.

[Edited by Tim C on Mar 26th, 2001 at 12:17 AM]

Re: Not unlike Garth . . .
 

If your "humor was missed" perhaps it was because it didn't really appear as humor to those reading it. Frankly I found some of it quite offensive, but since I don't know you personally and it didn't relate specifically to me I let my personal offense remain unspoken until now. I certainly object to the term "Snufflers" for reasons with which you would be only too familiar. Tell me again how you intended <i>that</i> as "humor", or the earlier injunction that Garth should "kiss my butt"(sic).

Overlooking, for the moment, that rule books are inanimate objects and so are incapable of "accepting" (sic) anything, I have never agreed with you or anyone else that JEA was "not an official document". JEA has two parts. One part, by far the bulk of the book, is only considered to be "Authoritative Opinion" certainly. There is another smaller part, however; the Professional Interpretations that are faithfully reported from MLB. These I always take as "official", unless shown to have been superceded or otherwise are established to have been inaccurately reported. The latter hasn't yet happened, to the best of my knowledge.

Tee, you clearly have demonstrated a distaste for the style of baseball officiating outside of the USA, although how you might be able to judge that from <i>your</i> perspective I have no inkling. Characterisations of Canadian or Australian officials as anally retentive linear thinkers are not regarded as humor anywhere in that part of the world with which I am most familiar. Perhaps your strident protest, at Garth's request not to reignite the passions that characterisation originally stirred, is ample evidence of your ill intent here. Ride on, cowboy!

BTW, I take being "not unlike Garth" as a distinct compliment.

Cheers,

.

[Edited by Tim C on Mar 26th, 2001 at 12:18 AM]

Re: Warren let me make this perfectly clear . . .
 

And Tee: It's dumb remarks like those that kept you out of UmpiresTalk the third time, in spite of your repeated applications for reinstatement and promises to be good. Remember: I keep every post.

I bring that up so that those unfamiliar with your attacks know that your comments about Blaine, Garth, Warren, and me(Buttsnufflers) are made not out of any inherent animosity toward us or our baseball opinions but simply out of envy, jealousy, and spite. We're UT, and you ain't.

.

[Edited by Tim C on Mar 26th, 2001 at 12:26 AM]

Tee:

Ain't it neat? You can remove your nasty remarks from <b>your</b> posts, but not from the posts of those who are quoting you. So your bile and venom will remain as long as the Offiical Forum survivies. Remember, I urged caution in a private message to you just yesterday around noon, your time. Wouldn't we all feel better right now if you had listened?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C

Tee emailed an apology, so I deleted his words. Then, I wondered aloud how he could edit MY post, and when I submitted the edit, the post disappeared.

Very interesting, as they said on <i>Laugh-In</i>.

Now two times later nothing's happened. The gremlins must be after me.



[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 26th, 2001 at 07:37 PM]

Re: Re: Warren let me make this perfectly clear . . .
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

We're UT, and you ain't.

Thanks for enlightening those unfamiliar with the overall situation. I now see that those EWS guys that used to be around are probably right about you. An old man that is retired and has all the time in the world to grace the Internet with his presence and correct all concerned while maintaining a private society of like minds.

Re: Warren let me make this perfectly clear . . .
 

Hmmmm....<b>umpyre007</b>, eh? As long as we're making assessments of individuals, let's see about yours:

<b>pyre</b> <i>n</i> heap of combustible material, esp. funeral pile for burning corpse. [<i>Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, 7th Ed.</i>]

<b>007</b> - well known but mythical creation of Ian Fleming; <u>secret agent 007</u>, James Bond.

So what we have here is a fire-setting secret agent, eh? Sort of an umpyromaniac?

Welcome back Peter Osborne, is it? (grin) I knew you couldn't remain anonymous forever! Perhaps you should retire, again, now that your latest "cover" has been blown!

Cheers,

Definitely Insulted
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

Originally posted by Warren Willson Quote: Originally posted by JRutledge ... I repeat that you all but accused Mr Simms of saying he wouldn't ask the BU in C when appealed to. The relevant sentence from your post is this: "<i>I think you are going to cause yourself some problem if you are doing a NF game <u>if a coach asks for an appeal and you do not grant one</u>.</i>" (my underline) I repeat, Mr Simms did NOT say he wouldn't ask BU when appealed to, regardless of BU's position. He simply said he wouldn't ask BU in C <i>without first being requested to</i>. I hope I've made that clear. I really don't care what your points where. I have deliberately avoided entering the debate on that subject. I was simply correcting the wrong impression you gave, perhaps inadvertantly, over what Mr Simms had said in his post. Perhaps it was not I who needed to "read again the entire post". Cheers, I think you need to take what I said into context. I used the appeal statement as an example of what you should not do. I never said that he suggested that, but you do not make determinations about when to make an appeal just because of where the BU is located. And the point is that a coach is not going to buy that argument if they ask you for an appeal. And whether you think he said or did not say is not my point. You should not take the attitude at any point in my opinion on whether you ask for help on a check swing and base that on the BU position. Stop thinking that everyone that injects a thought, they they are accusing someone of saying something. It just shows how flawed the argument that Mr. Simms made, because if he is making determinations based on where the BU is, then one can only assume that you would not want to ask if the BU was in a certain position. It is called debate and intellegent discussion. If he was not specific about the issue, me and anyone else is going to assume the other exclusions as well. Peace.

I see by page 3 that this thread has really gone south. I can't leave it though without saying that both Warren and J. Rutledge have insulted me by calling me Mr. Simms. Wht so formal? We don't even call Carl "Mr. Childress"!

In all seriousness I would point out that the original post in this thread posed the question Warren focused on the fact that I would not routinely check ON MY OWN with a BU not considered to be in the "right" location e.g. a RHB and BU in "C" position. This does not mean that On Appeal I wouldn't check whether it is OBR or FED. Tee and others clearly disagree that the position of BU should influence whether or how PU asks for help. I also tried to address the fact that BU could be caught off gaurd by stressing this is an important topic for a pre-game conversation. Jim Simms/NYC

Re: Definitely Insulted
 

Sorry, Jimny-baby. :D Mea culpa. I was only trying to demonstrate my respect for you after having inadvertently (by typo) called you SIMM instead of SIMMS earlier.

"<i>I'll bear down harder in an effort to get it right next time, skip.</i>" ;)

Cheers,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
[B]There must be a gremlin on this Board.

Wrong answer Putz!
 

Bzzzzzzzzzttt: an absolutely wrong answer putz. Look to the two islands. :cool:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress Quote: Originally posted by Tim C Quote: . [Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 26th, 2001 at 07:31 PM]

Quote:

There must be a gremlin on this Board.

AND, his name just might be.........?

Re: Wrong answer Putz!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by umpyre007

Quote:

Originally posted by Warren Willson Quote: Welcome back Peter Osborne, is it? (grin) I knew you couldn't remain anonymous forever! Perhaps you should retire, again, now that your latest "cover" has been blown! Cheers, Bzzzzzzzzzttt: an absolutely wrong answer putz. Look to the two islands. :cool:

Ah... no ... I posed a QUESTION (you know, the words followed by the little curly thingy "?"), rather than an answer. Thank you for rising to the bait like a trout to a dun fly, and so assisting me in my quest to unmask all those who hide behind <i>nom de plumes</i> to facilitate the posting of negative personal commentary with impunity.

My, don't you look quite the "putz" yourself now, hmmmm? :D

Have a nice day.