[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

That's not quite correct. You made several claims including; "EVANS IS WRONG!'

I stand corrected I did make a claim.
Do you remember what I accused Evans of being wrong about?

Originally Posted by GarthB

I would suggest that your emotional attachment to your position has blinded you. I have quoted respected and accepted sources. You have quoted a dictionary and simply repeated the question over and over and over. A wonderful technique.

I saw a quote from Evans saying something like ties were impossible. Other than that I saw no quotes from anyone Re: intent of the rule.
If I missed it I'm sorry.

And again I say. I simply posed a theory that you said you knew for certain was wrong. Just asking for verification.
You continue to say howmu

Do you know for certain that Alex and his buddies never sat around having a room temperature one discussing the previous days game.
"That first one joe hit sure was close at first" "yea , it looked like a tie to me" "yea me too" " I wonder why Gary called him out" " I thought about that too, aren't ties supposed to go to the runner Alex?" "Supposed too, I'll have to have a talk with ol Gar"
And there began the first conflict between ump and player.

Originally Posted by GarthB

The two pictures you draw are cartoonish: You are wonderful, innocent, absolutely correct in your thinking and never told anyone they were wrong., Gee, I wish I could be like you.

1. Do you really expect me to draw a picture of myself any different?
You're doing a great job of balancing the painting

2. Again, I never said I was right or correct (except that Evans is wrong and ties are physically possible) I posed a theory. Theories aren't always right

Originally Posted by GarthB

Again, I was the only one to quote recognized experts in the field. What's that saying....you can lead a horse to water....

Experts?

when you add the "s" it usually means more than 1. A dictionary might help you.
And that one expert didn't say anything about original intent.
So how exactly does that debunk my theory?

Originally Posted by GarthB

In your case, you beat that poor horse to death with your endless repetition of the rule while, apparently, holding your hands over your ears (eyes?) and singing "la la la la la la la."

And i haven't la la laed anything except your insults still waiting for original intent info

Originally Posted by GarthB

Add: "At no time in history was this rule interpreted in this fashion" and you've got a pretty good summary of what I've been telling you.

You may be right but what have you got to substantiate your claim from the 19th century?

Originally Posted by GarthB

Well, live and learn. I certainly have. I made a huge mistake early on. When you summarily dismissed the opinion of the only authoritative person brought up in this discussion..

You comprehend much better than you let on
I dismissed one statement that Evans that you purport Evans said.
Ties are impossible
That's the only thing I said I disagreed

Earlier you said you brought many authorities on the subject to the discusssion. Now you say just one.
I agree it was just one. I'm sure you weren't just trying to make me look bad by lying earlier.
And by the way. The one authority you brought to the table said nothing about original intent. As I remember simply modern interpretation

Originally Posted by GarthB

.when you decided that you knew more than those who have spent years researching the evolution of rules.

"those" infers more than one
I'm confused

Show me one post that referred to original intent from a verifiable source.
ONe show me one.



WHOOOA
I just had one of those moments where everything just comes together


You're right I have been stubborn.
I'm feeling quite childish and it takes alot to make a child feel childish.

I have ignored your many many experts til now
You're right my theory is bogus. After careful consideration I'm sure those in the 18th century couldn't even comprehend a tie much less consider it.

And truth be known I'm sure there are lots of biographies, articles, diary entries and much more that speaks directly to intent in the 18th and 19th century and I'm just too ignorant to find it. You no doubt have already posted it and I've just refused to acknowledge it.
To think there was any evolution to our modern interpretation is just crazy,
come on I should have seen this pages ago evolution of interpretaion, the rule hasn't changed why should the interp have changed. Besides who believes in evolution anyway.

You're right ties are imposssible, and really even if they were who in their right mind would even think "tie". I mean only rats, spectators and players ever think about or mention tie and they had nothing to do with any rules

So I officially declare myself a loser, I mean the loser of this thread.