[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Kaliix
Thanks for calling me an idiot Garth. That's the last bastion of someone who has obviously lost an argument and has no retort other than, "Your an ________" (insert derogatory phrase here)
But it was neither a statment not my last retort. It was an inference based on your own criteria, and rather "Parker-esque", I thought. I congratulate you on undertanding it.
Maybe you don't agree with the phrase, "changing rules for the sake of changing rules" and want to call this a myth. You may be right, I call it changing rules for the sake of changing rules when it really should be changing rules with no obvious legitimate purpose or pi$$ poor, illogical reasons. I thought you could grasp that subtlety. My bad.
1. You're right. 2. You're wrong. 3. Nothing subtle there, just an incorrect assumption.
I thought I listed some rules in my last post. Care to comment on those?
Actually, reviewing your previous posts I found a couple that I didn't see orginally, buried underneath your repetivitve vague claims of "rules du jour" and "change for the sake of change."
FED's ruking the lodged ball incident was based on safety. They did not the possibility that the ball would become dis-lodged when the glove was thrown, thus having two projectiles in the air at the same time. I was also opposed to their ruling, however, whether I agree or disagree with it or it's reasoning, I recognized that considerable time was spent discussing and considering it and it was done for a reason, not for the sake of change.
The balk rules in FED are primarily there becuase FED, unlike pro ball, has no guarantee of uniformity of umpiring training or quality and in such areas has decided to reduce as much as possible the opportunities for differing interpretations and enforcement.
And I thought that someone who is so highly educated could tell the difference between intelligent discourse and "whining and harping". I gave clear reasons why I think that rules other than for
1)increased participation/substitution
2)force play slide
3)malicious contact
4)equipment specifications
are generally made for poor reasons. I explained why listening to coaches on rule changes is not advisable. I even explained in a clear manner why I am not "whining and harping" but intelligently disagree-ing with the certain FED rules.
1. Only one of your four reasons for rule differences is correct.
2. You have explained nothing.
3. You have offered nothing in the form of an intelligent disagreement, instead preferring to repeat your mantra of "change for the sake of change."
You however have yet to really give me good reasons for anything. Instead you call me names, accuse me of whining and speak French.
Most everyone has offered you the same good reasons. You have decided to ignore them. If my inference that you are proof of your own theory offends you, I apologize. And since you used a French phrase in your post initially, I decided to use a few in mine. Again, if that offends you, pardonnez moi.
Huuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????
I can name that tume in one note......
[Edited by GarthB on Apr 9th, 2005 at 12:10 PM]