Old Time Religion - Judgement Calls

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
> Moose, those are the rules. ILLEGAL does NOT mean protestable.

That seems to conflict with your statement to Peter just two days ago:

> You changed a judgement decision. No question. OBR 9.02(a) says that
> can't be done. Therefore it is ILLEGAL and because it is a
> misapplication of the rule, it is also protestable.

Once again on the trail of nits to pick, eh Dave? My response in this post was to the logical fallacy posted by Moose that the act of changing a judgement call was LEGAL because it was NOT protestable. I simply reversed the language to point out that, by definition, his reasoning was WRONG. For all practical purposes an illegal act which involves a misapplication of a rule IS protestable. That doesn't ipso facto make the definition of ILLEGAL = protestable, even if the practical effect is the same. It certainly doesn't make the reverse case true, which is what Moose argued. If you are going to pick nits, at least make them juicy enough to be worth the picking! Either that or find another occupation.

You have apparently made me a target of your activities since I returned. I wonder if you really believe the other posters haven't seen that for what it is? You seem to have lost all impartiality in these debates, Dave. That's sad.

Cheers,