Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Hey, good catch on the mea culpa...
The comment about 1979, 1999 and now is pretty obvious.
(And for the record: 1999 was not a strike. They were legally barred from striking...they signed their right to strike away in the CBA...so they "quit" instead. Why did they do this suicidal move? In my opinion, they did this because their lawyer had an ego the size of Texas. Why did he have a large ego? Because he had been kicking MLB around for two decades. Everyone remembers the 1999 disaster and many think the AMLU is following this same path. Few, however, remember that MLB umps went from making $10 to $30k in 1979 to where they are now ($100k to $350k) because of all those successful strikes).
I believe that this strike is much more similar to 1979 than 1999. (ramble, ramble, ramble)
Your first sentence states that 1999 wasn't a strike. Then the first sentence of the next paragraph argues that the current situation is more similar to 1979 then 1999. Duh! Those are your words and you felt compelled to relive the embrassment. Thank you for making my job easy. I would have made a fortune litigating against you.
|
THERE YOU GO, TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND OBSCURE THE FACT THAT YOU ARE WRONG, AGAIN.
You can't go back and change what everyone read (oh, wait...I guess you could with the "edit" feature on this website.)
YOU wrote, "didn't you just write that there wasn't a strike in 1979," in your magic
red font (tm). THOSE WERE YOUR EXACT WORDS.
I responded and said I never wrote that there wasn't a strike in 1979. In fact, as you can clearly see, I wrote that there WAS a strike in 1979.
YOU WERE WRONG. Now to obscure that fact, you are trying to change the course of this discussion by
implying that you initially said that my argument that the AMLU strike is more like 1979 than 1999 was weak because it is so obvious.
YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE YOUR ARGUMENT IN MID-THREAD. If you wanted to argue that my statement that, "the AMLU strike is more like 1979 than 1999" is/was weak because it is such an obvious statement (as you wrote, "duh!") then that is what you should have written.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU WROTE. You wrote, "didn't you just write that there wasn't a strike in 1979?"
I simply corrected you (numerous times) and said NO WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT 1979 WAS NOT A STRIKE.
In addition to engaging in puffery you are now engaging in slight-of-hand in an attempt to obscure the fact that you were wrong. Keep it up and soon you'll be able to open your own one-man carnival.
Now, since you've indirectly argued ("duh!") that my assertion (that the AMLU strike is more like 1979 than 1999) is weak because it is so obvious...I agree with you that it is very obvious. However, many posters have suggested (on this and other sites) that the AMLU is heading down the path that the MLB umps followed in 1999. This has been directly stated by others. I felt it necessary to counter this argument (as I have in other threads) with the written assertion that I believe that this strike was more like 1979 than 1999.
I know that this comparison is so painfully obvious for a man of your prodigious intellect. However, I will not assume that everyone else is on your level. So please be warned: this probably won't be the last time that I state something that, to you, seems so "obvious". Alas, you are not the only reader of my posts.
Contra veritatem lex nunquam aliquid permittit.