|
> Why would anyone need an "editorial comment" when they already have
> the words right there?
Do you even own a BRD, Warren? In the BRD section I cited, Carl uses the General Instructions reference to carrying your rulebook. The clear inference is that, for OBR, the cite from the General Instructions is operative. He says nothing about it being unofficial, obsolete, or generally ignored in practice. The conflict between his BRD reference and his position on the General Instructions as expressed recently in this discussion forum is obvious, and as a paying customer of the BRD and a paying subscriber to eumpire.com, my question asking him to reconcile that conflict is entirely appropriate.
> The General Instructions to Umpires are an "OBR guideline" not
> "rules". How clear does this have to be? Guidelines may be accepted or
> rejected as appropriate, because they are GUIDELINES and NOT RULES!
> Anyone who reads and comprehends English understands the difference.
Yet none of that was included in the BRD citation.
> Mr Hensley your approach is that of a naysayer with no better motive
> than to attack the probity of his enemies at every apparent
> opportunity.
"Enemies," eh Warren? No, I think of them as peers, colleagues, correspondents, or, at the most heated moments, opponents. Never "enemies." I leave the warfare fantasies and schoolgirlish cliques to others.
And who are you to speculate as to my motives? Here's a novel idea you might try - you be responsible for what YOU say and why you say it, and I'll be responsible for what I say, and why I say it.
> Such people are worthless in any sensible discussion
> because, as you have well established by your post, that approach is
> trivial, petty and entirely counterproductive to informed debate and
> knowledgable discourse.
"Such people are worthless?" And you never engage in personal attacks, right? If you practiced what you preach, you'd have said "such approaches are worthless." That's the difference between attacking the message and attacking the messenger.
Back in the 80's, I was a moderator for the Public Forum/Nonprofit Connection on the online service GEnie. One of those duties included deleting and returning posts containing personal attacks to their senders, with an explanation of the transgression and how they could fix it. If you had posted there like you post here, you'd have gotten about an 80% rejection rate.
Oh, by the way, your statement above begs the question. Can you make any argument without tripping over a logical fallacy?
> You, sir, are behaving like a 5th columnist for the EWS idiot society.
> I'm sure most reasonable posters will have noticed that by now. It is
> time to come out of the closet and openly declare your interests and
> affiliations, too!
You're behaving like U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy.
> BTW, was it section 465 or 485 you were citing in your post? Surely
> you haven't made such a mammoth and unthinkable mistake as to get a
> citation reference number wrong, have you? Wouldn't that be a crushing
> error for one so committed to finding such errors for others? (grin)
Oops, my bad. The correct reference is 465. Thanks for pointing out the typo.
|