[eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra

[Steven D'Amico]

Michael, you don't get sugar when you disrespect others. That's the
exception to the rule.

I think your reply just proves my point about your attitude of negativity.
But regardless, the resolutions are what they are. Now adapt.

Steve

On 5/24/07, Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>

> Look, I compliment Gordon's shapely buttocks each time I see him.  I still

> don't get no sugar for it, though.  Well, he winks back occasionally...

>

> No, I think GM is an apt analogy for the topic committee.  I think a big

> part of the problem is that people are working too hard, putting too much

> effort, and committing way too many resources into crafting resolutions.

> Bureaucratic expansion has developed for topic selection and the product

> reflects that.   The topic committee, after the huge effort put into

> resolution crafting, would never produce something like "Resolved:  The

> United States Federal Government should legalize marijuana."  That just

> seems too simple and straightforward, hardly justifying the institutional

> and personal resources devoted to resolutions.

>

> So we get "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should

> increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of:

> Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia,

> and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security

> guarantee(s) with Israel and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s)."  now,

> THAT is a Chevy Avalanche of a resolution, a fazzoli-style pickup/suv/atv

> worthy of GM!!!

>

> And just like GM will have its fanbois even while the Federal Government

> is putting together the bail-out package, the topic process too, has fanbois

> writing things like:

>

> "There is no doubt that the topics produced are a little wordy and

> somewhat jargonistic"  Yes, a little.  And because the Middle East is...

> wordy and jargonistic or something...  Good point.  I will not cheap-shot by

> pointing out that if the resolutional wording reflects the realities of the

> Middle East, then the Dixie might consider security against resolutional

> suicide-bombers.

>

> "Seriously, have you ever thought about leadership at all and how you

> should lead with praise before you rip into people?" Great advice, Dale...

> but... but... didn't you BEGIN your post with "Michael, Your attitude is

> insulting and condescending...  I don't even know you and I'm bothered.

> How does it feel to have someone dislike you just for what you typed on a

> web page?"  I am not tasting the honey there, Dale...  Where's MY sugar,

> bitch?

>

> "Your ACADEMIC chairs might understand there is a method to the madness of

> more complicated phrasing."  No... they aren't posers, either.  They would

> see it for what it is.

>

> "the reason the committee used a legalistic topic wording choice is it

> creates a more precise resolution - less suscesptible to squirrely affs

> outside of the controversy and less prone to niggling T debates."  Yeah, I

> had to look up "niggling" to make sure it wasn't related by blood to... that

> other word... you know...  that one of which Akon sings.  Yes, these

> resolutions are "precise".  They are "precise" in the same way as the

> steering of the Chevy Suburban is "precise".

>

> Okay, gotta run to the grocery store and get her some cream for her

> coffee...

>

> Michael Korcok

>

>

> ------------------------------

> Create the ultimate e-mail address book. Import your contacts to Windows

> Live Hotmail. Try it!<http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/managemail2.html?locale=en-us&ocid=RMT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_impcont_0507>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20070524/e89f0d29/attachment.htm