Wed Mar 30, 2005, 12:01am
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by JugglingReferee
There are some people to whom's opinion we should consider.
If they're proven to be successful in their field, perhaps using transferability of skills, they'll be successful in other areas, even those with not as much experience as others with more focused training.
Take Mark Cuban. He's a smart guy. How do we view his take on officiating?
|
Because he's smart in some areas, we should give credence to his very uninformed view of officiating? That's like looking to Shirley McClaine for spiritual advice, or to Richard Feynman for marriage counselling. They are both brilliant in their areas, but definitely not so wise in other things. Cuban has his strengths, sure, but I'm not sure evaluating officials is one of them.
|
If you realy wanted to speak to Feynman about your marriage you would need someone like McClaine to contact his spirit.
|
Yea, good one! But my point stands. I admire the heck out of Richard Feynman, but he sure didn't "get" women. That's okay, but my point is, it's just not true that because someone is very good at one thing, he or she is very good at everything else.
|
I can't comment on how well Feynman got women but I will say just because someone is very good at one thing doesn't mean he or she is NOT good at anything else.
|
I totally agree. I mean, you are a great example of that right? YOu're really good at reffing and I've never doubted for a minute that there must be something else you're good at. Never doubted.
|
Linear Mode
