| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
History and Evidence of a coordinate | | | -- AndrewGradman - 30 Mar 2008 | |
<
< | While I have no idea what you're referring to about loud voices in the night, since I was home alone last night and reading your paper because I couldn't sleep, I do agree that 3:30 am after the Dean's Cup is not the best time to offer comments. It is exactly because I, and I assume others, don't know you that well that it matters what your candidate statement says. I don't have an opinion on your "public persona," and you are certainly among the majority in approaching the election facetiously. I only wanted to point out that it's most likely that and that alone which cost you. I find this paper very interesting and exceptionally well written otherwise; I wanted to comment only with regard to the one aspect on which I have commented. It looks like you're moving toward asking for more specific comments; I will be happy to offer them.
-- RyanMcDevitt - 30 Mar 2008 | >
> | While I have no idea what you're referring to about loud voices in the night, since I was home alone last night and reading your paper because I couldn't sleep, I do agree that 3:30 am after the Dean's Cup is not the ideal time to offer comments. It is exactly because I, and I assume others, don't know you that well that it matters what your candidate statement says. I don't have an opinion on your "public persona," and you are certainly among the majority in approaching the election facetiously. I only wanted to point out that it's most likely that and that alone which cost you. I find this paper very interesting and exceptionally well written otherwise; I wanted to comment only with regard to the one aspect on which I have commented. It looks like you're moving toward asking for more specific comments; I will be happy to offer them.
(EDIT)
Now that I've seen your completed response, I'll finish my thoughts. I like the way you've framed your use of the election in your paper in your comment above; perhaps I did have it out of context. I have not claimed to be competent to explain the outcome of the election; I have explained my thoughts on it and speculated as to others'. I'm perfectly aware that I could be wrong, which is why I was at least somewhat careful to qualify my speculation as such. More to the point, my response to the election part of the paper as "self-serving" is with regard to its revisionism. You denigrate as a "popularity contest" an election, which you would have us believe you took part in seriously, now that you've lost it, without taking any responsibility for, or even acknowledging, the fact that your public platform was quite literally a joke. As a factual matter, by the way, you're actually not the only listed candidate who was not elected--a write-in candidate was elected, so it ended up being 15 of 17.
Finally, with regard to your effort to undercut my comments by implying I made them while drunk or some such, there is an adage that comes to mind: "when you don't have the law on your side, use the facts. When you don't have either the law or the facts on your side, pound the podium. And when that doesn't work, use personal attacks." I do some of my best thinking at night and it does not do your point any justice to make unwarranted implications about me instead of actually confronting my comments. If you'd rather not consider them, fine, disregard them. You're an excellent writer, and, as I said, this is a fascinating essay; the use of the senate thing reads as revisionist or intellectually dishonest and undermines the strong remainder the paper. | | | | |
>
> | -- RyanMcDevitt - 11 Apr 2008 | | | I rarely understand what you write, Andrew, probably because I am not 'listening' at the same frequency as you are speaking or because I am just watching when you do speak. That being said, when you write as lucidly as the prose of this essay, you really demonstrate your ability to be good. And instructive. I do not mean this to be an arrogant or condescending comment, if it comes out so. Indeed, that is precisely the opposite effect that I intend it. From the above, you have a good mind, and I wish I could 'read' it more often, in every sense of that verb. | | | I rarely understand what you write, Andrew, probably because I am not 'listening' at the same frequency as you are speaking or because I am just watching when you do speak. That being said, when you write as lucidly as the prose of this essay, you really demonstrate your ability to be good. And instructive. I do not mean this to be an arrogant or condescending comment, if it comes out so. Indeed, that is precisely the opposite effect that I intend it. From the above, you have a good mind, and I wish I could 'read' it more often, in every sense of that verb.
-- JesseCreed - 11 Apr 2008 | |
>
> | | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | |
|