Jim:

I am still waiting for the slanderous statements I made toward you.

I really don't appreciate the insinuation. I am a prick on the field, but I don't get involved in this horse$hit.

Blaine

Classy. Really classy.

Brad:

Get this idiot and smack him. We don't need that $hit on this board.

Blaine

... as compared with ...

"The truth is", Jim, that you wouldn't KNOW the truth if it jumped up and bit you in the a$$. You probably won't see the absolute hypocrisy evidenced by these two statements from the same post. I'm sure others will. I'm done with you. As you said, "with friends like you..."

http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/bits/images/koalani_f.gif

brian43

Of all the insults, slanderess remarks, fabricated stories and outright garbage that has appeared in this thread, none of it, is as low as your reply.

If you are truly are an official, which I find hard to believe, you should be banned.

Don't ever come to Pittsburgh, to try an officiate.

I'll tell you what hypocrisy I do see. I see you doing the exact same thing as me - defending yourself, stating your side as you see it, and making snide little sarcastic remarks in the process. But for me, it's mental instability, or treating someone badly. For you, it's what?

The same thing goes for Benham and Osborne. They are two rather sarcastic people, they say fairly nasty things to people, they've been known to name-call and insult, yet they point at me like I'm some sort of pariah. You're all looking in a mirror, and it's not my fault you don't like what you see.

Oddly enough, I'm quite successful at actually not being a prick on the field, still gaining the respect of my peers, and doing my job very professionally. You might try that. It's better for the heart.

Oh, and I never said you made slanderous statements. I said I wouldn't forget what you said to me. It was via e-mail. Surely, you haven't forgotten already.

Yeah, I have forgotten.

Obviously it was a much bigger deal to you.

BTW, thanks for sharing private e-mails with the internet community, although I have no idea what you are talking about.

I agree. This guy should be removed.

Brad, are you listening?

You seem to forget that the possessor of a "truth", any "truth" whether <i>perceived</i> or <i>absolute</i>, has an obligation to use that "truth" wisely.

Some time ago your behaviour, in this forum and others, was absolutely and undeniably unbalanced. That was the view of <i>everyone</i> who observed that behaviour <i>except</i> yourself. I refrained from saying so then, either publicly or privately, because I believed that to do so would have been hurtful to you. I encouraged others to remain silent, too. You were ill then, and you needed support not condemnation. Should I have spoken the "truth" to you then, or should I have remained silent?

By your own admission you are not ill now, so there is no excuse for your treatment of others. Jim, it is my view that you use the "truth", at least as <b><i>you</b></i> perceive it, like a switchblade to lay open the belly of your "enemies" - whether <i>real</i> and <i>imagined</i>. That is "treating people badly".<ul>"<i>How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless...</i>"</ul>This is the last I will have to say to you on the subject.

http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/bits/images/koalani_f.gif

whatever, ban me, this thread is useless because its all a bunch of people arguing. just get on with life and continue posting and stop BS'ing. i think the question was answered already, shouldnt this be closed?

yes i am an umpire, why is it hard to believe? i've come from many other message boards (not related to officiating but they are boards none the less) and threads like this would be closed in a second because of the useless arguing and getting so far off topic its unbelieveable. discuss that garbage somewhere else rather than running up your post count to show off.

why would i move from chicago to pittsburg to umpire? i do just fine here, even though you dont believe i'm an umpire because i posted a picture you might not like.

oh, and i wouldnt "try an officiate", i might "try to officiate" or "try and officiate."

ban me if you like, i just don't see why but whoever might ban me has the power and i wont dispute that. i took my picture down so no one would cry anymore but do what you must to try and regain control.

I got a particularly vicious e-mail from you. I have a hard time believing you don't remember considering it was pretty nasty in nature. I haven't shared it with anyone. I've only shared my disappointment at having received it.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Jul 26th, 2003 at 10:34 PM]

I have a hard time believing that I can maintain my sanity in all other phases of my life with the only exception being internet message boards for umpires.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Jul 26th, 2003 at 10:46 PM]

Move along, then. Nothing to see here.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Porter

Quote:

I have a hard time believing that I can maintain my sanity in all other phases of my life with the only exception being internet message boards for umpires.

Jim;

Thanks for the memories and superb entertainment. It was just like old times reading this thread. The Jim Porter that I know and love was up to his old form. No change here that I can see.

Some obersvations:

1. You argued long and hard with Warren about balance and unbalanced BS. The balance that you need to concern yourself with is REBALANCE, as in "see your shrink about a rebalance in your meds."

2. If the Internet message boards are the only place in your life that you can not maintain your sanity, then why are you here? Only a masochist would continually and deliberately place himself in harm's way when there are so many other things to do with your life. Masochism may be another subject that you want to take up with your shrink, which leads to point 3.

3. You say that you have a hard time believing that the Internet is the only place where you have these problems. Well I have a problem in believing that is true. You have clearly demonstrated that you are not in contact with reality when you stated in this thread that you had not flamed anyone in two years. After you were proved wrong, you proceeded to get into a monster pi$$ing contest with all manner of posters. If it wasn't a flame war, I don't know what is.

4. I don't believe that you "lied" about any of this for a lie presupposes that the author knows that the statement that he is making is untrue. I believe that your illness has progressed to such a state that you can no longer tell reality from fiction. Hence your statement, that the Internet is the only place where this sort of thing happens, is highly suspect. I strongly believe that this problem carries over to other aspects of your life. Just like your statement about peace on the Internet for two years being fiction, you are unaware of the chaos in your life.

Get back to your psychiatrist. He could probably write a disertation on your illness. I doubt it would be as entertaining as watching the real thing in action, however.

Thanks again for the laughs,

Peter

What rules were you thinking about that make appealing a check swing upon request optionable?

Both FED rules and LL rules give the home plate umpire the option of denying the request.

Rich

thanks rich. being a LL umpire mainly (also do 14-16 traveling), that is why i said you do not have to appeal on check swings by request if you feel you made the right call. if its questionable theres no shame in asking for help but its not mandatory.

<b>Both FED rules and LL rules give the home plate umpire the option of denying the request.</b>

Since I have never worked LL, I am ignorant of their rules. That's why I asked. I was curious.

In FED, I was blinded by our association's long time policy of treating it like OBR. We never refuse a request to appeal a check swing. Just isn't any advantage in it.

Wow. Talk about mental imbalance. I'll send you my doctor's card, Peter, I think you need him more than me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Warren is misinformed
 

Jim,
I wasn't working from a dictionary when I made that statement. It just seemed to me that you were stating that you would not "forget" anyone who has wronged you in the past and that, to me anyway, means that you would bomb them in return, should they bomb you.
jw

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Warren is misinformed
 

No, that's not what I meant. I was just trying to get across the idea that I would no longer just let my defenses down like I had in the past. I'm always going to be wary of posters and what they have to say to me and about me.

At one time, I was far too free about giving details of my personal life to people on these boards that I trusted. I was diagnosed with cancer, made the mistake of telling umpires online, and it was used against me time and again - it still is. I've had misery and death wished upon me publicly, and financial ruin upon my family. I've had people post outright lies, saying that they talked to people who know me personally, and I lied about having cancer. I continue to have posters like Osborne question and make light of my sanity, which is just tasteless considering I had a brain tumor. I mean, what if I really was having mental problems stemming from a brain tumor? How appropriate are Osborne's remarks?

I'm sure you see the delicate nature of the situation, and now have a taste of the history involved. I hope you better understood what I meant now.

I admit to blowing of steam from time to time. I admit to being strong-headed and opinionated about baseball rules and umpiring. I do not, and never will, admit that I ever deserved the level of bashing and insult that I've endured from people like Osborne.

I personally never refuse such a request either. I also teach new umpires to never refuse such a request. Not appealing a check swing is not something worth having to eject someone over. I've seen it happen in a high school game. It wasn't pretty.

Rich

Little League is the same as OBR in this instance. The plate umpire is required to ask for help if a checked-swing called a ball is appealed by the catcher or manager. I'll have to dig up my copy of Little League's casebook. I have one somewhere, and I do not believe anyone at any region is teaching that a checked-swing appeal is optional. I haven't worked a Little League game all year, so I'm a bit out of the loop, though.

for the District i work for in LL I have been told that when asked to appeal the pitch, you do not have to unless you feel that you need to. its just something we have done locally, not sure if its the right thing. this may or may not be the case in the rule book, but thats what I have been told and thats what I have done in LL games. If I was to get to the sectional or regional level, that might change but as far as district tournament play its been at the umpires discretion whether or not he will grant an appeal.

when doing non-LL, i'd give an appeal if they ask for one.

<b>when doing non-LL, i'd give an appeal if they ask for one</b>

One presumes from this then you would or might refuse an appeal at LL. Why? It has to be more than "because the rules say I can." Why risk a sh^t house when you can avoid it with three little words...did he go?

This I have from a very credible source in Texas:

First, the LL rulebook omits the OBR casebook comment that says the umpire must check when asked.Â* So, the omission of the comment lends some support to the interpretation that LL does not follow the OBR model. However, that's not fullproof because there are many other instances of LL omitting OBR comments that are, in fact, applicable to LL rules.

The second, and somewhat more definitive citation, is this statement in the LL Rules Instruction Manual, which is the manual given to LL trainers and instructors:

"It is customary for the plate umpire to check on a half-swing called a "ball" if he/she has doubt."

There is no comment in The Right Call that supports the "must appeal" theory.
-----------------
I'm sorry you haven't worked any LL this year. I've jumped into LL with both feet this season in Wisconsin and just got finished working the Majors and Minors districts and tonight worked the State Championship game in the Junior division as part of a 6-umpire crew. Most of the tournament officials here in Wisconsin are also pretty good college umpires, so the games go quite well. After two weeks of tournament play here there were no incidents to report of, no protests, and no problems at all.

Rich

I've spoken with Andy Konyar regarding the many omissions and differences between the Little League rulebook and the Official Baseball Rules. Basically, his explanation was that the Little League rulebook is based on a very old version of the Official Baseball Rules. He said he's been slowly fixing things, and if you see something that needs fixing to give him an e-mail about it.

Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the various intentional differences and omissions that make the rules appropriate for youth league. Obviously, I'm not talking about those differences.


Oh, don't be. After 20 years of working Little League, I needed a year off.


[Edited by Jim Porter on Jul 29th, 2003 at 01:07 AM]

Jim,

I didn't write the third paragraph in the quoted part attributed to me in the message directly above this. Where did it come from? If it is from something I posted earlier, I simply don't remember writing it.

Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Jul 28th, 2003 at 11:51 PM]

My mistake. I wrote it. I just accidentally put it inside your quote tags. Sorry about that. I fixed it now.