|
Whowefoolin
First, I would like to apologize for how agressive my posts became during this discourse. I went back and read them and as my frustration with you increased as did my venom.
I do apologize for many of my words.
As to "internet representatives", these are the same people that have probably been recognized as "local authorities" for decades.
I know that since Carl is the only one of us that has been actually published in the "real book" community and should be considered the "UIC of internet umpires". The rest of "us" are simply guys that try to locate as much documentation as possible to really help people learn.
"Who" we know that the internet is dangerous . . . we have no idea if the "authoritive sources" that quote know diddly about what they write.
We have all, I think, been exposed to a "hot shot" new transfer to our group and expecting him to be good have been totally embarrassed by the lack of ability that transfer shows.
The same can be held for "internet rules junkies". There are a tremendous amount of "dumb" posts written by people who actually have no idea what they are writing.
But please don't start changing the play. We all have posted that the hitter cannot move . . . your "new" example now has the hitter to have been leaning over and then raising up. Keep the original play. "We" (and I cannot speak for all) are simply saying that a hitter does not have to dissappear. The hitter can hold his position.
"Who" make the call as you see fit. We are dealing with a written description of a play and sometimes, without being there, we get off on tangents like this.
I do ask one thing: step back and read your own posts, with a critical eye, and see why many of us reacted as we did.
[Edited by Tim C on Sep 23rd, 2002 at 01:49 PM]
|