Such a potentially great resource

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by gordon30307
White Sox are hoping the Red Sox are the Wild Card.

Believe me, every other team wants the White Sox in the first round. BTW, you're posting in the wrong thread. Try http://officialforum.com/thread/19524

[bossref]

........that there's a time/place for humor,
especially in the "off-season".

And you guys run (moderate) this site,
so I guess you've got your own 'elastic" clause.

I just hoped that I could direct people to this forum for a
good learning experience and to get rules interpretations
and philosophical points of view, which they will, after
they filter out what's not pertinent (IMO).

Just FYI I created a one page list of Misunderstood Rules about 20 years ago for adult rec league players and novice
officials who don't belong to a high school association.
It served its purpose for a long time.
Recently, I've forwarded the original to a gentleman in
Connecticut who refined it very well, and used it for
a class he taught and for his IAABO Board as well.

Also, none of those who are affiliated with my business
are members of CBOA or any other local organization in San Diego, because we work year round recreational leagues,
not high school sanctioned events.
My intent is to raise the level of understanding and professionalism so that we won't be looked at as inferior
as compared to the high school "association".

So yes, GO RED SOX, and Patriots
and yes, run off topic posts, but please
occasionally sprinkle in some meaningful discussions
so the game can be elevated by informed arbiters.

Good stuff guys (and ladies).
I like this site and what it stands for.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by bossref
........that there's a time/place for humor,
especially in the "off-season".

And you guys run (moderate) this site,
so I guess you've got your own 'elastic" clause.

I just hoped that I could direct people to this forum for a
good learning experience and to get rules interpretations
and philosophical points of view, which they will, after
they filter out what's not pertinent (IMO).

All they have to do is post a question, and they get good, Fed or NCAA rules descriptions, interps, and discussion.

Originally posted by bossref
Good stuff guys (and ladies).

PS The parallel construction of guys isn't "ladies", it's "gals". The parallel construction of "ladies" is "gentlemen". Jane Austen is very clear on that point.

PPSS ...and there's no reason to put it in parentheses, unless you're trying to say that gals and guys aren't equal....and I know that even if you think that, you are smart enough not to say it.

[Edited by rainmaker on Oct 3rd, 2005 at 10:00 AM]

[stripes]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

Originally posted by bossref


Jane Austen is very clear on that point.


[Edited by rainmaker on Oct 3rd, 2005 at 10:00 AM]

Of course, no self-respecting man would have ever read anything by Jane Austen that wasn't required of him in school so it isn't very likely that many here would have a clue about anything that Ms. Austen has expounded upon.

That being said, your point is well taken.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker
[/B]

PPSS ...and there's no reason to put it in parentheses, unless you're trying to say that gals and guys aren't equal....and I know that even if you think that, you are smart enough not to say it.

[/B][/QUOTE]Whoa....you mean guys and ladies are equal now? When did that happen?

Geeze, I musta been absent that day.

Btw, Jane Austen was a part-time table dancer too. And a great one. Writing didn't pay much in those days.

[Jimgolf]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker
PPSS ...and there's no reason to put it in parentheses, unless you're trying to say that gals and guys aren't equal....and I know that even if you think that, you are smart enough not to say it.

Actually, the parentheses are used correctly to denote an insincere politically correct phrase that is only inserted to appease certain sentimentalities who feel incorrectly that 'guys' is an exclusively masculine term. But 'gals' would be correct if it were needed.

Is this far enough off topic for you?

[Edited by Jimgolf on Oct 4th, 2005 at 11:37 PM]

[rainmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jimgolf

Originally posted by rainmaker
PPSS ...and there's no reason to put it in parentheses, unless you're trying to say that gals and guys aren't equal....and I know that even if you think that, you are smart enough not to say it.

Actually, the parentheses are used correctly to denote an insincere politically correct phrase that is only inserted to appease certain sentimentalities who feel incorrectly that 'guys' is an exclusively masculine term. But 'gals' would be correct if it were needed.

Is this far enough off topic for you?

[Edited by Jimgolf on Oct 4th, 2005 at 11:37 PM]

Including "gals" in parentheses doesn't feel real politically correct to me. Why would anyone want to be tacked on as an afterthought?

And actually, "guys" IS an exclusively masculine term, equivalent to "gentlemen". I know that many, many, many people will refer to a group as "you guys" but that is not correct English, and never will be. The reason for the error is the incorrect belief that "you" is singular. It isn't.

SO when a waitress says, "Are you ready?" and the idjuts at the table say, "I don't know about them, but I am!" the waitress should smile condescendingly and take their order, knowing that their English isn't as good as hers. Instead, she gets tired of thinking she's wrong, and begins to say, "Are you guys ready to order?" At this point my grandmother used to get up and walk out after explaining to the manager that proper language usage is the foundation of all civilization and the employees of this restaurant had made it clear to her that this institution was moving away from that noble goal.

She was a magnificent woman, my grandmother, and I can't hope to ever walk in her shoes. But every once in a while I walk out on a waitress who says, "you guys" just to honor her memory.

Is that off topic enough, Barry Alman?

[bossref]

Most every time I post, it becomes a fairly
long thread, whether on topic or off topic.

Just glad to make my contribution.

Sometimes you people are funny!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by bossref
Most every time I post, it becomes a fairly
long thread, whether on topic or off topic.

Just glad to make my contribution.

Sometimes you people are funny!

Let's all agree that "guys/gals" is the politically correct way to include everyone, and that "guys (gals)" is definitely over the line.

Whether or not a person approves of being concerned about political correctness, let's at least agree about what it is. That way, when someone is politically incorrect that person can at least have the satisfaction of being consciously obnoxious. Why offend people inadvertantly and not get to enjoy it?

[jritchie]

why does it have to be "guys/gals"???? is that still saying that guys are always first?? why not "gals/guys"? just figured i could stir the pot a little more

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by jritchie
why does it have to be "guys/gals"???? is that still saying that guys are always first?? why not "gals/guys"? just figured i could stir the pot a little more

Because, that's why.

(The rules are simple in PC land.)

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by jritchie
why does it have to be "guys/gals"???? is that still saying that guys are always first?? why not "gals/guys"? just figured i could stir the pot a little more

If you feel wickedly rebellious putting guys first in the "guys/gals" thing, that's fine. You go right ahead, dearie!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Because, that's why.

(The rules are simple in PC land.)

Actually, accusing anyone of simplism is incredibly offensive and incorrect. Can't you get anything straight?!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Actually, accusing anyone of simplism is incredibly offensive and incorrect. Can't you get anything straight?!

****, I ****ed up again.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Because, that's why.

You're just a-scared to tell Juulie to shut up!