Beards & Umpires

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Let's jump to the present, shall we?

Name a politician with facial hair. They're few and far between, FOR A REASON. It's a commonly known fact, that present day Americans do not trust folks with facial hair. You can choose to believe it, or not. Some trace it back to Hitler, and others the Cold War, with Stalin. Me, I believe it was Snidley Whiplash that started it all.

Also, that same holds for women with bangs. But to a lesser extent.

Both are considered, again, this is the "masses" talking, to be hiding something.

BS. Name a [living] politician generally believed by the American electorate to be "trustworthy". Has nothing to do with the presence [or lack of] facial hair. There are many "commonly known facts" that simply aren't. This is one of them.

When I first started a razor-free appearance [after 20 earlier years with a 'stache], I was almost unique among my collegues. Since then, several judges [in my VERY socially-conservative area] have adopted full beards, many mustaches, and facial hair of varied description is now rather common among [male] members of the bar, all of whom's perception of "trustworthiness" among the general American public [from which, you may recall, juries are drawn] is professionally important to them. My own experience with juries [who have indicated they find me very "trustworthy"] supports the proposition that the "masses" don't care about beards, and remember that I represent that least percieved-trustwothy segment of the people - those accused of crime.

NOBODY on any baseball field has ever remarked upon my beard as having any effect on their assessment of my umpiring - trustworthy-ness, or any other way. They care if I know the difference between ball/strike, safe/out: and if I get the call right [actually if I call it the way they "see" it].

As I said before, facial hair on men is a fashion variable; it has and will continue to vary, ACCORDING TO FASHION [style, meaning people's opinions about what looks nice, not opinions about the character of the bearded ones]. People who assign "commonly known" assumptions about the character of others based on their appearance are seeking justification for their own prejudices about how someone "should" look, and those prejudices are no more worthy when based on face furniture than when they are based on skin color or crooked, big ears.

[RANT OFF]

[kylejt]

You may think it's BS, but a lot of folks still subscribe to it, in a lot of different arenas. Not just politics. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I do know it's a factor in some places.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This is not correct.

Lincoln wanted to keep slavery from spreading. He didn't have any qualms about slavery, so he did "believe" in it. He was willing to do whatever he needed to keep the Union together.

If you don't think the Civil War was about slavery, you didn't pay attention when they covered everything from about 1815 on during history class.

Well where was it going to spread to? We only had so many states. Slavery was a constant source of consternation among the northern and southern states. It wasn't the reason the first shot was fired to start the Civil War.

Yes I took plenty of history in school, and didn't sleep through it. That's why I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

More revisionist history from the master.

Prove me wrong, or better yet, prove that anything in the Bible ever happened.

[DG]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

How is your association about umpires sporting beards?

1. Does your association allow them?
2. Does your association request that they be a certain length?
3. Does your association limit your assignments because you have a beard?

Never heard beards mentioned.

Dont have any association members with a beard, that I can remember.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Prove me wrong, or better yet, prove that anything in the Bible ever happened.

Way too much evidence that the entirety of Bible is true, and I don't waste time arguing with atheists. Too many people already have shot your argument down for me to waste time rehashing the subject. You can stop wasting YOUR time trying to bait me into your silly little arguments.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Way too much evidence that the entirety of Bible is true, and I don't waste time arguing with atheists. Too many people already have shot your argument down for me to waste time rehashing the subject. You can stop wasting YOUR time trying to bait me into your silly little arguments.

Not baiting anyone, but if you can't answer the question, just say so. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that Lincoln was once an umpire, I mean vampire killer..........

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

How is your association about umpires sporting beards?

1. Does your association allow them?
2. Does your association request that they be a certain length?
3. Does your association limit your assignments because you have a beard?

Obviously, beards have nothing to do with an umpire's knowledge or his calls. Although if the beard is similar to that of Billy Gibbons (ZZ Top), I suppose it could get into the way of your strike or out signal!

Yes, No, No

Our association is run by open-minded officials that are more interested in the following:

1. Professional appearance. (With or without a beard)
2. Good Rule knowledge.
3. Good Mechanics.
4. Professional attitude.
5. Promptness.
6. Hustle
7. Respecting Players and Coaches

All the other bullcrap went out in the 60's. HELLO!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This is not correct.

Lincoln wanted to keep slavery from spreading. He didn't have any qualms about slavery, so he did "believe" in it. He was willing to do whatever he needed to keep the Union together.

If you don't think the Civil War was about slavery, you didn't pay attention when they covered everything from about 1815 on during history class.

Yes but there were writings of his that made it clear he did not find Blacks as equals. Which at the end of the day is what racism is when you believe that they are not your equal as a white person.

But honestly who cares, this has nothing to do with the original post.

Peace

[asdf]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But honestly who cares, this has nothing to do with the original post.

Best post in the whole thread

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Prove me wrong, or better yet, prove that anything in the Bible ever happened.

I thought you to be somewhat intelligent, until now. Even Austin knows better.

I agree with Steve though.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by kylejt

It's a commonly known fact, that present day Americans do not trust folks with facial hair.

"Commonly known fact" is code for "I really want it to be true so I'm just going to assume it is."

My personal experience is facial hair improved the trust coaches had in me significantly (because I no longer looked like I should be playing in the game) and had no appreciable effect on my career as an accountant.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

"Commonly known fact" is code for "I really want it to be true so I'm just going to assume it is."

Commonly known: I have no data, but I believe it.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This is not correct.

Lincoln wanted to keep slavery from spreading. He didn't have any qualms about slavery, so he did "believe" in it. He was willing to do whatever he needed to keep the Union together.

If you don't think the Civil War was about slavery, you didn't pay attention when they covered everything from about 1815 on during history class.

So why the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 two years after the start of the war?

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I thought you to be somewhat intelligent, until now. Even Austin knows better.

I agree with Steve though.

Evolutionist or creationist?