[eDebate] Darren Surch's post

Geoff Lundeen lundeeng
Thu Aug 21 23:41:54 CDT 2008


I signed the petition.  I was also a bit troubled with some of the specific
language in the petition, as a "smear campaign" may attribute more malicious
intent than was present, as well as perhaps imply that there was deliberate
misinformation.  However, I signed the petition in the hopes that it might
make *some* difference in the eyes of the FHSU administrators who will
ultimately make the decision concerning Bill's future employment.  Despite
my reservations concerning the wording in that phrase, I think that I will
sleep fine tonight anyway, for a couple of reasons:


However, the *language* of the petition goes beyond an expression of support
>
> for Bill, and not-so-subtly calls out Towson for engaging in a smear
> campaign.
>

Not exactly.  It does not name Towson, it names "a debater and a former
coach".  It references the actions, *I assume* of Adam Jackson, and Andy
Ellis.  Andy no longer works for Towson, Adam is a single member of the
team, and it does not attribute uniformity of intent/smear activity to the
Towson team.

At best -- and I mean at absolute very best -- we cannot know what motivated
>
>
those that posted the clip to youtube. To attribute it to a formal "smear
> campaign " is really quite aggressive step in my opinion.
>
More aggressive than publicly encouraging the debate community to do
everything in their power to get Bill fired?  Or calling him a "dangerous
and violent man"?


Irrespective of whether you agree with the decision to post the clip to
> youtube, it seems that signing *that* specific petition entails:
>
> a) Questioning the stated motivations for posting (re-read the posts --
> some
> motivations are stated),


Which stated motivations were you referring to?  The aforementioned post (
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075482.html) from Andy,
or the post from Adam asking the debate community to "ENJOY" the "FIGHT
YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR"?  (In which case the motivation is... pleasure in
reliving one of the debate communities worse moments?)


AND:
> b) assuming that the *real* motivation was something significantly more
> sinister.


I think it assumes the motivation is partially related to a.) publicly
damaging Bill's reputation, and/or b.) encouraging he be dismissed from his
position at FHSU.  Do Adam and Andy's posts really leave that much ambiguity
on this question?

That's kind of an awful thing to say in my opinion.

...I'm not ready to say it.


I agree that the wording was somewhat troubling, but I was willing to sign
the petition, because I don't think it's message is *that* far off the mark.

Signing the petition doesn't mean I agreed with Bill's aggressive posturing,
or him dropping his pants, etc.  It does mean that I think that publicly
calling for someone's job because of a fight following the postround of a
particularly emotionally charged debate is an overreaction, and a dangerous
precedent.

One other thing I'm kind of bothered about-- In an earlier post, it was
mentioned that "Omar declined to be shown in the video"-- does this mean
someone contacted him to ask his permission?  Was that same courtesy
extended to Shanara or Bill, or Toni, or Mike, or any of the other people
shown in the video?  And if not, why not?

Geoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080822/c2588d32/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list