I wrote back on September 28th about how Dr. Roger Pielke Senior and Dr. Bob Carter had been invited to present their views on climate science, then after the organizers found out what might be discussed, redacted the invitations to these scientists.
We also recently saw another example of how a “great debate” on climate had been staged by a Hollywood heavyweight, director James Cameron, who backed out of a debate with Climate Depot’s Marc Morano at the last minute, after Morano was already in the air and en-route to the debate. He’s now been dubbed “Titanic chicken of the sea” for saying things like James Cameron boldly slammed global warming skeptics as “swine” on the day he was supposed to be debating them. “I think they’re swine” Also see: Director James Cameron Unleashed: Calls for gun fight with global warming skeptics: ‘I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads’ then not having the guts to actually follow through with a debate that he set up in the first place. All bark, no bite.
After all that…. guess what?
I was invited by Chico State University to the Great Debate Oct 28th in the City council Chambers on the topic of the Proposition 23, delay of California Prop32, the “global warming law”. I accepted with a caveat, but due to that caveat I’ve now joined the club of the “disinvited”. My crime? Wanting to show some slides to go along with my oral presentation.
I figured this would be OK because when the city sustainability committee presented their “Climate Action Plan” they got to use their own slide show, but silly me, apparently science slide shows are only for those who believe, not those who want to challenge the belief.
This started way back when I was critical of our local city council and the city sustainability committee’s Climate Action Plan which is heavily opinionated by people from the sustainability cabal of our local university. I was criticized for my stance by sustainability guru Dr. Mark Stemen who said I was ducking debate:
“There are a series of debates scheduled on AB 32/ Prop 23. Do you want to crawl out and play? Or is it too scary in public?”
As I explained to Professor Stemen then, one of the reasons I don’t do a lot of public debate is that I have an 85% hearing loss, and it makes following a live interchange difficult, sometimes impossible. When I was on the local school board, having public meetings in the very same council chambers, the only way I could follow dialog was with a hearing assistance device. It was difficult, and sometimes embarrassing, but I did my public duty the best I could.
I do better when I give a presentation, interaction where I have to hear others and respond on the fly is tough. Most people don’t understand that a hearing loss requires using a lot of brainpower to pull meaning from context when you can’t hear well. This means forming a rebuttal can be tough when you have to think on the fly.
So when this invitation showed up in my inbox…
Name: Thia Wolf
Email: cwolf@xxxxxx
Website: http://www.csuchico.edu/fye/greatdebate
Dear Mr. Watts:
I am writing to ask if you would be interested in participating as a debate team member in the “Main Event” community debate in City Council Chambers on October 28. The debate subject is “AB 32: To Suspend or Not to Suspend?” We are working to put together three-person teams on each side. Teams will meet with the CSU, Chico debate team for tips on debate strategies. This meeting can be virtual. At present, Larry Wahl has confirmed he will be on the team. We are hoping you will be the second member and a business person concerned about AB 32 will be third.
Please let me know if this is of interest to you. The debate is webcast live and may also be televised. We emphasize civil discourse. I would like to send you the general invitation and more information if you are interested. Many thanks for considering this.
thia wolf
cwolf@xxxxxx
Director, First-Year Experience Program
Time: Friday October 1, 2010 at 9:38 am
IP Address: 132.241.36.200
….I had to give it some serious thought. I read the letter carefully, and looked over the website link she gave. I asked initially if she’d be able to control the venue, since the last time I spoke at the podium in the city council chambers on an environmental issue, I was heckled, called names, and shouted at. The venue can be ugly. She said she could help control the debate, and I responded to her assurances with:
On 10/5/10 1:17 PM, “Anthony Watts” wrote:
Dear Ms. Wolf,
Thank you. I’ve looked at the materials provided, and unfortunately I cannot determine:
1. Where the event you are inviting me to would be held (in Council main chamber or in a side room)
2. What time it would be held and the duration.
3. The actual format, length of presentations, etc.
Given my hearing disability, the only possible venue for me is the main chamber. There is a hearing assistance system there, and I can bring my best headphones to plug into the receivers used.
Also, given that disability, I likely won’t be able to pick up well on others presentations and make rebuttals, the only circumstances that I would consider participating would be to be able to provide a slide show while I speak. This would allow me to make a strong factually based presentation without relying on hearing skills to rebut others.
This can easily be accomplished by connecting my laptop to the VGA port on the left side desk. I did this when I was on the school board, and the scan converter made it also transmit to the cable TV channel.
To be fair, others should be able to present a short slide show if they wish. I certainly encourage it, and it would keep the debate factually grounded. I’ll make my laptop available to anyone who wishes to put a PowerPoint presentation on it and help them test it beforehand. Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
She responded with:
From: “Wolf, Thia”
Date: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:26 PM
To: “Anthony Watts”
Cc: “Peterson, Sue”; “Justus, Zachary”
Subject: Re: Invitation to the Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts:
Thank you for getting back to me! I am forwarding this information to the Communication Studies faculty who organize the evening event. I feel they are best positioned to decide if they can incorporate this technology into the evening debate.
The event is in the main Council Chambers. The format has been developed by the debate experts in Communication, so they can go over this with you. The Main Event starts at 6:30. Again, the faculty should be able to give you a good estimate of how long the student debate will take, prior to the community member debate.
I have copied the two lead faculty members for this project on this email. I am sure they will confer before getting back to you, so please give them a day to do so.
I appreciate your willingness to consider participating.
Thank you,
thia
I thought the response was rather odd, because virtually every city council meeting has a slide show, and there’s a system in place to make it happen and broadcast the slide show live to the town for anyone who wants to use it. There’s really no “technology to incorporate”. Besides, neither the Great Debate Invitation sent to me, the letter Great Debate Letter AB 32 nor the web site had any caveats against using a slide show.
This is the response I got back:
From: “Wolf, Thia”
Date: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 10:43 AM
To: “Anthony Watts”
Cc: “Peterson, Sue” ; “John Rucker”; “Justus, Zachary”
Subject: Re: Invitation to the Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts:
There is agreement that we are happy to make sure the the hearing assistance system is working well in Chambers before the debate so that you will have the benefit of its use. The debate does not, however, include visuals.
That would require a different format from the one we use. It is possible to place you in the debate team line-up so that rebuttal is NOT your responsibility–for instance, you could open the debate for your team.
Please let us know if you feel you can participate under these conditions.
Best,
thia
I was puzzled. Why could we not use visuals? This made no sense, especially since the room is set up for it, and the Climate Action Plan people made a slideshow when they pitched it to the city council and the public. So why can’t I? I sent this reply:
From: “Anthony Watts”
Date: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:13 AM
To: “Wolf, Thia”
Cc: “Peterson, Sue” ; “John Rucker” ; “Justus, Zachary”
Subject: Re: Invitation to the Great Debate
Hello Ms. Wolf,
Thank you for your reply.
I spent my whole adult life making and presenting visuals to help people understand scientific points on television, and now via blogging and scientific literature. You are inviting me to participate because of who I am and what I do. To deny me the ability to practice my craft, combined with my hearing disability, puts me at an extreme disadvantage compared to others there. I don’t work from a script, I don’t use a teleprompter, and I never have. I wouldn’t write a script or statement for this either. The visuals are my guide for the oration. I gave hour long talks in Australia this past June all over the continent and never once gave a prepared statement.
This is a technical argument that I would be making about climate and CO2, which is the root of the issue for Prop 23 and the GHG law. It is impossible to convey it without some visuals. People can’t see science in their heads.
Without visuals, my presence is pointless. In this day and age of visuals, especially when there is easy and ready presentation access at the city council chambers, I find your argument against using them weak and quite frankly, a cop out, especially when the same opportunity can easily be shared by others. This is sad, and out of touch with today’s reality, because the Prop 23 battle is being fought on television with visuals and
innuendo, I would think you’d welcome factual debate with visuals, unless of course the point of this debate is not about facts, but about feelings.
To deny visuals in a public debate is in my opinion, a sad commentary on CSUC’s program. Even in a court of law the prosecution and the defense are allowed visuals. How else would they explain forensic science to a jury? Get with the times!
Given the disadvantages I will face, and unless there is some sort of accommodation for me to present at least some visuals, I see no other option but to decline your invitation.
I await your reconsideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
The reply I got back was pretty curt:
From: Wolf, Thia
Date: Thursday, October 07, 2010 8:50 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Cc: Peterson, Sue ; Justus, Zachary ; John Rucker
Subject: Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts:
The Great Debate is meant to provide space for citizens to practice an older discourse form. There are various kinds of presentations during the day, some of them technologized, but we are invoking a traditional style of civil exchange in the evening. We do thank you for considering our invitation, and we regret that the format is not to your liking. We are committed, however, to a traditional debate format for the “main event” debates.
Best,
thia
thia wolf
First-Year Experience Program, director
California State University, Chico
“Let your voice be heard.”
(530) 898-xxxx
Wow, some debates get “technologized” but mine can’t be?
I sent this in reply:
From: Anthony Watts
Date: Thursday, October 07, 2010 1:07 PM
To: Wolf, Thia
Cc: Peterson, Sue ; Justus, Zachary ; John Rucker
Subject: Re: Great Debate
Dear Ms. Wolf,
Thank you for your cordial reply. I’m sorry to say this, but I’m going to respectfully call BS on your position.
In your invitation to me,
Name: Thia Wolf
Email: cwolf@xxxxxx
Website: http://www.csuchico.edu/fye/greatdebate
Dear Mr. Watts:
I am writing to ask if you would be interested in participating as a debate team member in the “Main Event” community debate in City Council Chambers on October 28. The debate subject is “AB 32: To Suspend or Not to Suspend?” We are working to put together three-person teams on each side. Teams will meet with the CSU, Chico debate team for tips on debate strategies. This meeting can be virtual. At present, Larry Wahl has confirmed he will be on the team. We are hoping you will be the second member and a business person concerned about AB 32 will be third.
Please let me know if this is of interest to you. The debate is webcast live and may also be televised. We emphasize civil discourse. I would like to send you the general invitation and more information if you are interested. Many thanks for considering this.
thia wolf
cwolf@xxxxx
Director, First-Year Experience Program
You make no caveats on presentation style of any kind. You also highlight the webcast nature of it and the televised nature of it.
Let’s recap: You invite a television person, me, and then deny him his normal tools while at the same time promoting the television and webcast nature of the entire event.
My work has been television for years, and now on the web. I operate the most visited climate science blog on the planet, now with 57 million visits. So yes, I’m fluent with both TV and web presentation. In fact I built, designed, and donated the first live webcast system for the city council chambers in 2005.
So to deny me the tools of that venue that I am fluent in using, while promoting the venue using the same tools you deny me, is a paradox. Do you see how incongruent your position is? I think you’d lose that debate.
I’m going into what I see as a hostile environment, at a disadvantage due to my hearing disability, only asking to present some slides as is normal for my work on television and web, and yet your tagline proudly says:
“Let your voice be heard.”
Well I’m sure trying, but they won’t let me use TV tools on a public TV program. As they say in the news business: “That won’t play well in Peoria”. I urge you one last time to reconsider.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
Yes my response was a little strong, but really, how can a couple of slides cause any trouble? Especially when other portions of the day long venue get to use slide shows? I asked them to reconsider in my last sentence, surely, they’d come to their senses? But days passed, nothing. So I sent this:
From: Anthony Watts
Date: Monday, October 11, 2010 11:01 AM
To: Wolf, Thia
Subject: Re: Great Debate
Hello Ms. Wolf,
It has been four days since I sent my last message and I have received no reply from you. So that I’m not bothering you anymore please clarify. My presentation is not welcome and there will be no further response.
Is that correct? Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards, Anthony Watts
And this is the response I got back:
From: Wolf, Thia
Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 7:02 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Cc: Justus, Zachary ; Peterson, Sue ; John Rucker
Subject: Re: Great Debate
Dear Mr. Watts,
I am sorry for the delay in my response. We do not want visuals during the debate, but we thank you for your input.
thia
So I’m thinking to myself, “I’ll give it some time. Maybe they’ll reconsider.”.
But here it is, the day before the “Great Debate” and I’m still waiting. [Update: I checked the program just after writing this to see that I’m truly disinvited, see graphic below -Anthony]
Given that today’s debates are fought visually in electronic media, it would have been an opportunity for CSUC students to practice debate as it is done in the real world today, rather than the debate structure of times gone by, such as the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debate of 1858.
I suppose if you want to debate in the style of that period using only words to describe technological and science issues, more power to you, but really, this is the 21st century.
Here’s an example of how the Prop 23 debate is being waged in California on television:
The kid with the inhaler is a nice touch, don’t you think? No science here, AB32 it’s about limiting CO2, not particulates! And I used to think the Lung Association was a straight shooter.
They are off my list of charities now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That should read “I can’t guarantee a large crowd . . . ”
But I will truly try.
Let’s face it – the “debate” organizers don’t want the kids seeing pictures of climate monitoring stations next to barbeques, asphalt parking lots, sewage treatment plants, A/C exhausts, etc. The truth could be damaging to their fragile minds. Better off showing them “funny” climate change awareness videos with children getting their heads blown up by a teacher if they don’t believe in global warming.
My apologies to any graduates thereof , but “Chico State University” makes me laugh. Is there a Groucho State too?
I seem to recall a certain piece of federal legislation called the Americans with Disabilities Act. Which has occasioned many, many expensive legal actions since its enactment.
Anthony Watts is, I am sure, too much of a gentleman to threaten an ADA invocation.
I am equally sure that, were the tables turned, and if a proponent of the AGW hypothesis were to have been kept out of a debate based upon a refusal to provide facilities to accommodate that proponent’s disability, legal counsel would already have been retained, and a very large settlement figure would have been bruited.
I looked over some of the previous interactions of Chico State and the Chico City council folks with Anthony on this subject matter and it appears to me that Anthony was set up to refuse an invitation that the “hosts” knew or should have known that he could not accept due to the interactive format. In which case some might say that Anthony had ducked the debate. Bad faith offers and civil discourse don’t mix well. That’s my take.
Also it seems like this Mark Stemen is a regular prince of a guy.
I tuned into this one late. Sorry, Andrew, but you’re not coming across well on this one. They invited you knowing of your skeptical viewpoint. They readily agreed to accommodate your hearing impairment. Refusing to alter their established rules (not the first time they had imposed those rules) to accommodate your preferred presentation format was not unreasonable in my view. The lady was cordial and courteous in her exchanges. I imagine she was shocked at the broadside attack that followed. WAY out of line.
There are gracious plenty plots and schemes out there to stifle AGW opposition, but this does not look to me to be one of them.
REPLY: But the rub here is, they didn’t make the “established rules” known to me with the invitation nor the supporting documentation. They invited me to a televised TV debate, in a room where visuals are the norm. Denying visuals when discussing a complex scientific issue that screams for them in that venue is just silly. Like I said, if it was a classroom at Chico State, where they have every right to dictate rules, that’s one thing and I would have acquiesed, but this is the city council chambers, where they have a special AV system setup to allow visuals during public debate. I and many other people have used them in this room. I can’t rebut anything, all I can do is make a statement, they offered to let me do that. But they wouldn’t let me do it using my visual skills. If the tables were turned, there would be squalling all the way to Sacramento.
Two years ago I handled a live weekly community forum at the CARD center where the local observatory curator, Kris Koenig, invited Dr. Mark Giampapa from the National Solar Observatory to speak on the sun. He mentioned the fact that the sun has an influence on earth’s climate in a few slides. Some of CSUC’s groupies in the audience got all bent out of shape and demanded “equal time” to counter what they said was “bad science” from the NSO scientist. They made a stink and got want they wanted – and ENTIRE HOUR LONG PROGRAM ALL TO THEMSELVES. They brought in CSUC Prof Jeff Price (an IPCC author) who told us how wrong and stupid we all were. And then the next week our series on astronomy went on like nothing had happened. But I never forgot this. In retrospect I should have told them to shelve their concerns, but we accommodated them anyway. So what do I get when I ask for a similar accommodation? Zilch.
So please, don’t lecture me about the sorts of things that go on in Chico when when green groups feel their message and dominance may be disadvantaged.
And, it is Anthony, not Andrew. – Anthony
Mark,
My sense from your comments is that you feel wronged and your explanation is sincere. Perhaps, perhaps not, but just in case it is (sincere I mean) please understand why you are getting so much static from Anthony’s supporters.
This blog is inhabited by a great number of people who have a passion for science. Every day they are subjected to main stream media articles on science that are more fiction than science. Every day they see climate alarmists making pronouncements about the dire fate of humanity based on science so shoddy that one can only ascribe it to deliberate malfeasance for no level of mere incompetance could explain it. The “scientists” have been caught communicating with each other, proudly announcing that they have completed the “trick” to “hide the decline”, and when exposed, have the audacity to represent that they meant “clever” and that nothing was hidden. Above all however, these pretend scientists have pronounced their views, but when asked to defend them, they announce that the science is settled, that there is a consensus, that only the stupid and the crooked would say otherwise, and, above all, they refuse to debate.
The fact is that anyone who explores the issues with any sort of an open minded approach soon learns that the science is NOT settled, that there is NOT a consensus, and that what is represented as science is driven by a political perspective. The proponents wrap themselves in the flag of morality while making it clear they have made up their minds and would rather not be confused by the facts.
If you wish to host a debate in which the format is “traditional” for the sake of the purism of debate itself, then choose another topic. The climate debate is comprised of arguments suggesting the death of billions is inevitable if we nothing, and the death of billions is inevitable also if we implement the draconian mitigation measures suggested. In an environment where the proponents of global warming theory refuse to honestly debate the science while calling for such measures, I think you can understand the frustration unleashed when the opportunity to honestly debate the science in a public forum is snatched away, deliberately or otherwise.
My advice to you is this; You have chosen a topic that has the potential to destroy more lives if handled incorrectly than any war in human history by orders of magnitude. You have also chosen a topic that simply cannot be meaningfully debated without the use of diagrams, charts and other visual aids to illustrate the various elements and the relationships between them, as well as to summarize data. It would be no more meaningful that debating the distance between two cities and refusing to allow the use of a map.
If what you want is the purity of a traditional debate, then make the topic the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. But if you are going to take the trouble to make the debate about an area of science which may well impinge on the lives of every human being on the planet, then you have a responsibility to choose a format suitable to the subject matter.
At this late date I would not be surprised if Anthony declined to participate due to lack of time to prepare if you accept his need for visuals. But even if your position is sincere, and the inability of Anthony to participate nothing more than a series of unfortunate misunderstandings, you have done yourself a great disservice by choosing a topic of grave importance to the world and imposing upon it rules of debate that would render the process meaningless. That may not be as egregious conduct as blithely claiming that a “trick” to “hide the decline” is standard scientific practice, but for those that want to see the real science brought before the public, it is reminiscent of that immoral behaviour.
1. Joel says:
October 27, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Anthony,
There seems to have been some misunderstanding from the start of the email exchange. It sounds like this was a educational experience and you’re a well known skeptic for the slated debate. I can’t speak for Wolf, but I can bet she had no idea of your hearing disability when she first sent the email. She was probably given your name by students or while asking around about knowledgeable people for the debate.
Clearly the debate format was set. Whether you think it dated or a poor platform for a scientific debate really doesn’t matter. The debate might have been more focused on public policy and less on science. In the exchange once you stated you wouldn’t be able to attend without the format being changed, then you declined at that point. Your tone with Thia Wolf seemed somewhat negative. Her ability to change the format of the debate is questionable. But as the purpose of the debate was educational for the students, I don’t see why they would.
1. Eric Anderson says:
October 27, 2010 at 2:53 pm
In fairness, I think this may have been a simple misunderstanding blown out of proportion. This is not the same situation as the Cameron-Moreno debacle, where no debate was held and Cameron came up with a lame excuse about being above debating Moreno.
I have no problem with the idea that there is value in students learning oratory arts, which could even include Q&A and on-your-feed responses to questions. If that is the format they use and have traditionally used, then fine, I don’t think a valid complaint can be made. Indeed, it might be the case that they wanted Anthony to present, but — to them — it seemed he was demanding changes to their long-standing format. Any complaint by Anthony would be much stronger if it turns out someone else uses visual aids tomorrow night, or if they have permitted it in the past.
The above contributors have explained the situation well. I add my 2 cents for what it is worth.
Anthony:
You made an assumption that many people make that activities sponsored by a university that they are not what they seem to be. The Chico web page clearly spells out the agenda, the format is defined, and the expected results are that a debate was held. I don’t think you understood that purpose. The debate is not intended to inform anybody about the issues AB 32. Debates are held to emphasize rhetoric skills and as means to convince the listener. You made the assumption that the intension was to inform because you know something about the subject. AB 32 is a proposed law and the debate is about a law and not about whether it should be a law. Lawyers debate meaning and interpretations of laws.
As former faculty member in the CSU System for 27 years I spend a lot of time on faculty committees. Perhaps I am too cynical but I always felt that the decisions we reached about the merits of some academic program was not based on critical reasoning or ethics but upon rhetoric. Those most skillful in verbal discourse were heard because of the way the spoke and not because of what they said. That is how universities operate.
After your second letter, they owed you a phone call to explain that the nature of the debate and that it is an academic exercise in communications. Unfortunately, the question of your participation should have stopped when the university understood that you are very hearing impaired. I doubt that Dr. Wolf knew that you were hearing paired before and then was stuck having realized that her invitation had created a problem. I don’t know whether you are familiar with signing but I wonder what she would have said if you demanded an interpreter. Of course you wanted visual aids which are generally not allowed in debates
While I was teaching at the CSUN, we had the second largest population of hearing impaired students in the United States, second only to Gallaudet University. I know how difficult it is communicate with these students in the scientific terminology. I had to use a lot of visual aids because the vocabulary in the sciences is so different from the common meaning of words. I know how much the students suffered in trying to communicate in class through an interpreter or in writing.
It is ironic that the CSU system that prides itself in helping students with disabilities did not have the sensitivity to call you and explain what was really going on in the debate. My take on this whole misunderstanding about the Great Debate is that the university owes you an apology for their lack of sensitivity to your disability because they failed to be sure you understood the ground rules of debating in the first place. Shame on you Dr. Wolf.
Mark says:
October 27, 2010 at 4:30 pm
“To help people not from Chico:”
===========================
To help people from Chico out [other than sane ones such as Anthony]…we could care less.
You think you are cutting edge, but, in actuality, thanks to zealots like Mark, you have accomplished nothing.
If you want the truth, you might want to drop a little bit of your politics. But I am sure that won’t happen.
I am sure that an Inconvenient Truth, without its visuals, would have been an immediate flop.
[That’s OK….even with the visuals…it flopped itself into error-ridden oblivion.]
Are you telling me, that you are now afraid of the visuals? And why?
The “why” questions always uncover the truth.
Why no visuals?
21st century inquiring minds….want to know.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I really wish that Anthony’s Prop 23 commercial example by the Am. Lung Ass. had caught some attention here. [The YouTube vid at the end] and his comment: “The kid with the inhaler is a nice touch, don’t you think? No science here, AB32 it’s about limiting CO2, not particulates! And I used to think the Lung Association was a straight shooter.
“They are off my list of charities now.”
Here is their contact link. Maybe we could do some good directing our energy to letting them know what we think about it.
http://www.lungusa.org/about-us/contact-us.html
I can only say that the organisation of this event/debate seems to leave a lot to be desired.
Firstly it would seem they did not have a sufficient grasp on the subject matter they chose for the debate. To consider holding a debate on a subject such as this without the use of visual aids dooms that debate to mediocrity. If they were locked into the format before choosing this specific subject then they certainly screwed up.
They then compounded this by sending out an invitation that did not mention the nature of the restricted format, to a person for whom they should have known the format was highly unsuitable.
Finally, they allowed a number emails to go back and forth before eventually communicating to Anthony that the format was fixed from the beginning.
A very poor effort on the part of the organisers IMHO.
davidmhoffer says:
October 27, 2010 at 8:42 pm
======================
Extremely well said.
Some of the “corrections” from people on this thread are ill-informed, because you do not live there.
Please. Reserve your “higher criticism” to another topic where local knowledge and history of events are not important.
I back Anthony here. He has produced a stellar site. He lets opposing views state their case….sometimes to a fault.
And he has a valid point….a point that Thia and definitely Mark…have not handled well.
Don’t waste your time trying to offer better-than-thou advice because it will be disregarded…as it well should be.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
One of the hallmarks of those with a penchant for accurate data is that we care too much for some folks. I am a data freak. I don’t say it unless I have the data to back it up. One of the things that I was criticized for was writing and reporting data that demonstrated a lack of growth towards grade level benchmarks and that the student was at risk of not graduating with a standard Oregon diploma. I was told to be more positive. Was I being encouraged to lie or just tone down my concerns? Don’t know. The comment was to “be more positive” so as not to “upset the parent”.
But for me, if I were the parent and I read positive reports year after year that my child was making progress (measured how?) and was a pleasure to have in class, and then find out in high school that my child had no chance in hell of passing the benchmark standards now in place (thus no forthcoming Oregon diploma) I would be looking for a lawyer.
Parents need to be honestly informed using hard data for obvious reasons. I had better be accurate in what I say and I had better have the data to back up what I say. Folks, this climate stuff involves people’s pocket books. Traditional debate be damned. Show me the data.
Anthony – these guys (Mark, Eric, and a couple others) are hacks. But why not post your proposed presentation regarding California’s suicidal law? The election isn’t until next Tuesday. Maybe you can help defeat (or is it just delay?) this stupid action.
Mark – you make me want to puke. If I had a college-age kid, after reading your entries above, Chico State would be the last place I would allow him to take his college education. You, sir are a worm.
Really, Anthony! Why did you bother to request the use of visuals? You should just show up with them. If they “disinvite” you on the spot they really look bad. As you say, it is the norm today, so it’s not like you’d be trying to sucker them or anything.
I’ve done this before, showing up to a speaking engagement in a pair of nice jeans and polo style shirt when I knew that somebody was, for silly reasons, expecting a suit and tie (but they never stated so). When the inviter approached me with concern, I just said, “Oh, it’s okay. I don’t need one”, as if I thought it was me he was concerned for, rather than for his own silly preconceived notions of “proper”. I then opened by saying that the words I would speak were either right and true and worthy of acceptance, or they weren’t, but what I was wearing was inconsequential; if you came today to see someone wearing nice clothes perhaps you should have gone to an upscale department store instead.
I kept their attention all the way to the end, too 😉
“And, it is Anthony, not Andrew. – Anthony”
Well scuuuuz me, Antonio. I thought you knew I was dyslexic.
I believe that invoking the ADA may be justifiable here, to make a point.
If Chico was hosting a debate on theoretical physics and dis-invited Hawking because he could not address the audience or moderator directly…..
[snip] Not that the thought doesn’t make me grin, but I think it unwise to go there. ~ Evan
I was at a celebration at The Opera House in Sydney, Australia recently after completing a rather large project over the last 8 months or so. I asked one of the organisers/project managers if it was ok to take a camera. He responded by saying “It’s better to beg for forgiveness rather than beg for permission.”
As it turned out cameras are banned from use inside The Opera House, obviously to sell their products, however I was able to use mine to record the event for my team mates and I. So alittle begging goes a long way sometimes.
“Don says:
October 27, 2010 at 3:32 pm”
I hear ya (And Anthony too), I too suffer from that and had years of aggro from friends and work mates etc about it.
As it was said when I was a child, “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
A debate is no way to attempt to decide things of a scientific matter, and public debate would be folly.
Debates speak to emotional issues not to issues scientific..
It really annoys me when weather forecasting on the Internet is done by video, without the printed text and printed visuals also available to scrutinize, however convincing or attractive the presenter is or looks. I like to understand the “mechanics” or “scientifics” of it. I want to be able to determine, best as I am able, what other than the forecast might happen.
All bark, no bite – Try – ‘All mouth, no trouser’s’ or for my state side friends ‘All mouth, no pants’.
Anthony, in your spare time (is there any?) you might enjoy “Deaf Sentence” by David Lodge. There aren’t many things about hearing loss that onyone could term funny, but this is one of them.
Understood, no complaints – just didn’t know the pre- protocol… 🙂
My take is also that this is a simple miscommunication. Formal debating has its own rules which they assumed Anthony knew would apply but he didn’t and he expected it to be content focussed rather then presentation focussed. Then when the disability problem was raised they addressed that but still didn’t explain their formal rules expectation. So Anthony got cross that they were unprepared to facilitate the best process for discussing content and establishing truth but that was never their primary purpose.
The art of formal debate is to entertain and convince no matter what case you are alloted to support. Whereas scientific debate seeks to establish incontrovertible truths. IMHO, just a case where chalk met cheese with mutual incomprehension and dismay between their two different worlds with no interpreter.