Carl Childress

[Whowefoolin]

I just have to pipe in. I read the thread, and find it funny that Carl is put in the same category as Dan Patrick, Jim Rhome, etc... Good one guys.

Also, Garth seems to take the opportunity to tell people how they are suppose to communicate in this forum. Who cares if it is proper or not. Is English 101 being taught?

Then it seems Garth is doing more to answer for Carl then Carl is doing to answer for himself. I must get my secretary to start doing this for me!

And finally, after everything was put out on the floor by Striker and he was told he was wrong and incorrect, we got a response from the Secretary stating that things had developed and were being answered.

That is all it takes. No balls...no blue chips. Garth, make sure you address us "lower level" umps, you do it perfectly correct. Show us how it is done.

Where can I get Carl's secretary's rule book on this forums proper entry's and how it SHOULD be according to Garth?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Striker991
The point I am making is that I DID address this issue with Carl in private e-mail. However, he has ignored my e-mail.

I'd be delighted to reply to your email -- if I had it. Concerning your comment that I ignored your email and "others":

(1) Please post your message here. It never reached me; it should have been returned to you. Perhaps you used an old address: Reach me at [email protected]. I answer every email except those about enlarging parts of my body.

(2) On the Andy Konyar issue, after my editor sent me Mr. Konyar's complaint and I published our response, I received exactly two emails, both from Andy. There has since been a third: He is leaving on Thursday for Belgium, Germany, and Poland. (It really is Little League International.) We have an appointment to get together after he returns.

The issue speaks for itself:

Mr. Konyar's original email is public.
The response of Officiating.com is public.
Mr. Konyar's article is public.

That anyone could find fault with the resolution of the "disagreement" is, as I was wont to say when I frequented the Boards:

Amazing!

Incidentally: I'm too old for weight training, which is why I don't respond to messages about building up my biceps.

I added the following material in blue: Mr. Owens' email is in red:

I don't know if Greg Owens is Striker991, but I did receive this message on February 25, which was long before I posted my "reply" to Mr. Konyar. (I sent this email to my to-do box; I am slightly behind since our baseball season opened, and my 96-year-old mother-in-law was hospitalized.)

There have been many derogatory comments made about volunteer umpires both in articles and in the forums. This last comment, made by Mr Campagna, was the last straw for me; "I'd rather pay someone to give me 50% effort and be impartial, blown calls and all, than have volunteer umpires!" I find this to be terribly insulting. How about giving us volunteers equal time?

A reply I made to him via e-mail: "I take great exception with this comment. We have an association that is ALL volunteer. In order to be a member and to keep getting assignments, you MUST be well trained, willing to work hard, maintain your clothing and equipment, and maintain relationships in the organizations to which you are assigned. All of this on our own dime and time. In fact, many of the volunteer umpires in our organization are those that also work in paid associations.

It is not necessary to make such derogatory comments about volunteer umpires. I see this all the time in the forums. The fact is, when someone is getting paid, they should be held to a MUCH higher standard than volunteer umpires. If I see a paid umpire blowing calls regularly and sitting on his heels in the field only giving 50% effort, his association and his assignor get both a phone call and a written notice from me and he will not be asked back. It doesn't matter to me that he is "impartial" because I don't care if he splits his bad calls evenly."

Why do you allow such comments in these articles? They are highly inflammatory and very unprofessional. We, as umpires, whether paid or volunteer, should work hard as a cohesive group to better ourselves and each other. These comments do nothing but to make it harder for volunteers to do their jobs.

My guess is that you would be unwilling to allow a volunteer equal column space.

Respectfully,
Greg Owens

I'm going to reply personally to Mr. Owens, and I make him the same offer I made Mr. Konyar:

Make your case for volunteerism in an article of 800-1000 words. We'll publish it, and we'll pay you for it. Or, we can donate the money to any Little League organization you name.

At Officiating.com we have nothing against volunteerism. We have everything against censorship of ideas and opinions, especially those we may disagree with.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Mar 4th, 2003 at 03:12 PM]

[GarthB]

I really did have nothing to add, but then...well

Also, Garth seems to take the opportunity to tell people how they are suppose to communicate in this forum. Who cares if it is proper or not. Is English 101 being taught?

No, no lessons in English or grammar or spelling or anything else that technical. I suggested that if someone had someting to say to someone that they not hide behind it by supposedly addressing a different audience; rather I would suggest that they honestly address to whom they are speaking. I guess this would come under the category of rhetoric, not English, per se.


Then it seems Garth is doing more to answer for Carl then Carl is doing to answer for himself. I must get my secretary to start doing this for me!


Actually, a careful read would show that I didn't speak for anyone other than myself, and the concerns that I expressed were mind. Those being an honest portrayl of events and the fortitude to address one's actual concerns legitmately and honestly.

I am not here to defend Carl. I don't believe I did. I became interested in the events being discussed and, without speaking with Carl or anyone else, read everything I could find printed and posted on the matter.

This odd behavior of mine is not limited to issues in which Carl is mentioned or involved. In the past I've addressed similar issues in a similar manner when posters have made similar mistakes about Peter Osborne, T. Alan Christensen, Warren Willson, Dave St. Clair, Scott Taylor, Umphater, and even, to the amazement of some, I'm sure, Jim Porter. (Quite a diverse group with divergent agendas, wouldn't you say?)

I did not get involved in this issue because of any personality, I got involved first of all to discover the truth of matter and then secondly to suggest that there are better and more successful ways to air a grievance.

I addressed what actually happened, not anyone's version of events, and if in so doing, flaws in the presentations of others were exposed, so be it.

And finally, after everything was put out on the floor by Striker and he was told he was wrong and incorrect, we got a response from the Secretary stating that things had developed and were being answered.

You seem to connect two different issues. I don't believe Striker was told that his apparent main grief was incorrect, that being he has issues with Carl. I'm sure he does. Many do. I have in the past. The list is too numerous to mention here.

However, as I read what actually happened it became obvious that Striker's interpretation of the intent of others and of some alleged actions were indeed incorrect. That has nothing to do with the resolution. The resolution was civil and appropriate and was not directed at Striker's issues, but rather addressed Mr. Konyars issues.

That is all it takes. No balls...no blue chips. Garth, make sure you address us "lower level" umps, you do it perfectly correct. Show us how it is done.

I'm not sure I know what you mean here and I fear trying to guess. I do not know who is a "low level" umpire. I do not know you or Striker. I said nothing in a manner to either of you that I would not say to a top level umpire who had made similar statements. I do not always communicate correctly, but with some few exceptions I do try to keep the real issues in mind.

Where can I get Carl's secretary's rule book on this forums proper entry's and how it SHOULD be according to Garth?

Look as I may over my previous posts I find no personal or derogatory or suggestive comment about you, whowefoolin. I have to admit your attack and insinuations surprise me. Lord knows, I've succumbed to provocation in the past and made a fool of myself, but I'll try to maintain better this time.

There's no such book to my knowledge. Simply attempt to be civil, refrain from getting too personal and stick to the facts of the matter. If you have something to say, say it truthfully, limit the exaggeration, put away the broad brush and pettiness and get to the subject.

None of that should sound like I'm trying to teach anyone anything. We've all been taught that by others, already, starting in kindergarten.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 4th, 2003 at 05:17 PM]

[chris s]

.

P.S. Chris: No bull to be called on. You've jumped the gun.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, I did. However Carl seems to have a tendency to skirt his issues. Seems to be grumpy ol fart...

[Striker991]

I will also write a short note to Carl privately, but since I made this public, I will address this here as well.

Thank you.

A public response was important to me. You came through.

Thank you.

To reiterate my purpose, in case it has become lost in all of this, is to bring attention to how divisive statements like Mr. Campagna's can be. It seems to me that we have enough adversity to overcome as umpires, without creating internal issues of our own. We should strive to assist each other become better officials, whether paid or volunteer. Remember, in our own local associations, groups, and clubs, we are only as strong as our weakest member.

I may, as Carl suggested, write a short piece. I probably will not, as everyone pretty much everyone already knows my view on the topic, and Mr. Konyar has stated it simply and well. I appreciate being given the opportunity, however.

Thank you.

[GarthB]

A wonderful gesture. ALong with Andy's and Carl's, we have another good example set. Thank you.

[Blaine Gallant]

Greg:

After reading all this, I thought I would put my 2 cents worth in.

The beauty of the internet, is the ability to express contrary viewpoints immediately. In fact, these different views make for great reading and help everyone understand why people are so passionate about their views.

As you may or may not know, I write baseball articles and also edit the hockey site. I have on occasion written a contrary article about hockey, baseball and softball. There is nothing "wrong" with Stephan's view or yours. They are merely different. I have great respect for all of the guys who write on the internet for everyone to "judge." However, if I disagree, I will say so. It usually makes for a good debate and good reading. Shoot, we may even learn a thing or two.

BTW, an umpire from Nova Scotia (one of my regional UICs)will be Canada's representative at the LLWS this year. I'll personally kick his a** if he doesn't perform well!! LOL

Blaine

[Striker991]

Blaine:
I have enjoyed the articles you have written. Your style is not condescending nor insulting, and at times quite self-effacing. When you write about times you wished you would have done things differently, I can relate on two levels; I either am relieved and don't feel like a complete idiot for having done the same thing, or I know what to watch for so I might avoid the same traps.
Thank you for your contributions!