it came across as frustrated, tinged with angst, perhaps emotionally wronged...
but once it was read from beginning to end, it was merely indulgent...
perhaps pardon is warranted in the heat of the moment...
the initial sting that the very best of us have felt...
then again, it is far too sunken in one direction that even sympathizers are want for some sense of reality, some consideration of the other, some thought...
that's what it is - thought was missing, feelings trumping reason, loyalties trumping balance...
so now, loyalty...
the ac family?
the spirit of an ac debater?
the wit? the humour? the perfection, excellence and immaculate debating?
i sit here, a debater having studied for 10 out of 11 years in ac, conversing with a teammate who has been a debater for the school in the last 5 years, and we discuss this expounding of what makes a debater in AC...
friends, seniors, passion, outbursts don't an ac debater...
proclamations of being the one team to beat certainly don't either...
it may have been an arguable truth in certain years gone, but even then, the circuit (this ethereal entity that determines the is and isn't of debate) was by no means polarized, not even bipolar in nature...
that's why we compete...
that's why competitions are intense as the levels get higher...
that's why the top seedings rotate on a yearly basis...
that's why the debating batch of 2003-2008 have trophies as evenly distributed as talent...
that's why one does not indulge in such talk...
give recognition where necessary, reflect out loud in moderation, and always be of deliberate thought...
all that is life is lived in balance,
John.
