Jump to content

Danny Tanner

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Danny Tanner last won the day on September 16 2010

Danny Tanner had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

716 Excellent

About Danny Tanner

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/02/1986

Profile Information

  • Name
  • Occupation
  1. Hey, for some reason when I log in I can't view or post on any threads. When I am not logged in, I can read the threads but not post. Do I need to change my settings or something?

  2. When John McCain pointed to Obama and said "That one." he was merely trying to appeal to the cranky, old neighbor demographic.
  3. Just got done donating to 1) re-elect members of the Wisconsin 14, 2) support the recall efforts, and 3) MoveOn.org's campaign on the issue. I don't even live in the state, but I feel compelled to support people who really put themselves on the line to stop a bill like this. Bravo.
  4. Fair enough. The impression I got (and I admit that I haven't been on the circuit all year and witnessed it) was that certain teams had made it known that they didn't want to participate and they were being snubbed by the community for that decision. If that isn't the case, mea culpa. As long as people can freely opt out of the exchange without others retaliating against them, all is good. The Millard North Milo comparison is exactly what I was advocating. In his view, it was not in the school's interest to disclose their cases. He very well may have been correct, as they had a lot of success. My view is merely that a team's coach, or the debaters themselves, should be able to say "we don't disclose" and nobody should be offended by that. You all made the choice to publish your arguments on an unsecured webpage. Some people will choose not to publish their arguments and look at your arguments. If you make something publicly available and are 100% opposed to securing it, you shouldn't be upset when other people choose to look at your arguments but do not post their own. Furthermore, you shouldn't expect that everyone else will post their information just because you have made it the norm to do so. That's the risk you've obviously decided take. Like I said though, as long as people don't get snubbed and isolated for non-participation, I think the wiki serves a good purpose.
  5. First, a question: Why does the utility of complete and total "open information" outweigh the coercion that is required to achieve it? Compulsory participation really is divisive. I've posted on this issue before and people (debaters) have PM'd me saying, essentially, that they feel forced into participating when they think it would be to their advantage to opt out. I think that opinion should be respected. Next, a suggestion: Either a.) keep the wiki available for everyone and don't complain when people look at it but don't post on it themselves, or, b.) put in the extra effort of password protecting it, allow all of those who wish to be part of the exchange to be included, and police yourselves. It is much easier to self-police willing participants. If you decide it isn't worth the extra effort, then maybe the problem itself is exaggerated. Lastly, I don't have time to give Mr. Saker the line-by-line he seems to want so badly, but I'll try to hit the highlights. Good clash comes from good debaters, not good wikis. Good clash existed well before everyone was required to post on the wiki. I witnessed it. Are you asserting that now, via compulsory posting to the wiki, clash is at an all-time high? ... or you could just get the cites and read the book/article. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I rarely hop on to the high school policy debate wiki to figure out what I should be reading in my free time. In this case, my use of the word "rarely" may be substituted for "never." This is how thought evolves? In that case, compulsory participation is definitely the way to go. I wouldn't want to stop the evolution of "thought." Seriously, what is being said here? How do we get from the benefits of the debate wiki to working with post-structural theory in the "real world"?
  6. You monitor it the same way you monitor it now, by chastising those who are neglecting their obligations. Only this time, you do it only to other people who are voluntarily participating in the exchange. If a partnership thinks that it would be in their strategic interest to opt out of the exchange, they should be able to do so. Obviously, there are people on this circuit that feel this way. That said, these teams also should not be allowed to benefit from the exchange. There are costs and benefits to participating in the wiki. Each partnership should decide for itself whether the costs outweigh the benefits or visa versa. I just don't like the "father knows best attitude" that says "Obviously the benefits of your disclosure outweigh the costs. Therefore, you needn't decide anything. You will participate for your own benefit."
  7. Why would it be "fascist" to put a password on the wiki, so long as everyone who wants to be a part of the disclosure exchange is allowed to be a part of the exchange? I think a password is the way to go. It seems more coercive and authoritarian (I wouldn't go as far as fascist) to chastise other members of the community for choosing not to participate in the wiki. Dana is right that it isn't cool to use the wiki but not post your own information. Password protection solves the problem.
  8. Retired, do you know much about public support for this recall effort I've been hearing about?
  9. Teaching Quality and Bargaining http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/unions
  10. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." "I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." "All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." "All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time... I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
  11. ‎"You have to give Gov. Walker of Wisconsin and his wealthy patrons credit. Here we have a situation where Wall Street fat cats wrecked the economy - and they've somehow managed to blame schoolteachers and the highway patrol." ~Dean Baker
  12. How is this a Zizek fail? The article seems pretty on point.
  13. Danny Tanner


    Was that really a bump-worthy post?
  14. While it is always good to read the philosopher(s) you use, here, to have a decent file, you'd need to read AO and ATP, which are lonnnnng and slooooow. At least that's how Anti-Oedipus was for me. I haven't read ATP.
  15. I'm pretty sure it was the original bidder (aka "Fels").
  • Create New...