Rules Myths Part 1

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by CO ump

I was being kind to suggest you only show your vast knowledge of original intent relative to the codification of 1845.
If you want to produce research that shows intent of rules from the 18th century then have at it.
My suggestion would be to stick to what you can prove, which thru 8 pages has been nothing

You agree that the current interpretation is different from what you claim is the original intent of the rules. Thus, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that the interpretation has changed over the years, not on everyone else to prove that it did NOT change.

Please note that it is not sufficient to claim that the interpretation MIGHT have been different, which is entirely consistent with the fact that it HAS NOT.

[scarolinablue]

There's got to be something better to do than drivel on about this.

Safe, or out. Nothing else.

Is it 9 pages yet?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

There's got to be something better to do than drivel on about this.

Safe, or out. Nothing else.

Is it 9 pages yet?

I'm at the end of page 3. Those that don't display 40 posts per page really ought to.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm at the end of page 3. Those that don't display 40 posts per page really ought to.

No, no -- then Garth would NEVER win his pool.

Garth, you might consider sharing your winnings with whoever posts first on p. 9.

Edited to add: heh heh.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You agree that the current interpretation is different from what you claim is the original intent of the rules. Thus, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that the interpretation has changed over the years, not on everyone else to prove that it did NOT change.

Please note that it is not sufficient to claim that the interpretation MIGHT have been different, which is entirely consistent with the fact that it HAS NOT.

I simply proposed a theory which is consistent with the current and original rules. It's all I did was propose a theory, never made any claims.
Most everyone else who responded however did make claims that I was wrong, including GB who said without a doubt he KNEW the original intent and I was wrong.
That's fine, theories are made to be disproven, but like any good educator I simply asked for backup on the claim. GB to date has failed miserably.
JM had a great post very insightful and he almost had me give up, but I regained my spirit and in my fight to keep my theory alive I debunked most of his argument
My perspective on this thread
Big steve brought up the tie issue.
He was insulted for bringing it up. Even though GB has lengthy discussions on the issue with his friends he has no tolerance for any one posting on the issue. hmmm
When I saw the lack of love for 56 I jumped in with my own newly formed theory, supporting my bro in blue as it were.
Then the world of intolerant umps ascended upon me.

In my world, if I'm asked a question by my wife, kids, customers, friend or whomever I respond with I think , I know or It's my opinion. If I'm challenged on an I know response I usually provide justification for my answer, what I don't do is start insulting people because they want verification to my claims.

Let's see if anyone see a difference in communiction skills between these two responses.
My theory original intent may be that they intended for TGTTR

A. GB response(paraphrased) You're wrong, I know the original intent you're wrong and you apparently have no business being an ump and have no feel for the game. You're wrong, I'm right.

Since he had zero confirmed research to back up such a claim may I suggest this approach.

B. I don't think TGTTR was ever an issue at any point of rules writing. I have many influential and learned friends who, after studying this issue have concluded as much. There's nothing in any research I've heard about to support your theory and the modern interpretation of the rule certainly does not support you.

I don't know how anyone can get along in life responding in A. fashion but it didn't influence me and since he couldn't back up the statement with anything but my friends told me so I think it made him look a bit foolish.

Anything along a B response would have ended my conversation with him on page 1.
Actually B is the way I was going to respond to Big Steve before the ascencion (sp) of intolerant umps came over him.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CO ump

I simply proposed a theory which is consistent with the current and original rules. It's all I did was propose a theory, never made any claims.

That's not quite correct. You made several claims including; "EVANS IS WRONG!'

Most everyone else who responded however did make claims that I was wrong, including GB who said without a doubt he KNEW the original intent and I was wrong.

Correct.

That's fine, theories are made to be disproven, but like any good educator I simply asked for backup on the claim. GB to date has failed miserably.

I would suggest that your emotional attachment to your position has blinded you. I have quoted respected and accepted sources. You have quoted a dictionary and simply repeated the question over and over and over. A wonderful technique.

JM had a great post very insightful and he almost had me give up, but I regained my spirit and in my fight to keep my theory alive I debunked most of his argument

One again, your are wrong.

My perspective on this thread
Big steve brought up the tie issue.
He was insulted for bringing it up. Even though GB has lengthy discussions on the issue with his friends he has no tolerance for any one posting on the issue. hmmm
When I saw the lack of love for 56 I jumped in with my own newly formed theory, supporting my bro in blue as it were. Then the world of intolerant umps ascended upon me.

Your lack of experience at this board got in your way. "BigSteve56 is a long time troll who many of us know. His moniker is a combination or BigUmp 56 and San Diego Steve. He posts primarily to stir things up and be a thorn in their sides. Their is no love for him by anyone who knows him.

Let's see if anyone see a difference in communiction skills between these two responses. My theory original intent may be that they intended for TGTTR

A. GB response(paraphrased) You're wrong, I know the original intent you're wrong and you apparently have no business being an ump and have no feel for the game. You're wrong, I'm right.

The two pictures you draw are cartoonish: You are wonderful, innocent, absolutely correct in your thinking and never told anyone they were wrong., Gee, I wish I could be like you.

Since he had zero confirmed research to back up such a claim may I suggest this approach.

Again, I was the only one to quote recognized experts in the field. What's that saying....you can lead a horse to water....

In your case, you beat that poor horse to death with your endless repetition of the rule while, apparently, holding your hands over your ears (eyes?) and singing "la la la la la la la."

B. I don't think TGTTR was ever an issue at any point of rules writing. I have many influential and learned friends who, after studying this issue have concluded as much. There's nothing in any research I've heard about to support your theory and the modern interpretation of the rule certainly does not support you.

Add: "At no time in history was this rule interpreted in this fashion" and you've got a pretty good summary of what I've been telling you.

I don't know how anyone can get along in life responding in A. fashion but it didn't influence me and since he couldn't back up the statement with anything but my friends told me so I think it made him look a bit foolish.

You don't seem to read very well,

Anything along a B response would have ended my conversation with him on page 1.Actually B is the way I was going to respond to Big Steve before the ascencion (sp) of intolerant umps came over him.

Well, live and learn. I certainly have. I made a huge mistake early on. When you summarily dismissed the opinion of the only authoritative person brought up in this discussion...when you decided that you knew more than those who have spent years researching the evolution of rules...when you decided your understanding of a dictionary entry entitled you to declare that you were absolutely correct and everyone else was wrong, that's when I should have surrendered the bandwidth to you. It should have been obvious to me, as it was to most of the others, that you would refuse to ever see reality.

I apologize to all those whose warnings I did not heed.

But...9 pages!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Garth, you might consider sharing your winnings with whoever posts first on p. 9.

Edited to add: heh heh.

How convenient for you.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I apologize to all those whose warnings I did not heed.

But...9 pages!

Apology accepted, but did it really take 9 pages to realize what COUmp was really about? Everyone else saw it at least six pages ago.

You really need to get over your belief that everyone is salvageable. It just ain't so, and you should have learned that here a long time ago. Just think of your ignore list. That alone should tell you that some people just aren't willing to deal with the real world.

[canadaump6]

Anyone notice how almost every single thread revolves around Garth being right?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Anyone notice how almost every single thread revolves around Garth being right?

Yup, followed shortly with posts by three morons claiming that black is white.

And then that is followed shortly by the moron-in-training defending the three morons.

This thread is a good example, MIT.

[jsblanton]

See the play, make the call. Out/safe? Who cares? Just make the call and live with it. One of the managers is going to be upset no matter what. Sheesh

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

That's not quite correct. You made several claims including; "EVANS IS WRONG!'

I stand corrected I did make a claim.
Do you remember what I accused Evans of being wrong about?

Originally Posted by GarthB

I would suggest that your emotional attachment to your position has blinded you. I have quoted respected and accepted sources. You have quoted a dictionary and simply repeated the question over and over and over. A wonderful technique.

I saw a quote from Evans saying something like ties were impossible. Other than that I saw no quotes from anyone Re: intent of the rule.
If I missed it I'm sorry.

And again I say. I simply posed a theory that you said you knew for certain was wrong. Just asking for verification.
You continue to say howmu

Do you know for certain that Alex and his buddies never sat around having a room temperature one discussing the previous days game.
"That first one joe hit sure was close at first" "yea , it looked like a tie to me" "yea me too" " I wonder why Gary called him out" " I thought about that too, aren't ties supposed to go to the runner Alex?" "Supposed too, I'll have to have a talk with ol Gar"
And there began the first conflict between ump and player.

Originally Posted by GarthB

The two pictures you draw are cartoonish: You are wonderful, innocent, absolutely correct in your thinking and never told anyone they were wrong., Gee, I wish I could be like you.

1. Do you really expect me to draw a picture of myself any different?
You're doing a great job of balancing the painting

2. Again, I never said I was right or correct (except that Evans is wrong and ties are physically possible) I posed a theory. Theories aren't always right

Originally Posted by GarthB

Again, I was the only one to quote recognized experts in the field. What's that saying....you can lead a horse to water....

Experts?

when you add the "s" it usually means more than 1. A dictionary might help you.
And that one expert didn't say anything about original intent.
So how exactly does that debunk my theory?

Originally Posted by GarthB

In your case, you beat that poor horse to death with your endless repetition of the rule while, apparently, holding your hands over your ears (eyes?) and singing "la la la la la la la."

And i haven't la la laed anything except your insults still waiting for original intent info

Originally Posted by GarthB

Add: "At no time in history was this rule interpreted in this fashion" and you've got a pretty good summary of what I've been telling you.

You may be right but what have you got to substantiate your claim from the 19th century?

Originally Posted by GarthB

Well, live and learn. I certainly have. I made a huge mistake early on. When you summarily dismissed the opinion of the only authoritative person brought up in this discussion..

You comprehend much better than you let on
I dismissed one statement that Evans that you purport Evans said.
Ties are impossible
That's the only thing I said I disagreed

Earlier you said you brought many authorities on the subject to the discusssion. Now you say just one.
I agree it was just one. I'm sure you weren't just trying to make me look bad by lying earlier.
And by the way. The one authority you brought to the table said nothing about original intent. As I remember simply modern interpretation

Originally Posted by GarthB

.when you decided that you knew more than those who have spent years researching the evolution of rules.

"those" infers more than one
I'm confused

Show me one post that referred to original intent from a verifiable source.
ONe show me one.



WHOOOA
I just had one of those moments where everything just comes together


You're right I have been stubborn.
I'm feeling quite childish and it takes alot to make a child feel childish.

I have ignored your many many experts til now
You're right my theory is bogus. After careful consideration I'm sure those in the 18th century couldn't even comprehend a tie much less consider it.

And truth be known I'm sure there are lots of biographies, articles, diary entries and much more that speaks directly to intent in the 18th and 19th century and I'm just too ignorant to find it. You no doubt have already posted it and I've just refused to acknowledge it.
To think there was any evolution to our modern interpretation is just crazy,
come on I should have seen this pages ago evolution of interpretaion, the rule hasn't changed why should the interp have changed. Besides who believes in evolution anyway.

You're right ties are imposssible, and really even if they were who in their right mind would even think "tie". I mean only rats, spectators and players ever think about or mention tie and they had nothing to do with any rules

So I officially declare myself a loser, I mean the loser of this thread.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, followed shortly with posts by three morons claiming that black is white.

And then that is followed shortly by the moron-in-training defending the three morons.

This thread is a good example, MIT.

Followed by a moron who doesn't even belong here but lurks to cause trouble anyway.

[Tim C]

And I truly believe that "children should be seen and not heard."

Canada when you can shave we'll listen.

So far you are nothing more than an idiot. I will let your body of work speak for you.

Regards,

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

Followed by a moron who doesn't even belong here but lurks to cause trouble anyway.

Methinks CO ump might be a worthy addition to your exclusive little club, MIT. He's showing all of the knowledge and reason that was heretofore typified only by your exalted Three Amigos.

I would advise that you make a statue of CO ump also. You can place it on your bedroom dresser beside your statues of Larry, Shep and Moe, and then you can worship all four of them at the same time. Pray that you'll be just like them when you grow up (you're well on the way).

Keep your hands above the covers though while you're worshiping them.