(FED) THE Dumbest ...

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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.