Everything in moderation

GarthB · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 29, 2004, 08:02pm

Apparently we have behaved ourselves so well on this board that the number of moderators could be reduced from three to two. I see Rich Fronheiser is no longer listed as the third moderator.

Congratulations to all on a wonderful job well done. Maybe if we keep up the good work, management can reduce the number further. I'm sure they're watching.

chris s · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 29, 2004, 09:00pm

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB
Apparently we have behaved ourselves so well on this board that the number of moderators could be reduced from three to two. I see Rich Fronheiser is no longer listed as the third moderator.

Congratulations to all on a wonderful job well done. Maybe if we keep up the good work, management can reduce the number further. I'm sure they're watching.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

Post this on McGriffs and watch the fireworks....LOL

GarthB · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 29, 2004, 09:04pm

No. At McGriff's they take everything personally. Here's it's just business.

His High Holiness · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 30, 2004, 03:37pm

Garth;

Perhaps it is because Carl, Warren, the unmentionable (the one with the head medications), and I have been mostly absent.

I tried to do a search to confirm this but the search function has been disabled by the administrator of the site. I would not want to be accused of inaccuracy.

Remember the time that either you or me made a statement about length of threads. The unmentionable did a search and went ballistic. We were off by three out of a hundred and some replies to a thread! Horrors! It did not matter that we had qualified our recollections as inexact! We were WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did the administrator disable the search function as a result of this dustup?

Now that we cannot "search" and prove each other right or wrong, we can flame away in ignorance. The insult of the month is:

GARTH, YOU ARE A LITTLE LEAGUE UMPIRE!

Peter

GarthB · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 30, 2004, 04:35pm

Peter:

It's been so long, I'm flattered. I understand the origin of your insult. In fact, one of the few times I wished I had access to the paid portion of this site was when I saw the teaser about your article regarding LL umpires and the lame attempt someone made to refute it.

Fortunately, those who know me know that I never sullied myself calling for that organization, so rather than fret I will revel in the fact that you took the time to stop by.

Thank you.

My understanding about the decrease in moderators however has less to do with the flames of the past, than it does with the passions of the present. Although we have been assured it was nothing personal. Just business.

Watch your back and keep your editor well supplied.

Rich Ives · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 30, 2004, 05:21pm

Garth, quick question:

If you aren't a paid member you couldn't read the articles, so how could you evaluate their content?

Rich · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 30, 2004, 05:48pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Garth, quick question:

If you aren't a paid member you couldn't read the articles, so how could you evaluate their content?

You aren't serious, are you?

Ooh, I see something from Tee just got deleted. Amazing how much "moderation" there is today.

--Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Mar 30th, 2004 at 04:51 PM]

Rich Ives · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 30, 2004, 07:24pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Garth, quick question:

If you aren't a paid member you couldn't read the articles, so how could you evaluate their content?

You aren't serious, are you?

Ooh, I see something from Tee just got deleted. Amazing how much "moderation" there is today.

--Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Mar 30th, 2004 at 04:51 PM]

Not really.

Garth said "I saw the teaser about your article regarding LL umpires and the lame attempt someone made to refute it."

So now all I want to know is how he can make that evaluation without reading the articles. Is that unreasonable?

Rich · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 30, 2004, 09:17pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Ives

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Garth, quick question:

If you aren't a paid member you couldn't read the articles, so how could you evaluate their content?

You aren't serious, are you?

Ooh, I see something from Tee just got deleted. Amazing how much "moderation" there is today.

--Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Mar 30th, 2004 at 04:51 PM]

Not really.

Garth said "I saw the teaser about your article regarding LL umpires and the lame attempt someone made to refute it."

So now all I want to know is how he can make that evaluation without reading the articles. Is that unreasonable?

Who says he didn't read the article?

GarthB · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 30, 2004, 09:51pm

Quote:

Who says he didn't read the article?

Exactly.

GarthB · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 30, 2004, 10:12pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Garth, quick question:

If you aren't a paid member you couldn't read the articles, so how could you evaluate their content?

Gee, what is it again they say about "assuming"?

Rich · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 30, 2004, 10:15pm

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Ives
Garth, quick question:

If you aren't a paid member you couldn't read the articles, so how could you evaluate their content?

Gee, what is it again they say about "assuming"?

Don't bring Gee into this.

The thread started by Scott over on the basketball board was deleted as well. No matter -- I had at least 15 regulars and potential authors email me for the story before it was removed. If they didn't know the whole story before, they do now.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Mar 30th, 2004 at 09:23 PM]

Tim C · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Mar 30, 2004, 10:29pm

As I posted earlier today:

I have never been a paid member to this site yet I know all the content in each article (that interests me) on the site.

Actually no one needs to read a Little League Umpire article to know what is included.

Tee

[Edited by Tim C on Mar 31st, 2004 at 07:55 AM]

GarthB · #14 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 31, 2004, 12:15am

Quote:

Originally posted by His High Holiness
Garth;

Remember the time that either you or me made a statement about length of threads. The unmentionable did a search and went ballistic. We were off by three out of a hundred and some replies to a thread! Horrors! It did not matter that we had qualified our recollections as inexact! We were WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peter

This thread might have broken the record if not for the stealthy and constant deletion of posts.

I haven't seen so many posts get deleted since Porter's midnight massacre at Eteamz.

His High Holiness · #15 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 31, 2004, 11:00am

Quote:

Originally posted by GarthB

This thread might have broken the record if not for the stealthy and constant deletion of posts.

I haven't seen so many posts get deleted since Porter's midnight massacre at Eteamz.

Garth;

Look at the mild s$$$house that we have started with just the right words here and there. In my articles on Little League Umpires, I made a comment about the trouble that Carl and I could have started in years past if we had collaborated.

Speaking of LL umpires - in my article, I quoted the trainers from my association with regards to LL umpires. I should have collected the comments from this forum instead. You guys are even tougher. Like Rodney Dangerfield, the LL's don't get any respect.

E-mail me, (if you know) regarding all of the stuff that was deleted. I hate missing the entertainment.

Peter