Flawed Arguments in Melody's Post -- mikeknight dot com discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

Subject: Flawed Arguments in Melody's Post

Author:
MikeKnight

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:38:02 01/02/02 Wed
In reply to: melody 's message, "more extensions" on 20:27:43 01/01/02 Tue

Ok, I have some issues with Mel's post:

We do not really have 7 boxes. See: http://www.voy.com/62949/41.html for explanation. The DX boxes aren't horrible as portrayed.

Ashley got 6th at WKU, (a DXer) and 7th does not give any points for sweepstakes.

Your logic for claiming, "sweeps obviously prove FX has done better" is flawed. You can't really compare events that way. Whenever Prose/DI is the same at a tournament (usually at tournaments with different DI rules) you do not say one person is better because their DI won the prose round.

Also, sweeps does not determine event superiority: it determines team success. To argue this as a maximalist Supreme Court decision: just because we have 2 firsts in solo acting and not in prose does not mean solo acting is a better event. I mean c'mon, solo acting is a 'tucky event. (Paul feel free to critique my use of maximalist theory or the nature of the Bush v Gore decision, which was maximalist).

Side note: Paul you do deserve to be listed with Casey Howard. Van? definately. Mai Anh.. only if she would have stuck around her senior year would I have argued for her on the list. Then again, if she did not stick around, would I have received that special attention with Kate Snider?

That said, FX is still better, but not for the reason's listed above. Cross-apply my previous analysis. I think I just quasi-switched sides in this debate.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]