Threads about articles on the paid site

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by LDUB

Think about it, how many of your suscribers are not internet umpires? Internet umpires are a very small percentage of all umpires. But I would guess that internet umpires make up a high percentage of Officiating.com suscribers.
[/B]

Your guess would be wrong. A miniscule percentage of our subscribers post to The Forum or eTeamz, the only Boards we track.

Let me repeat: We have thousands of subscribers. We have about 100 internet posters at The Forum. You do the math.

And as someone pointed out, Roland is opinionated, humorous, gregarious, eclectic, entertaining - as well as educational. His work has been widely praised by the people who count, namely our subscribers.

BTW: Are you turning down my offer to write an article explaining what we need to do to improve?

One more time: Think about it. There are as many recommendations for amateurs as there are clinicians.

Is it heel/toe? PBUC
Is it Gerry Davis? Papa C
Is it the box? American League
Is it the balanced stance? Wendlestedt
Is it the heel/toe, heel/toe? Evans
Is it the scissors? Ed Vargo, National League supervisor
Is it the knee? Doug Harvey

We've published articles advocating every stance EXCEPT the scissors.

If the voice of Officiating.com ever said: "Thou shalt do thus and so," or "Thou shalt never...," likely you'd be the one of the first to complain that we were trying to dictate mechanics. And who the hell are we to do that?

Know'm sayin'?

Finally: It's well known that when we publish controversial opinions, we offer rebuttal space to anyone willing to stand up and be counted BY NAME, not handle. I believe Tee pointed that out in an earlier thread.

It is never wrong to examine ideas. Those that are good, pass the test. Those that are not, fail.