[Bfair]

Truly atop the most arrogant statements you have posted in my short duration on the boards (5 months). No sense in quoting, it can be re-read if desired.

You show a paranoia in that those who disagree with you do so because of who you are rather than what you say. You may hold yourself in that high of esteem, but not all others do---you could greatly advance yourself by understanding that. The problem is not your baseball content, it is your cheapshot inuendos and condescending mannerisms. Not all accept the gospel of St. Carl (although some regular apostles may). It is not to say that those who disagree with you are right, but merely their opinions differ and they are seeking your additional knowledge OF BASEBALL to cause them to change. You may or may not be willing or able to provide that---and they may or may not change their opinion due to your beliefs.

You write and publish an article about not calling a balk on F1 for specifically violating a pitching rule because his INTENT was not to deceive the runner. Yet, you have the audicity to admonish those who don't carry a book on the field implying their inconsistency in their following of the general guidelines of umpiring. You reference the "Gas House Gang" as those against you and admonish them as they make corrections in their calls "for the good of the game" (and in accordance with the general guidelines). Don't look in the mirror, you might be shocked at what you find, Bubba !!!

Then, you continue to tell us not to follow the general guidelines in the rulebook that specifically refute your position because they are outdated by an admittedly unofficial writing. Let's remember, they are still in the book---yours are not !!! Use your magic powers to get yours in the book and to get out that which rulemakers agreed to put in. Until then, I will accept that which is in the book over that which is not. Those guidelines support the intent and purpose of umpires---which is to attempt to get the call right---that's why umpires are even part of the game. Your position supports your attitude of infallibility (not surprisingly).

Again, you are preaching to those primarily officiating amateur ball the findings of professional officiating knowing and agreeing in past there are differences that must apply. Stick with one or the other in your arguments within threads and boards. Please quit accepting and preaching whichever position best supports your specific argument at the time.

I couldn't help but summarize the point you tried to make to forget the general guidelines. I can only remind you of the following (perhaps paraphrased):

Rule 1---All animals will walk on 4 legs---except the pigs.

If you are going to change it, please use your "connections" to get it done properly. Even Snowball and Napoleon knew they needed to at least get it in print withn the rules rather than expecting the animals to accept their dictates. Go at it, Bubba.

As for change itself, I can't put words in your mouth, but when you post that the book is wrong and that JEA is right, then it is obvious change (at least of the book) should occur if only for correction sake. Change for the sake of change is not prevalent here and has never been an issue, although some like to grasp that wording. Those of the "Gas House Gang" whom you feel have a "hidden agenda" may merely disagree with you or, indeed, propose change. This is not Pleasantville, although some like to think so. I could suspect which side of the street you'd have been on when Jesus Christ proposed change many years ago---and no, it was not just for the sake of change then either.

Just my opinion----certainly not gospel as some might expect all to accept. In fact, I realize many may obect---but at least I do realize that. Just one of the Gas House Gang (as opposed to one who may just pass gas).

BTW, Columbus and I STILL believe the world is round. Good thing he discovered it despite those who felt it was flat.