Quote:
Originally posted by Bfair
Truly atop the most arrogant statements you have posted in my short duration on the boards (5 months).
--- [snip] ---
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).
--- [snip] ---
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to tell us not to follow the general guidelines in the rulebook that specifically refute your position because they are outdated by an admittedly unofficial writing.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).
--- [snip] ---
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.
|
Steve, I have some questions for you:
1. How do you read things like "arrogant", "cheap shot innuendos", "condescending mannerisms" and an "attitude of infallibility" into a purely TEXT post?
2. When was the last time you vehemently disagreed with ANYONE in this forum, outside of the three people Carl mentions?
3. Why are you SO angry, when Carl's disagreement with the use of the General Instructions to Umpires made no mention of you either by name or by implication?
I also have some facts for you:
1. Whether the General Instructions to Umpires are physically "in the book" has never been at issue. The fact is that they are NOT a part of the
Official Baseball Rules, which are codified and numbered from 1 to 10. In
that sense they certainly are NOT "in the book".
2. The General Instructions may truly have "supported (sic) the intent and purpose of umpires"
when they were written. They are
still, in some respects, very laudible ideals. They are NOT, however, the expressed charter for umpires. That can only be found in Rule 9.00, including the specific rule that says that a decision on a judgement call is "final", thus making it illegal to get help
after making such a decision unless specifically directed to do so by another equally specific rule. [OBR 9.02(a)]
3. The admonition to "get the call right" is only a
part of ONE of the
many duties and responsibilities of the umpire as outlined in OBR 9.01. The General Instructions, when written over 50 years ago, apparently supported the contemporary belief that it was the umpire's
most important responsibility, that's true. The reference from Evans and a closer reading of OBR 9.01 would tend to disprove that belief, in the light of modern societal pressures and the response of professional officials to those pressures. Things do CHANGE in the space of 50 years, Bfair.
4. You said that "change for change's sake" has "never been an issue". That's not true. I suggest that you read again the post of Pete Booth on the subject AND your own response in another thread. Both simply asked "Why not change?" without apparently offering any great intrinsic benefit flowing from any proposed change. I said that, IMO, this amounted to "change for change's sake", and so it is clear that the subject certainly WAS "an issue" here in recent times. Failure to recall that is merely SELECTIVE MEMORY on your part. That is not to say that YOU believed you were
advocating "change for change's sake", but that's another thread.
Steve, this was an emotion-charged, personally-motivated and very selectively-biased post which I sincerely hope you now regret. I know from our numerous off-line discussions that you have never forgiven Carl for his unkind characterisation of you in another forum. I suggest that you are letting that history discolor your view of ALL of Carl's posts.
As someone once said, "
it ain't paranoia if they're really after you!" If Carl's post truly does exhibit some measure of paranoia, that wouldn't mean he isn't also right! It is only
delusional paranoia that has no real basis in fact. Whatever else he may be, my personal experience and your own occasional admission to that effect is that people really DO attack Carl, and to a lesser extent Garth and myself, simply because of WHO he is and not because of WHAT he may actually have said. You have openly admitted that is the case in the past. Will you deny it now?
Cheers,