Granted, I’m no sports scholar, and this has nothing to do with forensics, but the Pennsylvania team playing in this year’s world series demonstrates what can only be called a lack of basic metanarrative skills. The Philadephia Phillies? Isn’t that the same as the Atlanta Atlantans or the New York New Yorkers? The Boston Bostonians? The Monticello Montwegians? That’s the best they could do? Then again, I have to admit I can’t figure out what kind of rays Tampa Bay is talking about. Sunshine? Manta? I’m inclined to the former, but wish it were the latter. In which case, the Tampa Bay Sunshines does sound a bit…fey. Like they should be singing “It’s A Small World After All” in the dugout and wearing lots of happy-face attire. But as I say, what do I know? And we have now exhausted this year’s coachean supply of sports talk. See you next season.
I’ve begun getting strikes/ratings for Jake, which I’ll input at some point. Word of advice: when you send them to me, don’t use as your subject line GOD BLES YOU KINDNESS nor anything that sounds as if it will get me a date tonight or improve the quality of that date if it actually happens.
In follow-up news, Jessica Rabbit, if you follow the comments, claims that speaker points somehow don’t matter, as long as the right team wins, and further, that speaker points should be connected not to one’s skill as a speaker but one’s sense of humor. Tell that to the 33rd seed. (BTW, I had no intention of outing Mrs. Rabbit, and take no responsibility for same.)
Back on the subject of Jake, I am now getting 5 emails a minute from O’C, facilitated by his damned iPhone, which means that he can text anywhere, any time. We have concluded that I am schlepping all the usual hardware to whatever schools the tournament happens to be taking place in, which means Little Elvis will be with me, so maybe Ryan and I can get some YDKJ in (it’s been a while). I’ll create a spreadsheet today for all the judges to sort that out for striking/ranking purposes, same as I do for Bump. But I’ll wait on the strikes: with drops and stuff, the sooner you put them in, the less likely they’ll all be in place. In any case, I will pull down the data from the Goy on Wednesday night, and get started on sorting things out.
Tonight the Sailors convene, and we will discuss retributive justice (i.e., what you do to people who break laws), among other issues. When I get home I’ll sort out the MHL policy results; I did LD and PF last night and forgot that I had Policy as well on my flash drive. So, one more thing.
And I just sent in a jury duty questionnaire. Pearl Street. This does not look good. Which tournament will I not be able to go to? Let’s start a betting pool. On the other hand, what lawyer wants a debate coach slash tree-hugging book editor on a panel? Interesting situation.
2 comments:
Last comment and then Menick and I can go back to continuing our long streak of being chums (which was only interrupted that one time I struck him for Big Bronx even though he was tabbing). It's not that I only give 30s to funny people or anything like that. A funny debater is much more compelling to give good speaker points to than a debater that does everything right but is bland. At one of the debates prior to the Democratic primaries, back when it looked like a three way race between Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, Bill Richardson gained positive reviews for showing off a good sense of humor. He didn't throw any pies or completely make a fool of himself- rather, he was able to address the issues while seeming funny, which made him much more interesting to listen to. I'm not suggesting that it's okay to be stupid and funny in a round... somebody who did that would receive awful speaker points from me. It's just that if you're good but nothing special, you'll get a 28-29. If you make me enjoy your speeches, either because you're funny or you're persuasive or you are able to beat the spread with amazing grouping or you just make so much sense that I want to move to Africa and feed starving children, you will get a 30 with me as your judge. These guys happened to be funny, which is what I told Menick when he asked why I gave out two 30s. If I had been moved to tears by the speech, that's what I would have told Menick when he asked that question. Just because of one really good round, I don't see why my credibility as a judge has disintegrated. BTW- Adam Sandler is an idiot... he'd get the 22 in my round. I feel like Nietzsche's accent could be a little troublesome, however.
i am inclined to think that the ability to successfully deliver a joke is one of the indicating factors for whether or not someone is a good speaker.
Post a Comment