Quote:
Originally posted by Ump20
Quote:
Originally posted by oregonblue
I am not a CC or WW hater...nor am I a member of any other camp, except umpires struggling to learn how to do it better. In fact, I appreciate the scholarship that WW brings to the table. I would bet though, that if one of the more infamous CC/WW haters blatantly called someone a LIAR, the thread or post would be in jeopardy. Just my opinion.
Pat, Rogue Valley
|
Dear Pat,
I also respect WW's well thought out posts. I also believe that in some situations he could have been "censored" by the Forum Police. I beg to differ in this case, as nowhere do I see him call anyone a "LIAR". He might have alluded to a poster not being part of the "thinking" family of umpires. Personally, I think he and others lead themselves open to attack when they make vows not to respond to certain posts by other members. If that person makes what is perceived to be a valid umpiring point, I think it should be subject to view and comment by all. If WW perceives it to be predominantly a personal attack that is when he should exercise his vow and not post at all. Jim/NY
|
Jim:
You are perfectly correct. For the record, I don't like being labelled a LIAR and I certainly don't use that term lightly with respect to other posters. I certainly haven't called Steve a LIAR in this thread. I have stated that I don't recall certain statements by Carl Childress that Steve claimed existed, but that's not an accusation against Steve; just a statement of fact. I don't recall them.
If Pat is referring to my suggestion that IF Peter Osborne had deliberately misrepresented my position in another forum, that made HIM a LIAR, then he is simply mistaken. The "IF" is the operative word there. I have NOT said that Peter DID take this course deliberately. That certainly WOULD have meant labelling him a LIAR under those circumstances. For obvious reasons, not the least of which is my different nationality and consequent idiomatic use of the language, I choose my words
very carefully when addressing such matters.
On the question of "vows" and responses to posts, surely that is entirely MY decision to make, and should not be influenced by what anyone else perceives. I am not preventing anyone else from responding by my actions, and I certainly should have the personal freedom to chose whose posts I will respond to, or not, for whatever reason. As for being "open to attack", past history here is that I am MORE "open to attack" when I post than when I abstain from posting. The irony is that I am sometimes attacked for my views even when I DON'T post a response! The mere presence of my name in the author's location of a post has been a catalyst for some to attack the post, IMHO.
oregonblue:
It is a FACT that my posts certainly HAVE been moderated in this forum. If you feel that the content of ANY post,
includng mine, has breached the guidelines of the Forum then you may notify the moderator by email and have him review that post. His email address is
[email protected]. It will help him if you include the URL to the post you find offensive. That URL appears in the address box of your browser as you read the post, and may be cut and pasted into your email. He will confirm that he has edited my posts, at times removing entire paragraphs which he adjudged to be inflammatory and others removing entire posts which he concluded were sufficiently off topic.
I have NEVER claimed that I, or any of the other staff writers, deserved BETTER treatment in that respect than any other poster. I certainly HAVE claimed that some of us are subject to MORE constraints on our posts than the average poster, by virtue of our staff involvement. I have asked for EQUAL freedom to respond in our posts, or alternatively freedom from being attacked simply because of who we are. I believe that is fair, don't you Pat?
Cheers,