For a real hoot, Google "Tim McCarver is an idiot." It appears we are far from alone in our opinion.

Here is a link I could really get behind:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/f...natures-1.html

This begs the question if she was one of those you referred to in your earlier post (#4) above.

Originally Posted by fitump56

Ask Interested Ump about that one. He married T-Macs HS sweetheart. :D

McCarver banged CBHS cheerleaders girls who were from Catholc HS Immaculate Conception, Sacred Heart and St. Agnes. No girls allowed at The Brothers. :(

Knowing Laura, she was Episcopalian and not a cheerleader, for 40 plus years, she was and is a class act. Which is why leaving McCarver was a no-brainer.

T-Mac rebounded and married Annie in, oh, mid 60s?

Another MacCarver is an idiot story.

I refer to a book authored by the late MLB umpire Eric Gregg, Behind the Plate. I read it about ten years ago. Gregg spends an entire chapter on how MacCarver has screwed up issues where he did not understand the rules or in one case, the ground rules, and made Gregg look bad.

Gregg wrote about a play-off game, broadcast nationally, in a NL stadium where the bullpen is on live ball ground. Gregg wrote that as long as he had work in this park, if the ball went underneathe the bench in the bullpen, by the ground rules, the ball was out of play, and dead. However, that day at the plate meeting, the home team manager stated that if the ball went underneathe the bench in the bullpen, by the ground rules, the ball would remain alive and in play. The fielder had to go get it.

Gregg questioned the manager at the HP meeting to be sure it wasn't a mistake. He was assured they wanted to change it. During the game Gregg was on 1B for the game and, of course, a fair ball ball went under the bench in the bullpen, and Gregg did not kill the play. The BR got a triple.

MacCarver when on for several minutes ripping Gregg for not calling the ball dead. There was no argument on the field about the play. MacCarver kept saying how that any ball he has ever seen go under a bence has always been a dead ball. MacCarver had no idea what the ground rules for the field were changed that day.

The story goes on. Aparrently the home team did not benefit from that "under the bench" triple. So the next day they came out and annouced that today they were going back to the old ground rule and the ball would be out of play if it goes under the bench. As you would expect, during that game too a fair ball went under the bench and the 1B umpire that day killed the ball. Once agian MacCarver went on for several minutes ripping Gregg once again for not calling the ball dead on the previous day.

Unforntuately, Gregg did know anything about this until after the play-off series was over when he got the chance to watch the video tapes of the games. Otherwise, he said he would have gone up to the booth and spoken to MacCarver about those call.

Which begs the question, are you a logician? :)

beg the question = to use an argument that assumes as proved the very thing one is trying to prove

In fact, I am, AND I play one on TV. ;)

I have my doctorate. I know the so-called correct and classic definition of "begs the question."

I also understand that, unlike Latin, the English language is an evolving language and much to the chagrin of some professors "begs the question" has become, as the New Oxford Dictionary of English puts it, “widely accepted in modern standard English” as a replacement for "raises the question."

However, know that I understand that you are are a "purist", should I post to you, I'll dust off my 19th century English.

Verily!

Kind or ironic that this came up in a thread where we were discussing a rule whose hard and fast reading conflicts with the generally accepted application of the rule.

Our discussion of the rule still begs the question of whether or not there is a documented definition of what constitutes "in the box" when a batter is hit with his own fair batted ball!

Yeah, there is .

A batter who hits a ball into fair territory and runs into the ball, even with a foot in the batter's box, is out.

How in the world is this tough to figure out?

I have my doctorate.

In what? Just curious.

My job is to edit the research papers, journal articles, and informational reports of people with doctorates in medicine, economics, statistics, law, and so on. Many of them also teach at Princeton and Penn. They appreciate it when I change begs the question to raises the question (and explain why).

the English language is an evolving language

True. Finalize and prioritize were long scorned as business jargon, but they turned out to be useful and are now acceptable in certain contexts. But please let's not weaken precision or lower standards. Has just between you and I "evolved" into correctness because of its widespread usage? Is hopefully, it won't rain now educated usage because some dictionaries allow it? Would you use laws more honored in the breach than the observance to mean laws more often broken than obeyed? Most people do. Most people say I feel badly, too.

Why bend the meaning of begs the question if it's just as easy to say raises the question? Why not reserve begs the question for times when you want to convey its true meaning, especially when modern style books caution against its incorrect usage?

Why say thus when you mean therefore or impact when you mean affect?

Please don't think I'm trying to be critical. You will of course make your own choices in these matters.

Means nothing. Happens more often than overturns in IR football, etc.

Deej, give me a break here. :eek: