Interesting Photo

[moorg]

Originally Posted by mick

Yes, Tim.
It does. Thanks.

None the less, I am hoping we can let the weighty issues go away.
Discussing philosophies is fine.

mick

Mick,

I know that you believe that it's authentic. However, if there are additional questions about this in the future I have additional pictures that eliminate any doubt. I'd rather not post them as this picture says enough and I'm only trying to provide facts, not pile on a fellow umpire.

But...I have real issues with my guys (amatuer umpires) working these games. Every minor league umpire that I've met (8 or so) has cared deeply about umpiring and helping amatuer umpires become better. I'll save my soapbox for another day and another medium.

[JIGGY]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I think you are wrong.

We just think they should have known what was going to happen. There is all this mean spirited talk of "scab" this, and "scab" that, and it gets old really fast. These games were going to get umpired one way or the other, and despite all the complaining by the coaches and players, they really wouldn't care if their grandma umpired the games, as long as they got to play. If this were not the case, the players, managers, coaches, vendors, announcers, and all team personnel would be on the line with the AMLU guys. But they aren't, which means they are actually siding with management, to even be putting up with the obviously inferior umpiring.

It isn't that we don't want the pro umps back. Of course we do. We all think that they are grossly underpaid. They deserve much more in the way of salary, benefits, per diem, insurance and everything else it takes to make a good living. But running around hollering "scab" at the replacements isn't going to help solve a damn thing. Management does not seem to be in any hurry to make a move to solve the problem, so we will all just have to wait and see how the whole thing plays out. In the meantime, we should resist the urge, as difficult as that is, to lash out at each other over this issue.

I think you misunderstand the term Scab. The AMLU guys aren't using that term because they are surprised that guys are crossing to work, they expected that. They aren't even "lashing out" in anger. They (and others) use the term because it is the correct term. Is it mean to call a crackhead a crackhead? His name is pookie, but his title is crackhead because that is what he does. The same is true here. His name may be Yeast, but his title is Scab, because that is what he chooses to do.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I think you are wrong.

We just think they should have known what was going to happen. There is all this mean spirited talk of "scab" this, and "scab" that, and it gets old really fast.

There is someone holding a gun to your head to have this conversation? If it is getting old, get away from the conversation or deal with it.

Peace

[BigUmp56]

He is dealing with it. Although, unlike you, he's dealing with it rationally and not talking in circles like you because you've been caught in another lie.

Tim.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

He is dealing with it. Although, unlike you, he's dealing with it rationally and not talking in circles like you because you've been caught in another lie.

Tim.

You call repeating something over and over again with the expectation that something is going to change is rational? It is clear no one has stopped using the word "scab" and will not stop using the word "scab." If anything is has provoked more use of the word "scab."

I almost forgot the guy that creates a discussion board to support all his position is talking about rational behavior. I have to consider the source next time.

Peace

[BigUmp56]

All he's done is ask you to provide substance to your claim that the amature umpires were using derogatory terms to describe the AMLU members. Each time he's asked you've done your usual little dance to skirt the truth, which is you have no way of providing that substance. You either lied or misspoke. It's alright though, we're used to you being either dishonest or ill-informed.

As far as my discussion board goes you know nothing about my motives for creating the group or anything about the nearly 100 members who've joined and are posting there. There was a need to have a discussion board for all the newer or rookie umpires that were being turned away from this and other boards for asking what some felt were remedial questions. They come to my board and ask these questions without fear of receiving scorn from those who forget where they started.

I don't need anyone to support my positions, Jeff. I'm a big enough man to be swayed when I'm wrong, and debate when I feel I'm right. I've yet, in all the time I've been reading your posts seen you do the same, although you do screw up quite a bit and never admitt it.


Tim.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

I guess I should have known you still required lessons in logic:

Originally Posted by Jiggy

They (and others) use the term because it is the correct term. Is it mean to call a crackhead a crackhead? His name is pookie, but his title is crackhead because that is what he does. The same is true here. His name may be Yeast, but his title is Scab, because that is what he chooses to do.

The term 'scab' is a pejorative and used to blight and defame. It is only approporiate to some who can't rationalize any activity contrary to their simple purpose. Your crackhead analogy is absurd; would you walk up to Rut and call him the n-word (this is one of the few topics that I actually agree with Rut)? It is an accepted term by narrow minded individuals to describe someone of color. How about 'spic', does that gem grace your daily vernacular? I think those answers are probably apparent to all who read here.

I think we've seen enough wit and wisdom from your fingertips to know where you stand. You have little compunction about disparaging others and painting broad pictures. Pretty soon you'll likely advocate a scarlet letter for all of those that have wronged the 220 AMLU boys. This matter has become ugly by their own doing. People like you corrupt the message without the knowledge or ability to expound logically.

Thanks for the civics lesson, but your methods are transparent.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

All he's done is ask you to provide substance to your claim that the amature umpires were using derogatory terms to describe the AMLU members. Each time he's asked you've done your usual little dance to skirt the truth, which is you have no way of providing that substance. You either lied or misspoke. It's alright though, we're used to you being either dishonest or ill-informed.

I did not say there was anything said derogatory from my point of view. That was not my position at all. I do not see a discussion of opinions as derogatory. I did say that what he considered inflammatory is just as inflammatory on the other side. I said that if he feels that the term "scab" was inflammatory, I feel that other comments were inflammatory as well. There is nothing about a union dispute in an industry that I do not work or associate myself with as something inflammatory. There are bigger things in life for me personally than a word about replacement umpires. Now remember this “my” opinion and he was called on his position by more people than me on this very issue. This is not a court of law and I do not have to prove anything to you or anyone else. Now if that affects my credibility with you, so what. You work a level I have not worked in 9 years. You live in a state I do not live and you live in an area I will probably never go for a baseball game. We also likely will not ever work together. So my credibility with you and a bunch of internet umpires is the least of my concern. I umpire as a hobby; it is not life or death.

I also think it is silly to say the word "scab" is inflammatory when it is not only the term is in the dictionary for describing a person that crosses the picket line, but is the term used in many, many union disputes to describe people who replace in union workers during a strike. Now I guess you do not understand what an "opinion" is rather than a fact. If I feel George Bush is an idiot that is my opinion. I do not have to verify my opinion with an objective sources or examples to make others happy.

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

As far as my discussion board goes you know nothing about my motives for creating the group or anything about the nearly 100 members who've joined and are posting there. There was a need to have a discussion board for all the newer or rookie umpires that were being turned away from this and other boards for asking what some felt were remedial questions. They come to my board and ask these questions without fear of receiving scorn from those who forget where they started.

I cannot even believe you responded to my very sarcastic comment about your internet dealings. Most umpires I know never come to the internet to learn anything about umpiring. If they want to learn something they can attend camps or go to association meetings where they can verify the backgrounds of the people that are giving presentations and teaching concepts. Maybe there is a need where you are. Where I live the need is fulfilled by those that run our associations. This place for me is pure entertainment and to pass time between work and games.

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I don't need anyone to support my positions, Jeff. I'm a big enough man to be swayed when I'm wrong, and debate when I feel I'm right. I've yet, in all the time I've been reading your posts seen you do the same, although you do screw up quite a bit and never admitt it.

It always cracks me up with people like you and many others that come to these internet sites. You obviously do not know what the definition of "debate" means. Debate is when people give opposing positions. Much of debate is based on a person's experiences and personal philosophies. I vote for a certain political party because of my feelings and experiences and I will debate with people about those positions. I am not going to change my “opinion” because someone brings up a certain point. If you do not stand for something you will fall for anything.

Tim, if you actually read my posts you will realize that almost all are about philosophies and experiences that I have had in officiating. Then based on those experiences I share my “opinion” as to what is the best thing to do in certain situations. I do not know about you, but if you go to a camp of any kind you might hear 5 different opinions on one subject and all the individuals giving their opinions. I have literally been to basketball camps and was told one thing while I am at one end of the court. Then I run to the other end and a different person says something completely different than the first person. Then I go back to the other end and someone says something completely different then the first two people and all were addressing the same issue. I went to a D1 camp last summer and the supervisor of the camp told us we will here different things from all of his clinicians including him. He told us to get over it and when we leave pick what we like and throw out what we do not like.

If you do not like what I have to say and you do not agree with me that I OK. I really do not care either way. The sun will rise whether you like what I say or not.

Peace

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally Posted by moorg

As I took the photo I can speak for it. That photo was taken on Friday, April 14th in San Antonio, TX. I only posted that image here. It was not opening night. There were no special event being celebrated at the ballpark that night. The first and third base umpires wore identical hats. The home plate umpire wore a solid navy fitted cap without any logos.

Where else was this photo posted a discussed? I would like to read any discussion related to this image so that I can clear up any speculation. I was under the impression that you could not browse the AMLU forums unless you are a current minor league umpire.

This photo was posted on UmpNews and the AMLU site. The doubt surrounding your integrity centers on the fact that you said the photo came from last night's game. The photo has been present in the same form on other sites prior. I'm not sure why further discussion is required.

For what it is worth, unless you were in the umpires' locker room or privy to the assignor's phone calls, I find it difficult how you would ascertain what uniform they would wear. I've seen photos of the replacement umpires wearing the navy blue, black and light blue uniforms so far. I guess, like many crew chiefs and ball park management, the decision is left to them. Their is no union or officially accepted uniform any longer. Compliance is not an issue - getting the call correct is. But then again, that is another topic.

Counselor (yes, you CB) - I am dealing with this in a most certain form of levity. I require no mood altering substance to maintain my sanity with these members. I appreciate the concern, but if you've looked back you'll find that I too had hoped for the union boys to be working these games. They chose not to and that is the crime. The game is bigger than any umpire. The replacements are getting a rare opportunity to work some good ball. The fans want to be entertained and let's face it, a controversial call is entertaining. The league recognizes the bottom line and they are saving money with the replacements. They pay no per diem, hotel expenses or benefits. They have little cause to attend future bargaining talks. Yes, I said these things long ago too.

Otherwise, I hope your games are going well. I found a new part of the hamstring that hadn't been hurt until recently. Most of us look like Evil Kneivel at the end of his career, this early in the Spring. Hope you're not getting out your stars and stripes suit yet.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You work a level I have not worked in 9 years.

Okay, I'm not going to ask about the specific remarks toward AMLU members any longer.

I am now going to make it my mission to ask you just exactly what do you mean by the above statement, and exactly what does it have to do with anything?

I suppose it in some way makes you believe (falsely) that you are a better umpire than he is, but I'm not sure. Is that what you are implying?

[JIGGY]

Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

I guess I should have known you still required lessons in logic:



The term 'scab' is a pejorative and used to blight and defame. It is only approporiate to some who can't rationalize any activity contrary to their simple purpose. Your crackhead analogy is absurd; would you walk up to Rut and call him the n-word (this is one of the few topics that I actually agree with Rut)? It is an accepted term by narrow minded individuals to describe someone of color. How about 'spic', does that gem grace your daily vernacular? I think those answers are probably apparent to all who read here.

I think we've seen enough wit and wisdom from your fingertips to know where you stand. You have little compunction about disparaging others and painting broad pictures. Pretty soon you'll likely advocate a scarlet letter for all of those that have wronged the 220 AMLU boys. This matter has become ugly by their own doing. People like you corrupt the message without the knowledge or ability to expound logically.

Thanks for the civics lesson, but your methods are transparent.

Apples and oranges my friend,

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Okay, I'm not going to ask about the specific remarks toward AMLU members any longer.

I am now going to make it my mission to ask you just exactly what do you mean by the above statement, and exactly what does it have to do with anything?

I suppose it in some way makes you believe (falsely) that you are a better umpire than he is, but I'm not sure. Is that what you are implying?

No actually it shows that Tim and I do not view our "hobby" the same way. If you feel that makes me "better" you have a right to that “opinion.” The reality is that I would not go out and work LL anymore because that is not why I umpire or officiate any sport. So if I would not go out and work a LL game anymore, what makes you think I would approach this website (or any website) the same why as Tim?

Now go on and tell me what you think of me and how I should be like you. Remember you did ask.

Peace

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally Posted by JIGGY

Apples and oranges my friend,

I would have loved to see what Bob had to edit!

Name calling is all they are engaged in. Where does the term 'scab' come from? It is a derogatory term used to paint another in a bad light.

Educated people may choose to call a 'crackhead' a drug abuser or chemically dependent. Likewise, I refer to the officials working MiLB games as replacement umpires. It seems "to describe what they do" as you put it.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

A little Googling and one finds this:

[Quote]THE SCAB
(Speech first given before the Oakland Socialist Party Local, April 5, 1903)

In a competitive society, where men struggle with one another for food and shelter, what is more natural than that generosity, when it diminishes the food and shelter of men other than he who is generous, should be held an accursed thing? (edit for brevity) It is for this reason that a laborer is so fiercely hostile to another laborer who offers to work for less pay or longer hours. To hold his place, (which is to live), he must offset this offer by another equally liberal, which is equivalent to giving away somewhat from the food and shelter he enjoys. To sell his day's work for $2, instead of $2.50, means that he, his wife, and his children will not have so good a roof over their heads, so warm clothes on their backs, so substantial food in their stomachs. (e f b)

When a striker kills with a brick the man who has taken his place, he has no sense of wrong-doing. In the deepest holds of his being, though he does not reason the impulse, he has an ethical sanction. He feels dimly that he has justification, (e f b)

In addition to the use of bricks, clubs, and bullets, the selfish laborer finds it necessary to express his feelings in speech. Just as the peaceful country-dweller calls the sea-rover a "pirate," and the stout burgher calls the man who breaks into his strong-box a "robber," so the selfish laborer applies the opprobrious epithet "scab" to the laborer who takes from him food and shelter by being more generous in the disposal of his labor power. The sentimental connotation of "scab" is as terrific as that of "traitor" or "Judas," and a sentimental definition would be as deep and varied as the human heart. It is far easier to arrive at what may be called a technical definition, worded in commercial terms, as, for instance, that a scab is one who gives more value for the same price than another.

The laborer who gives more time or strength or skill for the same wage than another, or equal time or strength or skill for a less wage, is a scab. The generousness on his part is hurtful to his fellow-laborers, for it compels them to an equal generousness which is not to their liking, and which gives them less of food and shelter. (e f b) He does not scab because he wants to scab.

No whim of the spirit, no burgeoning of the heart, leads him to give more of his labor power than they for a certain sum. It is because he cannot get work on the same terms as they that he is a scab. There is less work than there are men to do work. (e f b) To take their places he must give more value, must work longer hours or receive a smaller wage. He does so, and he cannot help it, for his will "to live" is driving him on as well as they are being driven on by their will "to live"; and to live he must win food and shelter. (e f b)

It is not nice to be a scab. Not only is it not in good social taste and comradeship, but, from the standpoint of food and shelter, it is bad business policy. Nobody desires to scab, to give most for least. The ambition of every individual is quite the opposite, to give least for most; and, as a result, living in a tooth-and-nail society, battle royal is waged by the ambitious individuals. But in its most salient aspect, that of the struggle over the division of the joint product, it is no longer a battle between individuals, but between groups of individuals. Neither cares to give most for least. Each is intent on giving less than the other and on receiving more. (e f b)

In the group-struggle over the division of the joint product, labor utilizes the union with its two great weapons, the strike and the boycott; while capital utilizes the trust and the association, the weapons of which are the black-list, the lockout, and the scab. The scab is by far the most formidable weapon of the three. He is the man who breaks strikes and causes all the trouble. (e f b) Were it not for the scab, these weapons would not be brought into play. But the scab takes the place of the striker, who begins at once to wield a most powerful weapon, terrorism. The will "to live" of the scab recoils from the menace of broken bones and violent death. With all due respect to the labor leaders, who are not to be blamed for volubly asseverating otherwise, terrorism is a well- defined and eminently successful policy of the labor unions. It has probably won them more strikes than all the rest of the weapons in their arsenal. This terrorism, however, must be clearly understood. It is directed solely against the scab, placing him in such fear for life and limb as to drive him out of the contest. But when terrorism gets out of hand and inoffensive non-combatants are injured, law and order threatened, and property destroyed, it becomes an edged tool that cuts both ways. (e f b) The scab is powerless under terrorism. As a rule, he is not so good nor gritty a man as the men he is displacing, and he lacks their fighting organization. He stands in dire need of stiffening and backing. (e f b)

This struggle not to be a scab, to avoid giving more for less and to succeed in giving less for more, is more vital than it would appear on the surface. (e f b) The only honest morality displayed by either side is white-hot indignation at the iniquities of the other side. The striking teamster complacently takes a scab driver into an alley, and with an iron bar breaks his arms, so that he can drive no more, but cries out to high Heaven for justice when the capitalist breaks his skull by means of a club in the hands of a policeman. (e f b) As has been said before, nobody likes to play the compulsorily generous role of scab. It is a bad business proposition on the face of it. (e f b) But the role of scab passes beyond the individual. Just as individuals scab on other individuals, so do groups scab on other groups. (e f b) Under the definition that a scab is one who gives more value for the same price than another, it would seem that society can be generally divided into the two classes of the scabs and the non-scabs. But on closer investigation, however, it will be seen that the non- scab is a vanishing quantity. (e f b)

But, for scabbing, no blame attaches itself anywhere. With rare exceptions, all the people in the world are scabs. The strong, capable workman gets a job and holds it because of his strength and capacity. And he holds it because out of his strength and capacity he gives a better value for his wage than does the weaker and less capable workman. Therefore he is scabbing upon his weaker and less capable brother workman. He is giving more value for the price paid by the employer. (e f b)

The superior workman scabs upon the inferior workman because he is so constituted and cannot help it. The one, by fortune of birth and upbringing, is strong and capable; the other, by fortune of birth and upbringing, is not so strong nor capable. (e f b)

It is not good to give most for least, not good to be a scab. The word has gained universal opprobrium. On the other hand, to be a non-scab, to give least for most, is universally branded as stingy, selfish, and unchristian-like. So all the world, like the British workman, is 'twixt the devil and the deep sea. It is treason to one's fellows to scab, it is unchristian-like not to scab.

[Color=Green]Since to give least for most, and to give most for least, are universally bad, what remains? Equity remains, which is to give like for like, the same for the same, neither more nor less. But this equity, society, as at present constituted, cannot give. It is not in the nature of present-day society for men to give like for like, the same for the same. And so long as men continue to live in this competitive society, struggling tooth and nail with one another for food and shelter, (which is to struggle tooth and nail with one another for life), that long will the scab continue to exist. His will "to live" will force him to exist. He may be flouted and jeered by his brothers, he may be beaten with bricks and clubs by the men who by superior strength and capacity scab upon him as he scabs upon them by longer hours and smaller wages, but through it all he will persist, giving a bit more of most for least than they are giving.[/Color=Green]


This article is more than one hundred years old and describes the situation better than most present day orators. I can't imagine that anyone would argue that after reading this would conclude that 'scab' isn't used to terrorize, diminish and create hostility. Publishing photos and information about the replacements is the next step. Intimidating them with threats of retribution and harm are another page out of the handbook. It seems that they may have flunked history as well as economics.

Don't be fooled by the name calling and smear campaign underway. I wish that the AMLU guys had never walked out. I enjoy seeing the next generation perform and shine. These same guys that ask for our admiration and concern are now threatening guys that may very well need to make an extra $50 a night. They decided to walk out...someone else agreed to work for less. That is capitalism at its best and worst. Stop the name calling and threats and maybe more of us will stand beside you.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You live in a state I do not live and you live in an area I will probably never go for a baseball game. We also likely will not ever work together. So my credibility with you and a bunch of internet umpires is the least of my concern. I umpire as a hobby; it is not life or death.

This is a priceless comment, Jeff. Think back a few months when you insisted that you worked college games in South Bend. Windy called you out on it by letting everyone know there wasn't a snowballs chance in Hades that you would ever call a Notre Dame baseball game. The I stepped up for you and listed all the college games played in the South Bend area that were not played by the University of Notre Dame. So, which is it, Jeff? Will you never come here for a baseball game or were you lying when you said you had already been assigned college games in South Bend?


Tim.