Runners on 1st & 2nd, I am PU, Bu is in C Slot.
B1 checks his swing & I ask my partner for Help "did he go"?
I caught him off guard & he did not react right away then gave the safe sign.Was I wrong for asking for his help with a right hand batter up? What if it was a lefty up?

2- I understand the V in a 2 man crew, but with none on & f8 makes a great catch in center who's call would it be?

3- Do you (PU) signal verbally when a infielder makes a catch at his shoe tops?
Thanks, Robert

1 and 2: These are pregame things that you need to go over. According to the mechanics, you can ask your partner on any check swing. But remember at the NF level, it is up to you and only you to make that decision. In college you ask if the catcher requests appeal.

#2: If the centerfielder goes to his right, most of the time it is your call as the PU. But again, you need to discuss this and see what your partner does too. If he goes out, you assist in a call if needed, but you have the runners primarily.

#3: I personally verbally every out. You do not have to do it very loud, but you do it so that someone knows that you at least had an out. Just my opinion.

1-I would only check BU in C on appeal (OBR). Some will differ but I do not see what help can be provided (other than BU screened by catcher or possibly a bunt) by the BU in that position with a RH batter. No angle.

2- Should be PU's call unless special circumstances discussed earlier perhaps fog or poor ligjting etc. In that case BU has to say "I'm on the ball" and PU has BR into second.

3- All outs should be signalled either verbally or with hand signal. Obvious outs call for a more subdued reaction.
Jim Simms /NYC

.

[Edited by Tim C on Mar 26th, 2001 at 12:13 AM]

I agree, Tim C. I always tell my partner "If I come to you, tell me what you've got - don't just agree with me because of where you are". Of course, it does lead to an occasional word or two when the PU comes to me with nobody on base and a lefty up, and I ring a strike - but it's my judgement and my responsibility to give him what I've got if he comes to me.

Completely disagree.
 

The BU better be able to make a check swing call at some point. I think you are going to cause yourself some problem if you are doing a NF game if a coach asks for an appeal and you do not grant one. I am not saying do it on every other pitch, but you better grant appeals no matter where the BU is. What else do they have to do?

I'm also with Tee on this one. A BU in any position needs to be allowed to make the call. No matter where he is, a BU should say "Yes, he went!" <b>if and only if</b> he is 100% sure that the batter went. On a right handed batter, the BU in C is going to be 100% sure less often than the BU in A. The calls will reflect this, and all participants will get what they want.

And yes, it is good to cover these things when talking with your partner before the game.

P-Sz

Well this debate has raged forever on every board.

While Tee sticks to his ask and yee shall recieve, I will stick to my assertions that in B or C, there is NO WAY, NO WAY, NO WAY, that the base umpire has a better view than the plate umpire.

I will ask, but it better be VERY APPARENT (LIKE HE TOTALLY SWUNG WHILE I FELL DOWN). Every time I see this, I see an arguement begins. I just think it is poor game management to have the base umpire in this position "overrule" the plate umpire. Unless the plate umpire had a brain fart or fell down, call safe, it is what most are expecting anyway.

Tee and I will forever disagree on this one.

Blaine

Re: Completely disagree.
 

It is clear that this subject has divergent opinions i.e. some think you can just as easily "see" the attempted swing of a left handed batter (LHB) in A as a righty (RHB). If so, what are you "looking" for? With a RHB I think you are looking for the bat head going past the front plane of the plate or the swing carrying the batter's hands more than half way past his body. I have heard some say with LHB you are looking to see if you see the barrel of the bat. That's at least a reference point.

I have a Minor League manual from the days of Umpire Development Program that requires in a three-man system that the PU check with the "proper BU". Thus with a lefty that would be the third base umpire in "D" not the umpire in "A" or "B". So it may be a "myth" or an old wives tail that it is foolish for coaches to ask for a check of LHB in "A". However, I think it is still a fairly prevalent belief. Thus you may be questioned if you treat it as "just the same".

In both OBR and FED I do appeal as PU even with a LHB. I agree in FED you should generally treat it the same as OBR. As PU I go to my partner must slower. As BU I generally mention to the coach or players that absent mirrors or video replay I don't have much help that I can add. I have never had the retort that it is the same appeal. They seem to understand. These types of appeals should be in moderation. PU should not let coaches appeal every inning otherwise you're not in control.

PU does not always....
 

have the best angle. Sometimes a batter might go after a bad pitch. And when that happens the catcher might get in your way. That is when a PU might need to ask for an appeal. Especially at the lower levels (NF and below) because the catcher might be in your way to get a clear look.

.

[Edited by Tim C on Mar 26th, 2001 at 12:14 AM]

No, Robert, you may ask for help on a half-swing any time you feel you were blocked on the play. BU must be alert to the possibility and ready to respond. It doesn't matter where BU is located, he must respond when asked.

As for the other issues raised with respect to who has the best view, among other things, I refer you to my 3-Part series at eUmpire.com entitled "Help on a Half Swing". If you have subscribed you may view it by checking the baseball archive. I'm sure you would find it helpful and very instructive on such matters.

The currently accepted PRO mechanic is for the BU in 'A' to have the F8 coming straight in, or straight back, and moving to his left IF the BU decides to go out to make the call. If the BU comes in an pivots with the runner, the PU has this catch/no catch with no runners on base. In the event the F8 goes to his right, the PU will ALWAYS have the catch/no catch with no runners on base in the 2-man mechanics.

PU, if he makes that catch/no catch call, should ALWAYS "sell" the call with both a verbal call and a non-verbal catch/no catch signal. There are a few occasions when that call properly belongs to the BU, rather than the PU. On those occasions, the call must also be "sold" by the BU with both a verbal call and a non-verbal signal.

There are two purposes for making such a vociferous call. One is to give all the runners, including the batter-runner, the earliest possible opportunity to either continue or stop advancing hard, and/or return to their bases when no longer forced, and so prevent unnecessary injuries running the bases when the out has already been made or transforming easy returns into close tag plays. The second reason is to give your partner advice that another out has been made or not, and so allow him to decide whether to continue running, or return to his position, etc.

Cheers,

Ouch!
 

This is uncharacteristically confrontational of you, Tee! Is there some hidden reason you feel so strongly on this subject? :confused:

I don't think Blaine was advocating umpires take the "easy way out" on the "too tough" call. I think all he was saying was that, unless blocked, PU has the better view of this play DESPITE what the defense might think when they make their appeal. You know how I feel about base umpires overruling the plate umpire when the plate umpire has made a deliberate decision on the half swing, so we won't continue that debate here.

Either way, I don't see any justification for disparaging Blaine's abilities as an official on the strength of this one issue, do you? Perhaps you were only joking and omitted the obligatory "smilies", eh? ;)

Cheers,

Re: Completely disagree.
 

Mr Rutledge,

While I respect your views on this, I do think you may have mis-read Mr Simm's post. He didn't say he wouldn't check when asked. He said he wouldn't check with BU in C <i><b>UNLESS</b></i> he was appealed to, presumably by the catcher or manager. In other words, he wouldn't go to BU in C on a half swing on his own volition <i>without</i> an appeal.

Cheers,

Re: Re: Completely disagree.
 

I think you need to read again the entire post. My only point is that the PU should and can ask for any appeal at any time that the PU deems it necessary. There should not be a position that you say, "I should not go to them because they are on a certain position on the field," in a two man system. And in NF, a PU does not have to give an appeal if they feel they made the correct call. It is complete up to them whether to grant an appeal or not. I only interjected the asking for an appeal to illustrate that you do not say no just because the BU is in the C position or any position for that matter.

Peace

One last time, nicely...
 

... 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 were. 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,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 25th, 2001 at 01:36 AM]

Re: Re: Re: Completely disagree.
 

I've got a problem with that SIMM thing. I think that has nothing to do with umpiring but everything to do with 'puters. Warren, with the exception of that minor typo, has a wonderful command of the Queen's English. His view did echo what I was attempting to say. I will check at all levels, FED and OBR, EVEN THOUGH it is a LHB in "A". I will take whatever decision BU renders from "A" but if I really want a totally unbiased view with a LHB I will say "I was screened, Did he go?" or something similar. Obviously, umpires can and do disagree on this issue. I think it makes it imperative that you go over this in your pre-game conference. If I'm of the "you don't have a clue" school I could, as PU, be a bit upset when BU with LHB says "Yes he did". I know in my association of some 100 umpires most blues do not EXCPECT to overruled with LHB and umpire in "A".

It's Spring in New York. The sun is out. Play Ball! Jim SIMMS

Horsefeathers
 

Tim:

Let's set one thing stright. I umpire in Nova Scotia, Not British Columbia. I live on the Best Coast rather than the West Coast.

Now, I said we would disagree, but you feel the need to question my abilites and my "guts". That is crap. I delayed a National Final once for 15 minutes so the crew would get a rule right. This cost me on my evaluation, but it was the right thing to do - get the correctable rule right. I would do it again.

Now, Warren made my point quite well. My point is and always will be, the plate umpire has the best view. I will always check and if my partner in B or C called strike, I would be very surprised. Why? Because unless I am asleep - which I am not - I will not miss something SO OBVIOUS that the man in B ro C can see.

Do I make mistakes - of course. What I will always advocate is to have the umpire who is in the best position make the call. I see this no different than in basketball, if I am on the baseline, why would my partner call a hold in the post that is 2 feet in front of me? It not only looks bad, but it is bad teamwork.

Now go ahead, take another shot. Since you questioned my albilities, I have worked 7 National tournaments, gold medal game in each, plate once, crew chief 3 times. I think that speaks volumes of my abilities.

Have a nice day.

Blaine

.

[Edited by Tim C on Mar 26th, 2001 at 12:15 AM]

PLEASE.


The US/OZZY battle of the <i>International War of Nationalistic Silliness</i>, which began on Eteamz and found its way here is still experiencing armistice.

Let us pray cool heads prevail and that the US/Canadian forces do not create a similar battle, or even re-fight the War of 1812. Then again, burning the White House down with this administration might not be such a bad thing.

GB

Re: Blaine hits us with his resume, AGAIN
 

Tee,

What happens if you only think you're "right"? Perhaps you are not right. I happen to agree with Blaine that there are umpires in the "wrong" position to properly appeal, not in terms of the rules per se but perception, appearance, and practicality. I can present support in terms of UDP "requiring" PU to check with the proper BU in a three-man system which would lead me to conclude that in a two-man system LHB, umpire in "A" ain't it. Or if he is "proper" his view is less ideal that BU in "D". I think to conclude anything about an umpire's ability solely on this relatively minor mechanics disagreement is to risk really being wrong.

If we put it to a vote in the Forum and 51%+ agree with Blaine and myself would you change your opinion or your mechanics? I doubt that. There is another possible element here that might be "local custom". Perhaps in your neck of the woods routinely appealing LHB to BU in "A" is accepted. If you feel comfortable with it continue to use it.

Some savvy umpire on the Internet said once that we have no clue as to the ability of an umpire based only upon how he conducts himself on the Internet. We have to see that umpire on the field. Hey this is just my opinion. I can say that if I was PU and I appealed to a BU I respected with a LHB in "A" and he ruled a Strike, I would simply move on --one strike closer to the end of the game and a cool one in the parking lot where we still might disagree but that is the right of professional umpires of amateur baseball. - Jim

.

[Edited by Tim C on Mar 26th, 2001 at 12:16 AM]

Re: To Blaine, Jim & (a little bit Garth)
 

Tee:

Don't you be picking on Blaine or Garth now. Blaine is the Big Kahoona in Nova Scotia who is setting up that Victoria Day clinic where I'm gonna teach those Bubbas how to say "ya'll." I'll be there four days. In that time I could teach the Pres how to say "Double U."

Garth is the new Co-Owner of UmpiresTalk and a staff writer for eUmpire.com. How can two such imminent people be wrong?

Ever Expanding Language
 

************************************************** ********
Heard earlier this week on Letterman that Dubya had invented a new word -- hispanically. Must warm the nucleus of a former English teacher's heart! Jim from 'da city

Re: One last time, nicely...
 

[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.

Tee:

Speaking of jumping to conclusions.....did you even read what I wrote? I requested that we NOT move in a certain direction. I did not accuse anyone of anything.

Perhaps, before you get your daily exercise of jumping to conclusions, you will consider what is actually written, not what you think someone meant.

Unlike your post, I will not characterize anything you said or did as stupid, just ill informed.


GB

x
 

.

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

Sigh.........
 

Apparently my intent was not as obvious as I had hoped. Originally it was to interject a little humor into a topic that appeared to be heading south. I am sorry that my attempt was either too subtle or too esoteric. Either way, you did not get it. That's okay.

Obviously no response to your continued attack will satisfy.....and none is appropriate when the allegations and subject matter are this silly.

I will try to meet the expectations of the owners of this board and will refrain from discussing this thread further. This is not shrinking into a hole, this is called appropriate behavior.

If you wish to insult me further but would like to meet the guidlines of this board, feel free to email me directly and you can use any language you'd like.

Have a nice day.

GB

I have avoided entering this thread on the substance of the discussion, until now. Having been specifically named in this post, I simply cannot stand by and allow this sort of misinformation to remain uncorrected. Following is the approved professional mechanic, from JEA, for dealing with a check swing which the plate umpire clearly sees:

"<i>All decisions on checked swings shall be called loudly and clearly by the plate umpire. <b>If the pitch is a ball and the batter does not swing at the pitch, the mechanic to be used by the plate umpire is: 'Ball! No, he didn't go!'</b> if the pitch is a ball but the batter commits on the checked swing, the mechanic to be used is: 'Yes, he went!' while pointing directly at the batter and then coming up with the strike motion.</i>" JEA Appendix 12 {my emphasis}

If there remains any doubt that this is the approved mechanic, it can also be found at Section 10.9 of the UDP <i>Manual for the Two-Umpire System</i> pp84-85.

So you can clearly see that this is NOT just "old Warren's mechanic"! Furthermore, while I admit advocating that an umpire should resist checking with his partner when he has clearly seen the half-swing checked, I have never advocated refusing to check except for such appeals that are deemed to be made too late - in which case the official should use OBR 9.01(c) for justification.

The problem with "hobby horses", Tee, is that they seldom take you anywhere and riding them too hard always makes you look childish!

Cheers,

Tim,
The only reason you say Mr Kendell is the best umpire you ever worked with is because you've never worked with.....(everyone fill in your favorite here)! ;)

PS This is only a joke. I WAS going to insert "ME" in the blank, but others would find that a bit presumptuous...

.

[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.

Re: Re: Wrong answer Putz!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson

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.

My, my. I imagine that when you and Carl snuggle into bed together at night you compare your dangling participles. ;)

They're still here!!. . .
 

The 5 card carrying EWS members are still around. I saw Disco Dave H on the online list as I logged in. But we just post a lot less frequently. (Well, Stevey makes up for the rest of us). Like Frosty the Snowman.

"EWS will be back at your beck and call, whenever great heaps of BS fall!" And They Will!

Oh Man, this is good stuff.

Mike Branch
Founder
EWS

Re: They're still here!!. . .
 

I noticed you never explained to Warren why your name suddenly got circumscribed. First, it was Brancheau. Now it's Branch. What does your father think about that?

Re: They're still here!!. . .
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BJ Moose

Quote:

[i]"EWS will be back at your beck and call, whenever great heaps of BS fall!" And They Will!

[/b]

Personally, I think CC should be careful to watch out for the FUTz [Former UTzers who have a GREAT list going] who will REALLY blow his cover. I know this FUTz that was so pissed at CC that he scanned the B....ooops, can't give it away. Lips zipped. All I can say is that there are as many proliferations of the B.. as there has been of JEA. :p

Re: Re: They're still here!!. . .
 

He's dead so he doesn't give a rip.

How I sign any posts is up to me. I am a registered user of this forum with a valid email. I post only as BJ Moose, I have no other aliases. Joe Blow, or Joseph E. Blowksi, that is my business, and no one elses. You may call me... Mike.

I can't explain anything to [name removed] because I have no idea what [name removed] said because I NEVER READ anything posted by [name removed]. I'm sure whatever he said was entertaining...

Mike B
Founder
EWS

Moose,


That was a most excellent response. You get POINT.


Rex

Re: Re: Re: They're still here!!. . .
 

Well, <FONT SIZE = 6 COLOR = RED>WARREN WILLSON </FONT> wondered why "Brancheau," which IS your name suddendly became "Branch," which ISN'T your name. He thought maybe something "ethnic" was going on.

Re: Re: Re: Re: They're still here!!. . .
 

Carl..you DO have a sense of humor! What is scary is that our politics are similar too. But now since I accidently saw the [NAME] I have to go sacrifice a goat and find some newt's eyes.... please, be merciful.

Mike B