Fair or Good?

[Carl Childress]

My thread about fair/good started out ok. But it ended in a slugfest.

The thread is closed, but the crud is there for all to see.

Consequently, around midnight tomorrow I intend to delete my original post, which will erase everything, as you know.

If you want to keep your posts, you have until then to save. Don't forget: You have to save eash page separately.

Oh, I'd rather be fair and good than good and fair.

Rut: I wouldn't go around disparaging white people. After all, it was predominately white lawmakers who provided the laws that ensure equal rights for all.

It still is.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Deja vu, all over again...

"As an umpire, you can't be good without being fair. You can certainly be fair and not considered good (no pun intended).

I've witnessed dozens of fair umpires who "even up" calls or compensate for a partner that they disagree with. In my experience, I value the partner who is talented enough to realize that the game is not always fair. Some teams (and umpires) get screwed.

In regards to the compliment you received, it was certainly meant in the spirit of professionalism. I've only encountered two coaches that tried to blast me during the pre-game. One never got to see the inside of his dugout and the other walked away feeling pretty ridiculous. Coaches love to kiss the butt of the PU in the Championship game. I'm sure you did a fair job, and all words being equal - I'll take good any day."

Carl, your line about being fair and good not good and fair is intereseting. But again, it's in the interpretation of what we consider good and or fair. I define 'good' as being the epitome of professionalism. In simpler terms - the guy they want out there when the big game is on the line. We expect good umpires to be fair but that's not the case when switched. You may be the exception and this is not a poke at the expeted call philosophy. I truly understand that like the sheriff of yore, being fair is noble. Being good keeps you from getting killed, though.

Anyway, I'm sorry that the last thread got messed up. I tried to toss my serious thoughts in at the beginning. As Paul Harvey would say, you know the rest of the story.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Carl, you have been hit in the head too many times by the baseball.

You obviously do not know the law and you honestly think I do not know prominent attorneys that are both white and Black that fight for social justice either? You also do not know what the hell you are talking about as usual. Carl, what else is new.

Peace

To The Forum:

Can anyone truly be this dumb?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

To The Forum:

In the original version of this message, I asked The Forum members a question concerning a post Jeff Rutledge made. He has since removed it, and I don't know why that didn't also delete my reply, but....

I have deleted his post, which I had quoted in this reply. Should it become necessary, though, I can repost it exactly as he wrote it. [/B]

[David B]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

[/B]

The problem in understanding history is that too many people only want to understand the part that concurs their argument - ala the post above.

Our politicians in Washington suffer the same amnesia on a daily basis and its sad.

For those of us who are students of history as it actually occured, Carl you were totally accurate in your statement about the history.

Maybe JR hasn't read the rest of the history behind the civil rights movements or either he simply doesn't want to acknowledge it accurately.

Having been born and lived in the south for my entire life, we learned it at an early age and the thing about history is that is doesn't change ...

As far as baseball Garth said it best, I'd rather be good any day.

Thanks
David

[Edited by David B on Dec 26th, 2005 at 12:23 PM]

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

To The Forum:

Can anyone truly be this dumb?

Why is "white" not capitalized, but "Black" is? A bit of racism I would say. Whitey doesn't deserve proper noun status.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

Why is "white" not capitalized, but "Black" is? A bit of racism I would say. Whitey doesn't deserve proper noun status.

To attempt to get back to the subject of thread and keep this one from being locked, I'll reiterate from the previous thread: One can be fair and not good, but to be good, one needs to be fair.

[Bob Lyle]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
To The Forum:

Can anyone truly be this dumb?

Carl,

I am not trying to insult you but the only thing dumber than the stuff that Rut writes is your question. Rut continually sets new standards for dumbness. Why should you or anyone else be surprised when he writes something incredibly dumb? That's normal behavior for him. What would truly be shocking is if he went on a streak of intelligent writing.

[bluezebra]

"Rut: I wouldn't go around disparaging white people. After all, it was predominately white lawmakers who provided the laws that ensure equal rights for all."

And it was Southern white lawmakers who refused to ratify the Constitution if it contained an Amendment to abolish slavery. It too 78 years, and the most horrible war this nation suffered, to ratify the 13th Amendment. And another 76 years to do away with "legal" segregation.

Bob

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by bluezebra
"Rut: I wouldn't go around disparaging white people. After all, it was predominately white lawmakers who provided the laws that ensure equal rights for all."

And it was Southern white lawmakers who refused to ratify the Constitution if it contained an Amendment to abolish slavery. It too 78 years, and the most horrible war this nation suffered, to ratify the 13th Amendment. And another 76 years to do away with "legal" segregation.

Bob

You're right. No one disputes that. But since I know of no legislature or congress since the War Between the States with a majority of African-Americans, I'm sure my statement is accurate. White lawmakers, from wherever in this country, passed the laws that "ensure equal rights for all [races]." You'd agree to that, I'm sure.

[Tim C]

Carl wrote: ". . . legislature or congress since the War Between the States . . . "

Isn't that really a war called "The War of Northern Agression".

I mean let's be honest here . . . all said, the war was fought over financial issues more than anything else.

Tee

[umpduck11]

Originally posted by Tim C

Carl wrote: ". . . legislature or congress since the War Between the States . . . "

Isn't that really a war called "The War of Northern Agression".



I mean let's be honest here . . . all said, the war was fought over financial issues more than anything else.

Tee

I love it when idiots (here in the south) try to say the war
was not fought over slavery. Sure, there were
other considerations, but slavery was certainly
one of the biggest reasons.
And yes,Tee, it was the "War of Northern Agression".
At least that's how it's refered to around here.

Chuck


Edited for clarity.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

To be fair, this thread about umpring is not looking good.


Since many of us have crossed swords with him in the past, can't we just agree that Rut bit off more than he could chew here? What started as his naivety about NCAA baseball coaches turned into a tirade about black history. We need to learn that he will never be able to debate well enough to make it worthwhile.


The topic that was established asks us to consider whether we feel honored by the tag "good" or "fair". Like a fine wine, it can't be considered so unless it is balanced. An umpire is likewise ajudged "good" if part of his skills includes an ability to be "fair". But, to be "good" he must possess terrific timing, communication, hustle, desire and rules knowledge.

Is it 2006 yet?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by PWL
History books will tell you the war was actually about "States Rights". The South didn't want a strong central government. Slavery wasn't the main issue. Back then there were several "compromises" made in Congress to please both geoprachical reasons. For instance, two states would enter the Union at the same time. One would be a "free" state, and the other a "slave" state.

After the war, "The Compromise of 1877" put an end to Reconstruction in the South. Just had to have Rutherford B. Hayes as President. Sort of like Bush and Gore in the Supreme Court. So all Union soldiers were pulled out.

Harry S. Truman was the very first president to actually sign any "civil rights" legislation". Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which set most of the wheels in motion. The rest is history.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the fair and good comments at the plate conference, just dismiss it as idle chatter, much as you would hear during a ballgame. He was probably just "shucking and jiving" anyway. Do the game in your normal manner. What else can you do?

[Edited by PWL on Dec 26th, 2005 at 07:32 PM]

Actually, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was the breakthrough legislation.

Concerning baseball: I would think I have written enough about the relationship between umpires and coaches in our Youth Leagues so that members of The Forum would understand that coaches and umpires have much different relationships down here at the Tip of Texas from those in other places. We just flat don't have the adversarial relationship I read about here.

Someone said an umpire can be fair without being good. An umpire can also be good (great timing, good positioning, knowledge of the rules, great game control, etc.) and still not be fair! Fact is, the better the umpire, the easier it would be for him to shade in favor of one team or the other.

Guys, when I meet with coaches, it is a GIVEN that I am good. They know that, the fans know that, I know that. The fathers of many of these Youth League coaches also know that because I worked their games decades ago.

But the statement that I hoped would engender comments was just passed by.

I said I told my boss what the coach had said. Then I wrote: "Coach Allen said it meant they knew I didn't care who won. I said it meant they knew umpires who did."

[Mike Walsh]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

[i]

But the statement that I hoped would engender comments was just passed by.

I said I told my boss what the coach had said. Then I wrote: "Coach Allen said it meant they knew I didn't care who won. I said it meant they knew umpires who did."

If those who read these posts were concerned that there were umpires who care who wins, there would have been discussion. My bet is that the general take is, sure, coaches think that, but we know better. That your statement did not generate comments is a good thing.

Mike