[eDebate] Geez - We have no method......

[debate at ou.edu]

So let me get this scenario straight here.  Ken makes a post targeted at me and I respond.

I say he is kissing ass if he does not believe shady shit happens in this community  (not necc at the topic 
meeting).

Then josh chimes in cuz I was too harsh on Ken and never discusses any of the resolutions or discussions or 
issues that ken or I was talking about.

Then, Josh calls himself "aka Topic Committee Asskisser"   - so I refer to him as this, and now I am the one who 
has did all this serious bad stuff?

I guess things just arent gonna work out in my favor huh?

No answers no apologies?  For what ? Being harassed by you?

I cant type anymore, I am laughing so hard.

Massey


> Typos not relevent.....guess what never mentioned them....what are you

> talking about?

> 

> "Topic Committee Ass Kisser" comment proves my point...getting mad 

> at me for

> calling out your rudeness is not exactly a successful tactic.  Nor 

> does it

> change the subject from your rudeness to the committee and its 

> members to

> your hatred of me...Not playing.

> 

> Dont need me to interpret anything - I used direct quotes from you 

> that you

> dont even try to explain your way out of.  Pure contempt.  No 

> answer, no

> apologies, just more rudeness and unprofessionalism.

> 

> Broad resolutions, cool, go for it....Not the point...Once again 

> you can

> keep obfuscating but the point is you have contempt for everyone 

> and were

> rude to Ken for no reason.

> 

> Josh

> 

> 

> 

> 

> On 5/7/06, debate at ou.edu <debate at ou.edu> wrote:

> >

> > Topic Comittee Ass Kisser,

> >

> >

> > Did the typo errors bother you?  I guess that proves I cant live 

> up to

> > your standards.

> >

> > Should I wear a scarlet letter A to the meeting, so everyone can 

> know i am

> > the egocentric dumbass that knows

> > nothing about debate and must have josh hoe interpret what I say so

> > everyone can understand.

> >

> > Us dumb people that like broad resolutions and dont need it 

> explicated in

> > the resolution might need directions

> > to KC, you got any josh?

> >

> > Jackie

> >

> >

> >

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: Josh Hoe <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>

> > Date: Sunday, May 7, 2006 11:59 am

> > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Geez - We have no method......

> >

> > > Hello,

> > >

> > > Two things were exposed by this email:

> > >

> > > 1.  People who support traditional topic construction are sheep

> > >

> > > "I think this explains how the cattle is herded, but what are the

> > > pillars of

> > > pedigogy utilized to create a topic wording."

> > >

> > > It sure is nice that Jackie is around to set us all straight about

> > > what the

> > > liberatory pedagogy is...Golly gee, and before I met Jack I looked

> > > and acted

> > > just like sheep...Thank goodness for the Jackie method....Thank 

> God> > he is

> > > coming to save us all with his liberatory methods.  Jack brand

> > > Topics "thank

> > > goodness."

> > >

> > > 2. The topic committee and relationship to the larges community 

> are> > mostcharacterized by shadiness.

> > >

> > > "If you want to say nothing "shady" happens in this community

> > > dealing with

> > > rules, what the topic areas are and other issues, then you are

> > > really just

> > > kissing some a$$ right now."

> > >

> > > Yes, its true, even though he is leaving the community he just HAD

> > > to smooch

> > > some ass before he left.  You are so wise....Your backhanded "I am

> > > surepeople really try" stuff is exposed for what it is nonsense.

> > > You are on a

> > > crusade and the topic committee will feel your crusading presence

> > > soon.

> > > Most important, you are right, I know when I was on the topic

> > > committee we

> > > got together in our secret community circumventing meeting 

> prior to

> > > the open

> > > meeting....We planned out the arguments we would have before hand

> > > so it

> > > would appear we didnt have a real common agenda....We agreed on

> > > which topic

> > > we would write ahead of time and the other topics were just

> > > smokescreens so

> > > that we would never have a broad topic again.

> > >

> > > Most important, it is obvious that you have contempt for the 

> people> > and the

> > > process.  Not sure why anyone should give you the consideration 

> you> > expectof them given your open superiority and contempt.

> > >

> > > Maybe that wasnt what you intended?  If not, your frustrations 

> with> > theprocess are igniting some reactions that maybe are a bit 

> over> > the line?

> > >

> > > I am looking forward to the "Post Topic Committee" Jackie report

> > > which I

> > > suspect will read like somewhat like the Weekly World News.

> > >

> > > Frankly, this isnt even about broad or limited topics....As you

> > > know, I like

> > > limited topics, but I am more than willing to go with a "Jackie"

> > > topic once

> > > as an experiment...I, for one, cant wait to see the miraculous

> > > effects.

> > > Josh

> > > aka topic committee ass kisser

> > >

> >

> >

>