People Skills...

[ronald]

Jeff,

Got it.

[JRutledge]

You are a very sick person. You need help. For anyone that seems to make themselve the issue time and time again, you need to look deep inside of a mirror and figure that out. This post was about Violet Palmer and how she handles situations as discribed in an article. But self-absorbed people on this board like yourself have to make my comments (one persons I mind you) and use this forum to dispute everything you "think" I stand for. You live in North Carolina, come out of that state or your region every once in a while. You might actually learn something some day. You will find that all people do not look alike, think alike or are not motivated by the same things. You do nothing it seems but question everyone that does not view the officiating game the way you do. I have read your other comments where you are constantly questioning other people in a very condensending way. This is a discussion board where we discuss all kinds of things. It is based in officiating but like anything in life and anything that is interesting, we discuss other issues. You need to understand that I do not live for your approval. I do not do things to make Tony happy. You can give example after example of things you say taken out of context and have nothing to do with anything and bring them here. If that is what tickles your whistle, do that.

If you have not noticed, I do not care what Chuck or JR or anyone thinks in relation to what I say. If you disagree, disagree. You have the right and the ability to do so. But I stand by what I say. I feel there are people that make an issue out of tests and think they prove some kind of officiating ability which I have never witnessed from individuals that are in my region of the country or in my particular state. We do not care about these things. We do not seem to be worried about those appliciation of the rules that you seemed to be concerned with. We have over 40 different associations and have well over 25 State Clinicians and they all do not agree about many issues related to officiating. But you think we are going to come to a discussion board with people literally all over the world and agree what Rule 2 says backwards and forwards. You need to get some perspective in your life.

Peace

[zebraman]

Rut,

Tony certainly doesn't need me to defend him, but I will anyway. Based on a discussion board that you have often called "fantasy," you have deduced that Tony is a sick person? Every time I think you've gone over the top, you go even higher. I don't remember a time when Tony has been condescending. He's been helpful and knowledgeable and I've learned a lot from him on the boards. I don't agree with him on everything, but when I do disagree it's always stayed civil.

IMHO, you are far more condescending than anyone here and your confrontational style has certainly caused many posters to leave who would have otherwise had much to contribute.

I don't remember anyone EVER saying that test scores make an official. There was debate over what was more important, an official with good rule knowledge or good presence. That horse was beaten to death long ago, yet (even though you "don't care" what anyone thinks of your opinion) you can't let it go and bring it up again and again and even lie to support your position. Then when someone catches you in a lie, you deny it and even manage to turn it into an issue involving race (what the heck is that about?). Get over it yourself!

Z

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I can't believe that I read over 4 pages of this garbage.

I personally know people that brag about their test scores as if it somehow made them a better official than others. In my opinion they are braggarts and not good officials. I have never run into anyone that thinks rules knowledge or a good test score is the ONLY criteria for being classified as a good official. Their discussions may very well ignore people skills because they are personally weak on these qualities but I have never had anyone say rules knowledge/test scores were the prime criterion for being a great official.

I think the point that needs to be made under this topic (People Skills.... remember? Back before this discussion left the world of basketball, we were discussing people skills)
is...

Rules knowledge is rather easy to acquire. However, practical application of the rules involves people skills. People skills, if you don't have them from your own natural character or from the way you were brought up by your parents, are not so easy to acquire as is rules knowledge. Development of people skills requires very conscious, continuous effort.

We all need to be working on our people skills because they are what make us successful in all facets of life. They are obviously of ultimate importance on the basketball court when dealing with emotionally charged 'people.'

As a couple of the primary contributors to this discussion thread are fond of saying when they close...

PEACE

[canuckrefguy]

Am I the only one who has this mental picture of Rut sitting back in his computer chair, laughing at the way he's gotten a rise out of everyone, and how he's somehow managed to perpetuate it over five pages, and six days worth of meaningless one-upsmanship?

[Edited by canuckrefguy on Feb 26th, 2003 at 06:12 PM]

[zebraman]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
Am I the only one who has this mental picture of Rut sitting back in his computer chair, laughing at the way he's gotten a rise out of everyone, and how he's somehow managed to perpetuate it over five pages, and six days worth of meaningless one-upsmanship?

[Edited by canuckrefguy on Feb 26th, 2003 at 06:12 PM]

No, you're not the only one. The other image I have is of Rut cleaning his rifle as he writes names on each bullet..."Zebraman," "Tony," "JR," "Chuck"....... :-)

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
Am I the only one who has this mental picture of Rut sitting back in his computer chair, laughing at the way he's gotten a rise out of everyone, and how he's somehow managed to perpetuate it over five pages, and six days worth of meaningless one-upsmanship?

Well obviously I am here so I cannot image what I am doing. But to give you a better picture, it is very funny to me. I have not even mentioned any names, but here they come thinking every comment is about them. That is absolutely halarious to me.

Peace

[dblref]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Just for the record, I'm not married to a black man. My daughter is black, and she is adopted. My "borned" children are blonde haird and blue eyed.

The part about capitalizing and not-capitalizing is one thing about educated black English that whites may not understand, and your reaction to it "it appears to be a put down" proves my point. We whites simply don't always understand what is being said. Jeff doesn't do that because he wants to obfuscate, he's just trying to have a discussion. Just like you are, dblref.


I think we should lay the whole thing to rest. Jeff, could you trust me enough to agree that perhaps no one really meant that rules-knowledge is the only important thing, if I can talk Chuck and Tony into agreeing that perhaps you see value in both the rules-knowledge and the court presence? One of my dreams in life has been to be a mediator in race relation problems. Could I have the chance to practice here?

Rainmaker: Thanks for replying. I know you had mentioned earlier that your daughter is black and is adopted. I assumed (I know, I know) that your husband was black. I applaud you and your husband for taking this position. You seem to be a class lady and if your daughter turns out like you, I know you will "bust a gut", so to speak.

Regarding the reason I originally posted, I do understand plain English and I have noticed that Rut usually capitalizes the "B" and not the "w", and he has stated that he does some things on purpose and I was curious if this was "one of those things". That's all.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by dblref

Regarding the reason I originally posted, I do understand plain English and I have noticed that Rut usually capitalizes the "B" and not the "w", and he has stated that he does some things on purpose and I was curious if this was "one of those things". That's all.

Yes it is very much on purpose. But not for the reasons you want to make it out to be.

Peace

[dblref]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Yes it is very much on purpose. But not for the reasons you want to make it out to be.

Peace

I wasn't "making it out to be" anything. What reason do you think I want to "make it out to be"? Just curious.


[Edited by dblref on Feb 27th, 2003 at 05:58 AM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I did not listen to triple dog dares when I was a shortee, I do not listen to them while I am in my 30s.

Just to be clear, and I hope everyone already realizes this, the "triple-dog dare" was meant in fun. My posts have been very serious in tone and I wanted to put just a little levity into them. The triple-dog dare comes from "A Christmas Story" where the kids dare their friend to put his tongue on the flagpole.

I did not say Tony said it or even JR said it or Mick. So for me to claim something specifically, I would have to point someone out.

You do realize that this is obviously and outrageously false, don't you? Engage brain before typing, please. To make a specific claim, the claim must be made about a particular person? Uh, no. Here's an example. "The car in the driveway at 10 Main Street is red." That's a specific claim. It's verifiable (or falsifiable). It makes no mention of any specific person. Here's another one. A woman goes to the police and says, "Someone has been stalking me." She has no idea who's been following her. She's pointed out no particular person. On your view, the police should tell her to get lost until she can make a real claim.

I do think there are people that feel that way. They bring that to light by the way they have disagreed with or mocked the "presence vs. rules" discussion

I don't mean to get too personal, Jeff, but they're not mocking the discussion; they're mocking you b/c you continue to claim that they believe that ONLY the rules test matters. They don't believe that, and since you won't listen when they tell you that, you make yourself the target of the discussion.

Originally posted by ChuckElias
In any intellectual or scientific dialogue, a person who asserts that something is true is expected by his audience to present evidence or support for his assertions.

In most intellectual or scientific dialogues that I have been a party to, do not give specific, undeniable evidence to back up a point.[/quote][/b]
So what? I never asked you to give "undeniable" evidence. All I asked for was for you to produce one single solitary sentence from any post in which somebody seriously propounded the view that you have tried to ascribe to them.

Most of the time it is opinion and analysis. That is what I did, that is what I stand by.

I might disagree that this is true of scientific discussions. But even if you are right, and you may be, that's not what you did. In order to do analysis, you have to have something that you are analyzing. Some data, some observations, some text, something. You've provided none of that. You've made a false statement that has no basis in fact, whatsoever. And you haven't even bothered to try to give any rationale for that statement.

Because you do not believe that anyone feels that way, I do. It is called an opinion and I stand by it.

Ah, we're back to this old chestnut, are we? Well, Jeff, you and I have had this discussion before. You did not state an opinion. You stated a matter of fact. You said:

we have people on this board that think your test score is the determiner of what officiating is all about.

That's not an opinion. You are making a claim of FACT. It's either true or false. And in fact, it's false. Your statement is no different from saying that 2 + 2 = 5. You can say "it's my opinion" all day, but that doesn't mean that two and two really are five. You can say

we have people on this board that think your test score is the determiner of what officiating is all about.

all day but it doesn't make it true. It doesn't even make it "true for you". It's objectively false.

And when we are talking about opinions and different views on the facts, I can hardly be a liar when we do not agree on what the facts are.

As I said, this is not a matter of opinions. This is a matter of what the facts are. Now, perhaps we really do not agree on what the facts are. All I've been asking you to do -- all along -- is to show me the FACTS that back up your claim. Help me out, and share with me the same facts that you have. Because if I'm wrong, I want to know that, I really do.

So please, I'll ask again, please show me one post, one sentence -- anything -- that supports your view and I will shut up about this topic forever.

And finally, Jeff, I have never called you a liar. I have never said that you have intentionally tried to mislead anybody. I think you're wrong. I think you are perpetuating a falsehood. But if you're an honorable person, you will either prove your claim or stop making it.

Chuck

[Jurassic Referee]

Ah, once more you set out to slay that dastardly windmill, Don Chuckote!



"Good luck"....Sancho Referee

[Dan_ref]

Keep pushing buddy.

[ronald]

Jurassic Park and Dan_Ref

Those are real good. Where did you get them?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ronald
Jurassic Park and Dan_Ref

Those are real good. Where did you get them?

Ronald,all you have to do is punch in the subject matter that you want into GOOGLE,and then hunt up an image that you think is fitting.Right click on the image you want,and then left click on "view image".Write down the URL. For animated Gif's,just punch that in too,and they will show you what sites are available.If you hit "quote" at the end of one of the posts with a picture or gif in it,you can see how the picture or gif can be put in.

We have fun with it.

Jurassic Park??

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 27th, 2003 at 01:17 PM]