Treatment of female umpire in Minor Leagues

[SanDiegoSteve]

Bob, it's time to close the thread. Tyler doesn't want to play nice in the sandbox with the rest of us.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Bob, it's time to close the thread. Tyler doesn't want to play nice in the sandbox with the rest of us.

1) You should know by now that I'll delete the posts as soon as I see them (that is, the next time that I log on). Your responses just make it worse.

2) Didn't you recently chastise someone for "playing moderator?" (those are my words)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) You should know by now that I'll delete the posts as soon as I see them (that is, the next time that I log on). Your responses just make it worse.

2) Didn't you recently chastise someone for "playing moderator?" (those are my words)

1) I'm not letting his crude insults slide. I don't want to allow his comments to stand uncontested or unrebuked waiting for the moderator to come to my rescue. I can handle it. Anyway, I was just making a joke in response to Tim's post, and the "poster" in question was acting EXACTLY as I described him.

2) No, I chastised someone for taking it upon themselves to monitor the thoughts of one of the posters. I actually came to the defense of someone who was being called out for having an opinion. This was very different.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

1) I'm not letting his crude insults slide. I don't want to allow his comments to stand uncontested or unrebuked waiting for the moderator to come to my rescue. I can handle it. Anyway, I was just making a joke in response to Tim's post, and the "poster" in question was acting EXACTLY as I described him.

So you choose to be part of the problem. Thanks for making that clear.

2) No, I chastised someone for taking it upon themselves to monitor the thoughts of one of the posters. I actually came to the defense of someone who was being called out for having an opinion. This was very different.

Not from this side of the exchange.

[greymule]

Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University, a renowned ethicist who has won all kinds of awards for his astute perceptions regarding ethics and morality, believes—and teaches—that it is healthy for humans to have sex with animals. He recommends sex with chickens, which he says will help both human and chicken understand each other better. (He does not get into details.) Professor Singer, a proud Marxist and atheist, is not encumbered by 19th-century hangups, and has a progressive, "contemporary outlook" on sexuality.

This wise ethicist also believes that if parents find that caring for their handicapped one-year-old is too difficult, they should be permitted to "euthanize" their problem. Again, no 19-century hangups for this man. Professor Singer is highly regarded in South America and Europistan.

If you have the money, you can have your son or daughter taught by Professor Singer.

Forty years ago, I played in a baseball tournament that received a lot of press attention for two reasons: (1) we used a 20-second scoreboard clock for pitches, and (2) Bernice Gera was one of the umpires. MLB sent Monte Irvin and other representatives to gauge how well the clock worked, but it turned out that it was practically irrelevant: no pitcher took anywhere near 20 seconds between pitches. Bernice Gera handled herself pretty well, but when an opposing pitcher checked runners on 1B with an obvious turn of the shoulder (which was unusual to see at that level), I quietly questioned her about it. She said that since he did it on every pitch, it was part of his motion and thus legal. I didn't pursue the point.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by greymule

but it turned out that it was practically irrelevant: no pitcher took anywhere near 20 seconds between pitches.

Sorry for cluttering this thread with actual baseball discussion but...I wonder if that would still be true today?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Sorry for cluttering this thread with actual baseball discussion but...I wonder if that would still be true today?

Especially now that it is 12 seconds. I've still never seen it called at any level yet.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Especially now that it is 12 seconds. I've still never seen it called at any level yet.

It only applies, of course, with no runnrs on base. Then:

The MLBUM (2009 edition p24) says the clock starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball AND the batter is in the box "alert to the pitcher".

At this point in play, there is hardly ever anything approaching a violation.

[greymule]

At first, everybody was watching the clock (including me, in left field). By the time the tournament was over, nobody was. It's interesting to me that even in 1969, MLB was concerned about the pace of the game.

A few years ago, I ran into an old friend we had picked up to play for us in that tournament. He had gone on to a 15-year career in the Majors and played in a League Championship Series and a World Series. He mentioned that—35 years later—he still felt bad that he hadn't hit better for us during that tournament. He didn't remember that a woman had umpired any of our games.

I remember that our coach, who was also a college coach, got himself a permanent nickname from that tournament. They used 3 umpires, and he went out to question a call made by the 3B umpire. Our coach asked, "Are you telling me he didn't get under that tag?" and started on his way back to the dugout. The response: "That's what I'm tellin' you, Mac," froze our coach, and we all laughed while a spectator yelled, "He was out by a mile. Get back in the dugout, Mac!"

Since that night, he's been "Mac" to everyone who remembers.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by greymule

Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University, a renowned ethicist who has won all kinds of awards for his astute perceptions regarding ethics and morality, believes—and teaches—that it is healthy for humans to have sex with animals.

As far as I can tell, very little (except for one or two posters) of this thread has to do with the morality of sex in general. This is a completley different topic from an umpire's realtionships (in the broadest sense -- not just sex) with the players and others involved in the game.

Let's keep the focus off the former and on the latter (to the extent it needs to be discussed).

[Kevin Finnerty]

Once again, you leave an offensive post up from one of your preferred members, and when it is answered, you delete the response. What part of what I posted warranted censorship? The part about freedom? Or the part about extremism? It was the truth. And it was relevant.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Once again, you leave an offensive post up from one of your preferred members, and when it is answered, you delete the response. What part of what I posted warranted censorship? The part about freedom? Or the part about extremism? It was the truth. And it was relevant.

There are no "preferred members." You have posted (at least) twice on an issue that isn't relevant to the discussion (the general morality of sex); someone else has posted once.

And, while I did delete your most recent response, I deleted at least one other response that was not yours as well.


Drop it.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) You should know by now that I'll delete the posts as soon as I see them (that is, the next time that I log on). Your responses just make it worse.

2) Didn't you recently chastise someone for "playing moderator?" (those are my words)

I just find a comment about "masterbating" not funny. Just my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. I'll leave it at that.