Indians/Yankees replay

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by celebur

You need to back up to what you wrote earlier:



Your context implied that this was one of the factors for determining whether or not there was spectator interference; that was wrong, and mbyron called you on that (and only that).

Huh?? I guess it makes you feel better.

Peace

[celebur]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Huh?? I guess it makes you feel better.

I guess using makes you feel better.

Going back to your first post, I would conclude one of two things:
1) you didn't really know the rule on spectator interference.
2) you didn't mean that phrase the way it was taken.

I was hoping that you'd see that, but you seem to have missed it entirely.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Peace

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by celebur

I guess using makes you feel better.

Actually using " " is to make a point.

Originally Posted by celebur

Going back to your first post, I would conclude one of two things:
1) you didn't really know the rule on spectator interference.
2) you didn't mean that phrase the way it was taken.

(Sarcasm on)You are absolutely right. I have not idea what spectator interference is or is not. All the years I have worked games, and levels and achieved in a sport like baseball, I never knew anything about the rule. And I also do not know common rulings on this that would make the Bartman play not interference or another play actual interference. You are so right about this one. (Sarcasm off)

Originally Posted by celebur

I was hoping that you'd see that, but you seem to have missed it entirely.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.

Of course I did, all because you said so. Did I forget to turn on the sarcasm brackets? Do you feel better now?

Peace

[UMP25]

Why do so many threads here degenerate into pissing contests or juvenile bantering?