[Jim Porter]

Regarding Rich's article -

There are four "Editor's Notes," in the piece. The first is merely informational. The second and third notes both agree with Rich's observations. The final note appears at the end of the piece and is, once again, informational. So, frankly Jake, I'm not quite sure how anyone can agree with Rich and not with Carl. I don't see any disagreement in the Editor's Notes.

Furthermore, Rich himself provides two, "Author's Notes." Although the Editor's Notes appear in italics and the Author's Notes do not, I can see how a reader could easily mistake one for the other.

It all comes down to personal tastes. While you may not appreciate the contributions of the editor to the articles on eUmpire.com, some readers do. Even if you absolutely hated the Editor's Notes, you could simply skim past them, since they are in italics.

Our editor has an almost legendary background, tremendous experience, and knowledge up the wazoo. While you may not agree with everything or anything he says, it always wise to listen to him. Any open-minded student of umpiring would agree.

Keep adding those Editor's Notes Carl - - even to my articles. Two minds are always better than one - especially when one of those minds possesses the knowledge that yours does.

Thank you, Jake, for your thoughts. They are important to all of us at eUmpire.com. We will continue to strive to bring the best, lastest, and most reliable information to you. We will never shy away from controversy, but, instead, we will bring you all sides of the debate in order to examine each topic thoroughly.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Jan 8th, 2001 at 03:53 PM]