Re: WCU
 

Peter: Their headquarters are in Alexandria, VA, and I hear they are looking for an executive director. Why don't you apply?

As George Takei (Sulu) would say, "Oh, myyyyyy!"

For someone who doesn't care or have a vested interest in this, your fingertips sure have been busy. Faxes to Fitz, emails to Eliot, shameless back patting resumés, you should give your wrists a break. (I could go there, but won't.)

The inaccuracies continue to spew forth. Several other members have now pointed out the MLB stance. Brinkman and Froemming were the guys I paid to learn, so if Joe is giving his blessing to something, I'll bite. Fitz ran my world for a few years, so I'll be interested to see what he wants the boys to do. Fed is and always has been a step behind. It's just nice to see that others have seen behind the curtain, too.

I know, I know,...you don't care.

Emails to Elliot? (Eliot was the British poet -- from St. Louis, MO.) Funny, I don't have any copies of those.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 16th, 2004 at 03:05 PM]

Re: Re: WCU
 

Carl;

I guess I should have gone to their website before I wrote them off. However, on the website, they don't list anything about Alexandria, VA. They list Evanston, IL as their home turf. Maybe Windy wants a job as their baseball interpreter. :D

Peter

Evanston is not very close to home, but I'm flattered.

I'm beginning to notice a propensity for Wizard a**kissing from HHH. Anyone else?

You should be familiar with No Limit Texas Hold Em...

My Eliot with one "T"

would have been beat by your "mea cuilpa"

but then the dealer threw down several
[Edited by Carl Childress]s
and I've got you beat.


Why would you have to edit that last post? It takes twenty seconds to type that drivel. Did you find another error in your grammar or spelling? That was the best the Editor in Chief could offer?

I know, I know, you don't care.

That must be the reason you deleted the thread that had my comment about Brian O'Nora puking after reading your latest Pulitzer submission.

Re: Re: Re: WCU
 

Does it say anything about Rick Roder writing their intepretations?

Ouch!

Okay, Garth...that beats my Straight. :)

I don't delete any threads. I don't that capability.

Besides, it's not threads I would delete.

Carl,
The thread WindyCityBlue is talking about was the Jim Evans Interview thread.
Since you were the thread starter you could have deleted the entire thread if you had chosen to do so.
mick

mick: Right. I deleted my post because it had served its purpose.

If someone thinks he was censored, I'll put up a similar thread and everybody can have at it.

Of course, I can't understand why any umpire would not want to hear what Jim Evans has to say. added in editing: -- even if the umpire does have to read it at Officiating.com

[Edited by Carl Childress on Sep 16th, 2004 at 09:56 PM]

Fact.
:)

It seems that many in baseball have a hard time with actually writing rules that are clear and unambiguous and can be interpreted with a minimum of explanation/casebook examples.

This rule, along with the long discussion on an appeal play ruling I engaged in earlier (OBR 7.10(b)) are perfect examples of rules that should be rewritten so that they actually mean what they say. Don't use absolute words like "immediate" if that clearly is not what the application of the rule is going to be.

There are people called "technical writers" whose sole job is to write clear, unambiguous, well formed writing of a technical nature. Those in charge of writing rules should at minimum consult with such a person, if not hire them to do the actual writing.

It is clear from reading these various rulings that the authors of said baseball rules really do need some help in this area. Alas, it will never happen. Too many egos would likely get in the way.

Windy;

You show your ignorance with a statement like that. My credentials for Carl bashing are unmatched except by perhaps Steve Freix. In that department, you are still wet behind the ears. Carl did not call me an enemy for nothing - although I do think enemy was a bit strong. A worthy but obnoxious opponent would be more accurate.

I am surprised that Carl wastes time with a wannabe like you who is too scared to use his real name. You are not worthy but he has a known weakness for wasting his time stomping on pi$$ants. We have had too many cases of fraud on the boards over the years. Wannabes posing as D1 and minor leauge umpires are a dime a dozen. If you were a real big time umpire, you would have established your reputation here in a different way. You would have started out with careful accurate posts. You would then have used the boards to leverage your reputation. You cannot do any of that as a troll. I came to the attention of a D1 assignor through my writings here. You are wasting your time except to entertain us. For that, I thank-you.

I have never had an interest in arguing rules with Carl. Rules are not where big time umpires make their living. Wannabes argue rules, real umpires discuss situations. It is convenient to have a rules guru to supply the rulings because even real umpires have weird situations arise now and again. It is simple to ask the number one rules differences expert in the world the answers. Even if he is wrong, he will have a bunch of evidence that will blow away a protest committee. Even if he is wrong, (and he is not wrong often) he will get in right in the next issue of the BRD. In summation, I don't see the point of arguing rules. Nerds and wannabes love rules minutia. For me, I want the answer and then I want to move on. Carl provides answers and 99.9% of the time, they are right. When you find a person with a better average, let me know so that I can dump the BRD in the trash can.

Carl is a great tool. Try to get an answer from another known expert on any subject and it can take weeks and they want money. For baseball rules differences, you can come to the Internet, stroke Carl's gigantic ego, and out pops the right answer. What a deal.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Sep 17th, 2004 at 09:18 AM]

Triple HHH...move next time. Stationary targets are too easy!
 

I am surprised that Carl wastes time with a wannabe like you who is too scared to use his real name. You are not worthy but he has a known weakness for wasting his time stomping on pi$$ants. We have had too many cases of fraud on the boards over the years. Wannabes posing as D1 and minor leauge umpires are a dime a dozen. If you were a real big time umpire, you would have established your reputation here in a different way. You would have started out with careful accurate posts.


I must have missed a memo. “You would have started out with careful accurate posts.” This statement is not only untrue but another demonstration of your poor writing skills. “League” is a tricky word - I advise against using it in the future unless you spell it correctly. “Careful” and “accurate” mean roughly the same thing here. If you had intended to use them as a pair of descriptives, a comma between them would have been in order. Tsk, tsk!
But I digress, you must have missed my earliest posts on this board. Wait a minute...you not only saw them, but came to embrace them. (I could copy and paste them here, but that would only embarrass you more.) For some reason you felt compelled to antagonize me while coming to the Wizard’s defense. You have made two mistakes.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
You would then have used the boards to leverage your reputation. You cannot do any of that as a troll. I came to the attention of a D1 assignor through my writings here. You are wasting your time except to entertain us. For that, I thank-you.


I don’t need to use this Board to leverage my assignments or further my career.
Apparently, you did - that says far more about your talent than mine. I earn my games every time I go onto the field. As you indicated, words are never proof of one’s abilities.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I have never had an interest in arguing rules with Carl. Rules are not where big time umpires make their living. Wannabes argue rules, real umpires discuss situations.


Oh, you’ve got to be kidding. You know this from your time at Pro School?
Joe Brinkman used to love quizzing us on rules - which inherently lead to situation discussions.
It is damn near impossible to separate the two, genius! How often have you seen a member ask for a ruling - ONLY A RULING - without a situational discussion ensuing? Isn’t that the same number of times as you’ve worked an NCAA D-1 playoff game.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

It is convenient to have a rules guru to supply the rulings because even real umpires have weird situations arise now and again. It is simple to ask the number one rules differences expert in the world the answers. Even if he is wrong, he will have a bunch of evidence that will blow away a protest committee. Even if he is wrong, (and he is not wrong often) he will get in right in the next issue of the BRD.

Is that more a** kissing? “The number one rules differences expert in the world” - even Bob Jenkins showed the Wizard that he was clueless with regards to the OBR ruling for this case. Several others have come forward to offer the same input.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

In summation, I don't see the point of arguing rules. Nerds and wannabes love rules minutia. For me, I want the answer and then I want to move on. Carl provides answers and 99.9% of the time, they are right. When you find a person with a better average, let me know so that I can dump the BRD in the trash can.

When someone says “in summation” or “finally” they usually don’t have another paragraph follow it, but you said that your terrific writing skills led to being noticed. I can only imagine the baseball talent, if this was your strength. You’ve started a battle that you can’t possibly win. You’ve made several assumptions that you’ll never be able to prove. In addition, several of the things you’ve claimed have come back around and bitten you.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Carl is a great tool.

Truer words were never written! Thank you.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Try to get an answer from another known expert on any subject and it can take weeks and they want money. For baseball rules differences, you can come to the Internet, stroke Carl's gigantic ego, and out pops the right answer. What a deal.

If I want a baseball related answer, I will talk with one of my regular partners first. I trust the guys that take the field with me. If we cannot come to an agreement, I can always call
an NCAA or IHSA rules interpreters. MLB.com has served me well with OBR questions and I own a copy of J/R (although I don’t use it very often). If I’m still stumped, I still have enough friends in Fitz’s office to get the job done. I’ve never come here to resolve a baseball question.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

[Edited by His High Holiness on Sep 17th, 2004 at 09:18 AM]

Why would you need to edit this? Imitation is the finest form of flattery, but the Wizard edits his mistakes, while yours remain.

Total amount of time spent on this post....six minutes. That includes unfolding the collapsible keyboard and breaking your thoughts into plausible sections. My work is done and it’s time to surf the web. It really is nice to be the boss.