> Jeezus H. Christ and his brother Ted. This is EXACTLY what Rob was > talking about as to why they don't publish writer numbers. > > I don't remember the specific question, but apparently enough people > thought it of sufficient quality to include it in a set. Thus your > point becomes "I didn't like that question; therefore all responsible > for it should be fired". For Pete's sake, stop making a mountain out of > every damn molehill that displeased you about the tournament. You -- > Mr. "for ten points each, name these three Bhutanese novelists" -- are > not the absolute arbiter of every issue of what makes a good quiz bowl > question. > > Doug You know, I wish just once someone would actually debate Matt (since he's taken the trouble to be logical, a rarity for some qbers) in a productive manner instead of resorting to these pissy contextless character assaulting responses. Since he was at one point a regular NAQT customer and since (and the information supports this) he has not given NAQT a dime in the last year, maybe he deserves to be heard, don't you think Doug? And if you don't know who those authors were (specifically what a 61 special is), I'm left to assume that you don't really know much at all with the general practices of the current quizbowl scene and your commentary on this entire issue is really not directed at the issue at all, but is more a regional axe you're grinding against Matt. Well then, well done sir! Maybe he's not the absolute arbiter of every issue with regards to a quizbowl q, but he's certainly a lot better a judge of the current goings-on in the circuit than you. Sean Phillips Who is at best satisfied w/ the answer to question two, but agrees w/ Dr. Chuck on question three, and is literally dumbfounded by why any SCT host or TD would have any incentive to up the number of bids that teams from his or her sectional would get to ICT.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST