I am seeing in some of these posts.
>> Especially since he has engaged in a discussion and admits others have good
>> points. That's both debate and consensus building.
>>
>> The fact hester wouldn't think anyone would hire based on edebate rantings
>> just shows how awesome he is--because he would never hire on such dumb
>> criteria, while we all know some dumb ass lawyer in NYC would.
>>
>> I think everyone needs to point their anger in the right direction,
>> because if you really think about all of this, it's all G.W.Bush's (and Jack
>> Stroube's) fault.
>>
>> Friends don't let friends vote Republican (or for Ron Paul--I'm looking at
>> you Paul Strait)
>>
>> D'Amico
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Pack up or back up?use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn
>> how.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20080403/31d81aac/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:31:44 -0700
> From: "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Edebate Comment about Joe's Rankings
> To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID: <102890CC449145A58B2490C3DA77E52D at whitman.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> two things I wanna say:
>
> 1. drop two highs and two lows among the rankings instead of just one.
>
> 2. I support posting methods for rankings. people on the committee could start that now--they could post and state the methods they use. the committee idea josh suggests below is a good idea. I think that would be incredibly illuminating and helpful.
>
> well, and a third, no offense or attacks meant on any committee members. jz is aok with me.
>
> jim :)
> hansonjb at whitman.edu
>
>
> From: Josh 
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:33 AM
> To: J T 
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com ; michael hester 
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Edebate Comment about Joe's Rankings
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Behind the scenes, I have been consistently agitating for reform of the bid ranking process (first and second round)...especially the last four years.  At some point there was consideration of a committe whose job was to at least compiling the different methods that people used and giving new members a set of methods when they are elected to the committee.  The vast majority of rankers seem to follow similar systems.  The problem is wild disparities.  
>
> I, and I assume from this discussion Hester, are in agreement for the need for this kind of bid ranking steering committee. I volunteered to serve on it last year and would certainly volunteer again this year were such a committee created.  
>
> Oddly enough this interest started for me not because a team of mine didnt get a first round bid.  Rather, it was because a team of mine who cleared at Wake and was 5-3 at UK, had an above .500 win percentage, and was first alternate out of districts....Didnt get a second round bid because some people ranked them like 14th 15th is second round bids.  So self-interest got me involved...but over the last several years there have been some very hard to explain anomolies (that had nothing to do with Michigan).
>
> The bid process is about trying to accurately reward people for worthy seasons.  That makes it a very sensitive subject because you dont want to rain on the parade of people who were successful or publically call out on behalf of people who were excluded.  I do think some polling on what factors should be counted, how they should be valued, as well as work on standardizing methods would help.
>
> As for Joe, he knows this isnt backhanded, he is a great person, great scholar, great debate coach, and really fun person to hang around with.  
>
> Hope everyone is doing well,
>
> Josh
>
>
>  
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:23 AM, J T <jtedebate at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   Sorry--I'm with Hester on this one.  While there are numerous methods directors choose in ranking, I see no reason NOT to call people out if one sees the need.  And while you're at it...look at 2nd rounds as well...how many of you paid attention to the note about districts not counting against win/loss record?  I've got nothing against Zomp (really, a great guy), but when one set of ranking stands greatly askew from all others, something should be said---these things SHOULD be discussed...openly...what would anyone have to hide?
>
>   Caution:  this is not a call to openly bash and ridicule people---"WTF?" is a call out 
>
>
>
>   michael hester <uwgdebate at gmail.com> wrote:
>     1) I'm sorry, i should have clarified the purpose of my post. 
>
>     Yes, I think these rankings -  as well as the numerous backchannels i've received either supporting my condemnation of this year's rankings or giving examples of previous Zomp rankings that made no sense - are evidence that disqualify Joe Z from future Bid rankings. Whether it's because he doesn't travel enough to the tournaments where Bid applicants compete, or whether it's because he has some arbitrary system of ranking that creates poor choices, the fact is his rankings are absurd. 
>
>     2) Being really bad at doing one thing in debate doesn't mean you're bad at everything, or that you are not very good at a lot of other things. my disparagement of Joe's ability to accurately assess Bid applicants should not be construed as any knock on his coaching ability or his efforts in building programs in tough circumstances. i have no doubt he does a great job with his other duties. and i KNOW he's a better communications scholar than i. probably a better administrator, and several other things as well. 
>
>     for example, my posts in the last 24 hours are clearly evidence i'm not very good at public relations. i'm a smart ass, and not very politically correct, and am more than willing to say something that ends up causing a public brouhaha. i would be a horrible choice for any committee or position which required pumping sunshine up someone's butt. 
>
>     3) although my "wtf?" was more of a rhetorical question, i don't think there's anything wrong with calls for a public defense of one's decisions in debate. we are a communication activity. why shouldn't someone be able to explain their rankings publicly?  while you're correct that calling someone out on edebate isn't the most constructive way to alter someone's behavior, that wasn't the intent of my post. as the backchannels i've received make clear, Joe has been asked via backchannel about his rankings and they didn't get any better. they aren't likely to be any more accurate next year. 
>
>     whether it be poor judgment in ranking teams, or even bad points in a given round, i don't think it's a bad idea to be ready to defend yourself. the "good ol' days" where judges made decisions and didn't give any post-round RFDs weren't good at all. they sucked. they encouraged and allowed bad judges to make intentionally bad decisons without ever having to explain themselves. this is not to imply that Joe's rankings had evil intentions. sure, he may have homered for NU FW, but the other ones don't follow any logical pattern, malignant intentions or otherwise. 
>
>     4) You're 100% correct about the potential deterrent of people being willing to serve on committees. And for that, I am sorry. The community needs most of these committees, and the people who sacrifice their time and effort to serve should be applauded. I'd hate it if someone was reluctant to serve b/c of potential crap they may have to deal with from loudmouths like me. 
>
>     perhaps the solution would be to remove "Bid ranking" from those duties. the skills necessary to make positive contributions on such committees appear completely independent from the skills one needs to accurately rank Bid applicants. maybe it means just stripping the regional reps of their ranking responsibilities. maybe it means creating a completely new panel to do rankings. not sure. 
>
>     5) this issue is important enough for public chastisement. to be clear, i'm not a cheerleader for Harvard RW (more like neutral swiss). heck, given that i've never even judged Tripp, i'm guessing they struck me (which means they probably think i'm not a very good judge, at least for them). so this isn't a case of me sticking up for my buddies. and geez, i've applied for the NU job and my post knocked his rankings for having FW too high at #2 (sorry Matt & Matt's partner, you know i love you guys). so my willingness to ruffle feathers is clear. but i do recognize a travesty when i see it, and feel it's worth mentioning, even for trivialities for things like 1st round bids. 
>
>     hester 
>
>
>
>
>     On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Justin Stanley <jms787s1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>       Hester,
>       This is Justin Stanley, Director of Debate at Illinois State and colleague of Joe Zompetti.  I disagree with your comment on Edebate about Joe's rankings.  
>
>       One caveat to my response to you:  Maybe you and Joe have a friendship that encourages public shit talking to one another in much the same way Ozzy and Bricker shit talk on this site.  If that is the case then I apologize for the following comments as I am clearly overreacting. 
>
>       I also don't care how correct you are that Joe's rankings were incorrect.  My problem with your posting is that I don't think your post serves any purpose other than a harmful one
>
>       The entire post seems to be you asking for a public explanation of his rankings.  I don't ever recall anyone else ever having to give such an explanation. I also don't understand why such an explanation could not of occurred via private email between you and Joe.  If what you really wanted was an understanding of his thought process then maybe you could of gotten that in a different, less harmful, private way
>
>       Maybe your purpose was to ridicule someone so that they don't get elected or choose to serve on any committee.  If that is considered common practice then I would doubt anyone would ever want to serve on these committees. Why would you choose to serve on a committee in which you really don't benefit from and instead only open yourself up to public ridicule from your colleagues.  
>
>       Maybe your pupose was to publically shame Joe into taking more time and put more thought into his rankings in the future.  This is also something that could have been accomplished privately and based on your tone, I would doubt he chooses to serve on such committees in the future.  Also, you may not understand or be aware of  all of the personal issues that effect an individual and how that may effect their decisionmaking.  You don't know why he made decisions and a private request of such an explanation may have been warranted in this circumstance. 
>
>       Your post is full of unnecessary sarcasm and is overly specific to the point of diminishing returns.  I don't understand the difference between this type of post and a forum that is open to people ridiculing judges decisions or speaker points that were given. Can you imagine a post that said, "You gave Ozzy a 28.5 and the JV debater from Vanderbilt a 28.5.  A blind monkey throwing darts could clearly see that Ozzy is a better speaker than any JV debater"  Yet,such unexplainable points happen all the time.   If sarcasticly ridiculing somone for rankings in debate was considered common practice then we would drive even more people out of this activity than we do know.  
>
>       Joe has built a program at ISU that was dead before he got there.  The program has increased in numbers and quality since his appointment as the DOF.  He also overseas a speech program that has won numerous National championships.  I believe that public ridicule on such a "trivial" issue for no reason is an insult to the service that he provides to the community. 
>
>       I don't know you well, but everyone that I do know respects you as a coach and a person.  Your service to the community should also be applauded.  I think that sometimes when someone who contributes so much to something we love does something we disagree with they deserve better than sarcastic, public, insensitive ridicule.
>
>       Whether you disagree with me or not, I still respect all that you do for the activity and wish you a wonderful end to your semester. 
>
>       Justin Stanley 
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     eDebate mailing list
>     eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>     http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>
>   JT
>
>   Asst. Debate Coach
>   Emporia State University 
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. 
>
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   eDebate mailing list
>   eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>   http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080403/63d73efe/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:49:12 -0500
> From: "Morris, Eric R" <EricMorris at MissouriState.edu>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Edebate Comment about Joe's Rankings
> To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ED84AA5 at blue.EDUBEAR.NET>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I like the idea of open dialogue. 
>
>  
>
> Although Repko didn't rank this year, he has a pretty complex system of
> bid analysis that accounts not only for head to head wins, but then
> ranks wins and losses by quality. I don't think there's any doubt that,
> for example, a win over Berkeley BP was more impressive than a win over
> us (simply because there were fewer of them over the year). Similarly,
> his system provides credit for wins over teams that clear somewhere,
> even if their record, or partner switches, or internal squad decisions
> meant that they didn't show up in the 2nd round pool. 
>
>  
>
> I do think, even in a mostly objective system, there remains plenty of
> discretion to figure out who you think is 16 versus 17. But the chances
> of a single skew vote determining the outcome is less if most voters
> have 15-18 fairly close together, instead of having a couple of outliers
> determine the final outcome. Dropping double high-low is also helpful. 
>
>  
>
> I also, however, think this dialogue should be conducted nicely. The
> tradition of waiting to show the specific rankings until after NDT
> prelims is a good one, as those ranking need to worry less about who
> might disagree and more about what the records show. I think Dallas'
> decision to wait a month before making an argument, gently, was a great
> model. 
>
>  
>
> It might also be significant to know more about whether those ranking
> privilege particular tournaments, particular argument styles, etc. My
> personal view is that beating another specific bid applicant is equally
> impressive regardless of which parcel of stolen land it occurred upon.
> However, the significance of winning the tournament, or clearing, etc.,
> should rightly vary depending on the competition. I think we should
> reward good wins more than punish bad losses. I think teams should be
> rewarded (slightly) for going beyond the minimum necessary national
> tournaments, but many 1st round competitors perceive they have nothing
> to gain and much to lose from the occasion regional foray. Whether those
> perceptions are grounded in reality isn't clear to me, but even if it
> is, it might be overstated and damaging to regional tournaments. 
>
>  
>
> Or, to put it another way....
>
>  
>
> The process of bid decision making incentivizes some travel decisions
> over others. It is NOT just an after the fact assessment, but instead
> someone that teams pro-actively adapt to. A single ranker can influence
> a team's prospects more, in many cases, than a single judge. Mutual Pref
> is probably incoherent here, but perhaps ranking philosophies could be
> public before the beginning of the season?
>
>  
>
> Ermo 
>
> MoState
>
>  
>
> From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
> [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Jim Hanson
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:32 PM
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Edebate Comment about Joe's Rankings
>
>  
>
> two things I wanna say:
>
>  
>
> 1. drop two highs and two lows among the rankings instead of just one.
>
>  
>
> 2. I support posting methods for rankings. people on the committee could
> start that now--they could post and state the methods they use. the
> committee idea josh suggests below is a good idea. I think that would be
> incredibly illuminating and helpful.
>
>  
>
> well, and a third, no offense or attacks meant on any committee members.
> jz is aok with me.
>
>  
>
> jim :)
> hansonjb at whitman.edu
>
>  
>
> From: Josh <mailto:jbhdb8 at gmail.com>  
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:33 AM
>
> To: J T <mailto:jtedebate at yahoo.com>  
>
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com ; michael hester <mailto:uwgdebate at gmail.com>  
>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Edebate Comment about Joe's Rankings
>
>  
>
> Hello,
>
>  
>
> Behind the scenes, I have been consistently agitating for reform of the
> bid ranking process (first and second round)...especially the last four
> years.  At some point there was consideration of a committe whose job
> was to at least compiling the different methods that people used and
> giving new members a set of methods when they are elected to the
> committee.  The vast majority of rankers seem to follow similar systems.
> The problem is wild disparities.  
>
>  
>
> I, and I assume from this discussion Hester, are in agreement for the
> need for this kind of bid ranking steering committee. I volunteered to
> serve on it last year and would certainly volunteer again this year were
> such a committee created.  
>
>  
>
> Oddly enough this interest started for me not because a team of mine
> didnt get a first round bid.  Rather, it was because a team of mine who
> cleared at Wake and was 5-3 at UK, had an above .500 win percentage, and
> was first alternate out of districts....Didnt get a second round bid
> because some people ranked them like 14th 15th is second round bids.  So
> self-interest got me involved...but over the last several years there
> have been some very hard to explain anomolies (that had nothing to do
> with Michigan).
>
>  
>
> The bid process is about trying to accurately reward people for worthy
> seasons.  That makes it a very sensitive subject because you dont want
> to rain on the parade of people who were successful or publically call
> out on behalf of people who were excluded.  I do think some polling on
> what factors should be counted, how they should be valued, as well as
> work on standardizing methods would help.
>
>  
>
> As for Joe, he knows this isnt backhanded, he is a great person, great
> scholar, great debate coach, and really fun person to hang around with.
>
>
>  
>
> Hope everyone is doing well,
>
>  
>
> Josh
>
>
>  
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:23 AM, J T <jtedebate at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry--I'm with Hester on this one.  While there are numerous methods
> directors choose in ranking, I see no reason NOT to call people out if
> one sees the need.  And while you're at it...look at 2nd rounds as
> well...how many of you paid attention to the note about districts not
> counting against win/loss record?  I've got nothing against Zomp
> (really, a great guy), but when one set of ranking stands greatly askew
> from all others, something should be said---these things SHOULD be
> discussed...openly...what would anyone have to hide?
>
> Caution:  this is not a call to openly bash and ridicule people---"WTF?"
> is a call out 
>
>
>
>
> michael hester <uwgdebate at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 	1) I'm sorry, i should have clarified the purpose of my post. 
> 	
> 	Yes, I think these rankings -  as well as the numerous
> backchannels i've received either supporting my condemnation of this
> year's rankings or giving examples of previous Zomp rankings that made
> no sense - are evidence that disqualify Joe Z from future Bid rankings.
> Whether it's because he doesn't travel enough to the tournaments where
> Bid applicants compete, or whether it's because he has some arbitrary
> system of ranking that creates poor choices, the fact is his rankings
> are absurd. 
> 	
> 	2) Being really bad at doing one thing in debate doesn't mean
> you're bad at everything, or that you are not very good at a lot of
> other things. my disparagement of Joe's ability to accurately assess Bid
> applicants should not be construed as any knock on his coaching ability
> or his efforts in building programs in tough circumstances. i have no
> doubt he does a great job with his other duties. and i KNOW he's a
> better communications scholar than i. probably a better administrator,
> and several other things as well. 
> 	
> 	for example, my posts in the last 24 hours are clearly evidence
> i'm not very good at public relations. i'm a smart ass, and not very
> politically correct, and am more than willing to say something that ends
> up causing a public brouhaha. i would be a horrible choice for any
> committee or position which required pumping sunshine up someone's butt.
>
> 	
> 	3) although my "wtf?" was more of a rhetorical question, i don't
> think there's anything wrong with calls for a public defense of one's
> decisions in debate. we are a communication activity. why shouldn't
> someone be able to explain their rankings publicly?  while you're
> correct that calling someone out on edebate isn't the most constructive
> way to alter someone's behavior, that wasn't the intent of my post. as
> the backchannels i've received make clear, Joe has been asked via
> backchannel about his rankings and they didn't get any better. they
> aren't likely to be any more accurate next year. 
> 	
> 	whether it be poor judgment in ranking teams, or even bad points
> in a given round, i don't think it's a bad idea to be ready to defend
> yourself. the "good ol' days" where judges made decisions and didn't
> give any post-round RFDs weren't good at all. they sucked. they
> encouraged and allowed bad judges to make intentionally bad decisons
> without ever having to explain themselves. this is not to imply that
> Joe's rankings had evil intentions. sure, he may have homered for NU FW,
> but the other ones don't follow any logical pattern, malignant
> intentions or otherwise. 
> 	
> 	4) You're 100% correct about the potential deterrent of people
> being willing to serve on committees. And for that, I am sorry. The
> community needs most of these committees, and the people who sacrifice
> their time and effort to serve should be applauded. I'd hate it if
> someone was reluctant to serve b/c of potential crap they may have to
> deal with from loudmouths like me. 
> 	
> 	perhaps the solution would be to remove "Bid ranking" from those
> duties. the skills necessary to make positive contributions on such
> committees appear completely independent from the skills one needs to
> accurately rank Bid applicants. maybe it means just stripping the
> regional reps of their ranking responsibilities. maybe it means creating
> a completely new panel to do rankings. not sure. 
> 	
> 	5) this issue is important enough for public chastisement. to be
> clear, i'm not a cheerleader for Harvard RW (more like neutral swiss).
> heck, given that i've never even judged Tripp, i'm guessing they struck
> me (which means they probably think i'm not a very good judge, at least
> for them). so this isn't a case of me sticking up for my buddies. and
> geez, i've applied for the NU job and my post knocked his rankings for
> having FW too high at #2 (sorry Matt & Matt's partner, you know i love
> you guys). so my willingness to ruffle feathers is clear. but i do
> recognize a travesty when i see it, and feel it's worth mentioning, even
> for trivialities for things like 1st round bids. 
> 	
> 	hester 
> 	
> 	
> 	
>
> 	On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Justin Stanley
> <jms787s1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 	Hester,
>
> 	This is Justin Stanley, Director of Debate at Illinois State and
> colleague of Joe Zompetti.  I disagree with your comment on Edebate
> about Joe's rankings.  
>
> 	 
>
> 	One caveat to my response to you:  Maybe you and Joe have a
> friendship that encourages public shit talking to one another in much
> the same way Ozzy and Bricker shit talk on this site.  If that is the
> case then I apologize for the following comments as I am clearly
> overreacting. 
>
> 	 
>
> 	I also don't care how correct you are that Joe's rankings were
> incorrect.  My problem with your posting is that I don't think your post
> serves any purpose other than a harmful one
>
> 	 
>
> 	The entire post seems to be you asking for a public explanation
> of his rankings.  I don't ever recall anyone else ever having to give
> such an explanation. I also don't understand why such an explanation
> could not of occurred via private email between you and Joe.  If what
> you really wanted was an understanding of his thought process then maybe
> you could of gotten that in a different, less harmful, private way
>
> 	 
>
> 	Maybe your purpose was to ridicule someone so that they don't
> get elected or choose to serve on any committee.  If that is considered
> common practice then I would doubt anyone would ever want to serve on
> these committees. Why would you choose to serve on a committee in which
> you really don't benefit from and instead only open yourself up to
> public ridicule from your colleagues.  
>
> 	 
>
> 	Maybe your pupose was to publically shame Joe into taking more
> time and put more thought into his rankings in the future.  This is also
> something that could have been accomplished privately and based on your
> tone, I would doubt he chooses to serve on such committees in the
> future.  Also, you may not understand or be aware of  all of the
> personal issues that effect an individual and how that may effect their
> decisionmaking.  You don't know why he made decisions and a private
> request of such an explanation may have been warranted in this
> circumstance. 
>
> 	 
>
> 	Your post is full of unnecessary sarcasm and is overly specific
> to the point of diminishing returns.  I don't understand the difference
> between this type of post and a forum that is open to people ridiculing
> judges decisions or speaker points that were given. Can you imagine a
> post that said, "You gave Ozzy a 28.5 and the JV debater from Vanderbilt
> a 28.5.  A blind monkey throwing darts could clearly see that Ozzy is a
> better speaker than any JV debater"  Yet,such unexplainable points
> happen all the time.   If sarcasticly ridiculing somone for rankings in
> debate was considered common practice then we would drive even more
> people out of this activity than we do know.  
>
> 	 
>
> 	Joe has built a program at ISU that was dead before he got
> there.  The program has increased in numbers and quality since his
> appointment as the DOF.  He also overseas a speech program that has won
> numerous National championships.  I believe that public ridicule on such
> a "trivial" issue for no reason is an insult to the service that he
> provides to the community. 
>
> 	 
>
> 	I don't know you well, but everyone that I do know respects you
> as a coach and a person.  Your service to the community should also be
> applauded.  I think that sometimes when someone who contributes so much
> to something we love does something we disagree with they deserve better
> than sarcastic, public, insensitive ridicule.
>
> 	 
>
> 	Whether you disagree with me or not, I still respect all that
> you do for the activity and wish you a wonderful end to your semester. 
>
> 	 
>
> 	Justin Stanley 
>
> 	 
>
> 	 
>
> ________________________________
>
> 	You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of
> Blockbuster Total Access
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47523/*http:/tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbust
> er/text5.com> , No Cost.
>
> 	 
>
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	eDebate mailing list
> 	eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> 	http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>
>
> JT
>
> Asst. Debate Coach
> Emporia State University 
>
> ________________________________
>
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
> Total Access
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47523/*http:/tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbust
> er/text5.com> , No Cost. 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>  
>
> ________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080403/fde1dacc/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:21:29 -0500
> From: "Brent Culpepper" <brentonculpepper at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Please forward to edebate - from Elliot
> 	Tarloff
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<9831d3d30804031421o5d436562xef57b4ae5a74846f at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Elliot asked me to forward this to edebate.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Brent Culpepper <brent.culpepper at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM
> Subject: Fwd: Please forward to edebate
> To: Brent Culpepper <brentonculpepper at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Elliot Sheppard Tarloff <tarloff at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:19 PM
> Subject: Please forward to edebate
> To: Brent Culpepper <brent.culpepper at gmail.com>
>
>
> All,
>
> I was the author of the post about Kacey that she'd like taken down off of
> edebate.  I thought about avoiding this controversy for a number of
> reasons:  1) I don't think that anything I post would add to the
> discussion.  I made an entirely inappropriate and insensitive (and not
> funny) joke about Kacey (and a number of similarly bad jokes about Klinger)
> and have apologized to both profusely.  I don't think this public gesture
> does anything more to let them know how much I regret the bio; 2) I've
> privately asked Kerpen to take the post down on at least two occasions.  He
> hasn't responded to any of my requests.  I'm not blaming Kerpen.  If he
> doesn't have authority, then I'd just like to know who does and how we can
> reach him or her.  But I do think that Kacey has a point that if the author
> (me), the subject (Klinger), and the indirectly affected party (Kacey), want
> a post taken down, it should be taken down; 3) I don't know that these
> edebate controversies ever result in the desired conclusion.  I doubt this
> post will be instrumental in the purging of the DCA bio I wrote.
>
> So why am I submitting this now?  I guess because I don't want members of a
> community that meant so much to me to think that I'm a schmuck.  Or sexist.
> I'm ready to admit doing something stupid, and I've tried to remedy the
> mistake of the DCA bio I wrote for Klinger.  Nothing has come of it.  I
> don't want a dropped argument (my lack of a posted response) to be taken for
> a true argument.
>
> For the record, I want to say that virtually everything I said in my bio of
> Klinger ? about him, Kacey, or anyone else for that matter ? is completely
> fabricated.  He was my debate partner and closest friend in college, and I'd
> feel even more remiss if a dumb roast of him ever adversely affected his
> employment or his life in general.  I also have nothing but respect and
> admiration for Kacey, who was a fierce competitor, a hard worker, and a
> brilliant debater.  She and I are still friends now, and I consider myself
> lucky that she was willing to overlook my own insensitivity in this matter.
>
> Two final points that I want to make, not in my own defense, but because
> they're somewhat relevant to the discussion:
>
> First, when I wrote the bio of Klinger, I was unaware that edebate posts
> were google-able.  That doesn't excuse an inappropriate joke, but it does
> provide some context.  In an insulated community, I didn't think saying a
> series of outlandish things about two friends of mine would be taken
> seriously or could have serious consequences.  I still shouldn't have
> written anything to slander Kacey, but I was unaware of the full
> implications.
>
> Second, I don't know if any of you remember Klinger's bio of me, but it made
> some pretty ridiculous allegations about my (according to Klinger "alleged")
> family and me, which have come up over the course of the last few years in
> some awkward situations.  First, during security clearances while I've been
> traveling with my boss, I've been asked about drugs and debate.  It's never
> cost me a job, but it has required more "investigation."  Second, my dad has
> received a few phone calls, including from members of the media, asking if
> my mom really had an affair with Clinton.  Awkward and untrue to say the
> least.  I'm not saying this to ask for the post to be taken down, because on
> the whole I thought Klinger was a lot funnier than I was (as he was in
> debates).  I just wanted to let everyone know that I understand the
> consequences of edebate posts.  If I did want Klinger's bio of me taken
> down, I'd hope that I had a channel to let my concern be known.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Elliot
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080403/98ec7492/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:52:19 -0400
> From: "NEIL BERCH" <berchnorto at msn.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Fwd: Please forward to edebate - from Elliot
> 	Tarloff
> To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID: <BLU103-DAV80BD2B37D50ADFA6BE361D3F70 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Two points in response to Mr. Tarloff's very gracious post:
> 1.  If you Google Mr. Tarloff's full name, his DCA biography is, years later, the first hit.  The second hit is the DCA biography he wrote for Mr. Klinger.
> 2.  Almost every DCA biography has some joke that could be harmful to someone down the line (the degree of harm may vary).  It is almost DCA season, and I don't know if people plan to do the biographies again.  If they are to appear, please use your heads.
> --Neil Berch
> West Virginia University
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Brent Culpepper<mailto:brentonculpepper at gmail.com> 
>   To: edebate at ndtceda.com<mailto:edebate at ndtceda.com> 
>   Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:21 PM
>   Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Please forward to edebate - from Elliot Tarloff
>
>
>   Elliot asked me to forward this to edebate.
>
>
>   ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>   From: Brent Culpepper <brent.culpepper at gmail.com<mailto:brent.culpepper at gmail.com>>
>   Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM
>   Subject: Fwd: Please forward to edebate
>   To: Brent Culpepper <brentonculpepper at gmail.com<mailto:brentonculpepper at gmail.com>>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>   From: Elliot Sheppard Tarloff <tarloff at gmail.com<mailto:tarloff at gmail.com>>
>   Date: Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:19 PM
>   Subject: Please forward to edebate
>   To: Brent Culpepper <brent.culpepper at gmail.com<mailto:brent.culpepper at gmail.com>>
>
>
>   All,
>
>   I was the author of the post about Kacey that she'd like taken down off of edebate.  I thought about avoiding this controversy for a number of reasons:  1) I don't think that anything I post would add to the discussion.  I made an entirely inappropriate and insensitive (and not funny) joke about Kacey (and a number of similarly bad jokes about Klinger) and have apologized to both profusely.  I don't think this public gesture does anything more to let them know how much I regret the bio; 2) I've privately asked Kerpen to take the post down on at least two occasions.  He hasn't responded to any of my requests.  I'm not blaming Kerpen.  If he doesn't have authority, then I'd just like to know who does and how we can reach him or her.  But I do think that Kacey has a point that if the author (me), the subject (Klinger), and the indirectly affected party (Kacey), want a post taken down, it should be taken down; 3) I don't know that these edebate controversies ever result in the desired conclusion.  I doubt this post will be instrumental in the purging of the DCA bio I wrote.
>
>   So why am I submitting this now?  I guess because I don't want members of a community that meant so much to me to think that I'm a schmuck.  Or sexist.  I'm ready to admit doing something stupid, and I've tried to remedy the mistake of the DCA bio I wrote for Klinger.  Nothing has come of it.  I don't want a dropped argument (my lack of a posted response) to be taken for a true argument. 
>
>   For the record, I want to say that virtually everything I said in my bio of Klinger ? about him, Kacey, or anyone else for that matter ? is completely fabricated.  He was my debate partner and closest friend in college, and I'd feel even more remiss if a dumb roast of him ever adversely affected his employment or his life in general.  I also have nothing but respect and admiration for Kacey, who was a fierce competitor, a hard worker, and a brilliant debater.  She and I are still friends now, and I consider myself lucky that she was willing to overlook my own insensitivity in this matter.
>
>   Two final points that I want to make, not in my own defense, but because they're somewhat relevant to the discussion:  
>
>   First, when I wrote the bio of Klinger, I was unaware that edebate posts were google-able.  That doesn't excuse an inappropriate joke, but it does provide some context.  In an insulated community, I didn't think saying a series of outlandish things about two friends of mine would be taken seriously or could have serious consequences.  I still shouldn't have written anything to slander Kacey, but I was unaware of the full implications.  
>
>   Second, I don't know if any of you remember Klinger's bio of me, but it made some pretty ridiculous allegations about my (according to Klinger "alleged") family and me, which have come up over the course of the last few years in some awkward situations.  First, during security clearances while I've been traveling with my boss, I've been asked about drugs and debate.  It's never cost me a job, but it has required more "investigation."  Second, my dad has received a few phone calls, including from members of the media, asking if my mom really had an affair with Clinton.  Awkward and untrue to say the least.  I'm not saying this to ask for the post to be taken down, because on the whole I thought Klinger was a lot funnier than I was (as he was in debates).  I just wanted to let everyone know that I understand the consequences of edebate posts.  If I did want Klinger's bio of me taken down, I'd hope that I had a channel to let my concern be known.
>
>   Cheers,
>
>   Elliot
>
>
>
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   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/20080403/688f8ca6/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:13:48 -0400
> From: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Edebate Comments in general
> To: edebate <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID:
> 	<8371758b0804031513p1ca94287vf7f4206e92fe0c00 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> just to generalize the lesson from this last discussion about archived
> posts...   the problems brought up here are not unique to eDebate;  folks in
> your demographic are  facing increased scrutiny by  employers, due to naive
> and often quite foolish  posts on a variety of forums,  including   MySpace,
> Facebook, and various bulletin boards.
>
> so hopefully people will learn from that, and will realize it is often quite
> difficult or impossible to expunge these things, due to archiving
>
> the only thing that really helps to deal with the problem is to be named
> John Smith or  Mary Jones.  In that case your name will be diluted by the
> plethora of similarly named people.  But if you have a distinctive
> appelation, you're gonna get tagged with every one of these youthful
> indiscretions.  And you should be informed that very very few (as in no)
> other communities value irony and verbal excesses as much as this one...
> (all right, maybe sarah silverman and her friend, but that is it...); so you
> cant count on your future highly selective and extremely conservative law
> firm, or the Supreme Court of the United States, or prosecutors, or Senate
> Judiciary Committees, or even think tanks or Universities, getting the joke.
>
> So please keep this in mind (and perhaps that message should be repeated to
> everyone as they become old enough to post online... perhaps on multiple
> occasions)
>
> - David Glass (fortunately, one of many many people named David Glass)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080403/8366c93c/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:28:25 -0700
> From: "Doyle Srader" <doyle at nwcc.edu>
> Subject: [eDebate] Archives
> To: <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID:
> 	<427A98872D32FD449F71C63D72C03659022B6DEF at eve.campus.nwcc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Never knew what a service I'd done by telling the listserv techs at
> Georgia that NDT-L was ready to shut down before the archives had been
> transferred to Vermont.
>
>
> What happened on NDT-L, stayed on NDT-L.
>
>  
>
> --
>
> Doyle Srader
>
> Assistant Professor of Speech and Communication
>
> Northwest Christian College
>
>  
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080403/8551cf13/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:37:52 -0400
> From: Paul Strait <paulstrait at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Edebate Comment about Joe's Rankings
> To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID: <BAY116-W247C57F6FA12DC9247ECE2CEF70 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> The high/low thing seems to get at the problem only partially -- if someone is incorrectly ranking teams, all their scores should be rejected, not just the scores that are outliers with respect to a specific team (i.e., *all* their scores should be regarded as outliers, because they are interdependent).  It wouldn't be difficult to conduct multiple regression analysis to identify and eliminate bizarre rankings.  If one ranker's scores differ by a certain pre-set amount from the mean across the board (quantifying Hester's 'WTF'), their scores could be discounted.  There are several ways to do this, but it shouldn't be too difficult.
>  
> L. Paul Strait********************************Ph.D. Student,Annenberg School for CommunicationUniversity of Southern California********************************Cell: 202-270-6397
> Email: strait at usc.edu 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.
> http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_getintouch_042008
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080403/760a7180/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:11:36 -0700
> From: Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] deleting edebate from mirroring archives...
> To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID: <BAY111-W23AD83E0FF5F9533FE1E50E4F60 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Phil,
>  
> Is there a good reason NOT to request that edebate be deleted from The Mail Archive?
>  
> The link from Robert Mills included this sentence: "List administrators may also request deletion of their entire archive."
>  
> That would eliminate the work involved in asking for particular posts to be deleted from The Mail Archive.  True, that would only leave ndtceda and UVM as repositories of our collective wit and wisdom but we ain't talkin National Archives here ...
>  
> Michael Korcok
> _________________________________________________________________
> Pack up or back up?use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn how.
> hthttp://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_packup_042008
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080403/2ac2efc7/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 04:18:16 -0400
> From: "jesus christ" <omritarded at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] seasons over huh
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<8d2b31440804040118q795e7e7cpbbb3928cbc954a8e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> so every year about this time some irrelevant debate about something
> or another springs up here and for the most part we are of the opinion
> that while it doesn't help any given situation it is ineffectual and
> stupid enough that it doesn't really hurt.
> it is for this reason that we are generally inclined to let well
> enough alone. but this particular debate seems to speak close to our
> collective hearts in that it brings up an issue we have long had in
> mind when occasionally posting our particular form of semantic
> terrorism. Posting without a signature or with a fake one, like ours,
> serves to  prevent the kind of  problematic that started this thread
> and it is for that reason we do it.
>
> i know you all are really really smart  and if any of you have the
> guts will try and answer this post with something about authenticity
> and cowardice but maybe a quick demonstration might illustrate what we
> mean.
>
> if we were to say something like "omri ceren is a weasely little nazi
> bitch  who we would love to smack the shit out of with a sock full of
> quarters then beat to a pulp with pillowcases brimming with doorknobs"
> it would potentially get us in trouble with  the authorities, our
> comrades, and professional superiors. a quick note here: we are making
> no specific threats to omri or any threats really
> but merely using his name in this example because we believe that such
> sentiments are not without a sympathetic ear (we are certain anyone
> who has been locked in a basement cutting cards while being
> pedogoically indoctrinated  with zionistic imperialism by that sad
> little man has had the feeling described above at least once).
>
> ironic that someone with such a jewish fervor could act like such a
> nazi, but then again without jews turned nazis we wouldnt have an
> israeli state and millions of palestinians wouldnt have the pleasure
> of big fences and korans jammed between their ass cheeks in death
> camps, oh did we say death camps we meant  happy camps.
>
> see there again is an example of some thing we wouldn't say without
> the safety of a fake name. see how this can come in handy.
>
> the next arg we'd be making here is that if someone really wanted to
> they could prolly find out who it is that is writing this missive or
> at least to where   the various names terminate. the answer to that is
> two fold;
>
> who cares,  as individuals we post plenty of offensive shit here  and
> if it fucks up  our professional life we are prolly working for a
> total douche bag --see scotty P's post on this question---its is not
> only hilarious  but spot the fuck on .
>
> a secondly if someone wants to go through all the trouble it would
> take to actually figure out who we are  then they really need to get
> laid or something as we don't consider ourselves that important and
> anyone who worries so about some dumb shit said on a message board
> for super nerds or some dumb shit said about them on said board  is
> fucking lame cross apply my "getting laid"  alt here.
>
> as for those people who are just so mad about something and need some
> people to bother now that their students and/or competitors are
> enjoying their well deserved break    , please by all means have inane
> debates about silly shit that shouldnt matter to any of you , unless
> of course you have no family, no loved ones, or no life. for those of
> you that fit this description  we are truly sorry for taking any of
> the joy out of what must most certainly be vastly important to your
> sad little world. for those of you who dont fit such a description
> then i urge you to  please for the love of the species and debate
> everywhere have sex with something, someone if you can, but anything
> is better than what you are doing to yourselves here.
>
> and in conclusion omri ceren should(note that this not will, in case
> anybody offs that little bitch we are not responsible but are merely
> intellectualy endorsing a good idea) be taken to gitmo or palestine to
> see what his people are doing to the world (no this is not a
> racialized perspective we take , but a political one,  there are many
> jews among us that are in no way pro-occupation, fascism, or similar
> forms of zionism purported by debates own little napoleon ) and upon
> arriving at such places of depravity and subjugation we hope that omri
> might either be compelled to change his mind  or would join his nazi
> mother in the flaming pit of hell , hopefully by his own hand, but no
> one is splitting hairs.
>
> yours truly,
>
>
> the church of a pissed off zombie christ
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080404/45bb469c/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:53:54 -0400
> From: "Your Boys Moschiach & Muhammed"
> 	<getsomepoliticalnuance at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] seasons over huh
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com, edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<4bcea0fa0804040453q7a750f2bnc2d0c1aef5d3dda9 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> The lesson we learn from this guy's post: we do not need to know who you are
> to know you are a tool.
>
> Oy goyims...
>
> Only a logical ignoramus could insult a Jew (Omri) for his exclusionary
> Zionism that imposes violence on a victim class while simultaneously calling
> for the violent exclusion of individuals who do little more than recognize
> the request of victimized individuals. Meaningless content can have
> meaningful [negative] real world implications.
>
> Only a seasoned boy's club boy could write off individuals' concerns for
> discussing edebate ethics as products of sexual inactivity. Your post,
> clearly, is brimming with charming flair and dexterous wit, of which the oh
> so clever pun "omritarded" is only one example; it's obvious that none of us
> are getting any lady action because they're all in bed with you, begging for
> more omritorts like 'omg omreally! he's omridiculous!'. The following
> results from your logic: Your comments are super lame and you created an
> email account on top of drafting a long response. Ergo your gigantic balls
> have gotten less play than Mick Jagger's solo records. (Your logic is flawed
> so don't bother arguing 'aha, this links to your balls, too, for making an
> email account, lolz!')
>
> Only an anti-Semite could justify exterminating a Jew for his Jewish
> politics. No shit Palestinians are the oppressed in the Israel-Palestine
> power arrangement. And no shit there are other Jewish politics to be had
> outside of Zionism. The difference between you and me, as individuals who
> agree on these 2 things, is that your call to exclude the Zionist (Omri)
> justifies a permanent net increase in the harm you identify -- extermination
> (of Palestinians). You condone extermination (of Omri) as punishment for
> extermination (of Palestinians). Another difference between you and me: I
> know where the clitoris is.
>
> Inshaallah you'll figure out that articulating mutual peoples' politics
> within binaries closes off the possibility of anything but mutually assured
> destruction. And that insulting people's moms is shenanigans.
>
>
>
> Heart,
>
> 2 more fake prophets (who are, minimally, less violent than your thorny ass)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080404/57ae58f8/attachment-0002.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:53:54 -0400
> From: "Your Boys Moschiach & Muhammed"
> 	<getsomepoliticalnuance at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] seasons over huh
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com, edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<4bcea0fa0804040453q7a750f2bnc2d0c1aef5d3dda9 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> The lesson we learn from this guy's post: we do not need to know who you are
> to know you are a tool.
>
> Oy goyims...
>
> Only a logical ignoramus could insult a Jew (Omri) for his exclusionary
> Zionism that imposes violence on a victim class while simultaneously calling
> for the violent exclusion of individuals who do little more than recognize
> the request of victimized individuals. Meaningless content can have
> meaningful [negative] real world implications.
>
> Only a seasoned boy's club boy could write off individuals' concerns for
> discussing edebate ethics as products of sexual inactivity. Your post,
> clearly, is brimming with charming flair and dexterous wit, of which the oh
> so clever pun "omritarded" is only one example; it's obvious that none of us
> are getting any lady action because they're all in bed with you, begging for
> more omritorts like 'omg omreally! he's omridiculous!'. The following
> results from your logic: Your comments are super lame and you created an
> email account on top of drafting a long response. Ergo your gigantic balls
> have gotten less play than Mick Jagger's solo records. (Your logic is flawed
> so don't bother arguing 'aha, this links to your balls, too, for making an
> email account, lolz!')
>
> Only an anti-Semite could justify exterminating a Jew for his Jewish
> politics. No shit Palestinians are the oppressed in the Israel-Palestine
> power arrangement. And no shit there are other Jewish politics to be had
> outside of Zionism. The difference between you and me, as individuals who
> agree on these 2 things, is that your call to exclude the Zionist (Omri)
> justifies a permanent net increase in the harm you identify -- extermination
> (of Palestinians). You condone extermination (of Omri) as punishment for
> extermination (of Palestinians). Another difference between you and me: I
> know where the clitoris is.
>
> Inshaallah you'll figure out that articulating mutual peoples' politics
> within binaries closes off the possibility of anything but mutually assured
> destruction. And that insulting people's moms is shenanigans.
>
>
>
> Heart,
>
> 2 more fake prophets (who are, minimally, less violent than your thorny ass)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080404/57ae58f8/attachment-0003.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:38:47 -0400
> From: "jesus christ" <omritarded at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] wow someone gets up early
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<8d2b31440804040538w7e1f9214r74089791c635f45 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> wow, someone gets up very early in the morning to flame some "guy" for
> some alleged "anti-semitic" postings.
>
> firstly, that was hysterical, kudos and cheers to you for getting at
> least part of the joke.
>
> secondly, do you know how parody functions? most of what makes it a
> compelling strategy is that it is often its own best answer.
> in the instance of the post in question: the hyperbolic and crude
> nature of the descriptions therein along with the subsequent overly
> specific disclaimers provide a backdoor(id make another crude joke
> here about your familiarity with alternate entrances  but i hardly
> think its vital to my position) through which the reader is invited to
> pass or not pass, these features of the parodic gesture make it
> difficult to tell if the writer means exactly what they say or if they
> are indeed mocking earlier posts about jack stroube calling omri a
> nazi, the very notion of writing without authorship, or even the
> deadly serious nature that these discussions, be they banal or
> otherwise, take on...
>
> the reader,  in this case,  you, is invited to take an interpretive
> leap and in someways reading becomes the very process of writing
> telling us more about you than you could ever discern about me...
>
> it is in this way you have fallen for a trap. you poor dumb fuck.
>
> for the record i dont have balls at all, i am a womyn(i know spelling
> it with a Y doesn't solve  but i sure do like it) way to make that
> assumption tho(is that a link turn, i think it is) and oddly enough im
> a jew(ashkenazi to be precise)  another dumb ass assumption you made.
> when given the option to interpret you assumed id be another dumb ass
> fat wasp dude like the rest of this community, its a wonder this place
> doesn't attract more people from diverse walks of life with brilliant
> scholars like your selves assuming a generic identity and ascribing it
> to speakers with which  they have no contact or knowledge of---i have
> to say this doesn't look good for you... might be game over.. either
> way it doesn't matter as i have finished my little experiment and will
> disappear from whence i came.
>
> thanks for playing and really that reply while it wasnt the "right" response
> was really really funny and i hope you spend the rest of the day
> patting yourself on the back for it.
>
> yours truly,
>
> M
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:52:39 -0400
> From: "jesus christ" <omritarded at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] a small postscript
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<8d2b31440804040552g4181e556o5f58915b95e8ebe4 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Lissanak hisaanak in suntahu saanak wa-in khuntahu khaanak
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080404/f567005c/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:04:47 -0400
> From: "Your Boys Moschiach & Muhammed"
> 	<getsomepoliticalnuance at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] if we're an indicator, yes, women get up early, it
> 	seems.
> To: "jesus christ" <omritarded at gmail.com>
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<4bcea0fa0804040604x6f9b4cd5p6a5a2f7a332c873 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> If the winner is the one who tricks the other the most times, I win.
>
> FooledYa#1: you assume i'm a man. i'm a woman, as well. maybe when i talked
> about 'the ladies' i was roleplaying a male debater. or maybe i'm a
> homosexual woman.  who knows?  you don't.
>
> FooledYa#2:: you assume i assume you're a man. when did i assume you were a
> man? i use 'guy' as a gender inclusive term. in my post and in life.
>
> FooledYa#3: you assume i assume you're not Jewish. when did i say you're not
> Jewish? Jews can be anti-Semites too (or justify anti-Semitism) -- in fact
> this is at least 1/3 of the old self-loathing Jews joke.
>
> FooledYa #4: racking up Fooled Ya tallies does not make one a winner of
> anything remotely dialogical; to be redundant, dialogue is not about Fooled
> Yas. Parody might have demonstrative currency. But parody is not
> dialogue. Our exchange (which includes your argument that you fooled
> me) proves it. Dialogue is key to answers/ change/ anything positive to the
> community that could result from edebate conversations.
> If the winner is the one who tricks the other the most times, no one wins.
>
> Peace, Jesus. Word.
>
>
>
>
> A.
>  (Pssst I'm not Jewish)
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:38 AM, jesus christ <omritarded at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> wow, someone gets up very early in the morning to flame some "guy" for
>> some alleged "anti-semitic" postings.
>>
>> firstly, that was hysterical, kudos and cheers to you for getting at
>> least part of the joke.
>>
>> secondly, do you know how parody functions? most of what makes it a
>> compelling strategy is that it is often its own best answer.
>> in the instance of the post in question: the hyperbolic and crude
>> nature of the descriptions therein along with the subsequent overly
>> specific disclaimers provide a backdoor(id make another crude joke
>> here about your familiarity with alternate entrances  but i hardly
>> think its vital to my position) through which the reader is invited to
>> pass or not pass, these features of the parodic gesture make it
>> difficult to tell if the writer means exactly what they say or if they
>> are indeed mocking earlier posts about jack stroube calling omri a
>> nazi, the very notion of writing without authorship, or even the
>> deadly serious nature that these discussions, be they banal or
>> otherwise, take on...
>>
>> the reader,  in this case,  you, is invited to take an interpretive
>> leap and in someways reading becomes the very process of writing
>> telling us more about you than you could ever discern about me...
>>
>> it is in this way you have fallen for a trap. you poor dumb fuck.
>>
>> for the record i dont have balls at all, i am a womyn(i know spelling
>> it with a Y doesn't solve  but i sure do like it) way to make that
>> assumption tho(is that a link turn, i think it is) and oddly enough im
>> a jew(ashkenazi to be precise)  another dumb ass assumption you made.
>> when given the option to interpret you assumed id be another dumb ass
>> fat wasp dude like the rest of this community, its a wonder this place
>> doesn't attract more people from diverse walks of life with brilliant
>> scholars like your selves assuming a generic identity and ascribing it
>> to speakers with which  they have no contact or knowledge of---i have
>> to say this doesn't look good for you... might be game over.. either
>> way it doesn't matter as i have finished my little experiment and will
>> disappear from whence i came.
>>
>> thanks for playing and really that reply while it wasnt the "right"
>> response
>> was really really funny and i hope you spend the rest of the day
>> patting yourself on the back for it.
>>
>> yours truly,
>>
>> M
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20080404/5e4c2586/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:45:24 -0400
> From: "Phil Kerpen" <pgk at philkerpen.com>
> Subject: [eDebate]  deleting edebate from mirroring archives...
> To: <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID: <000001c8965a$22aa7a80$2acb820a at us.mst.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Bear,
>
> I requested mail archive delete the entire archive yesterday and they are in
> the process of doing so.  The local archives are stable and backed up
> regularly so I feel external archiving is no longer needed.  Thanks.
>
> ------------------------
> Phil Kerpen
> www.philkerpen.com
> Cell: 202.285.9714
> Fax: 202.478.0343
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080404/843335a4/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:08:09 -0400
> From: "jesus christ" <omritarded at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] ur dumb...
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID:
> 	<8d2b31440804040708x3ab0da2bo840a7020a7cd6033 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> i wasn't certain(tho i had a pretty good guess)  after the first post but i
> am pretty certain now of your actual identity which makes this game
> exceedingly less fun for me. for the record don't lie you are not a womyn.
> this particular account was not set up by me but was set up by a friend and
> given to me and several others for us to randomly post with. the original
> may or may not have been posted by the person who created the subsequent
> postings so as a rule it probably unwise to fuck with us as you never know
> who or where we are.
>
> probably not such a good idea to call people who aren't guys guys as it
> makes them angry or at the very least sad. not very communitarian of you.
>
> look the shit you said before made no sense i link turned your k anyway but
> this time ill answer it. calling one specific person a zionist fuck(whether
> i meant it or not) is not re-inscribing any sort of binary i made no calls
> to exclude him just  a hyperbolic wish that he might be less of a fuckwad
> about  his identity in its relation to his politics. fuck the rash K's and
> that peice of Odysyous evidence i believe that there are specific
> intolerances that we can afford to be intolerant of (i.e. drawing parallels
> between  zionism and  nazism, if all of the sudden a nazi debate coach
> started coaching his kids to be nazis we would no doubt be pissed right?)
> i think the clan should probably  be ashamed of their ideas too. enshallah
> you know this and are sympathetic to it.
>
> Don't accuse people you don't know of shit you don't understand and cant
> make coherent internal link analysis for. its just bad scholarship.
>
> on the parody flow(and heres what ill bank this round on) i will strait up
> concede the args you make at the bottom of the flow about no one winning and
> if that were my goal(to create a situation through parody in which winning
> is impossible) then it means that i win don't I.
>
> (paraphrased from Nietszche and Delueze)
> the relation of master and slave is not, in itself,  dialectical. Who is the
> dialectician, who dialectises the relationship? it is the slave, the slave's
> perspective, the way of thinking belonging to the slaves perspective...
> according to the slave the relationship of power in the dialectic between
> the master and slave is not one of the will to power but of the
> representation of power, recogniton by "the one" superiority over "the
> other" this is the image that the *man of resentiment* has of power. the
> parodic gesture escapes that in that, as our banter proves, it becomes
> impossible for anyone to win when we just keep trying to fool one another.
> you see this as a bad thing because it dosnt help our community but again
> that is the *resentiment *talking, you dont want the world you have, the
> community you have, you want some other world and so you hate your self for
> the lack imposed upon you by this world. my alternative would be something
> like whimsy, or play, as it is in those moments when we are not utilized
> that we are alive. i dont want my existence to be a means to anyones ends
> least of all yours. the slave conceives of power as the object of
> recognition, the content of a representation, the stake in a competition,
> and therefore makes it depend, at the end of a fight, on the simple
> attribution of established values. reaction becomes impossible in the world
> of the parodic everything is acting on everything else but nothing can ever
> react without falling for the trap and proving the original action true.
> this is your arg about it not functioning dialogically to produce some
> better world. i say who cares... its turtles all the way down.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080404/0ca8bac8/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:39:58 -0400
> From: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] James Unger
> To: edebate <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID:
> 	<8371758b0804040939u5f1ca82fra8c839e75ec2be97 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I am quite sad to have heard, yesterday, that Jim Unger has died.
>
>
>
> Upon a person's death,  the rest of us are naturally moved to sentiment,
> which can create a motivation to exaggerate the importance of this common
> and normal event, or the impact of the person who has passed.
>
>
>
> But in the case of James Unger, this is really not a concern ? because the
> simple recitation of the facts of his debate career demonstrates the almost
> singular influence he had on academic policy debate, changing the activity
> significantly, and in large part being responsible for the strategic
> approach that is still the most practiced?  the method  that is now viewed
> as the norm.  What current debaters might not appreciate is how
> revolutionary his innovations were, and how dramatically they changed the
> way a debate was approached.
>
>
>
> To take a step back, the basics:
>
>
>
> Unger (James J. Unger) debated for Boston College with Joseph
> McLaughlin.  Together
> they reached the semis of the NDT in 1963 and lost in the finals in 1964.
>
>
>
>
> Jim went on to coach at Georgetown.  In the 1970s he was voted:
>
>
>
> Best Judge (89 points, 2nd place was 45)
>
> Best Coach: (98 points, 2nd was 71)
> Coach of the Best Debater: Tom Rollins. 187 points (2nd was 153).
>
>
>
> His teams in the 1970s achieved the following at the NDT:
>
>
>
> 1973; finalists  (Brad Ziff & Stewart Jay)
>
> 1976; finalists (Chafer and Ottoson)
>
> 1977; champions (Walker and Ottoson)
>
> 1978; semis (Ottoson and Rollins)
>
>
> His teams won the equivalent of the Copeland five  times: Ziff & Jay (1973),
>  Ziff  &  Rollins (1975),  Ottoson & Walker (1977), Rollins & Ottoson
> (1978), Kirkland & Thompson (1980).
>
> Interestingly, however, it may have been as the Director of a High School
> Debate Institute that Unger had the most influence.
>
> Coincident with  JW Patterson's establishment of the Tournament of Champions
> (TOC) in the early 1970s, which deserves considerable credit for creating a
> "national circuit" of tournaments -  used to establish "bids" (credentials
> for entry into the TOC) -  was the rise of nationally-drawing debate
> institutes, which helped to establish a common approach to debate.   Clearly
> the National Forensic League's tournament long outdates these phenomena, but
> it may have been the drawing-together of teams on a more frequent basis,
> which happened with the establishment of the national circuit, that allowed
> for faster innovation to take place, and it was so that students could
> succeed on the national circuit that they sought out those institutes which
> drew nationally.
>
>
>
> It is hard to quantify something like "reputation", but it is probably fair
> to say that in the mid 1970s the Northwestern Institute was setting the
> standard among debate institutes.  There, students were taught David
> Zarefsky's  "Hypothesis testing" approach to the activity, which viewed the
> Resolution as a "hypothesis" that could be subjected to falsification ?
> drawing an analogy from Karl Popper's "Critical Rationalism"? a philosophy
> of science that focused on hypotheses as instruments of falsification rather
> than verification (as part of a more general criticism of inductive
> reasoning).   Applying Critical Rationalism to debate, Zarefsky held that
> the resolution was a similar tentative statement of fact, which should  be
> held up to falsification by the negative.  This gave rise to a distinct
> definition of inherency (as to whether the resolution was required for
> solvency, thus testing the term "should"), and to the idea that negative
> arguments were "conditional", and that as long as a negative argument
> functioned as a test of the resolution/hypothesis, it was allowable (this
> was most clearly later applied to counterplans? which will be discussed
> shortly).
>
>
>
> There were several alternatives to the Northwestern Institute, but the major
> one of the time was Georgetown, which was directed by Unger.   Here, in
> perhaps direct reference to Northwestern, debaters were taught "Policy
> Making", as opposed to "Hypothesis Testing."   Inherency was viewed as a
> barrier to change, necessitating the plan.  The Resolution functioned only
> to set the boundary for the affirmative ? it guided which plans the
> affirmative could  topically advocate?  it was not an instrument of
> "falsification", nor was it consulted once topicality was established.
>
>
>
> The differences between "Hypothesis Testing" and "Policy Making" became much
> more important with the advent of the Counterplan, which happened in the
> very late 1970s, and the early 1980s.   I cannot confidently say who thought
> of the counter-plan, or where it was first put forth in a competitive debate
> round.  However I do think I can give an opinion as to where it was advanced
> with the most impact for the first time in a competitive high school debate
> round.   This was a team from Kinkaid (and I'll post the students names when
> I can recall them), who had been to the Georgetown Institute that summer,
> and had learned "counterplan theory".  The idea, as explained by Unger in
> one of the initial lectures at the institute, was that if the resolution
> functioned simply to set the grounds for the affirmative plan, then the
> negative could offer a different plan than the affirmative, and that this
> would be responsive as long as the two plans could not exist together ? thus
> the counterplan had to offer some "net benefit" over the plan; there had to
> be  a  reason that the counterplan was better than the plan plus the
> counterplan?   and it was realized this would be the case if the counterplan
> avoided a disadvantage to the plan.   The counterplan/net benefit strategy
> was used later that debate season by Kinkaid, in the elimination rounds of
> one of the major national circuit tournaments (one run by David Horn, in
> Philadelphia).  This team introduced a States Counterplan, with federalism
> as the net benefit, and the approach resulted in a blow-out.
>
>
>
> It is hard to give today's debaters a flavor for how   dramatically the
> counterplan/net benefit strategy changed things ? but to give you a personal
> indication of the effect, a team of mine the next season won thirteen
> tournaments, and got to semis at the TOC,  with States/federalism as their
> main strategy.  Those who were slow to adopt defenses for counterplans, or
> to take them in account in designing their affirmatives, simply had no
> chance at national circuit tournaments.
>
>
>
> The effect of the counterplan on Hypothesis Testing was rather devastating ?
> because if the Resolution functioned as a hypothesis, then topical
> counterplans could also be thought to "prove the resolution true", or at
> least would fail to falsify the resolution? therefore hypothesis testers
> could not advocate topical counterplans.  However, for pure Policy Makers,
> where the plan was the focus, a  topical counterplan would not be a problem
> for the negative to advocate, as long as it competed with the plan.   Also,
> hypothesis testers of the time thought it was fine to advance multiple and
> contradictory counterplans ? arguing all of these could function as a test
> of the resolution ? and this strain of innovation was found to be untenable.
>
>
>
> It may have been in large point due to these advances in argument theory
> that the Georgetown School was victorious over the Northwestern School, and
> debate as it was coached and advocated by Unger became standard practice for
> just about everyone by the mid 1980s.   Today, one rarely hears about
> Hypothesis Testing in competitive debate? the only residual effect is the
> arguments about conditional counterplans, and these are rarely
> paradigm-based, but rather "fairness"-based.
>
>
>
> Some might wonder why Unger's coaching dominance lasted for only a
> decade.  There
> are probably many opinions about this ? but mine, perhaps predictably, is
> medically based.   With Unger's passing, I hope his former students,
> friends, and relatives agree that it is now acceptable to discuss some
> details he held to be confidential, for the sake of the history ? and so
> that people can fairly judge the  man.    It should therefore be noted that
> Unger waged a long and difficult battle with epilepsy, and with the various
> treatments for that condition.   He found anti-seizure medications to be
> unacceptable because they dulled his thinking ? and he therefore was not
> compliant with his treatment regimen.  This decision naturally caused a
> significant  limitation in his activities, because his seizures were severe,
> and would be devastating had they occurred while he was driving, for
> example.  His battle with epilepsy was quite isolating; it was a struggle he
> preferred to wage alone, on his own terms.
>
>
>
> On a personal level, I can affirm that he was an extremely generous and good
> mentor.  He hired me as an instructor at Georgetown when I was eighteen  ?
> and put me in charge of my own lab.  When the reviews from the students came
> in positive, he allowed me to build that group into an almost independent
> entity within the Georgetown (and later American University) framework,
> establishing a lab for debaters who had just completed their first year (We
> felt that this was the best time to have the most lasting educational impact
> on students).  He was unfailingly loyal, and functioned the way you would
> expect the ideal department chairman to function ? he created space for his
> instructors to do what they wanted to do, and was there to help when they
> needed him.
>
>
>
> As a person, Unger was quite idiosyncratic.   Some people loved him; others
> could not abide him.  I always found him to be incisive, independent of
> mind, and unexpectedly hilarious.   I still remember this small incident
> during the elimination rounds of a high school tournament that he was
> running.   In those days a large audience watched the final round (people
> stayed for it, and the audience was filled for this particular final).  Most
> of the students found him to be rather intimidating, but when he asked this
> one kid to call the coin before this round, the kid said  "headsies".  Everyone
> looked at Unger expecting him to cringe or something.  But Unger just walked
> over to the coin, looked up at the kid and called out "tailsies"? cracking
> up the audience?  I guess it is just surprising when you find out that a
> supposed giant is a normal person?.   He was always there for me?.   when a
> play I wrote was produced, he was in the audience;  when I needed some
> advice on career alternatives, he was there.  I did not debate for him, but
> I felt as though I was one of his students.  He was a good mentor, and a
> true friend.
>
>
>
> He is missed.
>
>
> David Glass
> Asst, Harvard Debate
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080404/973d714e/attachment-0001.htm 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:46:41 -0700
> From: Omri Ceren <ceren at usc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] seasons over huh
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID: <47F65B71.8000607 at usc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> The irony being, of course, that this ostensibly transgressive post has 
> the makings of a pretty successful 1AC.
>
> But at least it was detached and ironic!
>
> Omri.
>
>
> On 4/4/2008 1:18 AM, jesus christ wrote:
>   
>> so every year about this time some irrelevant debate about something
>> or another springs up here and for the most part we are of the opinion
>> that while it doesn't help any given situation it is ineffectual and
>> stupid enough that it doesn't really hurt.
>> it is for this reason that we are generally inclined to let well
>> enough alone. but this particular debate seems to speak close to our
>> collective hearts in that it brings up an issue we have long had in
>> mind when occasionally posting our particular form of semantic
>> terrorism. Posting without a signature or with a fake one, like ours,
>> serves to  prevent the kind of  problematic that started this thread
>> and it is for that reason we do it.
>>
>> i know you all are really really smart  and if any of you have the
>> guts will try and answer this post with something about authenticity
>> and cowardice but maybe a quick demonstration might illustrate what we
>> mean.
>>
>> if we were to say something like "omri ceren is a weasely little nazi
>> bitch  who we would love to smack the shit out of with a sock full of
>> quarters then beat to a pulp with pillowcases brimming with doorknobs"
>> it would potentially get us in trouble with  the authorities, our
>> comrades, and professional superiors. a quick note here: we are making
>> no specific threats to omri or any threats really
>> but merely using his name in this example because we believe that such
>> sentiments are not without a sympathetic ear (we are certain anyone
>> who has been locked in a basement cutting cards while being
>> pedogoically indoctrinated  with zionistic imperialism by that sad
>> little man has had the feeling described above at least once).
>>
>> ironic that someone with such a jewish fervor could act like such a
>> nazi, but then again without jews turned nazis we wouldnt have an
>> israeli state and millions of palestinians wouldnt have the pleasure
>> of big fences and korans jammed between their ass cheeks in death
>> camps, oh did we say death camps we meant  happy camps.
>>
>> see there again is an example of some thing we wouldn't say without
>> the safety of a fake name. see how this can come in handy.
>>
>> the next arg we'd be making here is that if someone really wanted to
>> they could prolly find out who it is that is writing this missive or
>> at least to where   the various names terminate. the answer to that is
>> two fold;
>>
>> who cares,  as individuals we post plenty of offensive shit here  and
>> if it fucks up  our professional life we are prolly working for a
>> total douche bag --see scotty P's post on this question---its is not
>> only hilarious  but spot the fuck on .
>>
>> a secondly if someone wants to go through all the trouble it would
>> take to actually figure out who we are  then they really need to get
>> laid or something as we don't consider ourselves that important and
>> anyone who worries so about some dumb shit said on a message board
>> for super nerds or some dumb shit said about them on said board  is
>> fucking lame cross apply my "getting laid"  alt here.
>>
>> as for those people who are just so mad about something and need some
>> people to bother now that their students and/or competitors are
>> enjoying their well deserved break    , please by all means have inane
>> debates about silly shit that shouldnt matter to any of you , unless
>> of course you have no family, no loved ones, or no life. for those of
>> you that fit this description  we are truly sorry for taking any of
>> the joy out of what must most certainly be vastly important to your
>> sad little world. for those of you who dont fit such a description
>> then i urge you to  please for the love of the species and debate
>> everywhere have sex with something, someone if you can, but anything
>> is better than what you are doing to yourselves here.
>>
>> and in conclusion omri ceren should(note that this not will, in case
>> anybody offs that little bitch we are not responsible but are merely
>> intellectualy endorsing a good idea) be taken to gitmo or palestine to
>> see what his people are doing to the world (no this is not a
>> racialized perspective we take , but a political one,  there are many
>> jews among us that are in no way pro-occupation, fascism, or similar
>> forms of zionism purported by debates own little napoleon ) and upon
>> arriving at such places of depravity and subjugation we hope that omri
>> might either be compelled to change his mind  or would join his nazi
>> mother in the flaming pit of hell , hopefully by his own hand, but no
>> one is splitting hairs.
>>
>> yours truly,
>>
>>
>> the church of a pissed off zombie christ
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>     
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: akbiotech.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 397 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080404/239c81e6/attachment.vcf 



More information about the Mailman mailing list