(FED) THE Dumbest ...

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Are there some typos in the book? Yes.

If he had taken the steps you request Kevin, would the price have gone up more? Yes. This isn't a book that is going to sell a million copies like Intro to Psyc 101. So either you complain about a 70 dollar book that in many ways replaces 5 weeks of training that also has some typos which do not detract from the material in anyway, or pay 120 for the same thing with bells on it, and complain about that too.

No, the sales would have gone up, and the price would be fair and justified. The price is not what it is because of publishing costs.

The teachers in our society, and those who write and publish our textbooks, have an obligation to convey their message grammatically. It is intellectually lazy to fall short of that obligation, as it is to blithely accept it when they fall short.

You also failed to note that I lauded the actual teachings in the book. My "complaining" was solely based on the cut-rate publication.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Under.

Nuts! I hadn't even gotten to the bookie yet!

[Kevin Finnerty]

Okay, here goes:

Everything about the Jim Evans work is totally acceptable, no matter what the price! And anything Jim does or says is more than enough for me to just accept and embrace. When it comes to standards, let's just set them aside when it comes to Jim, because that material is of immeasurable value.

How's that?

[HokieUmp]

Okay, let's get past the manual, Kevin. You hate it, and don't want to pay for "shoddy work, etc, etc." Others do, have, and will. That was done to death last year, and we're starting it again.

I said:

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

But from my reading of this thread, and other postings elsewhere, is that you might not be as unbiased as you think you are ([CONTENT DELETED]).

To which you unhappily replied:

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

So, no, I have no bias against Jim Evans, and your grouping me with the paragon of bias ([CONTENT DELETED - just saving you from my fate) is an insult to me, or any informed, educated adult.

I'm not going to do extensive searches, but given your outrage, I thought I'd find a quote that says - to me - that you are indeed not as unbiased as you say. Granted, I dug it up from another board, but it's still you over there, too, and this was within the last week:

What percentage of stuff does Jim Evans just make up?

and

Evans may be one of the leading expert rules practitioners, along with the likes of Jaksa & Roder, but his imperious ways make some of what he says and does very questionable. I think most of the information in his manual is fantastic (drastically overpriced, but excellent info throughout). But some of the umpires who went through his school are some of the more difficult umpires to work with. It seems that many of Evans's students acquire his imperiousness.

Now, as an informed, educated adult, you should be able to see where I might opine that

Originally Posted by HokieUmp

What I've read over time is that you seem to have issues, unresolved or otherwise, with Jim Evans, and have to put in little digs here and there.

My point got lost in the [CONTENT DELETED] reference, but it's still this: from your own 'public' statement, you don't seem to like Jim Evans that much, and thus can't claim unbias-hood (unbias-dom? not-so-biased? less-than-full-unbias-ness?) as easily as you'd like. (Unless you'd like to make the claim that there are multiple Kevin Finnerty logins out there, in which case, I withdraw my objections.)

You're certainly still entitled to that opinion, in 'this corner of America' or any other. I work for an organization designed to protect that very thing, and also am a USAF "bride." But don't act surprised when others react to that opinion, and even ... disagree! with it.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Hate it? You didn't read or comprehend all of what I said, so don't put words in my mouth. If you want to get personal, which you are, then at least know what the hell you're saying.

You're quite a piece of work.

[TheShadowKnows]

Unbelievable^^^^

What a total pi**ing match....

Think I'll concentrate on doing my work this spring without the opinions from Newscast "experts" and Book Editing "experts"

Quite the Education from the Keith and Rachel set....

[Kevin Finnerty]

The Keith and Rachel set. Wow!

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by TheShadowKnows

Unbelievable^^^^

What a total pi**ing match....

Think I'll concentrate on doing my work this spring without the opinions from Newscast "experts" and Book Editing "experts"

Quite the Education from the Keith and Rachel set....

Ah, yes. Experts. We do have a couple. One is particular is an expert about everything that has to do with baseball. And, you don't need to ask him. Eventually, he will tell you.

Under "Settings and Options" is a feature entitled, "Edit Ignore List." I've found that it improves the overall quality of posts that you can view immensely.

Have a great spring.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Hate it? You didn't read or comprehend all of what I said, so don't put words in my mouth. If you want to get personal, which you are, then at least know what the hell you're saying.

Fair enough - you have a point at the beginning there. You have, in fact, complemented the work inside. However, as much as you've railed about mistakes, bad binding, grammar, etc., and the recent use of "cut-rate" and "amateur," I thought it would be appropriate to summarize your overall feelings about the manual as "hatred." Perhaps I generalized incorrectly, but I do not apologize for that; as a total package, that is the reading I've gotten from your words.

As to the rest of what I wrote, which was considerably more than the first two sentences, I notice you ignored it to get pissy with me. Personal? Really? I mean, compared to my shots at Fox News, you got off easy. I made an observation, based on your writings, and said you seemed to have issues with Jim Evans - a fairly tame sentence, and you're starting to act like I ate your children. Given this reaction, I'm thinking it hits close to home.

You're quite a piece of work.

Pot, meet kettle.

This reaction almost makes me wish I'd hadn't gone to the trouble to state my original point as neutrally (if that's a word) as I did. I mean, really, Kevin: for someone who's the alter-ego of Tony Soprano, you should toughen up.

[HokieUmp]

Originally Posted by TheShadowKnows

Quite the Education from the Keith and Rachel set....

Since only one side gets deleted on this topic....

I almost didn't get that for a minute; I thought, "I know who Rachel is, but she married Ross...."

Don't get lost in the weeds based on 3 words in my original post, and feel like you have to take shots because I don't believe in your choice of news. It's really got nothing to do with newscasting and book editing; it was about answering a question of KF's that was, in hindsight, apparently rhetorical.

And don't make assumptions of what I do or don't watch, and choose to believe in. "Makes a [bleep] out of you and me," and all that....

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

... thing I have ever read in ANY baseball publication concerning rules. 2010 FED rulebook. pg. 37

"Turning the shoulders to check runners while in contact with the pitcher's plate in the set position is legal. Turning the shoulders after bringing the hands together during or after the stretch is a balk."

And to think that the people that come up with this stuff are actually trying to make the game "easier" for the umpires.

I really hate this time of year when I have to read the FED book, just to get the cobwebs out.

Since this thread got way off track, I'll bring it back.... what else would you expect from the Fed?? Hell, it's Fed baseball, it seems they go out of their way to mess up a good game.