Hey, EW: Where does Jackie conclude that physical exclusion (resources) means we shouldn't look at other issues like community norms? That's the part that angered me and you uniquely did it, without evidence, and you willingness to keep pushing without acknowledging what you did, only instead trying to rationalize it, only demonstrates your lack of goodwill.
JBH: He doesnt, I just basically said that: "Now, Jackie did write a long post about resources about a week or so ago... *Obviously, he said he saw it as one of three barriers...he hasnt gone into detail on the others*." Oddly enough this is ALSO WHAT I SAID IN THE DAMN ORIGINAL POST...I said Methods and Norms should also be in play.....Jebus, I didnt say your whole body of work should be ignored....My goodness, you even mentioned this in your second post where you pilloried me...I believe you called it tokenism or some other comment. Why in the world does this upset you so much, I have been saying for five years that resources are what caused the decline in CEDA...I found some author that came to some conclusions about economics in debate that I read for the first time last week and shared.....what in the heck is the deal man, If you are going to accuse me of something at least try to be accurate, Josh On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Ede Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good night. This is so much more important than what you are doing now. > > >>> > *From: * Josh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *To:* "Ede Warner" < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> *CC:* Ceda-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *Date: * 4/13/2008 12:43 AM > *Subject: * Re: [CEDA-L] Educational Reflections > There is a correlative relationship from where the study started > (budgets in 1991 about the start of CEDA decline - and my first year > coaching) and where it ended in 2006. If you put the decline in the > perspective of the time-line and add in his conclusions its certainly > correlative evidence as much as anything you or anyone else has posted. > > Now, Jackie did write a long post about resources about a week or so > ago...Obviously, he said he saw it as one of three barriers...he hasnt gone > into detail on the others. > > Josh > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Ede Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > No where does the Massey post make the argument that we should consider > > increasing resources instead of discussing community norms. Only you did. > > And no, your evidence doesn't support that conclusion. Your evidence > > supports that travel is related to the number of students we travel. In > > what world does that address with evidence the issue of who travels? > > > > >>> > > *From: * Josh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *To:* "Ede Warner" < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> *CC:* Ceda-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > *Date: * 4/13/2008 12:24 AM > > *Subject: * Re: [CEDA-L] Educational Reflections > > I have no problem with the quality of the evidence used...It was > > correlative, but stronger then the evidence anyone else has posted. Oddly > > enough Mr. J Massey also made a similar argument in depth a week ago and you > > said NOTHING. > > > > Josh > > > > On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Ede Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > In light of the post I just made about cultural differences, I eager > > > await Josh's advocacy of his goodwill, as opposed to only his criticism of > > > mine. May I propose that we come to some protocol for disagreement: mine > > > is > > > quality of evidence to support one's claims. What's yours Josh? I also > > > wonder when you will engage the content productively looking past my > > > goodwill issues. > > > > > > Ede Warner, Jr. > > > Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication > > > University of Louisville > > > 308E Strickler Hall > > > 502-852-3522 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://uofldebate.com/ > > > > > > >>> > > > *From: * Josh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *To:* "Ede Warner" < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> *CC:* Ceda-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *Date: > > > * 4/12/2008 11:49 AM *Subject: * Re: [CEDA-L] Educational Reflections > > > Hello "Fellow Directors and Coaches" > > > > > > I will be accused of obfuscation so I want to make clear...With some > > > exceptions I agree with many of Doctor Warners arguments here. I am > > > positing in relation to a comment he made at the bottom of this post: > > > > > > "3) Going forward. All I got is my goodwill. My personal evolution > > > is that I have followed in Plato's footsteps." > > > > > > I would like to question the "goodwill" part of this statement. > > > Yesterday, I wrote a post having, I guess, the temerity to suggest that > > > resource disparity was a "larger" threat to program survival than > > > "techne." > > > In response Doctor Warner posted the following as a "goodwill ambassador" > > > > > > EW: It almost seems as if you are just flailing, desperate for > > > anything to move the current debate in a different direction. That's > > > morbidly sad, but even worse, do you not understand that it's exactly the > > > quality of arguments made in these efforts to avoid the truth that keep > > > making me more convinced debate needs something different? The coach of a > > > late out-round team at the NDT makes an argument lacking basic reasoning > > > skills. > > > > > > EW: You look like a sad, under-educated self-serving obstructionist > > > that will do anything with and to evidence to justify and protect your > > > world. I'm sorry if this is harsh, but this is really frustrating to a > > > productive community conversation. Please stop. > > > > > > When I wrote a second email saying that I was venting my frustration > > > about personal issues related to funding at Michigan Doctor Warner > > > > > > EW: No pity parties or apologies today. Engage productively and with > > > some integrity or go away...This is bigger than your feelings or mine, > > > whether you see that or not. > > > > > > Oddly enough, today finds Doctor Warner running to CEDA-L - the place > > > created for Directors to speak without the usual "cruel" > > > edebate environment. > > > > > > I guess my point is beware of disagreeing with Mr. Plato. > > > > > > Again, I strongly suggest that the content of Doctor Warners thought > > > is worth investigating. However, dont have the timerity to disagree even > > > respectfully (I believe I was actually complementary in my response to his > > > insults). > > > > > > Josh > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
