Running Lane - Whose Call?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...Guys like you really surprise me when you do not seem to realize that someone asking a question and giving their opinion with facts of what is written are two different things.

Ok, I'll bite. You have defined very narrow parameters for this conversation. You have said that you, to paraphrase, were not looking for an opinion on this. Given that the word conversation means, amongst other things, exchanging opinions, I quit the conversation and wondered why others continued.

If instead this was debate, you set the parameters in such a way as no-one could possibly meet your objections within those parameters, then only you could emerge from the debate "victorious." You insisted over and over again on the word always, you even bold the word in one post. While most of the rest of us were much less strict. Given that nothing in officiating, or life for that matter, is always, because of various contingencies when finite manuals or rules meet infinite possibilities. You can't ever be wrong, mistaken, whatever word you like here, when you insist on always. You have essentially asked those of who are in disagreement with you to prove a negative. We can not demonstrate that amongst the class of all mechanics manuals ever written or to be written that the PU will always have responsibility for RLI. This is a logically impossibility. Instead many of pointed out the difficulty in giving this responsibility to the BU in any #-man system. You claimed that the BU would not have a problem in sharing this responsibility equally with the PU. We argued that there are many reasons why the PU should have a more than equal share of this responsibility. Your response was, basically, I don't care. Why can't you baseball guys ever get it straight that all responsibilities should be shared equally all the time? We offered an opinion to that and you responded that you didn't want our opinions.

I mostly certainly understand the difference between asking questions and giving opinions, I, and others, I think misunderstood your intentions until you made them clear. You were not seeking an answer only to express your opinion. Fair enough. When your intentions became clear, there was no need to continue the conversation. You gave a response that, for all intents and purposes, means I don't want to talk about this anymore. I heard that message loud and clear, hence my response in post 29. I was surprised that others did not understand your message, as I think you intended it.

Please note that I have only referred to your writings and my interpretations of those writings. I prefer not to make arguments ad hominem, and work hard not to.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Ok, I'll bite. You have defined very narrow parameters for this conversation. You have said that you, to paraphrase, were not looking for an opinion on this. Given that the word conversation means, amongst other things, exchanging opinions, I quit the conversation and wondered why others continued.

If instead this was debate, you set the parameters in such a way as no-one could possibly meet your objections within those parameters, then only you could emerge from the debate "victorious." You insisted over and over again on the word always, you even bold the word in one post. While most of the rest of us were much less strict. Given that nothing in officiating, or life for that matter, is always, because of various contingencies when finite manuals or rules meet infinite possibilities. You can't ever be wrong, mistaken, whatever word you like here, when you insist on always. You have essentially asked those of who are in disagreement with you to prove a negative. We can not demonstrate that amongst the class of all mechanics manuals ever written or to be written that the PU will always have responsibility for RLI. This is a logically impossibility. Instead many of pointed out the difficulty in giving this responsibility to the BU in any #-man system. You claimed that the BU would not have a problem in sharing this responsibility equally with the PU. We argued that there are many reasons why the PU should have a more than equal share of this responsibility. Your response was, basically, I don't care. Why can't you baseball guys ever get it straight that all responsibilities should be shared equally all the time? We offered an opinion to that and you responded that you didn't want our opinions.

I mostly certainly understand the difference between asking questions and giving opinions, I, and others, I think misunderstood your intentions until you made them clear. You were not seeking an answer only to express your opinion. Fair enough. When your intentions became clear, there was no need to continue the conversation. You gave a response that, for all intents and purposes, means I don't want to talk about this anymore. I heard that message loud and clear, hence my response in post 29. I was surprised that others did not understand your message, as I think you intended it.

Please note that I have only referred to your writings and my interpretations of those writings. I prefer not to make arguments ad hominem, and work hard not to.

I will put it this way. If you want to do what you do or believe what you believe, go right ahead. At the end of the day I really could give a damn. This sport is my least favorite to work and often discussions like this are the reason that is the case most of the time. You cannot have a discussion with people like you because someone told you to do something years ago. Well I was told a lot of things to do and I do not do those things anymore because clinicians or trainers decided what once was advocated does not work. Just like the "Get it right philosophy." People take a lot of things in baseball too far. I just was stating that the BU in rare situations should make this call. If that is a sin that call me a sinner, because I really did not think that would be that controversial. This is my 18th year of officiating and I worked a State Final in this sport not doing things that the powers that be do not approve of. Again, I just said it was rare and I said there is no support that only the PU makes this call or always makes this call.

We will just have to agree to disagree about the rest.

Peace

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot have a discussion with people like you because someone told you to do something years ago.

I am really flabbergasted by this. I won't read you my resume as you have done for me. I don't like appeals to authority (logical fallacy) self referential or not. I do not umpire the same way I did, 5 years ago let alone 10 or 15 years ago.

I have not attacked you personally or claimed to know anything about you in any of my posts. I don't understand why you haven't accorded me the same courtesy.

In argument the principal of charity means basically that you view the ideas and thoughts of others in an argument within the best possible light assuming the best possible intentions. That is, one gives others' ideas the most charitable reading. I try to do that all of the time. I seriously considered your points in the most charitable way, that is why I asked questions, I did not make definitive statements.

Learning and changing cannot happen during pissing contests, I was not attempting to engage in a pissing contest. There is a Latin aphorism that says Qui docet discit, he who teaches learns. I view conversation like that. Sometimes articulating a belief or theory we hold, or otherwise exposing it to the light of day, demonstrates that the idea doesn't hold water. If I see the holes in the bucket, I plug the holes or I get a new bucket.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

I am really flabbergasted by this. I won't read you my resume as you have done for me. I don't like appeals to authority (logical fallacy) self referential or not. I do not umpire the same way I did, 5 years ago let alone 10 or 15 years ago.

I have not attacked you personally or claimed to know anything about you in any of my posts. I don't understand why you haven't accorded me the same courtesy.

In argument the principal of charity means basically that you view the ideas and thoughts of others in an argument within the best possible light assuming the best possible intentions. That is, one gives others' ideas the most charitable reading. I try to do that all of the time. I seriously considered your points in the most charitable way, that is why I asked questions, I did not make definitive statements.

Learning and changing cannot happen during pissing contests, I was not attempting to engage in a pissing contest. There is a Latin aphorism that says Qui docet discit, he who teaches learns. I view conversation like that. Sometimes articulating a belief or theory we hold, or otherwise exposing it to the light of day, demonstrates that the idea doesn't hold water. If I see the holes in the bucket, I plug the holes or I get a new bucket.

I did not think this was a pissing contest. I told you what I believe and why I believe it. It does not make me upset to stick to my position. I also did not ask the question to get help because I was having trouble trying to figure out what to do. And if my partner made this call from the BU position and I was the PU, then I would clap my hands and thank them for doing their job. We are a team, not a bunch of individuals out there. And my ego is in check that I would support my partner as still not a single book says that only the PU has these calls. At some point we have to deal with the facts of this discussion.

And some here like to always assume that someone that they are talking with is just stating an opinion just to state and opinion. As I said, believe and do what you want to do and if you do that go right ahead. It is not the first time that someone believes what they believe and they will have to deal with the fall out when you suggest that only one person can make this call.

Peace

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And some here like to always assume that someone that they are talking with is just stating an opinion just to state and opinion.

I didn't understand that's what you were doing until you told me that's what you were doing. I then bailed out of the mechanics discussion with you.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As I said, believe and do what you want to do and if you do that go right ahead. It is not the first time that someone believes what they believe and they will have to deal with the fall out when you suggest that only one person can make this call.

I never wrote this.

Overall, I really am sorry, that I didn't understand your position was "I'm just stating an opinion and I'm not interested in opinions." Had I known that from jump, I would not have engaged you. If I should make this mistake with you again, please just tell me in your reply that you are not interested in my opinion and I will not address you any longer on that subject. Otherwise, I will assume that you are interested in my thoughts on the subject.

Thanks.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

I didn't understand that's what you were doing until you told me that's what you were doing. I then bailed out of the mechanics discussion with you.




I never wrote this.

Overall, I really am sorry, that I didn't understand your position was "I'm just stating an opinion and I'm not interested in opinions." Had I known that from jump, I would not have engaged you. If I should make this mistake with you again, please just tell me in your reply that you are not interested in my opinion and I will not address you any longer on that subject. Otherwise, I will assume that you are interested in my thoughts on the subject.

Thanks.

Thank about what you just said. Because I am having a discussion does not mean I need to hear other opinions to draw a different conclusion. Now if I was asking for opinions because I was not sure in my position or what I should do, that would be a little different. Not all conversations are had to change an opinion. As some here will know I love politics, but the simple discussion of politics is not going to change who people vote for or why they feel the way they do. If you think this place is a constant conversation to convince people they are right, then you are at the wrong place.

Peace