Hands part of the bat. Cubs vs Astros

[GarthB]

Originally posted by His High Holiness
Wobster;

You may not understand why you have become the lightning rod for so much negativity recently. I will attempt to shed some light on it.

For five years or so, Carl has been in a major flame war with literally dozens of posters. Most of it has to do with his abrasive personality but some are envious of his exalted position as an insider in the arcane world of rules interpretation.

True big dogs recognize that rules interpretations are not where top umpires make their living. Rules minutia is the activity of nerds, little dogs, and wannabe big dogs. Carl is the supreme recognized nerd of rules. All others are usurpers. With is 20 years or so of recognized supremacy, no one is likely to topple Carl until he decides to retire, gets hit by a truck, or Alzheimers sets in. A few posters have implied that Alzheimers may have crept into his brain, but I see little evidence of that.

For a couple of years, I was the chief antagonist of Carl, although unlike most of his detractors, I never engaged in a rules discussion with him. I went after his personality and his out of date ideas with regards to game control, while at the same time giving him credit for being the supreme authority on rules issues.

For the most part, Carl and I leave each other alone now. However, there are many of of his enemies that cannot drop their weapons and make peace. (For the record, I like the current state of affairs. It provides great entertainment.) Anyway, you Wobster, have become the proxy for their war with Carl. By attacking you, they can get to Carl. Carl is the one that you work for and he is the target of their attacks. You are just the one in the crossfire.

Bottom line, the attacks against you are not personal and are not really directed at you. They are directed at Carl. Take my initial advice of a week or so ago. Keep writing and laugh all the way to the bank.

Peter

Great job Peter. You are a "pro".

Now, let's see if I can post without falling into the crapper.

1. Most people I know who post here are not afraid to address Carl, if their issue is with Carl.

2. The use of terms like "enemies", "war" and "attacks" seem either sophomoric or paranoid. We all know some people we don't necessarily care for, but to the point we need to bring in the military mindset?

3. Most of the discussion regrading Chad was brought about by his articles, his posts, his listing of his resume, and the inconsistencies therein. This all was amplified by the baptism he took for being the new guy. Like it or not, nothing unusual here. It was made worse today when he "kinda" denied posting something that he actually did post.

To accuse anyone who posts critically of Chad's work, posts or claims as trying to get to Carl is ridiculous. What then would be the root of the criticism of Rutledge? Who are posters REALLY trying to get to there?

4. Nearly everything in Peter's post, as well as most posts made on this board, including this one, is opinion. It would be silly to accept it as anytning else.

5. Chad is probably a good guy who has gotten a little ahead of himself. He's not the first one Hensley has caught being inconsistent at times. Dave is brutally adept at finding those inconistencies, and he is extremely accurate at reporting them. (I should know)

6. Chad's problems with some posters here are not his youth or experience. It's his presentation. He'll learn. Without knowing, he basically walked into a room full of 20-30 year veterans, many with proschool experience and began telling them how to do things. Even Carl had a problem when he first went to RSO and began setting folks straight. And he was an old experienced fart.

7. Despite how it may sound, and how some may want to represent it, I don't believe any of this is malicious. I can think of others who got an even more raucus welcome to the boards. Think of it more as an initiation. Chad will make his mark more by how he handles this than by throwing his resume on the table. In the meantime, enjoy the entertainment.



[Edited by GarthB on Sep 1st, 2004 at 12:05 PM]

[His High Holiness]

Originally posted by GarthB


Great job Peter. You are a "pro".

Now, let's see if I can post without falling into the crapper.

1. Most people I know who post here are not afraid to address Carl, if their issue is with Carl.

3. Most of the discussion regrading Chad was brought about by his articles, his posts, his listing of his resume, and the inconsistencies therein. This all was amplified by the baptism he took for being the new guy. Like it or not, nothing unusual here. It was made worse today when he "kinda" denied posting something that he actually did post.

To accuse anyone who posts critically of Chad's work, posts or claims as trying to get to Carl is ridiculous. What then would be the root of the criticism of Rutledge? Who are posters REALLY trying to get to there?

4. Nearly everything in Peter's post, as well as most posts made on this board, including this one, is opinion. It would be silly to accept it as anytning else.

5. Chad is probably a good guy who has gotten a little ahead of himself. He's not the first one Hensley has caught being inconsistent at times. Dave is brutally adept at finding those inconistencies, and he is extremely accurate at reporting them. (I should know)

6. Chad's problems with some posters here are not his youth or experience. It's his presentation. He'll learn. Without knowing, he basically walked into a room full of 20-30 year veterans, many with proschool experience and began telling them how to do things. Even Carl had a problem when he first went to RSO and began setting folks straight. And he was an old experienced fart.

7. Despite how it may sound, and how some may want to represent it, I don't believe any of this is malicious. I can think of others who got an even more raucus welcome to the boards. Think of it more as an initiation. Chad will make his mark more by how he handles this than by throwing his resume on the table. In the meantime, enjoy the entertainment.

Garth;

I will agree that you are correct with regards to some of the criticism directed at Wobster. However, I believe that I am right for the majority of the criticism. Consider this:

I am one of the "roomful of veterans" that you speak of. I am also one of the most disagreeable posters on the forum who delights in stirring up trouble and poking fun at other's foibles. Yet, despite these tendancies, I have felt no urge to go after Wobster. Three years ago, at the height of the buttsnuffler wars, I probably would have taken a few shots at Wobster just to get Carl's goat. Your argument that

"Most people I know who post here are not afraid to address Carl, if their issue is with Carl."

is simply not relevant. No one was more willing to go after Carl than me. I stirred up more s$$$houses with Carl than anyone, other than perhaps Freix. Yet if I could stir up the old man by going after one of his proteges, I did. Why do you think that I started so much trouble with you?

You ask about Rutledge. This is a deliberate red herring. You, I, and everyone on the forum knows that Rutledge's problems are all of his own creation. No one has implied or stated that Wobster is a lying moron. Rutledge's situation is completely irrelevant to what we are discusssing here.

Frankly, I don't find anything in Wobster's statements inconsistent. In the big picture of things, he has never presented himself as anything but a kiddie ball umpire. We are arguing about whether he has 6 or 8 years experience. It is simply not relevant as to which of these is correct. No matter what the truth, he is a kiddie ball umpire and all of us at the senior level know what that means. 6 years, 8 years, who cares. He has presented an accurate portrait of himself. Now if he had claimed to have worked one year of NCAA or a FED state tournament, that would be a significant distortion.

OTOH, if your purpose is to slam Carl and show him to be an employer of liars, then the criticism makes sense. That was my point.

Peter

[GarthB]

Peter writes

Why do you think that I started so much trouble with you?

I thought it was because I was an a$$hole.