I'm a C
 

I think the attitudes of the writer's on the forum seem to be very snotty. They don't seem to have respect for new people (Some should lose the respect right away, but they don't seem to give any to anyone), and seem to belittle people as often as they can. They don't seem to want to be helpful, and correct situations, just eliminate or mock them. Eg. when I came on here and said I was thinking of joining and a representative of your site, more or less said I was a liar, and a waste of oxygen. A very good attitude toward the potential client.

This is from the obviously High quality writers on the site. The rediculous info shared buy the poor writers just adds the circus atmosphere. There are 3-4 guys who's articles I would love to read, but sadly lately thier attitude on the forum has soured me to them.

I don't think you do a good enough job of advertising the online mag, nor do you do enough to entice the possible subscriber. I find the website muddled and a bit difficult on the eyes which makes it difficult to navigate.

Re: I'm a C
 

That was Carl, right?

I'm a C, but I'm thinking about becoming an A just long enough to pull down some articles and buy a book or two, then become a B.

I'm an A now was a B.
 

When the site first opened I joined but after a year was disappointed in the lack of articles dealing with the practical.

I rejoined this year thanks to the coupon which allowed me to purchase some books, but again I read the internet site looking for entertainment and some good information.

Lately I have enjoyed Tee's articles and of course I always enjoy anything Peter writes because its always thought provoking. (g)

I wish Carl would write more, his articles are always great and if he's allowing Roland What's his name to write seven or eight articles to his one, that's not good.

I know he's the editor, but Carl is also a great writer, as he makes the rules make sense.

With the format I don't know how it could improve without spending lots of money to actually hire writers etc.,

Thanks
David

Roland has taken quite a beating here recently. I, for one, have read most of his articles. Has anyone here studied Zen? Roland's articles have a certain Zen like quality to them. It is sort of like the wisdom of Yogi Berra.

"When you come to fork in the road, take it." On the face of it, that is an absurd statement much in the same way that Roland's articles are often absurd. For VIPs receiving honorary degrees, Yogi's quote above is the most often used quotation in a commencement address. It is wisdom for the ages. Likewise, Roland has numerous bits of Zen like wisdom buried in his pieces.

I have written that baseball is a religious experience. Roland has carried that over into Internet baseball as well. I think that the problem may be that this has very little to do with umpiring, unless one is a spritual type.

Note to Carl: The Godless umpires are complaining. :D

Note to HHH and Carl: Ummm, nooooooooo, how do you know that the ones who are complaining are Godless? Thats a blanket statement, with no facts at all to back it up. Careful where your throwing those stones HHH.

Sissiest See-Si Yes Sir, Part
 

Cough!

This comparison between Zen and things that are just plain absurd has been made many times regarding many subjects. It was even included in a Comparison of Relgions course I took in college.

In the end, the only ones who accept simple absurdity as Zen are those who truly do not understand Zen.

Rolandese may be simply absurd, but it is not Zen.



[Edited by GarthB on Jul 29th, 2005 at 10:06 AM]

Hmmm,
 

" . . . these subscribers have lost their faith, it isn't their faith in God."

Garth, I didn't know Doug Harvey was referenced in this thread.

Re: Hmmm,
 

I think you know to whom I was referring in the rest of the post.

<< sitting in a painful Yoga position and hummming


hhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Is that Zenful enough?

update...
 

after a comment from Carl, I decided that I need to add some information in order to prevent any sort of misrepresentation...

1) I am a contributor for the site
2) This request is not sanctioned nor commissioned by the site
3) There are no guarantees that the owners of the site will accept any of the recommendations made

If I led anyone to believe otherwise, I sincerely apologize.

Count me as an "A"
 

I joined up for the articles and to purchase the 2005 BRD. I am mostly satisfied with the articles and overwhelmingly happy with the BRD purchase. It was worth the price of admission a couple of times over. I have found it becoming my first rule source and I have acquired a good many of choices.

As a looooong time reader of umpire websites, I came to know many of the writers and their capabilities from other sites and sources. I appreciated their abilities from the posts on the old sites in the old days . I only began posting regularly in the recent past prefering to read and study. One of the methods I use in reading any material is to attempt to find a point or points that particularly hit home to me.

I do read all of Rolands writings and admittedly he can lose me, but when he talks of rural baseball I can relate.

Tee's new "Strikes and Outs" column is something I look forward to reading.....of course I was a big fan of the old columns.... In his writings You will get the information you need to get better.....if you care to read and listen.....

Carls writing is top notch and well respected. You get what you pay for and when Carl writes, my membership is worth every penny.....

I get my monies worth.......I may have to look for it in some articles, but I am satisfied.

that is my $.02

Stan

Re: update...
 

Whoops, looks like one of Carl's writers isn't sufficiently under his thumb. Let me guess, you got slapped a bit in a personal email.

Re: update...
 

Jump:
It's a shame you had to publish a disclaimer. It
would seem that the management of Officiating.com
would be interested enough to have done a "poll"
themselves.Recommendations from paying customers,
and/or potential paying customers should be taken
under consideration,at least.