Quote:
Originally posted by Tim C
. . . my humor was missed.
It was made quite clear in earlier discussions with you WHERE the mechanic comes from . . . regardless of the issue if I agree or disagree with the mechanic is unimportant.
I refer to the mechanic as simply "another way" to handle the issue of a checked swing.
So now as the Snufflers begin to line up I will pass into the sunset on my horse (hobby or otherwise) because arguing woith snufflers is like having the one-armed man wall paper your house.
I will offer an apology to ALL when Blaine works in the Olympics . . . I think I am pretty safe.
BTW, I thought we already agreed that JEA was not an official document accepted by any of the three major rule books. Must be my mistake.
Cheers Mate!
|
If your "humor was missed" perhaps it was because it didn't really appear as humor to those reading it. Frankly I found some of it quite offensive, but since I don't know you personally and it didn't relate specifically to me I let my personal offense remain unspoken until now. I certainly object to the term "Snufflers" for reasons with which you would be only too familiar. Tell me again how you intended
that as "humor", or the earlier injunction that Garth should "kiss my butt"(sic).
Overlooking, for the moment, that rule books are inanimate objects and so are incapable of "accepting" (sic) anything, I have never agreed with you or anyone else that JEA was "not an official document". JEA has two parts. One part, by far the bulk of the book, is only considered to be "Authoritative Opinion" certainly. There is another smaller part, however; the Professional Interpretations that are faithfully reported from MLB. These I always take as "official", unless shown to have been superceded or otherwise are established to have been inaccurately reported. The latter hasn't yet happened, to the best of my knowledge.
Tee, you clearly have demonstrated a distaste for the style of baseball officiating outside of the USA, although how you might be able to judge that from
your perspective I have no inkling. Characterisations of Canadian or Australian officials as anally retentive linear thinkers are not regarded as humor anywhere in that part of the world with which I am most familiar. Perhaps your strident protest, at Garth's request not to reignite the passions that characterisation originally stirred, is ample evidence of your ill intent here. Ride on, cowboy!
BTW, I take being "not unlike Garth" as a distinct compliment.
Cheers,