allythin wrote: > I'm left to assume > that you don't really know much at all with the general practices of > the current quizbowl scene and your commentary on this entire issue > is really not directed at the issue at all, but is more a regional > axe you're grinding against Matt. No, merely fed up with his arrogance, which seems to be what happens (not at Matt in particular, but at many different people) whenever I start reading this group too carefully. > Well then, well done sir! No worries. Glad to oblige. By the way, that's "Well done, Professor". >Maybe > he's not the absolute arbiter of every issue with regards to a > quizbowl q, but he's certainly a lot better a judge of the current > goings-on in the circuit than you. Not to invoke age (well, actually, TO invoke age), but I've been around the circuit virtually since he was in diapers. No, neither NAQT nor its questions (nor tournaments) are perfect. But for a bunch of former players who have other day jobs and write hundreds of packets and many thousands of questions annually, they do a pretty damn good job. They don't deserve to have demands leveled that they "take action against" certain writers because Matt (the 'three Bhutanese novelists' parody was only a slight exaggeration on his own question style) didn't like THE ANSWER to a certain question. I have no connection to NAQT beyond volunteering at some of their tournaments; merely, that kind of attitude pisses me off. Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST