Originally Posted by Dan_ref

These unemployed religious gun nuts need to lighten up.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I worry about the employed religious gun nuts. They can afford bullets.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

But they're not bitter....

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Yep. We really need to keep our eyes on the under-employed religious gun nuts who are bitter but have some income.

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

These unemployed religious gun nuts need to lighten up.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm really worried about the self-employed bible-thumping gun-toting xenophobes.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Remember now that this only applies to those unemployed religious gun nuts in Pennsylvania...out here in Washington State, the unemployed religious gun nuts just go out into the woods and pick mushrooms - so they can always afford a few bullets!:eek:

Originally Posted by JustCallIt

In response to Back In The Saddle's self-serving diatribe in favor of the perpetual buddy club

What an absolute crock. I've been lurking for a long time, but this crock is so bad I had to remember my junk mail box name and register.

Playing good old boy politics is just an excuse for excluding people who are threatening, be it younger people, darker people or people of a different gender or orientation.

The fact is, ability should be paramount in assigning and promoting officials, not being pals. The only people who defend placing politics above ability are the people being protected by the politics. The fact is incompetent people who are buddies get favorable treatment because they are members of the buddy club.

Your answer is to join the buddy club.

Pathetic.

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I doubt BITS disagrees that ability should be paramount. He's simply stating that politics are always going to exist in any system so you have choices - you can either do your best to work within that system, or you can refuse to do so and try to change it. If you think a system is patently unfair, then don't work there or try to change it. But if it doesn't change to your benefit, you can be pissed about it, but that won't get you more games.

I thought BITS' statement was spot-on in that all systems exist for reasons - some good and some bad - and if you want to work the best and most games, the way to do that is to figure out how to work within that system.

If you simply can't because you believe it is immoral or unethical - more than just a PITA and less than fair - then work somewhere else or work to change it. But just *****ing about the "old boys club" won't get anything done but let you project your disappointment on someone else.

Most of these "buddy clubs" you talk about simply aren't as bad as you make them out to be. Do you often have to network and abide by rules? Yes. Is that bad? I don't see how.

I haven't been officiating a long time, and I've been exposed to a couple different setups. They each are different and they each have their own politics/challenges. But each system has one belief in common: officiating is about more than just calling the game. It's about being dependable, being cooperative and working well with your other officials. These are things that some call "politics." Many who understand this are simply tired of hearing the whining.

Originally Posted by JustCallIt

Well, gee, I guess if being asked to work with people who can't chug up and down the floor, can't see and think points of emphysis is a fairy tale, then I guess I'm bitter. Personally, I'm doing fine, but I see better officials in middle school games than in some varsity contests.

I never suggested that the non-cooperative ought to advance. But when the incompetent are protected, or people don't advance because "son/miss, you just haven't been doing it long enough, like old Fred over there" then it's politics at its worst and people who defend it are defending their comfortable status quo.

Originally Posted by JustCallIt

Well, gee, I guess if being asked to work with people who can't chug up and down the floor, can't see and think points of emphysis is a fairy tale, then I guess I'm bitter. Personally, I'm doing fine, but I see better officials in middle school games than in some varsity contests.

I never suggested that the non-cooperative ought to advance. But when the incompetent are protected, or people don't advance because "son/miss, you just haven't been doing it long enough, like old Fred over there" then it's politics at its worst and people who defend it are defending their comfortable status quo.

Originally Posted by JustCallIt

Well, gee, I guess if being asked to work with people who can't chug up and down the floor, can't see and think points of emphysis is a fairy tale, then I guess I'm bitter. Personally, I'm doing fine, but I see better officials in middle school games than in some varsity contests.

I never suggested that the non-cooperative ought to advance. But when the incompetent are protected, or people don't advance because "son/miss, you just haven't been doing it long enough, like old Fred over there" then it's politics at its worst and people who defend it are defending their comfortable status quo.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's easier to go on a web board and anonymously b1tch about it.