Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mbyron
You agree that the current interpretation is different from what you claim is the original intent of the rules. Thus, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that the interpretation has changed over the years, not on everyone else to prove that it did NOT change.
Please note that it is not sufficient to claim that the interpretation MIGHT have been different, which is entirely consistent with the fact that it HAS NOT.
|
I simply proposed a theory which is consistent with the current and original rules. It's all I did was propose a theory, never made any claims.
Most everyone else who responded however did make claims that I was wrong, including GB who said without a doubt he KNEW the original intent and I was wrong.
That's fine, theories are made to be disproven, but like any good educator I simply asked for backup on the claim. GB to date has failed miserably.
JM had a great post very insightful and he almost had me give up, but I regained my spirit and in my fight to keep my theory alive I debunked most of his argument
My perspective on this thread
Big steve brought up the tie issue.
He was insulted for bringing it up. Even though GB has lengthy discussions on the issue with his friends he has no tolerance for any one posting on the issue. hmmm
When I saw the lack of love for 56 I jumped in with my own newly formed theory, supporting my bro in blue as it were.
Then the world of intolerant umps ascended upon me.
In my world, if I'm asked a question by my wife, kids, customers, friend or whomever I respond with I think , I know or It's my opinion. If I'm challenged on an I know response I usually provide justification for my answer, what I don't do is start insulting people because they want verification to my claims.
Let's see if anyone see a difference in communiction skills between these two responses.
My theory original intent may be that they intended for TGTTR
A. GB response(paraphrased) You're wrong, I know the original intent you're wrong and you apparently have no business being an ump and have no feel for the game. You're wrong, I'm right.
Since he had zero confirmed research to back up such a claim may I suggest this approach.
B. I don't think TGTTR was ever an issue at any point of rules writing. I have many influential and learned friends who, after studying this issue have concluded as much. There's nothing in any research I've heard about to support your theory and the modern interpretation of the rule certainly does not support you.
I don't know how anyone can get along in life responding in A. fashion but it didn't influence me and since he couldn't back up the statement with anything but my friends told me so I think it made him look a bit foolish.
Anything along a B response would have ended my conversation with him on page 1.
Actually B is the way I was going to respond to Big Steve before the ascencion (sp) of intolerant umps came over him.