Re: "Covert" revision of D2 elligibility rules

• From: sdrossboss <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:25:18 -0000
• Message-ID: <c0bp8u+2rs3_at_...>

I'll take a step back here and acknowledge the fact that your opinion 
is valid inasmuch as you have the complete right to say what you want 
and I would not want the thread to deteriorate into a discussion 
about your personal opinions. I do however think it's also valid to 
point out that your disdain for NAQT is fairly ubiquitous and is 
clear in most of your posts - but you are right - this does not mean 
the discussion of this issue stops here - with enough attention (and 
I think this has happened) NAQT will know not to make the mistakes 
they have. It does seem pretty clear to me that everything that is 
going to be done has been done on this issue though.

Ross
--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "Matt Weiner" 
<darwins_bulldog1138_at_y...> wrote:
> Uh, I thought we were talking about the UCLA D2 situation? Not sure 
what my
> history has to do with anything. In any case, I already posted that 
the
> situation is "entirely, 100% NAQT's fault" that "I have no reason 
to doubt
> that the UCLA people are telling the truth" that NAQT "let UCLA, 
which was
> innocent in the whole matter, take the blame for it" et cetera, so 
where you
> get the idea that I'm casting aspersions on the character of the 
UCLA
> people, I don't know.
> 
> In a more general sense, I'm pretty sick of people trying to bury 
each
> other's points under an avalanche of "here's everything I disagree 
with you
> about from the last four years." Why does the fact that I don't 
like NAQT
> (which means that I don't like the sum result of its product, not 
that I
> find every single thing they do to be in error) mean my opinion 
here is
> invalid? Is the notion that NAQT is good a fundamental axiom of the 
debate,
> or are you just trying to fill the board with ad homines because 
you have no
> real counter to the actual argument? In short, if you disagree with 
someone,
> *explain why they are wrong* rather than ranting about how they 
must be
> "biased" or whatever other code word you might have for "not 
agreeing with
> the prior post which was self-evidently correct and should not be
> challenged!"
> 
> There's a lot more to this discussion, and I hope it's not derailed 
by this
> terrible qb predication towards personal bickering. For example: I 
would
> like to see someone address the whole idea of using D2 eligibility 
as just
> another bargaining chip and what that implies about NAQT's faith in 
its own
> rules, the community college exception, and the fact that most 
sectionals
> had more D2 teams than D1, and what that implies about D2's impact 
on the
> health of the circuit in general.