[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG

Quote:

Sounds like I need to substitute stretch for set (or vice versa) in my vocabulary, and call it like I do an OBR game, except for the throw to first from windup position....

Précisément.

Just frosts you to be wrong, don't it?
[/B][/QUOTE]Benham:

My, my: Selective quoting again.

I've followed your "career" as a pretend calming influence in the windy ways of our Forum.

You're a fake, Garth Benham. There's not ten cents of substantive difference between you and the McGriffers.

You tell me it just "frosts" me to be wrong. Nobody like to be wrong, of course -- as you no doubt know from your own history. But I challenged you to post an email from the FED with an earlier date than ours. You replied to my post, but carefully left that challenge out. So as yet, I don't know where I'm proved wrong.

Lah, me, dearie. (I say that because you seem obsessed with a guy wearing panties. Sorry, not my cup of tea.) [/B][/QUOTE]

Now, now Erick, I mean Carl. Careful about who you call a fake. Besides faking posts how about your "dearie" brother-in-law you invented? Talk about a cup of tea. To go throught the trouble of inventing a gay brother-in-law, you must have had the whole pot.

I really don't give squat about a challenge from you. Why should I? I never said I was given the press release dated June 24 that you receive this morning. I said I was given the information it contained nearly two weeks ago, and by authoritative sources. The kind you quote when you don't have the official source. I said it was discussed and debated on various sites. Maybe they should gloat about scooping Offciating.com

You remind me of a story George Gobel told on the old Johnny Carson Tonight Show. He had was eating lunch somewhere in Hollywood and someone came up to him and asked: "Didn't you used to be somebody?"

Why don't you set a good example for your employers and go edit something.

Benham, you're a piece of work! You implied "those in the know" had inside information; we poor slobs at Officiating.com didn't. Now you say you received it from authoritative sources. You implied the changes were discussed here. They weren't.

As of a matter of fact, I will go edit something, but the author won't be Garth Benham. He only posts on the free site, which is funded by those people who buy subscriptions. They pay so you can insult Officiating.com.

Free speech truly is free speech for some of us, like you.

Summary
 

OK, here's a summary of what I've read so far:

Self-declared rep of this fine corner of the internet posts to brag that yes, indeed, once again an internet based content provider has "scooped" a traditional paper content provider by some 2 months. Left unsaid is the annoying fact that it's likely that the US and Iraq will both have newly elected governments by the time this information is needed...but hey, it's the newz biz baby and WE are first. Then some yutz (not surprisingly from Chicago) decides to chime in to declare he cannot distinguish the NY Times from the NY Post. Finally, original self-declared rep of this fine corner of the internet decides to insult a customer - or maybe he's a mere nonpaying user of this board that is supported by the paying customers? Who knows.

I think there was a baseball question in there somewhere.

Well, as they say, lah me.

Re: Summary
 

I "resemble" that remark.

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif' alt='Too Funny' border=0></a>

Peace

Once again, you twist the truth, Carl. I NEVER said the changes were discussed at THIS site. I agree someone said that, but if you will take the time to read my posts and are willing to admit the truth, you will see that it WAS NOT ME. In other words, Carl you told an untruth.

And I didn't imply those in the know had inside, I said it outright. And we did. Many people did. That was the point. Only you and a few others thought you had a scoop. Many of us knew around the date of the press release, June 24th, about the changes, not when you recieved, July 6.

And what is your problem with authoritative sources, in this case folks who had the release before you? You love quoting authoritative sources. In fact you've claimed to be one.

I'm a piece of work? Hell, I'm a piker compared to the old master. The hardest thing for me to ever admit to was that Mike Branche was right.

Now let's get the facts straignt. I said many of us knew about and discussed these changes nearly two weeks ago. I stand by that.

You said that I said it was discussed at this site. That is untrue, and provably untrue.


You said you were on the "A" list. I think you're just on a list.

Hey, at least after getting fired as a moderator I no longer have to think about whether to delete an entire thread. This one, for example :)

Re: Summary
 

And what are you?

More's to the point, WHO are you? Mr. Benham, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Fronheiser, Mr. Childress, among many others: We use our names and, regardless of whether we fight with or against each other, we put our real selves on the line. That's not the case with Senior Member Dan_The ref. BTW: What are you doing on the baseball board, Mr. Ref?

You know what the funny thing is? Aside from the the two of you (Garth and Carl), does anyone really give a damn who had what first? I mean, am I the only person who sees how totally useless this entire exercise is?

I would hope not.

And who are you, Lilblue? (Hey, it rhymes though it doesn't scan.) Bubba, it's a Message Board. If you're not interested in this "thread," you don't have to read it. Move on to "The Hand is Part of Bat." Much of the fun of a message board is semi-good-natured give and take. (Just ask Rut or HHH.) The posts between Garth and me are nothing compared to what goes on elsewhere, particularly messages posted by the McGrifidiots.

I've got an idea. Why don't you start a thread in which you encourage posters to use their real names?

And you've inspired me. I think I'll ask Garth to write up <i>his</i> side, and I'll write up <i>my</i> side, and we'll publish it on the money side, and both will get paid. Using our real names, of course.

Lilblue:

Hell, even I don't give a damn who had what first. I only returned to the thread when someone decided that they needed to lie about what I had said. I take that personally...always have, always will.

I really don't care how you regard this exchange. If it doesn't concern you, you can simply stay out of it.

Gee Carl, I don't think THAT will happen.

The point that has been made by many is simple. This chatter is plain stupid. As the "Editor in Chief", you certainly are not inspiring me to pay, nor is your bravado a great representation of the "Magazine." How the hell is insulting people going to help grow the paid site?

Blaine

You heard the Big Dog, Dan_ref! Now you get yo a$$ back to the basketball board where you belong. And you better damn well stay there! @#%$#@New York whitetrash troublemakers!

Lah me, some people just don't know their place.

Actually, the thread was not on this web site - it was on e-teamz's web site. here's the link:
http://www.eteamz.com/baseball/board...cfm?id=1038862

Furthermore, I realize that there are some who do not like Carl Childress and I don't care what the problems are. Carl is a source of information for us all. Who cares if he scoops the story or inserts a personal opinion. He's been around a lot longer than many of you out there. A little respect would go a long way, people! If you have a problem with the information, you can always go to the FED website http://www.nfhs.org/rules-baseball.htm and check it out there. Please, people, any information (especially on FED rules) is worth listening to.

Okay, I'm through preaching.

Have to correct the FED web site to http://www.nfhs.org/. Read the text and follow to the baseball rules section. The other link that I provided is inoperable.

[Edited by ozzy6900 on Jul 7th, 2004 at 08:55 AM]

And you hit a home run with that statement. The problem is that respect needs to go both ways.

Look, I brought Carl 2500 miles to do a clinic. I wrote many articles for the paid part of the site. Nobody has ever had an issue with Carl's knowledge.

Similarly, as an umpire, my problems almost never are due to calls. Most often, it is due to game management situations where I allow an over-aggresive attitude to undermine my game. So, regardless of how, "good" I may be, I am remembered by many as the umpire with the attitude.

With that in mind, how do you think many percieve Carl?

Blaine