|
I'm not going to get into a name calling war with you even though that's clearly what you want.
>>It's just a waste of time trying to argue anything with you, and I'm not even gonna try.<<
Its only a waste of time if you think you'll lose the argument.
If my writings are truly as stupid as you suggest, you should have no problem refuting them. Instead, you ignore them and pretend that I claim to be some sort of know it all, and that excuses you from attempted refutation.
Where exactly did I claim to know everything? Are you suggesting that since I make an argument, stick to it, refute things that I don't agree with, etc., that I am claiming to "know it all?" Why couldn't I say the same thing about you? You, after all, have refused to answer my specific questions or respond specifically to what I wrote relevent to the issue at hand. Add to that all the "stupidest" references as if you think you are bullying me or convincing others. None of that bothers me, BTW, but I do think it makes you look a bit silly or childish.
Why don't you calm down and come back to the table and discuss the issues. Here are my points, as clearly and as quickly as I can make them. If you disagree, please say so and argue, without theatrics and name calling, why you disagree, or why you think I'm wrong. There's nothing wrong with a situation where one of us doesn't convince the other.
1. IF I called Fed, which I don't, I would follow the interp, assuming the state assn. said follow it. However, my OPINION is that the interp is incorrect. That OPINION is based on factors that I've already discussed and would simply be cutting and pasting -- which I will do if you truly can not find the relevent post. For now, at least look for it. If you are unclear which post, let me know.
2. Totally separate from my OPINION on the interp, I asked for the stated AR because I wanted to see what SPECIFIC instance the interp dealt with. When I read the interp, it was clear, at least to me, that the interp didn't reference the issue that the original post did. I'm not going to lie to you: since I don't agree with the interp, I'd probably look for ways to get around it. HOWEVER, notwithstanding that, I don't believe officials should call things based on an interp that isn't necessarily applicable to another situation, given the fact that there are other rules that are applicable.
If an interp made a reference to a play where A was "holding" a ball, and B was "attempting to steal" the ball, is it truly unreasonable to say that the AR doesn't NECESSARILY apply to a situation where A falls down under the basket and B is coming down on a rebound and neither a "holding" nor a "steal" happened?
If you can get three people (other than you) to say I am being unreasonable in making the argument in the above paragraph, I PROMISE I won't say another word on the issue.
|