The KK - Is this the end for our intrepid duo (and some)??!

[Lid]

Where is the SRC declaration regarding the Royal and Ancient by the way?

Best of luck with that. The most vocal supporters of the R&A thus far have been the women's golf clubs!

Yet more complication. Jono, I think you mean the Royal and Ancient, not the R&A. The Royal and Ancient (Golf Club of St Andrews) is the club that doesn't allow women in, the R&A is the company that governs golf outside the States and Mexico.

[Jono]

I did indeed. I don't claim to know anything about the world of golf.

[Al]

To be fair, the Royal and Ancient was always known as the R&A for short so picking the name R&A for the rules governing body was always going to create confusion.

[Lid]

Ceci n'est pas un Gentlemen's club, s'écria-t-il.

[jollytiddlywink]

To be perfectly clear on the issue: the Royal and Ancient Gold Club is not 'institutionally' sexist. There is no rule which bars female golfers from membership. The rules stipulate merely that no member may be admitted who might be objectionable to other members. Thus far, it has always been felt that women members would be objectionable to some of the membership (which I think is, perhaps, worse than a rule which simply bars women). Apparently it was this 'objectionable' rule which prevented the club from having any Japanese members until quite recently, owing to the number of ex-servicemen who still remembered the events in the Pacific in the Second World War.

That said, I still think that the post above suggesting that the uni and/or the SRC try to change the membership of the R&A is a waste of time. The KKC is linked, rightly or wrongly, with the university in at least the public mind, if nothing else, and the club itself links itself explicitly with the university by taking upon itself the job of upholding our traditions, which I think we can do perfectly well by ourselves, thank you very much! It is thus perfectly valid for the Principal and the SRC to have views and policies regarding their (non)interaction with the KK. The R&A is just a private members golf club (one of at least three in this town), and baring the minor controversy over their decision not to offer an honourary membership to the new Principal, has nothing to do with the university, and no links to the university.

The choice to not admit the Principal was not a clever one, I think. Rather, their decision to offer such membership to the last two (or perhaps three) holders of the office was silly, given the likelihood that the post would soon be held by a woman, which would force them to break the chain (if not yet a tradition). The same might be said of their honourary memberships extended to, I believe, various officers at Leuchars, although perhaps the 'no women on the frontline' rules currently in effect in the forces might prevent that particular issue from appearing for some time yet.

In short, the Principal and the SRC are not wasting their own or anyone else's time addressing the KK, but would be wasting time to tackle the R&A, opinions of the poster above (tordenskjold) non-withstanding.

Edited to include name of earlier poster referred to.

[Owen Wilton]

The debate podcast/stream is now available at http://www.standrewsradio.com/.

I call for a standing ovation for the technical magicians at STAR, for all the time and effort they put invested in recording (and editing) the debate.

[RandomMusings]

Worth listening to for the two opening speeches alone if nothing else, but the entire debate was an excellent showcase.

[munchingfoo]

The second speaker for the opposition was a bit of a bad choice imho. It was painful to listen to him. Besides the muttering and stammering involved in his part, the use of the term "keyboard warrior" without actually appearing to know what it means made him look a little childish.

Just for future reference, a keyboard warrior is someone who uses the internet to vent their anger and emotions, usually involving threats of violence, because they are too weak and cowardly to stand up for themselves in a real world context. I don't believe that this thread contains any threats of violence, ergo no keyboard warriors. Someone who disagrees with you on the internet without threatening you, even if they voice no alternative to your reasoning, is not a "keyboard warrior".

The term "face to face" seemed to be a recurring theme used by both sides of the debate. I wonder, could someone explain to me, what is the fundamental difference between a live debate and posting your opinions on a thread here? I would say that a major difference is that only 6 people get to have their full opinions heard in a debate, so if anything this forum is a little fairer.

The first speaker for the opposition, I feel, saved the day for them. Well done.

[munchingfoo]

I've been thinking about this this morning. Would anyone be interested in taking part in the first live sinner debate?

The rules would follow pretty much along the same lines as a normal debate, except it would take place on the sinner.

Suggested order and rules:

Opening post by chair with the usual introductions. - wait 5 minutes for people to read it.

Prop 1 then post their prepared speech (fixed word length). - wait 10 minutes for people to read and for the other speakers to post POIs in the form of "POI - Para X Sentence Y". Prop 1 then has the chance to accept with a reply or refuse.

The POIs with replies, if any are then edited into prop 1's post and the POIs are deleted.

Repeat 5 times, with further speakers having the chance to embellish their prepared speeches with counters in the normal way.

Then we have a poll for prop or op.

We then open to the floor where any user can submit 1 reply. (moderators will ensure this). Perhaps we can also have a "nice bottle of port" for the best reply?

Sounds like a good experiment to me. Would anyone like to speak (type)? The motion would be something novel, obviously, and I'd be open to suggestions.

[Owen Wilton]

The second speaker for the opposition was a bit of a bad choice imho. It was painful to listen to him. Besides the muttering and stammering involved in his part, the use of the term "keyboard warrior" without actually appearing to know what it means made him look a little childish.

Fearghas is an excellent speaker, and has given many witty contributions over the years. (He's won the floor prize so many times that he can probably open a bottle shop.) Now, I agree that James Boulter was the star of the opp bench (and indeed the debate as a whole) but you're being very harsh, and I don't for a moment regret inviting Fearghas to take the spot. He moved the debate along, raising new arguments instead of rehashing others, (which would have been much easier to do) and was quite dry in his rebuttal. It's a bit much to expect a Magregor AAA every time and I have no complaint.

Possibly you read too much into the 'keyboard warrior' thing; in any case, Fearghas was one of the first to post on this thread himself. He was, methinks, being a wee bit ironic and light-hearted. He was using a buzzword to convey the frenetic tap-tapping thing, rather than some medical term for the pathologically e-violent. You have, by quibbling, probably provided mild amusement in the form of illustrating the point he was trying to make.

I would add that, like the gentleman he is, he agreed to be a reservist in the week of his dissertation submission. Whilst others had time for added pre-debate scribbling, he also had to orchestrate my swearing-in (and the dethronement of my predecessor). He had to jump straight into the debate from that.

Also, someone was scathing about James Shield earlier: they were also suffering from an excess of grumpiness. James is capable of being very acerbic and to-the-point. His style is different from that usually seen in Parliament Hall, but
but the Society is for more than one kind of speaker, and I have no complaints about him either. He approaches these things from a serious angle.

[munchingfoo]

Perhaps I am being harsh - but I would rather have my ability to communicate in public using the English language criticised than my courage and fortitude. I put it to you that in using the term the speaker was being more harsh than I, but to every contributor to this site (or perhaps just those whose opinions are miss felt) not just myself.

Using a phrase in an incorrect context is not an excuse for that term to be allowed to cause offence.

I think you prove my point that his speech was a little underworked given that you have defended his performance with excuses as to why it was bad. This is fair enough. Being a reservist at short notice is obviously a good reason, but it also shows that my judgment was not overly harsh.

[Owen Wilton]

1.

You're right, of course. Despite all appearnaces, and being a "contributor" to this site, he was not speaking in gentle mockery of Internet people, including himself.

No.

He uttered those foul words of deprecation with you specifically in mind, and a whole horde of denizens of the Internet, calculating the venomous harm of the curse which he brought upon you and the whole house of Atreus. Having impugned your individual and collective honour so badly, he must now walk barefoot to Crail.

2.

I knew this would happen! I did not defend the "badness" of his speech; I did not say it was bad. I was merely putting it in context. But anyway, I give up. Happy face, and all that.