[eDebate] To James Doe

bandana martin drmosbornesq
Wed Aug 6 10:51:23 CDT 2008


I'm not sure how much of this post is directed at me (obviously I can
construe a reason why almost all of it is directed at me, and not just James
Doe) so I'll just discuss the parts with my name in them.

I never went for T against Towson so I'm going to assume that this
'situation' comes only from the KU comment. I seriously encourage anybody to
look up the video on youtube - search for <ermocito> and find the CEDA semis
video. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, I believe the comment in
question is made around 1:38:50 but if not I am not misleading anybody I
just have a piss-poor memory. If you interpret what I said there as "KU
deserves to be in semis, not you" then I'm actually surprised that whatever
patchwork of words I threw together in an attempt to apologize couldn't be
translated into an "I'm sorry." I do not remember my exact words at all
during my apology so I suppose I can't confirm 100% that I said the words
"I'm sorry" but my whole purpose in finding them was to apologize (I can
verify that to some extent with the gchat I had with Andy Ellis and an email
exchange with Jason Russell if anybody is interested) both for the
misunderstanding as well as any exclusion they felt as a result.

I wasn't glad that your feelings were hurt, and there is quite a bit more
debate about what I said in semis than there is regarding your comments
round 7 of the NDT. If part of your strategy is to hurt the feelings of
anybody who tries to apologize (so I/they can see what it's like - since
obviously I had no clue) then this community is in for a wild ride.

If you were just "too angry" to let me know what was going on at the time, I
can't really refute or resent that. Maybe it was just really good (or in my
case really bad) timing that you somehow found the words before our debate
in California. At the same time, it at least looks like a "punk move" of you
to accuse the debate community, myself included, of being afraid to uproot
racism when the only discussion-time I got was three debate rounds. Although
the initial comment was in the 2AR, it was not impossible for you to respond
to it. Had we never debated again, I don't honestly believe you would have
ever filled me in (certainly not to my face, which you at least pretend to
value). You didn't need to seek me out or anything to set me straight,
either, since I came to you (twice if you count the post-NDT,
post-competitive considerations airport encounter). I can't make you believe
the apologies I made a few months ago, and it's obviously within your rights
to question my sincerity. Regardless, I am not saying it a third time.

ozzy



On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Deven <bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> You get very passionate when you debate. That is great. But, you seem to
> understand, or at least acknowledge, that it makes some of your opponents
> uncomfortable. After debates, they may feel like you really don't like
> them.
> They may feel like you don't want to talk to them. If one of your opponents
>
> refuses to run anything but Topicality when they debate you, would you
> still
> want to talk to them? If they approach you in the hallway and offer a kind
> hello, will you do the same? Can you two be friends? This may seem really
> odd, and I am sorry for that. But you make arguments that address the way
> that debaters interact with each other outside of the debate round. Some of
>
> your charges are pretty heavy. So the question is. If Topicality is used to
>
> protect the structural norms that exclude you, and one of your opponents
> refuses to read anything but topicality, are you willing to put that fact
> aside outside of debates so that that debater and you can get along?
>
> Although I don't like when people just run T on us?we can def be friends
> with them later on?.there are quite a few people here at ADI that it would
> seem as though I wouldn't want to engage if the argument was true that I
> didn't want to be-friend people who run those things on us. If they were to
> speak I would def speak back?it wouldn't be any hard feelings unless it was
> like the situation Martin Osborne expressed where he felt Kansas BJ deserved
> to be in our place at CEDA because they were policy focus?I see he says that
> happened to him but it is no excuse that both of his apologies were
> insufficient?he never says I APOLOGIZE or IM SORRY?but kept making
> clarifications of what he was saying?.and in a sense I'm glad his feelings
> were hurt because it lets him feel the hurt that we feel after a lot of
> debate where we get fucked over. It was kind of a punk move to say it in the
> 2ar where we couldn't respond. But overall if he sincere about his apology
> then maybe I would believe him but I just don't?.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080806/1232b6d1/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list