Quote:
Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
Carl,
From your post about the tossed glove.
"The look on my face is not smug, just satisfied."
I believe I said that I didn't want to waste the time looking it up and used the word "smirk" instead of "smug". I have now done so; mea culpa for paraphrasing you (which I said I was doing anyway). If you consider that an aggregious inaccuracy, I would love to watch you work some day. I am positive that I could find bigger problems. Don't pretend that my post was anything more than pulling back thecurtain on your charade. The "Wizard" claimed that he has not shared his opinion on Hopkins' ruling. I showed how you did. I asked you to comment on the two plays that I provided. Both are excellent examples of how the FED rule will be bogus. You did not, because you could not argue with the logic.
|
What an ego you have!
I didn't deal with your plays because I didn't want to deal with your plays. I'm not defending or attacking either ruling!
Can you get that in head?
Once and for all: I have no opinion on the Hopkins ruling, and -- of course -- nobody has provided an OBR interpretation. That's the one that everybody is so vigorously defending -- and it doesn't exist! My play in the BRD (Play 26-22) ruled that in OBR the batter-runner was out. The nearest thing to an OBR interpretation you can find in print is -- mine!
Hearty, har, har.
BTW: Bob was right. Even when you "mea cuilpa," you don't. You said "smirk," then announced you were paraphrasing and meant "smug."
That's wrong, Smitty. The correct word is "satisfied." Don't pretend you don't understand why "smirk" is a slur word and "satisfied" is a purr word.
And don't pretend your choice of words was an accident. It's nothing more than propaganda -- and bad propaganda at that.