Quote:
Originally posted by PeteBooth
Basically this message Board has been Dead for quite some time now. What are the reasons so perhaps they can be presented to the eUmpire support Team to get this board hopping again. See if any of these fit:
3. Not enough experts posting anymore
|
Pete:
First, you're continuing to mix up eUmpire and Message Boards. They have nothing in common. eUmpire is like any sports officiating magazine you might buy -- except it's better: It comes out twice a week and gives you more information in a month than anyone else does in a year. The Official Forum (this Board) is owned by the parent company of eUmpire. We are one in the same, as it were.
Number 3 is my pick -- of the ones you listed. Lots of experts have stopped posting regularly. Let's see: Garth Benham and Warren Willson don't post on public boards (Warren only on my board at eteamz); Rich Fronheiser spends most of his time, I am told, on a private email community. Tim Stevens posts very infrequently, generally on McGriff's. T. Alan Christensen is an infrequent poster any where, Dave Hensley posts on eteamz almost exclusively as does Jim Booth; Kevin Mayo is infrequent (spending time on the email community). Jack Clark posts almost exclusively on McGriff's; Ace Holleran posts nowhere that I know of. Bob Pariseau dropped off the earth, as did Jim Mantle from Canada.
That leaves, alphabetically, Blaine Gallant, Bob Jenkins, Peter Osborne, and Jim Porter as the umpires who post on multiple (three or more) message boards. All of those men are demonstrated experts.
(Note: There are some experts who post just at the URC or eTeamz or McGriff's -- and always have: Manny, Mackman, Bible, Siegel, Dan, etc. I've deliberately not listed any of them above because they will not be known to the average galloper around the 'Net.)
I used to post quite often, and I still will over on Carl's Stuff, where anonymous posters cannot gain access.
I would post more, but as you know I have a "shadow," someone who follows me around with a series of closely related goals in his baseball Internet life: To prove that: (1) I don't know much about baseball; (2) He knows much more baseball than I; (3) the BRD is good but don't trust any rulings I give; (4) I lie and misrepresent baseball official interpretations, depending on whether I like the ruling; and (5) I constantly attack him. (That's the most outrageously ridiculous charge of all.)
Since almost no one "with a real name" ever tells this guy to stick to baseball and lay off me, my personality, and my style of answering baseball questions, he feels free to wander into a thread, write three or four thousand words, and then wander off, claiming I am too cowardly to defend myself or answer any of his questions since I know I'm wrong.
This fellow knows my New Year's Resolution was never to comment on any post or issue he raised. He also knows people will forget that, and no one can remind them.
BTW: Jim Booth on eTeamz recently pointed to one of his posts as particularly offensive. Perhaps he will get the message. He certainly would if other noted posters said: "Stick to baseball. Don't mention Carl."
Now that I have finished the 2002 BRD and the Gerry Davis book (Calling the Plate/Calling the Bases), I will have time to initiate some threads where umpires of differing philosophies will have a chance to explore what they think about a subject.
Someone once asked Ernest Hemingway what he thought about a certain subject. He said: "Well, I'll go home, write an essay, and find out."
There's little doubt that writing shapes our thoughts about as much as the reverse.
Finally: It's five a.m. my time. Consequently, I may have omitted a bona fide expert, one who most people consider is capable of answering almost any baseball question. To that person, I humbly apologize.