[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I wouldn't presume to "tell" you anything, but I would never even think about verifying whatever you claim is your history or accomplishments. I choose, rather, to base how much attention and credibility I'll apply to what you say, to what I find the value of what you've said, actually is.

You seem to be awfully insecure about your credibility and what others think of your observations. I might suggest that if you're comfortable and secure with your credibility, and believe your observations have value, that's really all that you can do, and all that should be necessary.

It is clear that you have no credibility on this or many other issues. For one you have not been working very long and you have no idea what is expected of officials on or off the field. That is certain. If you cannot bring up a point of view without attacking someone personally, then I am trying to figure out why you are still here. You have contributed nothing but trying to tell people that have been here a lot longer than you have, how to take on points that are very relevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by ajmc

I've read your input on multiple issues for several years and find it most often to be relevant, appropriate and instructive, because you usually stick to the salient specifics of whatever point or subject is being discussed. Occassionally you do tend to drift a little towards overbearing and pompous, but usually not to the extent of eliminating the basic value of your observations.

I am overbearing and pompous, but you tell the entire board, that they cannot dispute the facts of an "endorsement" with the only purpose to try to justify why a rule should be put in place or not? I think there are a lot of officials with a lot of experience here and they are irrelevant but some unnamed, unknown officials with 50 years of experience know more than everyone here. I do not know about you, but have you done the math on how old someone would have to be to have 50 years of experience. I know 50 year olds having trouble keeping up with the game physically without this offense, but a 50 year football officiating experience guy, is more knowledgeable than anyone else here? WOW!!!

Originally Posted by ajmc

I've found most of your suggestions, even those I may not totally agee with, rational and reasonable and hope you wouldn't reject my right to disagee, should I feel disagreement was appropriate. However, I would hope I'm smart enough to offer any disagreement respectfully, and in such a manner that I might hope to persuade you, or others, to consider my perspective or create a discussion from which I might be persuaded to consider a different perspective. Otherwise what's the point in responding. Whatever my response might be, the manner in which it was delivered only reflects on me.

Wait a minute, you can try to talk about what you feel I am thinking, but no one here can question the motives of a person that only comes here to talk about one issue. Then when he comes to talk about that issue, we cannot address their evidence (that they bring to the table, not anyone else) because it is a personal attack or unprofessional?

See the difference between you and me; I have no problem what you think of me. The fact is that whatever you think of me, I have proven on many occasions that what I say to be credible, because not only do I back those claims up, I use my real name and those claims or comments can be verified. And you have yet to give a name, a place you work or live or any relevant information that proves that you have not only the standing to say the things you do, but the experience to back it up. People on this board knew of things I did and I did not even have to tell anyone. And there are many others here that have that same transparency in their words.

Originally Posted by ajmc

These discussions, on this subject, turned sour when some (I'm not going to bother to specify who said what, when) got off the track of the issue and went after the messenger. You mention our political process, which has over the past few decades, largely seen the political debate hijacked by spin masters, on both sides, who use rumor, innuendo, unsubstantiated accusations to slime and slander opponents for the express purpose of blowing smoke in voters eyes, unfortunately, often successfully.

So is rumor or innuendo, when someone brings what they call a fact to the table and people see holes in those claims. Like I said earlier, if I claimed to have worked in the Big Ten or NFL that information is easily verifiable by a lot of people. And if it is not verified, someone is going to claim that I am lying or misrepresenting my history or resume. I do not know that you comments make sense. Actually based on this thread alone, you have made some rather personal comments about me and I do not see why that is OK, but we cannot figure out how one official knows more about one team than anyone else. IF you are an assignor and doing your job, you are not at that one school all the time. Sorry, but those are inconsistent facts given by KB and should be scrutinized on some level.

Originally Posted by ajmc

I just hate to see these, normally valuable exchanges about very specific, relevant topics follow down the same road of, "if you don't see it my way, you're the devil". A lot of the pure garbage that has been offered in these recent discussions is nothing to be proud of, and what is saddest, is totally unproductive and unnecessary.

I am sorry, but that is another lie. There is a difference between not seeing something someone's way, and challenging the motives of the comments or the credentials of where those comments came from.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Don't roll your eyes, look in your mirror. I look in mine and what I see is always a long way from perfection looking back, and no matter how much I yell at the image to change it won't improve until I do.

I will roll my eyes, because the hypocracy in your statements are in many ways stunning.

Peace