Quote:
Originally posted by cbfoulds
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
2. The secret ballot turned out to be meaningless. During the discussion, one Board member argued for the exemption. Four members spoke vehemently against it. In the end four voted against it.
|
YoHo! This, in my profession, is what we call strong circumstantial evidence; or, to quote H.D. Thoreau: "a fish in the milk".
I'm inferring:
A) "The Fix" was in before the meeting started;
B) Carl, you know EXACTLY why the exemption was granted, and it has nada to do with Hector's truthful, but irrelevent, excuse [more likely H3's "big dog politics"];
C) Your resignation [and considering same to be a matter of ethics] has a lot more to do with A & B than the actual granting of an exemption to Hector.
Normally, I'd agree w/ others that a resignation "on principle" because you lost a vote over the Board doing something stupid is a bit of an overreaction. In this case, maybe not. In any case, H3 is, as usual on matters of Umpire Assn politics, dead-on: it was probably smart, at minimum.
|
1. It's apparent that you are not familiar with the Mexican-American culture. There was no "fish in the milk." Down here, if you don't want your opinion known, you keep your mouth shut. That way, you don't wind up on the dinner plate instead of in the goblet.
Your "inference" that there was a fix is an amazing feat, even for someone in your profession. A "fix" implies (my inference) that you're convinced some of the Board members are dishonest. I reject that jaded - and unsupported - "inference." Dumb, yes. Crooked, no.
3. Finally, I take even greater offense at this comment of yours: "
C) Your resignation [and considering same to be a matter of ethics] (my emphasis)
has a lot more to do with A & B than the actual granting of an exemption to Hector."
Apparently, you didn't (or can't) read the subject of this thread.