And here's the flier for last week's event (which went big after the CEO charged the UW with "serious racial discrimination"):
What accounts for the differences between these 2 fliers? Please speculate. I'll tell you the answer later. [Both events were put together and sponsored by the Wisconsin Law School's Federalist Society, which made both fliers.]
UPDATE: Answer here.
पोस्ट्स
३९ टिप्पण्या:
Male vs. female.
Students won't be allowed at the Federalist one, so no fight?
Both events are Federalist Society sponsored events. The same group produced both fliers.
The first one uses an icon designed by Raymond Lowy, the second one doesn't.
I assume you objected to the original "Pissing Match" poster planned for your event?
I would assume the difference is that yours is not really a debate. You will both be giving your insight, and may well disagree on the details. But you are not comming at this from opposing viewpoints. Neither of you is arguing for the establishment of a state religion.
The First Amendment poster has to make two points. First, that program (unlike the AA program) is really a love-in because, as we all know, God is Love. Second, the program deals with government, and so has to use clunky Post Office-inspired graphics to make its libertarian point that government is inherently ugly.
Loewy not Lowy. My bad.
The difference is that the event this week is not a "debate."
It also would have been rude to put the red-circle-ban symbol over the word "Church" in the flier for last week's event.
"It also would have been rude to put the red-circle-ban symbol over the word "Church" in the flier for last week's event."
LOL.
Another Althouse riddle.
Well the Boxing gloves design is for the prof Church, while the NO Postal Service design is for the national Church.
This must be Wisconsin humor.
The second one looks as though it presupposes there will be no agreement. As in a boxing match, someone's gotta win and someone will lose.
No competition in the first one, only a cruel neutrality.
The second flier depicted an event requiring a weather pep talk from a UW vice provost. Or waas that climate, I can't keep those straight.
I like the price.
I'm sticking to my subliminal guns; one appeals to men, the second to women. Not exclusively, but the preference or appeal is in the differing designs/colors - not necessarily the words/wording.
Comparatively, Ann will draw significantly more women - again, not because of the female name, but rather the inherently female design/appeal. Which may have been entirely unintentional on the part of the signmaker (although I tend to doubt it was inadvertent).
I don't get the first one. They are using a Post Office symbol with the words "US Church". Am I stupid?
At those prices, the gate will be bupkes.
They are both poorly designed!
You're asking us to account for the differences, but I figure part of the lesson you intend is for us to figure out which differences are significant. I mean, they each use many of the same letters so there's no fundamental difference in the language used. The people involved are one difference, but they're different events. I'm thinking the difference you want us to focus on is the prominent display of the Federalist Society on your event and the apparent (didn't zoom) lack thereof on the Church/Clegg poster (again, it may be on there, but if it is it's not nearly so prominent).
Having proposed that as being the key difference in question, I have no explanation why.
If the difference to which you refer is that you are named on the one, but not the other, could it be as simple as you hadn't been confirmed as a participant until after the flier was made?
No UW logo on the AA poster.
Possibly an attempt to disassociate the U from the unpleasantness of honest discussion.
The top one was designed on a PC, the bottom one a Mac.
The bottom one shows that the discussion is open to ideas from both sides of the aisle (a left and a right glove) while the one on top is for a forum of people who are against an issue, hence the "Anti" symbol.
"the discussion is open to ideas from both sides of the aisle "
Ha ha ha.
You kill me, man.
I gots tears in my eyes.
The main difference is that one of them will have on-sight commentary by the lovely and talented Althouse, and the other got that online, without attribution.
One is confrontational and the other is absolutist.
Is the postal service a church? what a peculiar concept for a flyer.
wv: "brismsi" -- Ritual circumcision performed by Italo-Bulgarian Jews.
The differences are legion. Gnosis is required to know what is significant, and if if there is any at all.
However, unpopular ideas must always be presented with a withering response from orthodoxy. Popular ideas only need gentle reinforcing commentary.
They also show clear evidence that the Federalist Society (Madison branch) is subject to O'Sullivan's First Law.
One is in a debate format, the other is a discussion by persons not necessarily opposed in view.
Althouse has said she dislikes the debate format for certain issues, because the issues get drowned in talking points. Perhaps this is to advertise a format that avoids this difficulty?
The bottom one's redder.
The question that should be discussed this week, but won't be: Have any words ever written in the English language inspired more tiresome, inconsequential yammering than the Establishment Clause?
One was a competition, so boxing gloves; the other was a single speaker addressing in the abstract something he doesn't like, so the poster red-slashes that abstraction.
The mishmash of symbols, the USPS logo labeled a "church" with the "banned" red slash encircling it, I found busy and confusing, like those editorial cartoons that mix too many metaphors.
Like imagine a bunch of pig-caricature Congress members at a trough singing "Yes We Can!" and the pig trough is a cutout fuselage of Air Force One.
Does it really sex up the tried-and-true "Pigs at the Trough" metaphor to toss AF1 in there as the trough?
Yes, AF1 symbolizes the President's complicity in pork spending, but it would still be a bad cartoon.
I read the two together as If you like Professor Althouse's commentary, you should see her box.
But then, sometimes my mind wanders.
Aha! The Federalist Society needs more than one font!
Liberal law professors get a bigger font
"I would assume the difference is that yours is not really a debate."
This.
Has there been any real threat of violation of the Establishment Clause in 200 years? Not the phony threats contrived by the Supreme Court and the anti-religious bigots who have distorted First Amendment jurisprudence, but any real and serious threat?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा