I've read pretty much every post Mr. Childress has made in public areas on the Internet since he came online - RSO, McGriff's, eteamz, URC, eumpire - as well as much of his private posts, having been a charter and active member of UmpireTalk (both versions) until a few months ago, and I have to say this post is one of the best he's ever written. Not only does it show, modestly and without embellishment, why he legitimately
is the expert and authority he "claims" to be, it also succinctly captures the principles and structure of an approach to the craft of umpiring amateur baseball games that has won me over as a convert probably 95% of the time.
I agree with his cautions about the "pro attitude" in amateur ball. I teach much of his 21st Century Mechanics to the youth umpires I train. I apply a hierarchy to my "acceptance" of interpretations that begins with the rulebook but welcomes clarifications and expansions from official interpretations and authoritative opinions.
Carl perhaps doesn't realize that the "gang" he considers to be his loyal (or not so loyal, as the case may be) opposition really isn't all that often opposed to his ideas and/or his teachings. He bemoans that they (we, I guess, since I think he considers me one of the ingrates) only come out of the woodwork to argue with something he's said, never to say "atta boy." The problem here, I think, is that Carl has never understood or agreed with the generally accepted Internet protocol of NOT posting "me, too" posts. Most people don't post them, most people agree they're pretty useless and they just clutter up the boards, but Carl, I think, sees a need and has a desire for the "me, too" or the "amen, brother!" type of post in support of his ideas. Even if the silent majority totally understands, agrees with, and utilizes his teachings (which describes me almost all the time), it pisses him off that we don't "say so" in public. And, he probably has a legitimate gripe in that area.
That said, however, Carl is also his own worst enemy when he is so quick to go negative on a personal level, and write off someone's disagreement as sour grapes over some past argument, an inarguably
ad hominem tactic. When I left UT I described Carl as a Tasmanian devil bouncing around the different Internet sites like a tornado, and I said Carl is to umpires what Ty Cobb was to players. He probably thinks that's more a compliment than a criticism. It's like Microsoft software - what many of us think is a bug, he looks at as a feature.
I don't think anyone is looking for Carl (or his associates at eumpire.com) to be their sensitivity trainer. But we
are adults, we
are fellow umpires, and we
are, in many cases, paying customers of the site that sponsors this discussion forum. It is both good business sense and common decency for the editor of eumpire.com and his staff to treat participants in this forum with courtesy and respect at all times,
even in disagreement.
I take Carl's post as a pledge to try harder to meet that standard. I applaud him for that commitment, and I hope his leadership by example will instill a kinder and gentler approach from everyone else for whom the shoe fits.
And, to paraphrase Vito Corleone, let it be known that I will not be the one to break the peace that has been made here today.
P.S. I started this reply before anyone else had replied, but I had to leave the computer to take my son to baseball practice. I see that other replies have been made in the interim, but I have not read them. This reply is based solely on the content of Carl's 2/10, 2:24am post.