Jump to content
giantchkn

PFI Invitation available now!

Recommended Posts

I know it wasn't the focus of the round, but I still don't give a damn about those 9000 horses. Factory farming makes 9000 horses per year look like free pie and ice cream served by beautiful naked women surrounded by PFI mugs.

 

Also, any biodiversity block from two years ago would slaughter your advantage especially since there's no specific link between the loss of wild horses and complete extinction.

 

That misses the point of our case- we dont claim some outlandish impact, like complete extinction of the planet. We only claim (and prove) that failure to act will cause the extinction of these horses. And even if you may not care about them- the probem is easy to fix, and therefore there is no reason why you would not want to fix it. We dont have to solve for everything under the resolution, just this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That misses the point of our case- we dont claim some outlandish impact, like complete extinction of the planet. We only claim (and prove) that failure to act will cause the extinction of these horses. And even if you may not care about them- the probem is easy to fix, and therefore there is no reason why you would not want to fix it. We dont have to solve for everything under the resolution, just this.

Even if the problem is easy to fix, any disad will give a reason not to fix it. Any risk of extinction or nuclear war or even just plain war will outweigh. You even admit that it is a small impact that I (as the judge) might not care about.

 

Fine, criticize the "outlandish" impacts that most debaters use, but understand the reasons that they exist. Maybe you win the probability debate, but you are getting wrecked on magnitude, and since your advantage isn't going to be an absolute certainty either...I vote on the disad. I don't have to think nuclear war is likely, just that it is overall (combining magnitude, time frame, and probability) worse than the death of some horses. If you don't claim extinction as a terminal impact, you are easy to beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as much as i hate agreing with jeff, he's right.

even a "reasonable" disad, say an economy disad, will outweigh greatly.

better still, its cases like yours which are PRIME for plan-plan. its the very reason why plan plan exists, and in instances like yours, the judges are going to sympathize with the negative heavily and ignore any arguments you make on "we're here to debate the AFF case" etc.

 

i like the case because its quirky and funny. i was laughing for half the round because it was so ridiculous. but thats because i am the king of ridiculous ideas. if you heard me mouthing off about next year's case... you definitely understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I both agree and disagree with Jeff/Ankur.

 

I agree that you need a significant impact -- not for theoretical purposes but for strategic ones. The AFF needs to be able to whether the storm of DAs/CPs/Ks that will claim huge impacts. Even if the AFF can shred NEG "offense," a decent NEG will at least pull through some risk of DA. Having some "oomph" to your case means the NEG needs to either win some battles on case, or totally dominate [some aspect of] the off case debate. Swaying me to "lean" NEG on a DA usually isn't enough when the NEG drops a well-impacted case cold.

 

But I disagree that the terminal impact needs to be extinction. While the overly simplistic models that we use to calculate weight may be the norm, they're not automatic. Risk x magnitude = impact is a downright laughable way to judge in *some* rounds. I only wish more rounds came down to something like:

 

90% chance of solving tangible, realistic problem (e.g. closing $250M budget loophole)

 

vs.

 

10% chance of A ---> 1% chance of B ---> .00001% of terminal impact (extinction)

 

We all know that the AFF *could* claim a terminal impact there. But is it right? Is that budget issue really going to hold the future of mankind in the balance?

 

Perhaps debates would be more interesting if teams stuck to their own case's realistic limits, then attacked differing risk analysis paradigms head on.

 

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if the problem is easy to fix, any disad will give a reason not to fix it. Any risk of extinction or nuclear war or even just plain war will outweigh.
If I were running a squirrell case, I wouldn't be worried about the crap stock DAs outweighing. Given the (lack of) quality of DAs nowadays, clever AFFs should look forward to all the takeouts and turns they can run.

 

Fine, criticize the "outlandish" impacts that most debaters use, but understand the reasons that they exist. Maybe you win the probability debate, but you are getting wrecked on magnitude, and since your advantage isn't going to be an absolute certainty either...I vote on the disad. I don't have to think nuclear war is likely, just that it is overall (combining magnitude, time frame, and probability) worse than the death of some horses. If you don't claim extinction as a terminal impact, you are easy to beat.
I've heard the case exactly once, and skimmed through it before a tournament once.

 

I think Andrew's comments here are slow-rolling it a little bit. It's not "let's save the lives of a few horses" and that's it. There's a biodiv impact. There's a moral imperative (which Ankur correctly notes should be removed/modified). There's an economic impact, albeit one without a terminal impact.

 

Truth be told, if the NEG drops case cold and goes for a DA, they're going to have to run one doozy of a DA and dominate the flow, unless they explicitly claim that the impact turns back case and win that. The case claims some decent impacts (although they're shaky and could be mitigated with some good analytics).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first,

i love probability analysis. i used it as a debater and won on it in some crucial situations. but your kids didnt do probability analysis. doing probability analysis requires more than "oh thats not a reasonable effect of plan" or "a reasonable person doesnt link saving horses with nuclear war" or even the statement "its just not likely."

that isnt even remotely close to being considered probability analysis.

 

but then that suffers a huge problem in your case

 

in the absence of "unreal impacts" you have absolutely ZERO impacts to your case outside of saving some horses (and maybe the couple million dollars or something?). you dont get a biodiversity advantage because then you must prove unique link that the entire earth sits on top of these horses as the keystone in the food web pyramid. as a biologist, i am going to be 100% unconvinced by any evidence you fabricate to say that.

 

all your terminal impacts will suffer the SAME problems as the "unreal" disad impacts. you have about a one in one million chance that the extinction of that species of horses will produce a noticable impact on their local ecosystem and you have about a one in one trillion chance that the horses, a species towards the TOP of the food chain is going to cause harm when extinct.

 

so yeah, you have no impact.

 

 

 

and to be entirely fair,

the wang said the moral interp needs to go first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ankur, I was speaking generally and not about what happened in-round.

 

I know the probability analysis didn't take place, and I have no beef whatsoever with your analysis/decision.

 

I am tempted, however, to point out how you inserting your biology background borders on intervention. But that's just me wanting to be a prick. :)

 

and to be entirely fair,

the wang said the moral interp needs to go first.

 

I agreed with almost everything all 3 judges said after the round (which is odd considering it was a split decision). The one thing that was dead wrong was "The Wang" claiming that the case is effects-T because the impacts aren't from the "detention" but what happens later. I've judged him several times and he's just much, much smarter than that. "Advantages don't have to be topical" = Day 1 stuff.

 

Because of that, I'm inclined to give credit for the good ideas expressed by several judges in the critique to Ankur, Ben...anyone but Louis.

 

Just this once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankur, I was speaking generally and not about what happened in-round.

 

I know the probability analysis didn't take place, and I have no beef whatsoever with your analysis/decision.

 

I am tempted, however, to point out how you inserting your biology background borders on intervention. But that's just me wanting to be a prick. :)

 

 

 

I agreed with almost everything all 3 judges said after the round (which is odd considering it was a split decision). The one thing that was dead wrong was "The Wang" claiming that the case is effects-T because the impacts aren't from the "detention" but what happens later. I've judged him several times and he's just much, much smarter than that. "Advantages don't have to be topical" = Day 1 stuff.

 

Because of that, I'm inclined to give credit for the good ideas expressed by several judges in the critique to Ankur, Ben...anyone but Louis.

 

Just this once.

 

 

i never said i am tab rasa.

and using factual knowledge you already have (as opposed to opinions) is what makes judges different and what makes panels interesting. intervention is when a judge exerts his or her opinions in the decision calculus. i am unconvinced by the evidence you could or would present that those horses are the unique key to global ecosystem without some SERIOUS biology behind it. its no different than how you might expect a financial analyst to be somewhat more skeptical of the mead 92 or mead 98 evidence. it is only logical to assume that a judge with expertise in a particular area will have a higher threshold on the argument. as a whole, i am unconvinced by most environmental/biological impacts read in debate - by both sides.

 

know your judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, Bergmaier, If you don’t like my oral critiques, next time just walk out of the room then with your team. That’s okay with me because I get out earlier.

 

I should have known you would complain. It’s not like you actually listen to what’s said, kind of like that time you dropped me on a moral imperative that wasn’t in the 1AC, 2AC, or 1AR and was merely concocted in the 2AR. Why don’t you ask the other team about that round?

 

So here’s what’s wrong with the case on the topicality level.

 

The case is grossly effects topical. You end the Bureau of Land Management Adoption Program, the key being adoption. That means all the case functionally does is end adoptions of horses. To prove this, my plan text can be: the Bureau of Land Management will end the detainment of horses. This is no way inhibits the progress of the adoption program. I can still take a rancher out and tell him: here, you take that horse. Your case doesn’t affect the basis for the authority to detain. The plan in no way stops the Bureau of Land Management for rounding up and detaining wild horses anyways. Getting rid of the adoption program doesn’t stop that authority. Rather, it would only lead to them not using the authority because detaining them might be useless. Even if you claimed that you ended all horse detainments, you would just be extra topical since ending the adoption program is in addition to ending detainments. And if this were my neg round, I would say there’s abuse too because you use all the extra topical plan planks to outweigh my sweet politics disad. And you want a moral imperative? Nuclear war kills all horses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say there’s abuse too because you use all the extra topical plan planks to outweigh my sweet politics disad.

 

there is no such thing as a sweet politics disad... only politics disads missing meaningful internal links... i.e. non-disads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, Bergmaier, If you don’t like my oral critiques, next time just walk out of the room then with your team. That’s okay with me because I get out earlier.

Get over yourself. I found ONE (1) very minor thing to criticize with respect to your oral critique and made a joke out of it.

 

I didn't criticize your decision.

 

I didn't criticize the reasoning behind your decision.

 

I didn't criticize anything else in the dozens of tips, suggestions, and interpretations you brought up.

 

That's because I agreed with them.

 

I found one point of contention with regards to a HYPOTHETICAL argument mentioned in passing. It had no bearing on the round, and you properly knew that. I disagreed with your evaluation, and still managed to compliment you to boot. Get over it.

 

The written word is a pain in the ass because it's difficult to express tone, and apparently you didn't pick up on the tongue-in-cheek nature of my last message.

 

I should have known you would complain. It’s not like you actually listen to what’s said, kind of like that time you dropped me on a moral imperative that wasn’t in the 1AC, 2AC, or 1AR and was merely concocted in the 2AR. Why don’t you ask the other team about that round?

Wow. Bitter much?

 

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you over a round that took place 2 (or 3?) seasons ago. We disagreed, and while some (read: not me) judges would characterize a debater contacting the judge to argue the decision as arrogant, I had no problem with it. You kept it civil and private.

 

Now, you're going to rehash a round that you lost (was it 2-1 or 3-0?) years ago and you're going to misrepresent my decision on a public message board. And why? Because I made a sideways crack at some irrelevant remark you made in an "I expect better from him" vein?

 

Real classy.

 

It almost makes me wish I did intervene, and almost makes me wish it was a 1-judge panel. Almost.

 

So here’s what’s wrong with the case on the topicality level.

 

The case is grossly effects topical. You end the Bureau of Land Management Adoption Program, the key being adoption. That means all the case functionally does is end adoptions of horses. To prove this, my plan text can be: the Bureau of Land Management will end the detainment of horses. This is no way inhibits the progress of the adoption program. I can still take a rancher out and tell him: here, you take that horse. Your case doesn’t affect the basis for the authority to detain. The plan in no way stops the Bureau of Land Management for rounding up and detaining wild horses anyways. Getting rid of the adoption program doesn’t stop that authority. Rather, it would only lead to them not using the authority because detaining them might be useless. Even if you claimed that you ended all horse detainments, you would just be extra topical since ending the adoption program is in addition to ending detainments. And if this were my neg round, I would say there’s abuse too because you use all the extra topical plan planks to outweigh my sweet politics disad. And you want a moral imperative? Nuclear war kills all horses.

It's not my case, so I won't get into a huge thing over this.

 

Your analysis here makes more sense than what you brought up in the critique. But still, it's not an FX-T argument. You could spin it as X-T, as you point out.

 

Perhaps the plan text should be reworked a bit to reflect more clearly that the plan bans the detention rather than the "adoption program." Of course, it's a bit of a stretch to think that the adoptions would go on if the horses are never detained. If the USFG is decreasing its authority to detain, it almost necessarily decreases its authority to convey ownership to a third party. It's enforcement, legislative intent, etc.

 

You may have a point about "authority," but that's an entirely different argument that I think the NEG can weather because all non-judicial fiat AFFs violate it in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this pointless spat reflects a bigger problem when it comes to the education and growth of judges. Everyone in the debate community needs to be able to openly discuss paradigms, conventions, decisions, etc.

 

Too many judges in this area, in particular, are isolated. We only discuss their decisions behind their backs, or in a negative light. A fair and impersonal scrutiny of things helps us all improve.

 

While some on "the circuit" understand this, others (particularly newer judges) are excluded. Either due to a desire not to offend, or a tacit dismissal of someone as a "lay judge," we mutter under our breath but rarely do anything inclusive to remedy the problem.

 

On the other side of the coin, oversensitivity can work both ways. We avoid confronting judges, but what happens when the slightest criticism is leveled at us?

 

Maybe Louis is just having a bad day, or whatever. I know I am. But when the punyist of disagreements turns personal, it has a chilling effect on future growth. Why provide even the most constructive of criticism to another judge, coach, debater, etc., if everyone gets personal and defensive. If someone criticizes my students, I guess I shouldn't help them learn for it. I should just criticize the critic's students! Hell, let's all get down and dirty with the mudslinging and just never address our own imperfections.

 

There's probably some larger problem in the community with the relatively inbred nature of theory, alliances, etc. But for the sake of everyone improving, can't we all just get along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Get over yourself. I found ONE (1) very minor thing to criticize with respect to your oral critique and made a joke out of it.

 

I didn't criticize your decision.

 

I didn't criticize the reasoning behind your decision.

 

I didn't criticize anything else in the dozens of tips, suggestions, and interpretations you brought up.

 

That's because I agreed with them.

 

I found one point of contention with regards to a HYPOTHETICAL argument mentioned in passing. It had no bearing on the round, and you properly knew that. I disagreed with your evaluation, and still managed to compliment you to boot. Get over it.

 

The written word is a pain in the ass because it's difficult to express tone, and apparently you didn't pick up on the tongue-in-cheek nature of my last message.

 

 

Wow. Bitter much?

 

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you over a round that took place 2 (or 3?) seasons ago. We disagreed, and while some (read: not me) judges would characterize a debater contacting the judge to argue the decision as arrogant, I had no problem with it. You kept it civil and private.

 

Now, you're going to rehash a round that you lost (was it 2-1 or 3-0?) years ago and you're going to misrepresent my decision on a public message board. And why? Because I made a sideways crack at some irrelevant remark you made in an "I expect better from him" vein?

 

Real classy.

 

It almost makes me wish I did intervene, and almost makes me wish it was a 1-judge panel. Almost.

 

It's not my case, so I won't get into a huge thing over this.

 

Your analysis here makes more sense than what you brought up in the critique. But still, it's not an FX-T argument. You could spin it as X-T, as you point out.

 

Perhaps the plan text should be reworked a bit to reflect more clearly that the plan bans the detention rather than the "adoption program." Of course, it's a bit of a stretch to think that the adoptions would go on if the horses are never detained. If the USFG is decreasing its authority to detain, it almost necessarily decreases its authority to convey ownership to a third party. It's enforcement, legislative intent, etc.

 

You may have a point about "authority," but that's an entirely different argument that I think the NEG can weather because all non-judicial fiat AFFs violate it in some way.

 

Couple things:

 

1) I admit that I've been an ass on this forum, but I've done it openly and already apologized-- and my only huge foul has been claiming to be a better debater than a few people that I wasn't better than...

 

2) Bergmaier,

 

a) You made at least one post about Louis in a "behind his back" sorta way. You may or may not have noticed that he is never on these boards. He has made 36 posts total. You said he was good, but that he didn't know Day 1 stuff: advantages can be non-resolutional, etc. You go on to say that this discredits the legitimacy of his entire decision in the round: "Because of that, I'm inclined to give credit for the good ideas expressed by several judges in the critique to Ankur, Ben...anyone but Louis.". He responds telling you exactly why the case is F/X as it is (you can still detain post-plan but there is nothing effective to do with them without the adoption program so the detention will fade out... thats what i'm hearing), and extra at best (must end both more detention and adoption to solve-- i'm guessing that this is some general husbandry bad stuff that you would get from the notion of "adopting" versus detaining-- which you don't know either I'm gathering since you say its not your case).

 

B) The amazing thing about being passive aggressive is that you can go back and say (and convince some people) that you were joking afterwards. I guess I'm on the fence right now: Was Louis qualified to judge that round? You say that you didn't criticize his decision, only the one point... but I thought the part that I quoted above said something else...

 

c) Sure Louis has a bit of an ego: he was a national champion as a sophmore, was the best debater in the state last year, and can correct me on theory sometimes. Maybe he wouldn've gone off if you didn't start saying stuff about "a HYPOTHETICAL argument" mentioned in passing (that he was able to clarify here and probably could've done so at the tourney itself if you asked him about it)

 

d) Just to put it out there, I'm still a tiny bit bent about 3 of the 4 times you judged me. The first time, you picked me and Guy up against Mangels when Guy cross-applied the entire Decol CP flow onto the Col K flow. For awhile, I actually thought that I won that round. The second time, dropped me at Joe's on the Oceans topic-- and I think it was on the same magical moral imperative type argument in the 2ar against Harriton's ballast water case. The third time, I spent 20 seconds on biz con in the 1AR at NFL quals after Peter Will's analysis was "it has an ok probability and a pretty good magnitude"... I went for cetacean genocide hard core... rejection of it since it was conceded as the biggest impact with 100% probability since it was happening (experiments, i think were in that version of the aff)... and then extended the relatively unanswered non-uniques (no commercial whaling in the U.s. now), no-link, no spillover (its been so long that U.S. companies have forgotten that whales can be used as food) etc... so that Guy could blow them up. Yes, this was a gutsy move, but I distinctly remember you talking to me afterwards like I must've intentionally threw the round-- didn't much appreciate that. Almost as bad as the time that someone looked at me after I went for T for 5 minutes in the 1NR after the round and said, "the case is clearly topical, its in the ocean, why are you wasting your time?" (hooray PFI 2004).

 

My point here... not to bring up the past as something to rehash because it doesn't matter... more so to build a basis of where we are coming from. Over the course of the last 3 years, I have shared all of these stories with Louis (multiple times) and Jeff was actually on two of the panels in the rounds mentioned above. So "bitter much?" and "real classy"... perhaps... but it is probably important to keep these things in perspective. And, we are still young kids without any real direction in life.

 

e) You should probably read the case literature thoroughly before you vigorously discuss a decision at all.

 

f) The debate community should be symbiotic (or something...). We (louis and I in this sense) have things to gain from your understanding of the event, just as you have stuff to gain from our perspective. Needless to say, we can all gain from everyone else too. After the NFL quals round, I never made a 1AR like that again (as far as I remember)... and I can say that it was probably because of you, since I thought you were going to follow the decision for it. I feel sometimes that when you are posting, you put yourself into positions where you are closed minded though: kinda like when I was arguing with the WGLF about the 'always already' impending imp/explosion of the sun after reading maybe 1/2 a book about phenomenology. I'm not saying that you know nothing about debate, I'm saying that maybe integrating some of the predominant views of the community

(in some non-normalizing way) would perhaps make these skirmishes end.

 

3) By the way, this is all a joke... especially the part about me not being a better debater than Louis... I totally smoked him on that Exclude Turkey CP...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I'm still racking my brain trying to find a way how you can justify picking guy and lachey up that round when they dropped 4 case turns at the bottom of the K flow and you give me the analysis at the end of the round that "you dropped aff case." When i problematized the framework, that's answering the case for me. Again, this isn't me just being bitter, this is me now acting as a coach trying to discover how best to advise my teams on how to adapt to specific judges.

I'm not sure if it was you, but supposedly one of the judges (i think from your school) told my team that he really liked the story on Foucault but asked them at the end of the round if it linked to every aff case. They said yes, because i wrote the shell so incredible like that, to which said judge responded then i can't vote on it. Fortunate my debater didn't listen to me that round, and went for more than one argument in the 2nr.

Now I'm not going to say that's you or blame you for that decision, that's just to show that it's not just an issue of being bitter, I as a coach am forced to give advice to tell my team how to debate. I'm still trigger shy from a round where you judged me 3 years ago, because i'm 90% convinced you're just not going to listen to an off case strat which is how i prepped my team this year. So it's not just useless criticism. Maybe the "I hate Villager" thread that i started a few years ago because I was absolutely irate about that quarters decision was useless, but it did force a response from you that attempted to give some sort of rationale for a decision.

I'm not going to defend Louis's critique or decision because i wasn't sitting in on the round. I was busy watching the LaSalle-Meyers round. I just felt that lachey's point about past history needed further defense and a coach's perspective. And if it seems like I'm attacking you, I'm not. In the scheme of things it didn't matter that you dropped me because i'd have hit my A team next round (we were B) and dropped on a coach's decision. But that won't be the scenario if my team draws you at a different tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and Lachey, i'm embarrased for you that you ever thought you actually won that round. Your 1ar dropped four case turns bud, i'm not sure what you were thinking.

 

I was thinking that it was my first big tournament and I was sick (which I really was super duper not well-- strep i think it was)... and I wanted to feel the glory... at that point i still had no idea what i was doing really too... since i was in a bad lab at camp and had no real background before then... Later I realized that it was probably the most illegitimate win of my career... if only second to a Meyer's final where the 2nr- my partner- had been out of the game for a year and just kinda talked about stuff... and the judges all voted on the 1nc shells that i wrote because they were cool...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bergmaier,

 

You made this really personal when you criticized me for not knowing “day 1 stuff.” I think it’s you that needs to go back to day 1 of civility. The fact that you pretended to have said those comments in good fun astonishes me. That was really "classy." I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone that thought your original post was “reasonably” joking. “Anyone but Louis” doesn’t sound too friendly to me. When you attack my intellect, that’s when it gets personal. If you didn’t want to sound so passive aggressive, you could have worded your comments in a different manner. In any case, at least take responsibility for the words you choose or in your terms, be more sensitive.

 

If you want to talk about me misrepresenting your decision, I’d be glad to dig out that ballot and show you your RFD for the round.

 

About the round and my comments on the topicality of the plan, the text definitely refers to the “adoption program.” Moreover, the BLM would still be able to convey ownership to a third party even if it were not allowed to detain because it already owns, legally, the horses. The horses reside on government land and therefore are government property to begin with. The fact they are rounded up has nothing to do with the adoption. It’s definitely effects topical unless you change the plan text.

 

Regarding what Josh said, I don’t think you are very open to discussing ideas yourself. You seem to assert that my argument was “dead wrong” without any analysis. At least justify your criticisms.

 

Regarding the “chilling effect on future growth,” I never insulted your students on their personal values, their intelligence, or their integrity. You took a comment from my oral critique and made it a personal attack, and that’s where the root of the problem lies. Also, your comment that we should just get along is a bit hypocritical given your other comments.

 

If you want us all to get along, play nice next time because luckily I have friends who alert me when I’m personally insulted.

 

Oh and Lachy, smoked Turkey tasted good that round. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Louis Wang is a jackoff.

(someone. go alert him. he has been insulted. i am eagerly awaiting the wrath of the wang because i am a sadist/masochist like that)

 

 

Everyone has a big jimmy. Just accept it, you're all clinically insane and completely fucked up in the head - you did policy for four years (minimum) and that has warped your sense of reality. If seven doses of acid (according to urban legend) makes you legally insane, then unquestionably one round of policy does the same.

 

See (some of you) at Hahvahd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and Lachey, i'm embarrased for you that you ever thought you actually won that round. Your 1ar dropped four case turns bud, i'm not sure what you were thinking.

I still remember he looks up after 2 and a half minutes of great analysis on the K flow, still has those turns on the bottom, looks at the judges, and says "now on to case." Good strategic move.

 

Having judged on panels with Bergmaier in two of those rounds, and squirrelled in both...the comment "It almost makes me wish I did intervene" strikes me as humorous. In a totally hypothetical and tongue-in-cheek way.

 

Louis and I will both be at Harvard, and it looks like we'll have to fight Ankur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...