|
Sun Dec 31, 2000, 03:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rex wrote:
"I only wished to draw to your attention the fact that you claim not to have called anyone a name. As you can see you have." Actually, Carl wrote that he hadn't called anyone a name at this board except in obvious jest. That's different. He has since corrected that to, basically, in what he thought was in obvious jest. Apparently he and you do not agree on what is in jest. I take his apology as a sincere note that he will try to remember that what you and he consider in jest is different. You have the right to monitor that apology. However, if he choses to refer to me, in jest, as a dimwitted New York republican, or to Warren as an illeterate outback hill billy, please allow us the right to judge the level of jest. A problem with the internet is that, unlike sitting around the bar, we cannot see each other's faces, expressions, body language, or hear tone of voice or inflections. Another is that our perceptions are difficult to, well, perceive. I have seen numerous umpires chased off boards as well, and Carl had nothing to do with it. I am one of about many, many umpires who will no longer post at McGriff's due to the name calling. If I wrote in support of Carl at that board, at least ten posters would attack me. If I wrote in support of his holiness at that board, at least ten differenct posters would attack me. We are trying desparately to have somthing different here. The management at offcialforum want something different here. We are hoping that the posters who come here also want someting different here. I would ask all of us here, as a New Year's resolution, to leave what we find on other boards right where we find it. Bring no baggage to this board. We all have sinned and we all have the opportunity to get it right this time. Auld Lang Syne. GarthB
__________________
GB 
|
|
Sun Dec 31, 2000, 05:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree name calling on this and all boards is best left elsewhere. I, however, am personally offended by being called an inappropriate name and being titled as such by Carl Childress on this or any other board. We all know these boards have common members and your reputation goes with you---whether that is what and how you post or whether it is what you are called.
I am more greatly offended the the hypocrisy shown by Carl when he states he hasn't done it ON THIS BOARD but he has elsewhere. He maintains his discipline much better on this board than others by sticking with demeaning inuendos that are obviously not all said in jest (as he would like to disguise his efforts). The idea that I killed someone in Texas but I am not bad because I am now in Oklahoma where I am only wounding people carries little weight with most and IS HYPOCRITICAL. Whether you and I agree or disagree on this is irrelevant as his posts are still there for anyone to see and make their own determinations. To stand up for Carl I must add that no one on the boards is attacked to the extent he is, no one! Despite his occasional inuendos and even his direct insults to me, I will still add that many of the insults he endures are totally unprovoked and inappropriate. I don't really know which boards he is or isn't an official moderator for, but in being such for any single board, he should then show the self-discipline expected of that position when posting on ALL boards. He knows those shots are coming because of the notoriety he as earned, accepts, and expects from others. I am sorry Garth, my postings concerning Carl have always been with respect for both his knowledge and person (excepting one in this thread where I offered immediate apology). I CHALLENGE you or anyone to highlight any post by me on any board stating or implying otherwise. He still holds my respect for his knowledge, but he has EARNED THE LOSS of the respect I once held for him as a person. I don't like seeing Hayes lowering himself to the level he did and I emailed him stating such, but that doesn't mean that I may not agree with Hayes' statement that Carl tends to resort to personal attack (inuendo or statements) as he develops greater difficulty supporting his point of view. I don't consider that to be a cut, merely an agreement with Hayes' statement based upon Carl's posts. All may also make their own determinations regarding that point. If all would stick to the real issues and stay away from personal cuts irrelevant to the issue, all boards would be what they were meant to be. (added) Perhaps Carl, as a respected source and official moderator, could indicate in his posts what is supported and accepted fact vs. opinion. This might openly aid the other posting members. Just a serious idea to help avoid future confrontations or misunderstanding for all. [Edited by Bfair on Dec 31st, 2000 at 06:29 PM]
|
|
Sun Dec 31, 2000, 07:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve:
I do not find truthful statements to be hypocritical, so I can't agree with your premise. Also, in logic classes I learned to disregard arguments of the extreme. To compare different behavior at different boards with being a murderer in one state and not other is an argument of the extreme and does not contribute to a resolution. My point was that we CAN have a different board here. Many, many posters behave differently at different boards. One only needs to visit R.S.O, URC, Eteamz, McGriff's and Officialforum. The same names pop up time after time. how they post on unmoderated boards and how many pseudonyms they use when they are not required to register differs from board to board. We CAN choose to have a different board here. The managment of Eumpire are managing it differently and have have different expectations. They continue to delete posts that contain personal attacks. I personally do not care what happens on other boards. (Here is a comparison that is not of the extreme) Your children may misbehave at your home, but they will not be allowed to do so at my home. The same can apply to this board. He's another comparison that is not of the extreme. I know that a certain amount of rowdy behavior will be tolerated at my corner pub. I know even more rowdy behavior will be tolerated at some east side pubs. I also know that I wam expected to have impeccable behavior when I vist the The Fairmont. Am I a hypocrite because I behave differently in different establishments that have different expecations? No. Here, we are all guests of Eumpire. We should be expected to behave, while we are here, as they request. If we cannot meet their expectations, then we should leave. If you want the same kind of expectation to carry through on other boards, you should contact their managament. It all starts there. Happy New Year, Garth
__________________
GB
|
|
Sun Dec 31, 2000, 10:20pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
First, as you addressed the order you demand at eUmpire I should not fail to compliment you and others involved with eUmpire for their efforts and success. It is apparent and appreciated.
************************************************** ********* [QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB I do not find truthful statements to be hypocritical, so I can't agree with your premise..... Also, in logic classes I learned to disregard arguments of the extreme. To compare different behavior at different boards with being a murderer in one state and not other is an argument of the extreme and does not contribute to a resolution..... Here's another comparison that is not of the extreme. I know that a certain amount of rowdy behavior will be tolerated at my corner pub. I know even more rowdy behavior will be tolerated at some east side pubs. I also know that I wam expected to have impeccable behavior when I vist the The Fairmont. Am I a hypocrite because I behave differently in different establishments that have different expecations? No. ___________________________ Garth, I may be wrong in using an exaggerated example. Sometimes that method is used to better highlight what exactly is occurring. It makes it easier for others to visualize. That is what was attempted. I will try to use your examples instead: I visit the east side pub and I insult John Doe and announce to all present what a "rat" he is. (I'll deem that name calling.) That behavior is not preferred or appreciated there, but is accepted. Next night I visit Fairmont. Here I see John Doe and others, many of whom were at east side pub last night. In discussion with John Doe and others, I insult John Smith (who may have been at pub last night). John Smith calls me a name I don't like and I take objection as Fairmont does not allow name calling. Furthermore, I CLAIM MY INNOCENCE regarding name calling as I certainly have not called anyone a name while IN HERE. _______________ Garth, the final sentence is true, and I haven't broken the name calling rule (unless of course, John Smith is right). Unfortunately, the actions of what I am doing, participating in name calling at east side and announcing my innocence against name calling at Fairmont IS HYPOCRITICAL----and, yes Garth, that also makes the truthful sentence hypocritical. It's not the sentence, IT IS THE ACTION---and it has little to do with WHERE it occurs, merely that it does occur. And yes, that does mean that Carl has been hypocritical when he assumes that action on EUmpire. You may not think so, but I do, and others may make their own decisions. ************************************************** ********** [QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB I personally do not care what happens on other boards. _________________________ I will add is that if YOU were insulted amongst a group of people whom you visited with at east side and heard your perpetrator at Fairmont claiming such innocence in your presence regarding a similar issue, you just might care. Maybe not. But you weren't and you shouldn't. But I was, and I do. Just my opinion [Edited by Bfair on Dec 31st, 2000 at 09:25 PM]
|
|
Sun Dec 31, 2000, 10:51pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve:
Oh, but I was insulted at other boards, and by some who occasionally visit this board. Perhaps no one but Carl or Jim Porter have been subject to the intense harassment I received at a certain board. And primarily because of who I considered a friend. But I've always been a proactive sort, so rather than complain about my treatment there, I left. Then I found this board, and have enjoyed the difference in attitude, even among those who once chased me away from a board. I can accept the change in their behavior, even if it is only displayed at this board, because this is where I deal with them. So again, I care not what anyone does at another board. I care not what you or anyone else may do in someone else's living room. I care what you do in mine. I do not find that hypocritical. Apparently our undestanding of the word is different, c'est la vie. I can deal with that. I just hope that people can appreciated that boards are different. Maybe that's sticking in my mind because of an article I just finished one "The Internet and the Umpire." I contend that the managament, or lack thereof, has the heaviest influence on a boards "personality". The same poster can, (and often do) make the majority of posts of each of four boards, yet they can, and often do, have a different tone at each board. Same posters, different tone. I have no problem with that. I'll stick to the board that has the most positive tone. Again, and to avoid being overly repetitions, for the final time in this thread, my major point is that boards may be different and poster's behavior may be different. We should allow that. (Hell, we should encourage that!) If this board wants to be different, we should honor that. What someone posts at Eteamz should have no consequence to me here. Please check all baggage at the door. If you'd like to continue on any point here, please feel free to email me. Bear in mind, though, that I'm on vaction and won't see my email until next Thursday. Peace. Garth
__________________
GB
|
|
Sun Dec 31, 2000, 11:23pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
A clarification...
Quote:
Just a few small points in clarification: The Moderator (Admin) for The Official Forum is Bradley Batt, a partner with Jimmie Flores in RightSports Inc who own this and a number of other related officiating sites. Carl Childress is NOT the Moderator (Admin) of this board, nor to the best of my personal knowledge of any other board owned or operated by RightSports Inc., eReferee.com or eUmpire.com - neither are any of the other writers and contributors to eUmpire.com Internet magazine. Carl Childress IS the Contributing Editor at eUmpire.com Internet Magazine, which is also owned by RightSports Inc. That position does NOT confer any control over The Official Forum, but it DOES require the exercise of a certain amount of personal restraint in this Forum that might not be required elsewhere. That applies for ALL of the staff of writers and editors at eUmpire.com, equally. As employees of the board owners, albeit in another separate enterprise, we feel we cannot be seen to be upsetting our employer's customers. In view of the constraints we have on our behaviour in this Forum, most of us feel it is grossly unfair for anyone to criticise our performances on other boards HERE when we can't really respond HERE. If criticised elsewhere, we still have some constraints on our ability to respond but nothing like having our employer moderating our posts! Can you see the inequity in what you have proposed, Steve? If you have a grievance with any of our behaviour on another board then please, as Garth requests, restrict your complaints to those boards where we have some ability at least to defend ourselves in a like manner. Carl said "I have not called anyone names on THIS board, except in obvious jest" {my emphasis} You said "You DID call me a name on another board"(sic) You may be correct, Steve, but so was Carl. I don't believe your characterising him as a hypocrite on THIS board is appropriate, given that he cannot respond in kind here for the reasons outlined. In any event, whether you are right or wrong the tone of the whole board suffers from such accusations, and none of us wants that! Agreed? Please let us all henceforth suck up our pride and agree to leave disputes from other forums where they belong, and instead try to preserve the freedom and dignity of this board. They are what makes it unique and I'm sure attracts a number of the posters. Cheers.
|
|
Mon Jan 01, 2001, 12:33am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Garth & Warren, I hope you know I am relatively new to the forums. I've seen Warren's posts throughout although not necessarily Garth's. I hope you would agree I have attempted to maintain my own dignity anywhere you've seen me on the net. I was not the one initiating name calling or even inuendo, and you'll find very little, if any, of that as response from me to others employing those tactics. Much like Warren, who is extremely dignified in all the posts I've seen from him. That doesn't mean he nor I lack the necessary tools to make our points regarding the conduct of others.
I am unfamiliar with those attacking you in the past, Garth, and upset by those who may attempt to attack Warren. Those ploys are usually used when you lack the tools to make your point legitimately and it certainly detracts from the content of what you are attempting to prove. It's likely you are both good at making your points without need for those tactics. The most disgruntling thing about these forums is, indeed, the conduct. IMO, anybody associated with management of a forum should certainly maintain their dignity elsewhere, despite the cheap shots you take due to your position. If management personnel feel they must respond in an undignified manner, one could use a pseudonym at least elsewhere to maintain your management dignity for your own board. No different than umpiring, I hope you don't go get blistering drunk at the east side pub wearing your umpire uniform. At least change before going if that possibility exists. Wouldn't you agree with that? I do not like to compromise my dignity for any reason, but neither do I like it attacked. Just a suggestion. Based on what I have seen, I agree that those in your positions take uncalled for cheap shots in numbers well beyond anything that's been done to cause such. Carl, I have seen, has on occassion gone beyond my ethical limits with personal remarks, obviously not beyond his limits. This may be the cause of some of the attacks upon him. However,I don't expect others to accept my ethical limits. In closing, I have not reviewed my posts but I do not believe that I referred to Carl as a hypocrite as one of you summarized I did---that would be name calling. I did indicate that I felt his actions were hypocritical. That can occur without the knowledge you are doing it. If a person continues doing it after they are aware of it, they THEN become a hypocrite. At least that would be my definition. There IS a difference. Mistakes can happen. I will bow out of the conduct issue that's been so tread upon thusfar. It would be nice to understand if arm movement is required by the Fed in feints---fact or opinion. I know that was addressed somewhere along the line. With Respect, Steve Freix [Edited by Bfair on Dec 31st, 2000 at 11:39 PM]
|
|
Fri Jun 15, 2001, 04:15am
|
|||
|
|||
How things can change in just 6 months.........
Carl Childress (quoted from earlier in this thread):
"8.05(b) and (c) are a tandem, sir. You can't have the one without the other. Each explains part of the issue at hand. 8.05(b) explains that a feint includes a throwing motion. 8.05(c) expalins that a pitcher must step toward a base before throwing. The FED book says before throwing or feinting. Recently, I found the following quote from Carl Childress posted on the URC to be quite interesting, particularly with memory of this long and heated debate regarding whether or not "arm movement" was required as part of a feint: Carl Childress (quoted 6/14/01 from URC; General Discussions; Balks): "A feint is anything that simulates a throw. That might be a step (without arm motion, at least in the OBR as per PBUC manual), a step with arm motion, or a simple swing of the torso." For one who couldn't seem to understand or agree 6 months ago that a feint COULD be initiated merely with a step to a base, Carl sure seems to have changed his opinion now. I suspect the inuendos and insults he initiated were, indeed, quite needless. Obviously those opposing his thoughts, or at least what his thoughts were 6 months ago, were not wrong in their statements and, indeed, knew what they were talking about. That is true based upon Childress' statements of today regarding the issue. However, we may need to recheck later to assure his opinions have not once again changed. I suspect this latest statement of his on URC should put closure to this once hotly contested issue. "Arm motion" is not necessary for there to be a feint, and therefore, a feint without arm motion is legal when driving back a runner to a base provided the pitcher has legally stepped from the rubber toward that base. Just my opinion, Freix [Edited by Bfair on Jun 15th, 2001 at 10:01 AM]
|
|
Fri Jun 15, 2001, 01:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Freix
|
|
Sat Jun 16, 2001, 09:55am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: IIITBTSB
Quote:
I called a balk at second for F1 not stepping towards second as the runner was stealing towards third. F1 seeing the runner going towards third, stepped in the direction of the advancing runner. I wasn't sure if I made the right call or not but I was a little confused in two aspects: 1) The pitcher didn't make any initial arm movement towards second. I was wondering at the time if a foot movement towards the bag constituted a legal fake? 2) I wasn't sure what stepping towards the bag meant. How close does F1 have to step towards the bag for the umpire to define his movement as stepping towards the bag? In the case I mentioned above, F1 stepped towards the advancing runner in my opinion. But the coach argued that he stepped towards the bag. I really didn't have a good explantion for him. Also, F1 can balk towards second by stopping his motion with his non pivot foot while it is in the air and then turning that non-pivot foot towards second. [Edited by Gre144 on Jun 16th, 2001 at 09:57 AM]
|
|
Sat Jun 16, 2001, 04:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: IIITBTSB
Quote:
I, therefore, would not likely have called a balk provided F1 gained distance and direction with his step. As for F1 raising his leg, hanging it, and then continuing to 2nd--------I would expect Tee to comment that would be a balk by not going to home. Everyone who knows Tee knows his philosophy that it is impossible to balk going to 2nd, right, Tee ??? LOL
|
|
Sun Jun 17, 2001, 01:29am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: Re: IIITBTSB
Quote:
|
|
Sun Jun 17, 2001, 05:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: IIITBTSB
Quote:
He may step to the runner in that scenerio. He is either within the 45 of 2nd base or the 45 of 3rd base, both being legal bases for him to move to. Since he is not required to throw to either of these bases, the legal step could allow him to disengage the rubber, charge the runner so as to make him commit to either base, and begin the rundown. I hope this hasn't been too confusing. Did you understand the point? Just my opinion, Freix
|
|
Mon Jun 18, 2001, 01:08am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IIITBTSB
Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
