I wrote about this last year. I wasn't there yesterday, so I have no opinion on who deserved to win this year's Attorney General's Cup. I do know that before yesterday some reasonable people from various schools, mostly public, think these speech and debate competitions are not on an even playing field and are getting close to the point of suggesting non-participation by their schools in protest. I think that might be a statement that needs to be made. The result yet again won't dissipate that feeling.I flat out saw Harry Blalock's daughter get robbed four years ago and not even place when she should have won outright. The mere fact that Diego Benavente was a judge that year raised questions given Harry's relentless criticism of the Babauta administration. I read last year's winning MCS speech and didn't find it all that great, and it seemed people put words into that Filipino kid's mouth that pandered to this island's irrational federalization phobia and bias that I doubt would otherwise have come out of him. I said that to Galvin, and he insists no. He's a good man and a friend, so I'll take him at his word, but that's how it struck me. I was there in Rota and the Mt. Carmel kid seemed to get a warmer reception from the refs than Michael Jordan in his broken down and ill advised return engagement to the Washington Wizards. It just seems plain unlikely that in something as subjective as this, Mt. Carmel is tops seven years in a row. In the NFL All-Pro voting, with far more scrutiny, players get chosen on reputation.
Galvin offered this: “We're the ones that people are out to get, which makes it harder every year. But we treat each year as if it's the first year. We don't see ourselves as defending a title, we see ourselves as winning it anew each year.” You've got that pegged. Mt. Carmel, at least when it comes to the AG Cup, is quickly becoming more unlikable than Bill Bellicheck's Patriots, though G is better dressed and is nowhere near as grim and lugubrious as Bellicheat.
49 comments:
I'd hate to be the winning student, who is elated that all of their hard work has paid off, only to read this. Coming from a teacher, it makes it all the worse.
This is something to be discussed within the community that organizes these events, or taken up with the judges. Not publicly, where the students, who work hard and win, are in away discredited or their honor tarnished by others, especially teachers.
I'm sorry if this doesn't sit well with you, but these are my thoughts on this.
I'd also hate to be the kid who worked hard and never had a fighting chance because of this tradition of just giving it to Mt. Carmel every year. I've consoled these kids and their parents before. This isn't specifically about this year's event. The questions are out there. It's about the pattern. I'm not the only one saying it. I'm just the only one who will put my name to it. These also aren't ten year olds.
Perhaps the other schools just aren't catholic (small c or large, you choose) enough.
Jeff,
I know for a fact that it was very close, and there was actually a tie for 2- so there was no 3rd place. Only a few points separated 1st from 4th. I understand your concerns, but as someone who sat and watched the whole program and listened to all of the speeches, the right person one, regardless of which school she attends. It was a great competition, and all of the young women were amazing.
Criticizing children is good for them.
Just kidding.
Anyone know who the judges were this year?
No one is criticizing children. There aren't even children involved.
Criticizing Brad Ruszala is even better.
Criticizing young people for the right reason is one thing. Questioning the validity of their achievement is another. I said this already, this is something that should be aired to the committee, not in a public forum. You say you're not criticizing their achievement, but you are. Sorry again, but this is something I must say.
I will say emphatically they didn't deserve to win seven years in a row. It's a legitimate question. I'm not talking specifically about the most reason competition, but the pattern is absurd. I don't care who likes it, and I'm not keeping that underground to spare anyone's feelings. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.
Jeff,
But just because you're entitled to your opinion doesn't mean it's right.
I didn't see this competition. I know several of the competitors personally. I know there was a lot of talent in this year's field.
I take Melissa's comments as a true and accurate report. She was there. She's a responsible person. It sounds like the truth.
So THIS YEAR, the judging was fair, the right student won, and CONGRATULATIONS to her and to all of the students who participated!
Jeff, you argue that there is a bias in favor of Mt. Carmel School in the AG's cup. But you point to only three points that support that position: 1) they've won many years in a row; 2) one year a judge was Diego Benavente, who graduated from MCS; and 3) you watched one year where you feel strongly a different student deserved to win.
As an English teacher, you must realize that these alone do not offer sufficient support to convince anyone, unless they already harbor ill feelings toward MCS or anti-Catholic prejudices.
The Cup is organized by the Attorney General's Office. I have no idea how they choose judges for the competition. But if they're going to choose someone local, that person will probably be from some school in the competition. Diego's past participation doesn't mean every competition is rigged, or even that the competition he judged was.
That you have strong feelings in support of one of your students speaks volumes for your loyalty and dedication as a teacher. But it could possibly also mean that you yourself were biased in watching the competition.
And I think Galvin is right. Each competition is a new competition. Each time, a new student has to try his or her hand at the event.
And next year, it will be a new competition again.
So Congrats to Ruby Venus, who won this year's AG Cup, and deservedly so.
jmho.
Let's be real here. Mount Carmel produces the best and brightest, in my opinion. There are booksmart students from other private schools, that never seem as well-rounded as MCS students. That's just my observation over the last three years. In a war of subjectives between MCS and a public school, well, MCS would win every time. Hands down I would add.
Just a thought, but maybe you should mention that your daughter goes to Mt. Carmel so they know why you're carrying their water. If and when she comes here and competes, and they shut her out and give it to Mt. Carmel again because of this tradition of doing so, you'll probably feel differently. Just a guess.
That person is arguing that I shouldn't express my opinion, so that's why I mentioned that I'm entitled to it. If a teacher isn't going to say something, then who is? If you don't agree, then don't agree. I don't agree with you all the time, either.
I also mentioned that in circumstances with far more scrutiny, such as the sports leagues all star voting, people vote on reputation. This isn't even really open to debate. Many people think Scorcese got an Oscar he didn't deserve two years ago to address past screw ups, but I'm supposed to believe these judges here have it pegged accurately seven years in a row, and it just happens to be Mt. Carmel every year, and all the normal biases in all kinds of subjective competitions don't occur here. Please.
I didn't even get into the fact that many of the politicans' kids go to Mt. Carmel.
I also just got an email from a person in the AG's office, higher than Melissa, who said this week's judging was awful. I'm not bringing that person into it publicly without their permission, but I'm not the only one who thinks the pattern stinks. I've spoken to many people who think the judging is bad on a regular basis. Go ask Harold Easton or Andrew Golden or track down Jim DeKnight.
Go ask Harry Blalock if people didn't even essentially admit to him that some funny business went on when his daughter competed.
And you've got your facts wrong. I've witnessed two times, and one of those times was such a sham as to discourage anyone from even participating.
Congrats to everyone from all the other schools who competed with one arm tied behind their back.
Doesn't that comment say it all about the bias here.
I've seen some great kids in the public schools get into the Naval Academy and West Point.
Private schools get to reject the special education kids. They get to easily throw out behavioral problems. They get kids whose parents are concerned enough about education to pay for it.
I had four good friends who taught at Mt. Carmel. They did say the kids were good. They also said they got comments like, "The maid forgot to put my homework in my bookbag."
They all taught at MCS for two years or less.
"The maid forgot to put my homework in my bookbag."
i dont see anything wrong with that. our MAID forgot to put my homework in my bookbag a few times, too, when i was going to Mt. Carmel.
Perfectly admirable mindset, you're right.
Jane,
Are there any other organizations that molest children and try to cover it up that you support, or is the Catholic church the only one?
Since you're the foremost liberal cruasader on the island, your public wants to know.
Let slip the personal attacks I guess?
I did not say you should not say anything Jeff. I said you should take it up with the organizers and officials. Not air it publicly and disparage the winning student.
I watched the competition, and Melissa is right. The student who should have won, did.
Should Mount Carmel students be handicapped because they have parents that care, or have maids? It's good your proud of your students, but disparaging other students awards is not proper.
Good Job Ate Ruby!!
So I can have my opinion, but just not let very many know about it. Sorry, I choose a different route.
Personal attacks. Hmmm. Where exactly?
I have stated repeatedly that I have no opinion on whether this person should have won this year or not, but seven years in a row, something is wrong. I have my doubts, and I've seen and heard enough that I consider this competition flawed and tainted. I won't be very impressed when they give it to Mt. Carmel next year and I doubt others will be, either.
I'm not in a position or even interested in launching an inquiry. It's not that big a deal, really. I spoke my mind about my frustration on my blog, which I plan to continue doing.
Mt. Carmel students handicapped, really? Hardly seems to be the case. More like priviliged.
I rarely read blogs, but I did read your post on the Attorney
General's cup. While I also would like to keep any criticism of the
judging out of public discourse for fear of hurting the feelings of
the winner, I could not agree more. Unfortunately, emotional pleas and illogic won the day once
again.
What is worse is this predilection in the CNMI for mindless appeals to
patriotism. This speech along with much of the public discourse of the island rely on mindless patriotism to advocate positions. Of course, nobody wants to be labeled anti-patriotic, so it is a tempting device for those concerned about winning at any cost.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson.
Handicapped, as in golf. Should they be handicapped, so that they're on more even ground with other students?
The personal attack I mentioned was the anonymous attacking Jane. The comment has nothing to do with this issue, but you let it go through moderation.
Okay. My last words, outtie.
I've talked to Hal and Andrew Golden. I know at least half of the kids who compete. And my daughter goes to MCS right now, but she's also gone to SIS (K to 4) and SVES (5-6), and as you note, she's heading to SSHS next year.
I'm not defending MCS's win because it's MCS. And I won't be crying sour grapes if my daughter competes in anything and loses to an MCS student.
Unlike the anon who thinks MCS kids are better at everything, I disagree. I've seen kids from other schools who are smart, talented, and who perform very well, and obviously win at competitions like Mock Trial and speech competitions and NFL, etc.
The fact that MCS has won 7 years in a row isn't in and of itself compelling evidence that the competition is rigged. If you've tossed a coin 9 times and it's come out heads every time, and you're going to toss it a 10th time-what are the odds it will come up heads?
50%--Because each new toss is a new game, and the probability doesn't change because of prior tosses.
Galvin's got it right-each competition is a new competition.
As for different people having different opinions, that's typical in any competition. I respect Hal Easton and work with him a lot in Thespians. But I think his criticisms of MCS and other private schools is just whining. The public schools do a poor job of publishing the accomplishments of their students. The public schools do a poor job of giving credit where credit is due when their students succeed. And I think Hal is resentful that the private schools do a much better job of that, and consequently the public perceives (and misperceives) that private education is better.
I judged a speech competition recently. For the high school students, all 3 judges voted the same way. For the middle school competition, 2 judges voted for on competitor and the 3rd judge voted for the "other" student. In the 3rd j's opinion, the "other" student was clearly better, clearly the winner, so much so that the 3rd judge questioned each of the other two judges about their votes, unbelieving that 2 people could not see the obvious superiority of the "other" competitor. Was the competition rigged? No. Can rational minds come to different results? Yes.
Have you ever watched competitions on TV? America's Next Top Model can be hilarious--as Miss J says things like "why is everybody seeing that and I'm not seeing that" when all the judges think some photo is fabulous. I look at the photos and, before the judges speak, often have no idea if they're going to say yea or nay.
As for the outburst about the Catholic priest scandal, all I can say is that the students at MCS have nothing to do with that.
The U.S. enslaved Africans for decades. The U.S. has embarked on destructive policies, killing wars, and other atrocities. Should I, because of the U.S.'s history, decry my citizenship? Well, maybe. But I'd rather try my best to make sure it doesn't happen again, that people of conscience speak up and stop it. (And I agree we should stop the jingoistic maumauing and kowtowing.)
I have no problem, Jeff, with asking for better standards for judging, insisting that rules used for judging be written and followed, that judges be vetted in this and any other competition. But I'm not convinced by the arguments so far that there's any sinister plot being advanced by the judging in the AG's cup.
Or maybe Harold has done these things many times and knows what goes on. I frankly would trust Harold on this more than you. He has been there a lot. I know him to be a fair and reasonable person less guided by ideology than you. As for the publicity thing, I don't agree and don't even see the relevance of the point. You suggest Harold is bitter, but you're fair. I find that absurd. And who cares if your daughter went to San Vicente. Were they competing? Was SIS?
One way of fixing this event, and this is what Harold and Andrew told me, is to scrap the point system. One judge can sandbag a candidate with the point system. Instead they suggest a ranking system. Makes sense to me.
I personally would keep the politicians out of it as well, and ideally, there would be trained judges. I did a competition of this type in high school and the judges had actually training in what to look for. They weren't picked because they were a local celebrity like most of the judges in this competition. I saw the list of names this year, and it seems this year's judges were pretty good, at least compared to the norm. When I was in Rota, I'm not sure I saw anyone there who I knew to have an appreciation or understanding for rhetoric.
Also, flipping a coin is a true random event. This competition isn't. There is a world of difference. I don't buy your comparison.
I wish I could definitively prove the sham this competition is, but bloggers have yet to get subpoena power. People will have to go there and decide for themselves.
Incidentally, I talked to one of the coaches who said this winning speech was full of emotional appeals, which is exactly what was done last year and Galvin even acknowledged in a comment last year was part of the strategy. Can we stress reason and logic for once, or do we have to cry like the kid last year?
I've also heard that Mt. Carmel has a team that writes the speech. I'd hardly doubt that. Good training for future Greg Cruzes that can't think for themselves going on over there. But hey, they won. They got the good publicity, but they can't fool everyone all the time.
I don't think they should be handicapped as in golf. I would be happy to scrap the point system and get demonstrably fair judges with actual training.
"Wild horses couldn't get me to take that job."
Well what could wild horses get you to do?
Wow, beat the kids up, spit on their awards, and then tell off the folks who tell you that the way you're going about this is sordid and wrong. :} Funny.
Who's the "angry" one?
Jane, Melissa and Lila are right.. the judging is a subjective thing, there's no "tradition" of passing on the award.. the opposite would more likely be true, a judge might think in the back of their mind that it would look bad to give the trophy to MCS again, and actually unintentionally maybe, hold that against them. God forbid you were a teacher harping about an award my daughter, who may have worked very hard to prepare and compete, had won.. you'd hear it from me boy.
Have a cold drink, and calm down. There was no conspiracy to give MCS a trophy for the sixth year in a row. They are obviously "the ones to beat".. the effort to question the winner, would be more wisely utilized preparing the students to beat them in the future.
Just some advice.. take it or leave it.
So let me get this straight, Jane Mack wants other people's kids to be in class with foreigners who can't speak English on the taxpayer's tab while the liberal lawyer sends her own kid to private school with the rich kids? Typical essay in liberal hypocrisy.
I'm not delving into that garbage again. I think most parents want the best for their kids.
Hey! I went to public school and I'm not...
Oh yeah, I guess that kind of proves your point.
I'm so glad I have a fan!
There are some misconceptions about kids in private schools, just as there are about kids in public schools. We could all do with a bit more reality.
I'm always appalled when any kid in a private school suggests that public schools are "scary" places. I stomp on that hard, point out all the kids I know who are GREAT KIDS that attend public school, and talk about racism and classism.
But I'm also upset by people who think all kids at private schools (especially schools connected with a religion) are "rich" kids. There are children of minimum-wage contract workers at MCS-with parents struggling to provide what they think is best for their children and a little scholarship money thrown in to make it happen. There are local kids from families on food stamps, with some nice uncle or auntie paying the bill. Not every child at a private school is a child of privilege or has more than every child at public school. And there are, of course, people who don't speak English well at private schools, too-whatever that has to do with the equation.
And as noted, I send my daughter where I think she'll get what she needs. I don't think there is ONE best school for all kids. I have friends and family who've attended practically every school on Saipan. I pointed out my own eclectic transitioning of my daughter in and out (and back into) public schools as just an example that I'm not some gung-ho "MCS uber alles" type of person.
Jeff, you want to set yourself up as the one who can judge what's fair and right, and call the competition unfair and biased. You claim others share your opinion. Neither you nor Hal have had the number of years here in Saipan that I've had, the family contacts, or children in schools. (I had a nephew who lived with me, whom I sent to HJHS, too.) And I spoke with Hal yesterday, by the way. I'm not sure you've represented his opinions correctly. But just so we're clear, I have no greater prejudice or bias than you or Hal, and frankly, from what you're saying I think I have less.
But the point I'm making is not about whose opinion we should listen to. The point I'm making is that you have essentially libeled a 12th grade student and some volunteer judges by claiming fraud, cheating, or unfair bias. And that's a really nasty thing to do without more factual basis than a series of wins by one school (Did you know that MHS won the AG's cup 4 times in row before?) and a difference of opinion.
So of course I think your libel should be tested with the rigors of logic. And a scam to rig a high school speech competition by the organizers of the competition, volunteer judges, and hard-working students seems pretty hard to swallow.
As for your comparison to Greg Cruz...all students who hope to win --no matter from what school--will practice their speeches and get feedback that helps them do a better job, so your criticism of the MCS "team" approach isn't particularly logical either.
I personally disagree that emotional appeal isn't part of a good speech that deserves credit. I would hope that emotional appeals, though, are to higher moral principles like tolerance and justice.
Despite our disagreements, I think there are some good points that you've made, Jeff.
I agree there should be clarity about the scoring. I think the suggestions of a ranking system (with a fixed number of points then distributed for each ranking and a final tabulation for the winner) and no politicians seem imminently reasonable and worth pushing with the competition organizers. I suggested "training" for the judges-even a half-hour session with the judges ahead of time would be good.
And these are suggestions that can be made without whining, without claiming unfair bias or past prejudice, with logic and reason.
(and maybe a little emotion)
:-)
Now that Jeff has stated a preference for logic over emotion, I'm sure he'll be voting Republican for the rest of his life. Welcome to the club!!!!!! :)
"Perfectly admirable mindset, you're right."
of course i didnt have a maid to "forget to put my homework in my bookbag" in high school. i forgot to do that all on my own. i postsed that simply because it was as irrelevant to the ago cup winner as your posting of that statement.
and i agree with saipanwriter, i went to school with many students who were nowhere near being "rich". (i was one myself!) we all worked very hard at accomplishing our goals and succeeding in whatever competitions we entered. i would take offense to anyone's suggestions that we won what we did win for reasons other than our hard work and perseverance.
I know you were kidding boonieman. I'm not talking about your generation, as I wasn't here and don't know. I'm talking about what I've seen the last few years. We'll have to disagree.
Mike, I've yet to see the logic in bankrupting the federal treasury via crony capitalism, being asleep at the wheel on global warming, invading the wrong country and gay bashing.
I thought it wasn't "global warming" anymore, what with the cooling temps and record winters. It's "climate change" as the new democratic religion now.
Lovely Motec.. You just keep digging that hole bigger and bigger. Yeah Yeah Jeff, douchebaggery, I've got it. You overuse that by the way. Come up with something new.
Your big conspiracy theory related to the AGO Cup and Mount Carmel, demeans the winners. The way you've gone about this matter, considering it involves students.. and yes, KIDS, is unbecoming of a teacher. You're simply an ass.. and this post has only reinforced that fact.
As for me being "semi-literate".. as you can see, I get my "ideas" across just fine.
You might take some blog pointers from this "semi-literate" blogger. You might actually generate some real traffic.
Aloha
People who gossip about others behind their back in all cultures are generally regarded as the lowest form of humanity. It's kind of sad how someone as long term unemployed as you feels they have to hide. But don't worry, I'm sure you're getting prettier each day sitting all alone at your computer, eating ding dongs and writing about me.
I think as I've already explained that five fellow unemployed wankers yelling all day about "Goro" on your blog do not much traffic make. You can write as many anonymous comments pretending to be others to give you some fake importance, but you're still a gutless, unemployed douchebag, and I reckon that is what you'll continue to be in perpetuity.
Now, please go invent more fake anonymous comments to fill your dull and empty life, you lowlife piece of shit. I hope that you prefer that to douchebag, which really is the description that truly does come to mind when I think of you.
->
gets popcorn......... ;-P
Jane,
I no more set myself up as the judge on what is fair and right on this any more than you have on the Marine Monument, minimum wage, federalization, minimum wage or whatever else you choose to rail about. The fact that you've been here a while doesn't make you right or mean I should just be quiet. People being quiet and only whispering about it let this go on as long as it has with so little scrutiny. I have no more libeled anyone than you have in the past by calling Brad and I racist or trying to tarnish Nahal's reputation. It's just hilarious that you think you're purer than Caesar's wife, but people who disagree with you are sour or bitter or racist or sexist. What makes you so special?
I gave my thoughts on something I've been involved with and talked about with others who are involved as well. Were you ever even there? If my arguments are so weak, as you claim, then you shouldn't be all that concerned, yet clearly you are very concerned with this little pinprick to the entrenched establishment. Normally you are anti-establishment, which is the one thing I genuinely like about you.
I've given my thoughts, and you've given yours. The people can decide for themselves. Galvin is one of my favorite people on the island, and I suspect he's probably pissed off at me right now, but I'm going to speak my mind as you do. Galvin knows people are pissed off about this, which is why he gave the quote he did to the paper.
At this point I suspect Mt. Carmel parents and alumni like yourself , and there are a lot of them and they have a big voice and power, will think it is perfectly logical that the establishment school where island leaders from Tina Sablan to Dr. Norma Ada went were the winners seven years in a row, even though I witnessed Sarah Blalock get completely shafted four years ago, and even though people raise questions about subjective voting with far more scrutiny whether it is the Academy Awards or the NFL All-Pro voting, you seem to believe the local celebrities with no training to do so here have it pegged accurately, not to mention that the point system is a fundamental flaw. I simply can't say the duck I'm looking at is a horse because of peer pressure not to hurt an 18 year old's feelings. Last I checked 18-year-olds are more likely to go off to war than kindergarten.
The parents and students from the other schools I would reckon will see through the bullshit and continue to discuss it quietly with each other. The rest won't care.
Look I realize it's very hard for dubious decision making to occur, especially on a remote island when very few are watching. History has shown us that it is very hard to do these types of things:
For instance:
Bush really did beat Gore in 2000.
The OJ jury had it pegged.
Ordinary People is far more memorable than Raging Bull and deserved that Best Picture.
Barry Bonds'surly disposition wasn't the reason Pendleton won the MVP in 1991 with far weaker numbers.
There really were WMD's in Iraq.
We were really attacked in neutral waters in the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Vietnam War began completely honestly.
The Soviet Union deserved the Olympic Basketball Gold Medal in 1972.
Everyone with their doubts needs to apologize to Bush, OJ, Redford
Turning again more directly to the substance of this thread, I was there and correctly picked the four top finishers out of nine.
It was a bit unintentionally funny. The Attorney General delivered a nice introductory speech about the importance of honesty in public discourse, quoting Shakespeare and applying it to not winning policy debates or arguments based on untruthful appeals to emotion.
Then the students, almost to a woman (all nine competitors were female), proceded to do just that, though they must have had their remarks prepared in advance.
In fact the winner seemed to be the competitor who used the most drama and emotion. That also seems to be the tactic in the Mock Trial program, too, which is the exact opposite of what the criteria are at the national level.
Then again, such emotionalism seems to work in the CNMI for political campaigns and maybe even jury trials.
But that doesn't make it right.
Anyone who was present at the competition would have to conclude that the panel of judges did their assignments to the best of their abilities, fairly and without favoritism.
Monkey picture stole my post because she lacks the ability for original thought. As well as being continuously unemployed, monk is just not very bright -- just has a lot of time to create a fake reality.
Above is what a second lawyer from the AG's office wrote with tangents removed. This person thinks I'm wrong and owe an apology, but just endorsed one of my main points. It was astonishing to read.
Here is how I responded:
Doesn't this below speak to my exact point, the one you think is off and requires an apology, that the judges have no training, and there is a point system that lets one judge destroy someone's chances, but if you cry like the kid last year, use a fake, embellished Chamorro accent, like I saw the kid do in nationalistic Rota and which he didn't have at the BBQ the previous night, have a committee write your speech with words stuffed into your mouth like Greg Cruz, and come from the establishment school, you win. So impressive. But they're eighteen year old children, so don't speak up for the other 12 "children" in the competition.
MS. D
"In fact the winner seemed to be the competitor who used the most drama and emotion. That also seems to be the tactic in the Mock Trial program, too, which is the exact opposite of what the criteria are at the national level.
Then again, such emotionalism seems to work in the CNMI for political campaigns and maybe even jury trials.
But that doesn't make it right."
NO KIDDING!
But then, how would you know that was a lawyer from the AG's office? It could have been you, or me, or anyone.. you seem to apply that line of thought to my blog. :}
Because they told me who they were, and I saw this person at 360, which they referenced on your blog.
And if you aren't finding the humor in an identity puss like you calling someone with subpoena power a dildo, know that over here it's found hilarious.
I find "humor" in everthing Motec.. especially you. If I didn't, I'd probably the angry little person you've become, or possibly were.
I questioned not the identity.. I questioned you questioning identities elsewhere, but not applying that same standard to your own blog.
Thank you yoda! Still waiting for the universal translator from C3PO.
I'll take "Yoda" as a compliment.
Actually C3PO didn't use a "universal translator". Threepio was programmed with "6 million forms of communication".
You might be thinking of the "small fish" from "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", that was placed into the voicecanal of speakers. Reading the hosts thoughts was how it theoretically
worked.
A "universal translator" was also utilized on "Star Trek" (the original series), although the device required the pre-programming of all languages to be translated.
Thus proving that you are a dude. By the way, the Last Starfighter had a universal translator, too.
:} Or that I can reference Wikipedia. Lol
Post a Comment