Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Taylor
I think you're beating a dead horse just to bolster your ego. If that is true I would hate to walk on a field with you.
|
I agree with you there is a point far beyond whether the runner is called out or not. The point is not to bolster my ego. The point is the inconsistency of eUmpires (Snufflers, et al) in grasping and acknowledging only that which they choose to when trying to prove their point, and their willingness to dismiss other points of view if it differs from theirs. Frequently other points of view are then insulted directly or by inuendo.
One preaches authoritative opinion, official interpretation, rulebook, analogy, etc. The PBUC ruling appears disliked and not well understood. One has stated in the thread he would not apply this ruling to Fed. Does that not contradict a previous teaching of analogy? Why not use the PBUC ruling as an analogical source? I suppose because doing so would not support a desired position. Is that not selectively applying the logic? Let's face it, that is really no different than selectively applying the rules. The eUmperors appear to be selectively choosing only that which supports their position. At least that is how it appears to me.
Well, the next time I read what is preached, I must ask myself am I reading what should be done, or am I reading only that which is presented in the manner the eUmperors choose? Am I really getting all the facts?
I don't understand the inconsistency. I am not wrong for questioning it.
Just my opinion,
Steve
Member
EWS
aka: (my eUmperor labels)
Rat
Neo-Romantic
Neo-Know-Nothing
Obscure Umpire from North Texas
Blow Hard
Die Hard
Liar