Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Mills
eAuthors stand steadfast in their defense of certain rules, applications and mechanics in which they believe mightily. Do they really expect less of the rest of us?
|
This will come as a great shock to Bob Jenkins and Rich Fronheiser.
Quote:
|
This notion that we must all be pure of motive and process in order to be an umpire is what contributes to the shortage discussed in another thread.
|
I find that statement and the attitude it represents simply amaazing. If you are correct, you're perfectly willing to have Willie Sutton guard the money at your bank.
Of course I want officials to be pure of heart, honest, steadfast, true. I expect no less of them than of my Cubscout grandson. Bad people make bad officials.
Quote:
|
It reminds me of what happened in my hometown. Some of the residents of a local children's home went without Christmas presents last year. The reason? A $5000+ donation was rejected due to its source--a group of all-nude dancers who decided to donate their tips for a week.
|
How does the action of one group of fools in your hometown relate to my desire that umpires act according to the tenets of sportsmanship and honor they expect of those they judge? Old story: IRS calls the local Rabbi. "Joe Levine has listed a $100,000 contribution to your temple. Did he make that donation?" Rabbi: "Well, I certainly believe he will now." Do I fault the Rabbi? Not a bit. Do I fault the people who turned down legitimate charity? Certainly. Does either story relate to the improper conduct urged on umpires by some on the Internet? No.