Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
At the state board meeting in Austin next week, I'll share your comments with the officers. I'm sure they will be pleased to hear your opinion though it's likely they have never heard of you.
|
None of them subscribe to Officiating.com, eh?
|
You know, it must be the time of the year Carl's meds need to be adjusted again.
And Dave, it could also be that Carl removed every article I ever wrote for Officiating.com during our last little spat. Which is fine with me, since I would hate to be mentioned in the same breath with any of the current baseball writers (with the exception of Tee, of course). Of course, if you look at the baseball page, it seems like the only other writer is good ole' Roland, whose quality can't quite be put into words.
And Carl, I think the signature I've been using for the past few months sums up my feelings on everything else concerning you.
|
I wondered which one of you children would burst first. Turned out to be you. Lah, me.
BTW: Based on your "anal retentive" jab and your other derogatory comments about me and my association, perhaps you're the one who needs help with meds.
One thing I know, dear boy: With your vast knowledge of baseball, you've proved you belong on McGriff's.
|
I'm confident in my baseball knowledge. And apparently my knowledge of baseball was good enough for you when you asked me (more than once) to come back as a writer for the paid site.
Say what you want, Carl, but I have enough ego to say confidently that anything I wrote is better than what passes for the tyipcal tripe on the baseball side of the paid site. Same goes for Garth. The only thing there worth reading these days is Tee's column.
Children? Burst? Please. I have no emotional attachment to you or officiating.com. Haven't for quite some time, if ever. I liked you a heckuva lot more 6-7 years ago when you weren't quite the megalomaniac you are now.
|
1. It wasn't, hence the editor's notes. 2. It isn't. 3. Not true. 4. My point, which went over your head, was I had bet you guys couldn't keep from calling attention to your sophomoric tagline. I was right. Amazing! 5. You've been upset since you were passed over for the news editor's job. 6. Remember (everyone else will), I never mention you or your buddy - first, I never attack you or your buddy -first. I only respond when you pull stuff liked "anal retentive." I wonder what your daughter will think about that in twenty years. You're ok with that?
BTW: I can play, too.
YFOS (This one is as easy as yours was.)
|
You've clearly been to the WW school of prevarication. Actually, what you wrote comes pretty close to an outright lie.
News Editor's job? Passed over? I was offered that "position" and then the "company" decided not to have a news editor. I see that the "news" has been updated a lot recently, Carl.
The Editor's Notes were simply an attempt by you to have your greasy nose in the middle of everyone's articles. You still do it I see -- in your mind Carl Childress's opinion on any subject is more important than the author's opinion on a subject. Quite sad, actually.
You also remember that you promised to never include an "Editor's Note" in an article I wrote if I was willing to come back and write for you. Amazing how your stance changes over time. Next thing you'll be telling people is that I begged to come back and write for you and you refused to have me back, rather than the actual story.
Have fun with Rollie. May I suggest the AltaVista Klingon to English translator for his next article. And make sure you look at the signature. I mean it now more than ever.