Quote:
Originally posted by JRutledge
If you think that I am totally false and misguided, then why did you give a name?
|
Are you seriously asking why I might think of Tony when I think of you and this topic? Maybe b/c, oh I don't know, Tony's always the one who takes you to task for making this stupid claim. Would you even think of denying that Tony is the person that you most often clash with, particularly on this topic? I think you were the one whose tagline once read "Tony called me a liar. Should I be scurred now?" That's why I gave a name. Seem reasonable?
Quote:
|
And are you speaking for every single poster on this board and their views on this issue? You know specifically what everyone is thinking?
|
You know what, Jeff? That's a great point and you're absolutely right. I think I overstated my case. I said that nobody actually believes that, and the fact is there's no way I could actually know that. Point taken. I will, therefore, amend my position to state that no one has ever stated in a post that he or she believes that rules knowledge is the only thing necessary to be an outstanding official. Maybe somebody believes it, but no one has ever stated it publicly on this forum. And once again, I triple-dog dare you to find one post that shows otherwise.
Quote:
|
If you do not like what I have to say, do not read the post.
|
The fact is, Jeff, that once in a while I find your posts very insightful. You have, on occasion, made excellent points. That's why I read your posts. I'm always hopeful that I'll find one of those insightful comments. Additionally, you and I have corresponded via email in the past, and while I disagreed with you on that issue, I felt we had a reasonable and worthwhile conversation.
However, just as often, your posts are filled with irrelevant tangents or outright falsehoods. So I read your post with the hope of finding some insight, and instead I find this mindless re-assertion that somebody's missing the boat b/c they ONLY care about a test score. You might as well just type "Polly want a cracker", b/c the same amount of thought is behind both comments.
Quote:
|
I do not recall that I used your name or anyone's name to make any point. You did, which suggests some kind of guilt on your part.
|
Uh, how exactly does it suggest some kind of guilt on my part?
How could using Tony's name in my post mean that I am guilty of something? And what is it that you think I might be guilty of? This comment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything I'm trying to discuss (which is really only one thing).
Once again, I triple-dog dare you to produce one single solitary post that supports your claim that somebody, anybody, thinks that rules knowledge is the only thing necessary for being a great official. Prove me wrong. If you refuse, then have the courage to admit that you are the one who is wrong.
Chuck