Tue Mar 10 22:00:32 CDT 2009
Russell said the opposite.
scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote:
> Am I the only one who see the irony in Russell claiming moral indignation and a
> call for "rules" of enforcement for something as trivial as pre-round Aff. case
> disclosure, yet is baying at the moon about people's freedom to do anything they
> want within a round. Correct me if I am wrong, which is indeed a rare
> occurrence, but isn't the right NOT to speak just as valuable as the right to
> say anything you want? Jeezus, folks, you get 10 minutes prep, you have the
> most overly restrictive debate Franken-resolution ever created, and you have
> had a whole year to get links off of the elimination of nearly all subsidies.
> Is pre-round disclosures, in a world of topical affirmatives, even necessary?
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman