Where's the thread, Carl?

[Rich]

Since the thread has disappeared, I'll start another one.


Carl,

I'd like to hear from the side of Minor League Baseball and not have everything be so one-sided towards the AMLU on the paid side of the site.

Sincerely,

A paid subscriber and annual BRD purchaser

[gsf23]

I was thinking the same thing myself, Rich. I came back to see what Carl’s response to your request would be and I couldn’t find the thread.

I have recently gotten more involved in this board and was very close to convincing myself to plunk down some of my hard earned money for access to the paid portion of the site. Considering though, that a dissenting voice isn’t even allowed to be heard on the free, public portion of the site, I can only imagine what kind of propaganda is being spewed on the paid portion. I guess I will spend my money elsewhere.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Since the thread has disappeared, I'll start another one.


Carl,

I'd like to hear from the side of Minor League Baseball and not have everything be so one-sided towards the AMLU on the paid side of the site.

Sincerely,

A paid subscriber and annual BRD purchaser

Mr. Childress,

(1) I am not a paid subscriber to this site.
(2) Thus, I have no idea if your paid site is one-sided for AMLU or not.
(3) Thus, I have not read the interviews with Mr. Kennedy, whom I have met, work with and have respect for.
(4) Thus, I have no knowledge of what Mr. Kennedy said in those interviews.
(5) I am a former MiLB umpire, and very pro-AMLU.
(6) My "ma" always taught me that there are two sides to every story:

With these points in mind...today, I join Rich, WWTB and others who have called for you to conduct an interview with a Minor League Baseball official...if you have not tried to do so already. I would like to hear their side of the story. I'd probably even pay to join the site just to read what they say.

IMO, I doubt very seriously they will agree to an interview. This doubt is based on past statements they've publicly made (mostly "no comment"), but I think you should try and secure one. Give them an opportunity to be heard on your public forum. Give a chance for both sides of this story to be presented by the actors involved in the story. If you try, and they refuse then you should say so...and then no one could accuse you of being "one-sided".

As an example, the public television network in my state invited the two Republican candidates for governor to come on their network tonight for a debate/interview. The governor refused, the challenger accepted. How did I find out about this? The network listed on their program guide that tonight at 8 will be an "interview with" the challenger. The guide then stated that despite given the opportunity, the governor refused to participate in the show.

Both sides of that story were given an opportunity to speak by the network...one choose not to. So be it. IMO, the network did its job well as the manager of its public forum.

I invite you to do what this network did...you should manage your public forum as this network has. Obviously, you have no duty (legal or otherwise) to do so. I'm just stating that should you obtain such an interview, you may obtain a new subscriber.

[SCUMP]

Oh Carl.........where Is It???????

[Jurassic Referee]

Well, Gollleeeee.....looks like I ain't the only heretic....

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Well, Gollleeeee.....looks like I ain't the only heretic....

It doesn't really matter what your religion is JR, as long as we can enjoy the emperor's beautiful clothes it's all good.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by lawump

Mr. Childress,

(1) I am not a paid subscriber to this site.
(2) Thus, I have no idea if your paid site is one-sided for AMLU or not.
(3) Thus, I have not read the interviews with Mr. Kennedy, whom I have met, work with and have respect for.
(4) Thus, I have no knowledge of what Mr. Kennedy said in those interviews.
(5) I am a former MiLB umpire, and very pro-AMLU.
(6) My "ma" always taught me that there are two sides to every story:

With these points in mind...today, I join Rich, WWTB and others who have called for you to conduct an interview with a Minor League Baseball official...if you have not tried to do so already. I would like to hear their side of the story. I'd probably even pay to join the site just to read what they say.

IMO, I doubt very seriously they will agree to an interview. This doubt is based on past statements they've publicly made (mostly "no comment"), but I think you should try and secure one. Give them an opportunity to be heard on your public forum. Give a chance for both sides of this story to be presented by the actors involved in the story. If you try, and they refuse then you should say so...and then no one could accuse you of being "one-sided".

As an example, the public television network in my state invited the two Republican candidates for governor to come on their network tonight for a debate/interview. The governor refused, the challenger accepted. How did I find out about this? The network listed on their program guide that tonight at 8 will be an "interview with" the challenger. The guide then stated that despite given the opportunity, the governor refused to participate in the show.

Both sides of that story were given an opportunity to speak by the network...one choose not to. So be it. IMO, the network did its job well as the manager of its public forum.

I invite you to do what this network did...you should manage your public forum as this network has. Obviously, you have no duty (legal or otherwise) to do so. I'm just stating that should you obtain such an interview, you may obtain a new subscriber.

To be fair to Carl, he did publish Peter Osborne's series detailing his work as a replacement umpire. However, one would argue that Peter wasn't really on the other side of the dispute -- he was just working the games.

Yet, every chance Carl got he made a point to mention that he (and hence Officiating.com) was squarely on the side of the AMLU. I'd just like to see less editorializing and a little more balance, but I know that isn't going to happen.

[GarthB]

Now that's the problem with working for a living. I haven't had a chance to visit the board since last night when I asked a question about whether or not Bob Davidson belongs or belonged to the AMLU.

I assume my question isn't the reason that the thread disappeared. Did it get ugly or did we just tire of it?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Now that's the problem with working for a living. I haven't had a chance to visit the board since last night when I asked a question about whether or not Bob Davidson belongs or belonged to the AMLU.

I assume my question isn't the reason that the thread disappeared. Did it get ugly or did we just tire of it?

And I replied that Bob Davidson was not currently a MiLB umpire, and the quote was that "all minor league umpires were AMLU members." So, that statement was true inasmuch as Bob Davidson was not relevant to said statement.

I don't think my post made it any uglier than it already was.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Now that's the problem with working for a living. I haven't had a chance to visit the board since last night when I asked a question about whether or not Bob Davidson belongs or belonged to the AMLU.

I assume my question isn't the reason that the thread disappeared. Did it get ugly or did we just tire of it?

No Garth, after your post, I suggested that Carl should also interview a PBUC/MiLB spokesperson to obtain a fair and nalanced interview. We have already read some of Mr. Kennedy's comments in the papers. Some of us have intimate access to the AMLU site and also perused the comments there. I figured that it would only serve to complete the picture.

Carl came back firing - I'm paraphrasing here and you know others will correct me if I'm wrong or embellish - "I suggest that you make a suggestion when you aren't anonymous any more. We know who I am. We know who Mr. Kennedy is. Who the hell are you?"

I replied that my identity was not pertinent as it had no bearing on the content of the article. Obviously Carl has read the many threads and witnessed that I knew far more about the issue than some had suspected. Most everyone here knows that I felt the union blundered and then compounded their mistake by antagonizing the very group they heralded from. We've read the propaganda and viewed the 'Scab" page. Isn't it time to hear the other side? Nah, that would mean that some anonymous umpire from the midwest knew more than the fanatic in the Lone Star state.

Jurassic Referee - not my biggest allie - jumped in and questioned Carl about how my identity mattered. He tossed a few barbs Carl's way for good measure. Others saw Carl's folly and demanded the same. It is frightening to think that rather than acknowledge the blunder and accept the fact that we simply suggested further articles, he chose a hit and run tact. I wrote it before...I pity Carl. That glass house must be lonely.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

Jurassic Referee - not my biggest allie - jumped in and questioned Carl about how my identity mattered.

The word is "ally", dipsh!t....

Windy's request for balanced reporting was both logical and reasonable. Posts on this forum should be judged solely on their content, not their author. To have El Editor Supremo imply that a particular post was ridiculous and meritless simply because the author of that post was anonymous certainly was neither logical nor reasonable imo.

Note that imo it's also not logical or reasonable to only allow articles that agree with someone's own personal opinion.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

And I replied that Bob Davidson was not currently a MiLB umpire, and the quote was that "all minor league umpires were AMLU members." So, that statement was true inasmuch as Bob Davidson was not relevant to said statement.

I don't think my post made it any uglier than it already was.

Steve:

My original post stated that a MiLB umpire has reported that Davidson "is not and has not been" a member of AMLU. Since Davidson has been a minor league umpire while working his way back to the majors, I wondered how that squared with Brian's statement that "all MiLB umpires belong to the AMLU".

You do bring up an interesting point. Bob has not yet been signed on as a full time ML umpire and is still listed as an "AAA umpire working relief". Does this mean he has no access to any bargaining unit? Or, as an AAA umpire, cannot he belong to AMLU if he wishes?

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Why would he want to join that union? He is secure in his career and needs nothing they can offer. Unions are designed to to protect those who require it. Bob Davidson needs more than a dollar a day to secure the Lasik procedure.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Well, Gollleeeee.....looks like I ain't the only heretic....

It's golly...JR.

Okay I admit, I messed up. I won't edit the error, just don't let it be said that I don't have a sense of humor or humility.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

It's golly...JR.

Well, gollleeeee, Windy, I beg to differ.....