Where do all those interps come from?

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Jim Porter

Look, there are many facets to being a good umpire. Rules knowledge and application is but one of these facets.

Another facet is something not written in any book. It entails common sense and sound judgment. These are the unwritten rules of umpiring. I think it is damaging if we lose the ability to discuss those aspects because someone is always looking over our shoulders to point out hypocrisy in our opinions.

Sometimes it isn't best to go by the book. We all find these aspects for ourselves, and we should be able to discuss them openly. If you disagree, fine. But don't set out on a crusade of finger-pointing, Senator McCarthy.

It can't hurt you. [/B]

Jim, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, you will find posts of mine since I came to the boards indicating the need for sound judgement and the ability to make the decision whether to enforce or not enforce a rule (based on the intent of the rule).

I, like many or perhaps even most, view Carl as one of the "authorities" of the boards. This is not to say he is infallible. He has been shown to have errored more than once. However, his opinions tyically carry more weight than those of others. That is why I highlight that he, too, can advocate turning a head to a rule or doing slightly different (or even opposite) of what "the book" says. Carl provides good, sound judgement as to when this can and perhaps should be done. That is a benefit he brings to all of us beyond his specific rules knowledge.

However, (you knew that was coming) it also adds to inconsistency. Whether those decisions to circumvent the rules are made by Carl, you, or me (three who now agree we have done it) it adds to inconsistency. Furthermore, who is to say John Doe is wrong when he, also, makes his decision to do so? And, yes, John Doe's decision adds to inconsistency.

I found in the threads regarding Moose and his reversed call (which was done to get the call right) that many attacked him with, "You can't do that, it's against this rule and that rule--you have broken rule 23 from the Koran !!". However, we see a situation in Texas / Stanford whereby those attacking Moose bend over backward in attempts to justify the obvious errors in the Texas game as being within the rules. Such actions justify the need of EWS.

I just find "that" such inconsistency within the discussions on the boards as one worth pointing out. Sometimes there are reasons to help substantiate variances from the rules you desire to substantiate. In the case of Moose and Texas, both were trying to get the call right for those playing the game. I don't think anyone should be attacked for trying to do that. I respect that effort.

In closing, Jim, you liken me to Senator McCarthy in your quote. I don't think that is accurate but if that is the way you see it, then so be it. One thing we do know for sure,
I am certainly no Charlie McCarthy....................like some, at times, appear to be.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS





[Edited by Bfair on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 10:40 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by David B
Bible vs OBR!

Let's see "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now that's Gen. 1:1

That's an incorrect quote.

The correct is, "In the big inning, ..."

[Tim C]

I am just a simple guy.

Professional leagues use OBR with many sources to back it up. The OBR rules are written simply for a reason. The reason is so they CAN BE intrepreted and used by a cross secrion of organizations.

Professional leagues administer and rule in one way. People like Jim Evans write big, big books to help people understand the way professional sports (baseball) look at their use of the book.

Jaksa/Roder is another example of an accepted book (although with great reservation since it has not developed along the scholarly line of JEA.)

Each umpire in MLB is also given a notebook of official directions.

NONE of these actually are adopted by my local Men's League.

What occurs is common to law. As all our BSM (err, attorneys) will attest that law can become the precedant through accepted use over a long period of time. Tradition.

And that is how SOME laws (rules) develop.

Over the past 15 years Carl has made interpretations about rules. His BRD documents simply tell how those rulings were developed. Many have become accepted by the OFFICIAL rules source. Now that does NOT mean MLB or OBR it means maybe the NCAA or the local teams playing in the A & P League.

Bfair's arguement is the age old arguement of "show me the cite, man" and that isn't ALWAYS possible.

It maybe different where you are but I do not have a league that hands me a full, three ringed binder out lining every possible item that the rules of THEIR league encompass.

What we miss here is that people like, Carl, Warren, Jim P and Bob Pariseau do us all a wonderful assitance in having the passion that they show for research and understanding rules.

I am a neo-romantic, I also know the rules. I can allow myself the luxury of smply accepting sometimes rather than trying to tear down the tower.

All you rocket scientists can go on with the battle . . . for me it is much easier, "Play Ball!"

Just The Way I See It

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Tim C


........Bfair's arguement is the age old arguement of "show me the cite, man" and that isn't ALWAYS possible.........

Oh,no, Tee. You got me all wrong. Just the opposite of that. Far more like you. I am not looking for boogers nor dotted "i's" or crossed "t's" (no pun intended). Certainly I need to know what the book says and what should be done so I can make the knowledgeable decision about what will be done.

My point I try to make here is how those who wish to use the rules when it favors them do so, however, things change when they wish to cirmumvent the rules. Now, they don't do so necessarily by "not using the rules" , they instead start using different authorities or making their interpretations of today different than their interpretations of yesterday.

However, when someone else admits they "vary" from the book they run the risk of verbal castration if they are not an eUmpire editor. Yet we see eUmpire editors trying to pound a square peg into a round hole to justify a call reversal in Texas because they wish not to offend those involved and the situation didn't fit into the criteria they had established to change a call.

As an example. let me quote an editor from "a call changed in Texas"
_____________________:

(editor's quote)

".... I approve of everything done in that sequence -- to get it right......
(1) One umpire made a call: B1 wasn't hit by the pitch.
(2) Another umpire had information. He was sure B1 was hit by the pitch.
(3) Two umpires, in essence, had made different decisions on the play, but only Ford's decision had been "announced."
(4) After consultation among the umpires, the improper call (no HBP) was reversed and the proper call (HBP) was adopted

______________________

Now, I will quote the same editor from a different post concerning a similar HBP incident where BU didn't "announce" his call upon seeing the HBP. Then the coach complained. (Does this incident sound similar?) Difference in this situation, however, was that BU, after coach's complaint, did not discuss with UIC, but rather, outwardly stated to UIC that he was certain the batter was HBP. The coach heard BU, however, PU felt certain ball had not hit batter.
______________________

(same editors's quote)

I've always taught that a field umpire who clearly sees a ball hit a batter should wait a beat to see if the UIC will stop play. Then, if the plate umpire makes no call, the BU should kill the ball and award the base, returning runners not forced to their TOP.

I've also taught that once the moment passes, it cannot be retrieved.

From your post it appears your partner did not come in until the defensive coach "appealed" your non-call."

That's too late, and I believe you quite properly stuck to your call.
__________________


Despite the minor differences and the outcome of the plays, the point is the editor's position changed from November that BU missed his moment to make a call, couldn't come in after the coach appealed, and that at that time it is too late. However, we have the call in Texas and all of a sudden we have the same editor stating that two conflicting calls were made (both no calls), it is ok to come in after a coach complains, and it's ok to change the call.

The biggest reveral we had here was in the editor. These positions aren't even close to each other. Now, what has really changed since the November post to the post concerning the Texas play. Has there been a new official interpretation we haven't heard about? Maybe it's the people who changed that were involved? Maybe it's the fact that the Texas call did not apparently fall into the List of % Changeable Calls and it had to be searched to find a way to make it fit?

This is the inconsistency I wish to point out. Are we merely using rules and interpretations to prove what we desire and when we desire. To only prove what we wish to suit the occasion at hand?

When I read a post, now, I not only need to think of the baseball rule application and the intent of the rule, but I now must include the intent of the editor.

I hope I have made my point perfectly clear.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Edited by Bfair on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 03:15 PM]

[Carl Childress]

I'm afraid that Steve Freix doesn't follow me yet. I understand why, of course. It's always difficult for relative beginners, average umpires, and umpires who want to impose their "morality" on the game to sort their way through complex situations, such as "two umpires making opposite calls on the same play" or "don't call a highly technical balk."

Steve is forever hung up on the fact that very good umpires don't have to follow the rules and yet what they do is still accepted by coaches, players, fans, and most other officials. Umpires who don't yet understand why that happens haven't come to grips with what the umpire's chief duty is. I'd recommend that anyone similarly confused read Warren Willson's magnificient series on Umpire Ethics at eumpire.com.

Steve, you continue attempting to resurrect that dead horse of the Texas Play by claiming inconsistent rulings on my part. I don't think anyone who has followed this debate even cursorily will buy that. From the first post to the last I have argued the Texas play is different from the Moose play: Texas was one of concurrent jurisdiction; Moose, one umpire responsible; Texas, not a force play; Moose, force play; Texas, not a dropped ball; Moose, a dropped ball after a throw; Texas, umpires conferred properly under 9.04(c); Moose, improper involvement of an umpire far from the play and one never a part of any decision. I could go on.

I think the responses from everyone in that discussion show pretty well the raison d'être behind anyone's bringing it up again.

I understand well your point about consistency. I rail against an umpire who doesn't enforce the FED (don't-move-the-shoulder-to-check-a-runner) rule and then urge other umpires not to call a balk when the pitcher steps off with the wrong foot. "Inconsistent!" is the charge. "Wrong!" is the answer. Ignoring the FED rule occurs because the umpires doesn't like it. Not calling the technical balk occurs because the umpire knows baseball.

BTW: I am fond of saying about a FED game: "If you take their money, the FED deserves your allegiance." For some reason umpires who don't like the position that represents always remind me they work for schools, not the FED. Let me one final time explain that my comment is indeed meant metaphorically: If you accept a game played under FED rules, you should enforce FED rules. That is the meaning -- and always has been -- of my comment about accepting "FED pay." But, back to the point:

Steve, what happens, though, is you expect your version of consistency. Let me quote something I've written in nearly every book, something I've said in nearly every clinic for thirty years:

Learn all the rules. Until you do, you cannot choose which ones you will enforce and which ones you will ignore.

I'll give you two examples, both dealing with the pitcher in an OBR Youth game (but the players shave).

Play 1: F1 in the set position, stretches, comes down for the pause, and then delivers. In my judgment it was very close as to whether he actually stopped or not. "Coulda been a stop, coulda been a bounce."

Play 2: F1 in the windup position notices there's a runner on second, so he slowly slides forward into the set position and leans forward to take his sign.

The decisions I make on those two plays, I believe, demonstrate my philosophy, which is: I'm going to make the calls that make my job easier.

In Play 1, I call "That's a balk!" in a heartbeat. In Play 2, I'll say: "Oh, sorry, Skip. I didn't see it. I guess I wasn't paying attention. I'll watch if from on, though."

If I don't enforce the stop, pitchers will continue to have an advantage not intended by the rules.

The purpose of forcing the pitcher to step off the rubber before changing from the wind-up to the set position is two-fold: (1) It prevents the quick pitch; and (2) It prevents the pitcher from "running" into the pitch. In my Play 2, the pitcher does neither. "Sorry, Coach, just wadn't payin' no attention. I'll get him next time, you bet."

If I balk the kids EARLY for not stopping, they will begin to stop, and we can play ball in silence.

If I balk a kid because he's not yet proficient in the pitching technique, I simply show I know the rule but I don't know baseball.

After I learned how and why to make those calls, the attitude behind those decisions worked well for the rest of my career.

It's what I've been teaching ever since I became a clinician, it's what I wrote about in my third article ever for a national audience, it's what I continue to believe, right on through 51 Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 07:25 PM]

[Bfair]

Again, Carl Childress, I agree with much of what you say. As I stated I learn much from your statements of when to, and when not to.

However, you did not fully address the editorial reversal, which was indeed the main point of my last post. What caused this editoririal reversal?? We can see and understand what caused you to make or not make a call on the field, but I still can't understand what caused a position to change 180 degrees in 3 months.
_________________________________________________

As an example. let me quote an editor from "a call changed in Texas" :
_____________________

(editor's quote)

".... I approve of everything done in that sequence -- to get it right......
(1) One umpire made a call: B1 wasn't hit by the pitch.
(2) Another umpire had information. He was sure B1 was hit by the pitch.
(3) Two umpires, in essence, had made different decisions on the play, but only Ford's decision had been "announced."
(4) After consultation among the umpires, the improper call (no HBP) was reversed and the proper call (HBP) was adopted

______________________

Now, I will quote the same editor from a different post concerning a similar HBP incident where BU didn't "announce" his call upon seeing the HBP. Then the coach complained. (Does this incident sound similar?) Difference in this situation, however, was that BU, after coach's complaint, did not discuss with UIC, but rather, outwardly stated to UIC that he was certain the batter was HBP. The coach heard BU, however, PU felt certain ball had not hit batter.
______________________

(same editors's quote)

I've always taught that a field umpire who clearly sees a ball hit a batter should wait a beat to see if the UIC will stop play. Then, if the plate umpire makes no call, the BU should kill the ball and award the base, returning runners not forced to their TOP.

I've also taught that once the moment passes, it cannot be retrieved.

From your post it appears your partner did not come in until the defensive coach "appealed" your non-call."

That's too late, and I believe you quite properly stuck to your call.

__________________________________________________ _____

Inquiring people want to know ???

It is not the specific play in Texas. Read the last post. It, indeed, is claiming a position one day, verifying it through rule and official interpretation, and the changing the next day. What happened to all the rule and interpretation used to make the first position stand?

Can't you see how this should cause readers to question the content or the intent? Are we merely using rules and interpretations to prove what we desire and when we desire. To only prove what we wish to suit the occasion at hand? Can you not understand after having read the first stance how I felt the second stance was merely to "cover your butt" based on the List of 5 Changeable Calls? One day this doesn't fit, the next day it does---by stretching it into two calls (neither call declared). Please advise, what has changed to cause this change in position??

Just a point,

Steve
Member
EWS

(BTW, perhaps I was wrong in believing your first post, but I knew I had seen it and remembered it. At least I try to remember---whether you believe that or not).

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Bfair
...We also need to recognize the broad majority of baseball played is amateur and not professional, yet we continue to accept and apply interpretations and opinions directed from and specifically for the professional level...

I wonder how many umpires who are involved in an Association that does multiple leagues have in their possession (not necessarily on the field) specific rule books for those leagues. I know Little League has their own book and Babe Ruth has their own website. I do Little League, FABL, National Junior Baseball and mostly Connie Mack. For Connie Mack we are told that they use OBR American League and receive a one-page list of exceptions such as courtesy runners for pitchers and catchers, the run rule, avoid contact rule and confirmation that metal cleats are permitted. I think consistency; game control and management judge umpires.

...No wonder there are inconsistencies on the diamonds. Am I supposed to take pride in enforcing an interpretation that is different than that which is in the rulebook, different than that which the coaches have seen published, and different than that which even my partner(s) may be aware of? Of course, I can tell them "I am right and current. I got it off the internet!" Can you see the problem?

I think some of the difficulty is learning when you give a speeding ticket, when you don't and when you just wave the traffic on. Little League might be 45mph in a 45mph zone while Varsity baseball might be 50MPH in that same zone. I wouldn't try to learn how to hit by watching the 210 hitters (No disrespect to memory of hitting instructor Charley Lau). I would try watching the 300 hitters. Some of these 300 guys are regular posters here. There is inconsistency on fields because we have .210 umpires mixed with all-stars.

...Can you think of any better way to improve the game than spearheading a move toward a universal set of rules geared toward amateur baseball---even if those rules have various exceptions for age differences? BTW, I will buy the new amateur rulebook, casebook, and another BRD---to make your efforts worthwhile...

I don't think we need the rules of How To Umpire written down although I would be in the market for another video or two. I had a Connie Mack doubleheader near the end of last summer. We were doing a second game after a makeup because the coaches needed to make up another game. My partner was BU top of first with runner on second and no one out. The runner tried to cross over on a routine grounder to SS. I glanced away to watch the batter-runner touch first as a routine throw went to 3B. The next thing my partner did was call a "SAFE". We were off to a real shaky start because BU forgot one of Carl's (and a host of other good umpires) rules, #23. Make An Unusual Call On A Routine Play*. When I started out umpiring ten years ago I would not have understood how failing to actually tag the runner was still an out! The fielder did get his glove down with ball and the runner did nothing special just something dumb.[/QUOTE][/i]

All the fuss that occurs is no different than different religions arguing the Bible. There are varying views and interpretations in the many gray areas. People accept what best suits there needs. Some practice the philosophy of verbatim. Others practice the philosophy of intent and neo-romanticism, and others a mix of both to suit their own needs...

The Internet is here for the free exchange of ideas. It is a great democracy but to me that does not mean all posts carry equal weight.

Most importantly, to question an imperfect system is not wrong, Carl. And to disagree with those who state or imply you are wrong in questioning it---------------well, that's not wrong either. I am not in Pleasantville and I have no intent in moving there (unless of course I consider running for Mayor).

Just wondering when the season starts in Pleasantville and which umpires get to do playoffs?

Just my opinion,

Jim
POMO
(Posting On My Own)
(*)51 Ways to Ruin a BASEBALL Game

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair

Oh,no, Tee. You got me all wrong. Just the opposite of that. Far more like you. I am not looking for boogers nor dotted "i's" or crossed "t's" (no pun intended). Certainly I need to know what the book says and what should be done so I can make the knowledgeable decision about what will be done.

My point I try to make here is how those who wish to use the rules when it favors them do so, however, things change when they wish to cirmumvent the rules. Now, they don't do so necessarily by "not using the rules" , they instead start using different authorities or making their interpretations of today different than their interpretations of yesterday.

However, when someone else admits they "vary" from the book they run the risk of verbal castration if they are not an eUmpire editor. Yet we see eUmpire editors trying to pound a square peg into a round hole to justify a call reversal in Texas because they wish not to offend those involved and the situation didn't fit into the criteria they had established to change a call.

As an example. let me quote an editor from "a call changed in Texas"
_____________________:

(editor's quote)

".... I approve of everything done in that sequence -- to get it right......
(1) One umpire made a call: B1 wasn't hit by the pitch.
(2) Another umpire had information. He was sure B1 was hit by the pitch.
(3) Two umpires, in essence, had made different decisions on the play, but only Ford's decision had been "announced."
(4) After consultation among the umpires, the improper call (no HBP) was reversed and the proper call (HBP) was adopted

______________________

Now, I will quote the same editor from a different post concerning a similar HBP incident where BU didn't "announce" his call upon seeing the HBP. Then the coach complained. (Does this incident sound similar?) Difference in this situation, however, was that BU, after coach's complaint, did not discuss with UIC, but rather, outwardly stated to UIC that he was certain the batter was HBP. The coach heard BU, however, PU felt certain ball had not hit batter.
______________________

(same editors's quote)

I've always taught that a field umpire who clearly sees a ball hit a batter should wait a beat to see if the UIC will stop play. Then, if the plate umpire makes no call, the BU should kill the ball and award the base, returning runners not forced to their TOP.

I've also taught that once the moment passes, it cannot be retrieved.

From your post it appears your partner did not come in until the defensive coach "appealed" your non-call."

That's too late, and I believe you quite properly stuck to your call.
__________________


Despite the minor differences and the outcome of the plays, the point is the editor's position changed from November that BU missed his moment to make a call, couldn't come in after the coach appealed, and that at that time it is too late. However, we have the call in Texas and all of a sudden we have the same editor stating that two conflicting calls were made (both no calls), it is ok to come in after a coach complains, and it's ok to change the call.

The biggest reveral we had here was in the editor. These positions aren't even close to each other. Now, what has really changed since the November post to the post concerning the Texas play. Has there been a new official interpretation we haven't heard about? Maybe it's the people who changed that were involved? Maybe it's the fact that the Texas call did not apparently fall into the List of % Changeable Calls and it had to be searched to find a way to make it fit?

My goodness, the plays aren't the same, are they?

Play 1: In the November play, in a two-man crew the coach went to the partner and the partner then went to the UIC to beg for a change. Too late. He had his chance to make the call and skipped it. The UIC is under no obligation to change the call -- and shouldn't. He has NO real assurance that the umpire saw the call because everything is colored by the presence of the coach.

Play 2: In the Texas play in a four-man crew, the coach went to the UIC, then to Bible, then the crew met without the coach and discovered the discrepancy. The plate umpire then determined that U2 had seen the HBP. Remember: the coach and U2 never talked together. Consequently, the home plate umpire could be absolutely certain the coach had not put pressure on the second-base umpire.

Two different situations, all colored by the fact that the umpire in the FIRST play did not act properly -- twice.

"Carpe diem" is my advice to field umpires in a two-man crew.

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Play 1: In the November play, in a two-man crew the coach went to the partner and the partner then went to the UIC to beg for a change. Too late. He had his chance to make the call and skipped it. The UIC is under no obligation to change the call -- and shouldn't. He has NO real assurance that the umpire saw the call because everything is colored by the presence of the coach. [/B]

Uh...we remember the little kid game, telephone? So the ORIGINAL sitch has been garbled up a bit. Let's correct some mistakes above.

BEG FOR A CHANGE? Where in the world did this come from. The correct phrase would be: .. went to UIC to ask if UIC had a look at the play.

The rest is true.. but it's like saying the sky is blue.. duh. UIC cannot change the call, thus he has no obligation. He is not even obligated to answer the BU question.

But the fact of the matter is that he did. The Plate Umpire, told the BU, what actually happened. No guess, no maybe, no I think so, the fact. So BU chose to use this info to make HIS call.

In most other cases, of this similar instance... when ump 1 does go to ump 2 (rightly or wrongly, that is not the point here).. the OTHER ump would say, "Not sure" or "It's your call".. in other words, they stay the hell out. If this had been the case in the BIG PLAY, then call would have stood.

But UIC just happened to be one of the most SENIOR officials of a large organization.. and he said matter of factly that XYZ happened. And if he said it, it was a fact.

Mike Branch
Member
EWS

[BJ Moose]

Originally posted by David B
Now maybe I'll be put in Moose' DON'T READ EVER FILE.

Nah... that's an exclusive club of ONE!

Mike B
Member, Founder
EWS

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by BJ Moose

Uh...we remember the little kid game, telephone? So the ORIGINAL sitch has been garbled up a bit. Let's correct some mistakes above.

BEG FOR A CHANGE? Where in the world did this come from. The correct phrase would be: .. went to UIC to ask if UIC had a look at the play.

The rest is true.. but it's like saying the sky is blue.. duh. UIC cannot change the call, thus he has no obligation. He is not even obligated to answer the BU question.

But the fact of the matter is that he did. The Plate Umpire, told the BU, what actually happened. No guess, no maybe, no I think so, the fact. So BU chose to use this info to make HIS call.

In most other cases, of this similar instance... when ump 1 does go to ump 2 (rightly or wrongly, that is not the point here).. the OTHER ump would say, "Not sure" or "It's your call".. in other words, they stay the hell out. If this had been the case in the BIG PLAY, then call would have stood.

But UIC just happened to be one of the most SENIOR officials of a large organization.. and he said matter of factly that XYZ happened. And if he said it, it was a fact.

Mike Branch
Member
EWS [/B]

Say, Mike, you didn't read this very carefully. "The Novemeber Play" that Steve and I were talking about has nothing to do with your play. My comments on THAT play were made on another Board. It may be hard for you to believe that we were NOT discussing your screwup, but I promise you: We were not.

Why not save yourself added embarassment by deleting your most recent post in this thread? (Just in case you do, I'm going to make a copy.)

LOL, as they say.

[Carl Childress]

.

[Edited by Brad on Mar 3rd, 2001 at 11:22 PM]

[Ump20]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

...Why not save yourself added embarassment by deleting your most recent post in this thread? (Just in case you do, I'm going to make a copy.)

LOL, as they say.

You learn something new every day. I did not realize that an umpire could wake up in the morning and change one of HIS well thought out postings after a re-read. I think I've seen a lot of situations (little content / lots of accusations) where the authors would have been well advised to do just that (if you think this means you, the reader, it probably does).

If you EDIT your post does it appear as "edited". If you DELETE your post should a message be retained that you have withdrawn it? I don't anticipate a lot of umpires doing this since we have progressed to a kinder gentler Forum and posts are much more well thought out. It might help the sense of the thread when subsequent posts reflect a deleted post. Kind of like the envelope and postmark stays but the letter disappears.Thanks. Jim Simms/NYC

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ump20

Originally posted by Carl Childress

You learn something new every day. I did not realize that an umpire could wake up in the morning and change one of HIS well thought out postings after a re-read. I think I've seen a lot of situations (little content / lots of accusations) where the authors would have been well advised to do just that (if you think this means you, the reader, it probably does).

If you EDIT your post does it appear as "edited". If you DELETE your post should a message be retained that you have withdrawn it? I don't anticipate a lot of umpires doing this since we have progressed to a kinder gentler Forum and posts are much more well thought out. It might help the sense of the thread when subsequent posts reflect a deleted post. Kind of like the envelope and postmark stays but the letter disappears.Thanks. Jim Simms/NYC

Jim: Take a look at the tiny icons at the bottom of every posted message. One of them says: Edit/delete.

If you edit a post, it will say so at the bottom. (Now I just wrote "botom" there. I'm going to post the message, go in an edit it, and it will read "bottom" by the time you see it. There will a statement at the bootm of the edited post informing you that I did, indeed, edit that post around 6:55 am central time.)

Then, I'm going to write a message that says Jim Simms voted for Hillary Clinton. (I would have.) Then, I'm going to delete it, and you'll see the result.

I can edit/delete ONLY my own messages. The same holds true for you.

NOTE: I'm editing again by adding this paragraph at 6:59 am central time. The notation that I edited this post earlier is not appearing now. It is possible the Admin has changed the program some. I'm still going to try to accuse Jim of voting for a Democrat in the last election.

Final note added around 7:03: I get it. Simply correcting a typo (changing "botom" to "bottom") doesn't satisfy the program as an edit. But adding an enitre paragraph, as I did above and here, does.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 3rd, 2001 at 07:05 AM]

[Ump20]

Carl Childress wrote in part

...Then, I'm going to write a message that says Jim Simms voted for Hillary Clinton. (I would have.)...

My reputation is ruined. Even worse I never listened to those who advised me never give your real name to anyone on the internet. Now I know why. Of course, I voted for Hillary because the alternative Rick Lazio's only strong position was I am not Hillary. After some of the pardons his position looks iron-clad almost like being opposed to ending capital punishment.

P.S. Thanks for the help -- all of it. Maybe I'll edit a few posts for homework. - Jim From New York

[Edited by Brad on Mar 3rd, 2001 at 11:23 PM]