People Skills...

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by JRutledge
There is not passage in the rulebook that even uses the word advantage/disadvantage, but you have advocated that language as it relates to fouls and violations. I have never suggested that you were wrong or that what you said was not the language of the rulebook. But then again, here is an actual example. I think that is what you wanted to here.

From the NF 2002-03 Rules Book page 8 - "The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules"....

"A player or a team should not permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule."

Rut - what book have you been (or have not been) reading?

[cmckenna]

At the end of the day, it all sums up with....

"We all wake up in the morning, put our clothes on and go to work.... and basketball is just a GAME"

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
This is not about evidence. I did not really give you any evidence or really try to give you evidence.

Really? I could've sworn that you were trying to give me evidence. Because in your previous post, from which I quoted, you wrote this toward the end:

Is that proof enough? I do not expect it to be. . .

So at that time, you clearly thought you were giving proof, since you ask if it's "proof enough". Proving something generally requires some sort of evidence. But when I demonstrate that your evidence doesn't prove anything at all, suddenly "this is not about evidence"? That's pretty slippery. Are you practicing for elective office?

This is not a courtroom and even in a courtroom, what is true and what is false tends to be up for judgement

Yes, but the facts themselves do not depend on that judgment. You can make a judgment that there are people posting on this board who believe that rule knowledge is the ONLY thing necessary for being an outstanding official. But that judgment would be incorrect. It's still false, and doesn't become true magically just b/c it's your judgment.

I have been on this board for probably 5 years or so and there has been many things said over that period of time.

Then, please, by all means, show me one. Show me one single post that anyone has made that indicates that he or she believes what you claim. Just one. That's all I've been asking. But somehow, in 8 pages of posts, you haven't been able to come up with one, have you? I wonder why that is. Because there aren't any to find. Admit it. Please.

BTW, I will continue to say what I feel. Everyone has that right to do that here or any other place.

Everyone has the right to say what they feel? What a novel concept. Then why did you previously tell me:

You have no right to tell me what to say

In any case, as I said already, I would not tell you that you can't say something. Although, I do wish you would stop making this false claim unless you can substantiate it somehow. You can substantiate it, right? I mean, you're not the mindless kind of person who holds beliefs for no reason at all, are you?

Chuck

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

From the NF 2002-03 Rules Book page 8 - "The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules"....

". . .not permitted an advantage which. . . placing a player at a disadvantage. . . ."

Yes, but "advantage" and "disadvantage" do not appear together with a slash between them with no spaces, as in "advantage/disadvantage".

Good thing we're not talking about "holding" vs. "grabbing".

Chuck

[JRutledge]

At the end of the day, who cares. I stand by my original statement. I do not need to prove anything to have an opinion, which you are your hommies love to give me time and time again.

Peace

[ROMANO]

i think that the record has broken in this long thread...
good job ,fox.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by JRutledge
At the end of the day, who cares. I stand by my original statement. I do not need to prove anything to have an opinion, which you are your hommies love to give me time and time again.

Peace

What's a "hommie"? Is that anything like a "homey"? Or is it a stay-at-home mom?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
At the end of the day, who cares.

My opinion is that at the end of the day, you should care. If you don't care that you hold false beliefs, if you don't care that you are perpetrating falsehoods against your brother officials, if you don't care that you have no support whatsoever for your own beliefs, then I think that's sad, personally. I would always prefer to hold true beliefs than to hold false ones. And I would be ashamed to spread falsehoods about other officials, when it's been made clear to me that my comments are false. I would be an intellectual fraud if I refused to acknowledge an obvious error in my belief system. Those are things that I care deeply about. I think those say something about me as a person, not merely as an official. I would think that you ought to care about them too. But that's just my opinion.

I stand by my original statement.

Your original statement is utterly false. You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for believing it. Every time you state it, you are knowingly spreading that falsehood. What does that say about you?

I do not need to prove anything to have an opinion

Very true. If, however, you could provide any evidence whatsoever for your belief, you might actually have some credibility on these discussion boards. Furthermore, if you were simply to say that you were mistaken and stop repeating your "opinion" on this topic, your credibility and the respect for you among other posters here would skyrocket.

Chuck

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias


At the end of the day, who cares.

My opinion is that at the end of the day, you should care. If you don't care that you hold false beliefs, if you don't care that you are perpetrating falsehoods against your brother officials, if you don't care that you have no support whatsoever for your own beliefs, then I think that's sad, personally. I would always prefer to hold true beliefs than to hold false ones. And I would be ashamed to spread falsehoods about other officials, when it's been made clear to me that my comments are false. I would be an intellectual fraud if I refused to acknowledge an obvious error in my belief system. Those are things that I care deeply about. I think those say something about me as a person, not merely as an official. I would think that you ought to care about them too. But that's just my opinion.[/b][/quote]

This would be all true if I considered it false. I will be waiting for your sticking up for other things that anyone considers false. For one, you and your hommies say all kinds of false things about me personally. They claim all kinds of things about me and spread them constantly. I am the target and I do not care. Because what someone thinks on this board is not going to hold me back for anything. So I guess it just depends on what keeps up up at night.

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Very true. If, however, you could provide any evidence whatsoever for your belief, you might actually have some credibility on these discussion boards. Furthermore, if you were simply to say that you were mistaken and stop repeating your "opinion" on this topic, your credibility and the respect for you among other posters here would skyrocket.

That would be wonderful if I was seeking respect and credibility among officials on this board. We can all run our mouths about what we do or what we have done, but the reality is what people witness when we are on the floor or in "real life." But then again maybe to some that uses alias names and hiding true identities is a place I need to worry about credibility. But then again Chuck, this is your world I am just living in it.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
This would be all true if I considered it false.

First, everything I said is true, whether you consider your claim to be false or not. Notice that all my statements of fact were made about me, personally. I would rather have true beliefs than false ones. I would be an intellectual fraud, etc. Those are statements of fact, they are about me and are true regardless of whatever world view you hold. The only statements that I made about you were clearly predicated by saying that they were opinions on my part: "I would think that you would care about it too."

Second, your claim -- as I think I have shown by now -- is completely false, whether you consider it to be so or not. The fact you believe something to be true does not make it so (regardless of what William James says). You can believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean it is. And the fact that you believe that there are some people posting on this board who think that rule knowledge is the only thing necessary to be an outstanding official does not imply that there are people who believe that. Quite to the contrary, your utter failure to produce even one sentence to support your claim tends to show that your belief is false; as everyone (including yourself, I'm starting to think) knows.

I will be waiting for your sticking up for other things that anyone considers false.

You'll have to keep waiting, I guess. I don't stick up for things that people think are false. I stick up for things that I know to be true. I have no idea what you mean by that comment.

you and your hommies say all kinds of false things about me personally.

First, I don't have hommies or homeys or whatever. Second, I have never knowingly said any false thing about you. When I make a comment about you, it's either something that you've told me, or I preface it by saying that I could be wrong about it. So whatever your complaint is, it's not on me.

They claim all kinds of things about me and spread them constantly.

Show me an example and I will be on your side, Jeff. Nobody should be saying untrue things intentionally about other officials. If people are doing this, I will most definitely do what I can to correct any misrepresentations. Just point them out to me. Just as you shouldn't be the target of false statements, however, neither should you continue to make your current false statement about others.

That would be wonderful if I was seeking respect and credibility among officials on this board.

Sadly, this is the answer I expected. And this answer is exactly why you have neither respect nor credibility among the greater part of officials who post here, I'm sorry to say.

But then again Chuck, this is your world I am just living in it.

Once again, this has nothing to do with anything at all and is not even true. I'll roll my eyes, too, for solidarity

Let me turn this whole thing around for a second and ask you a question. What would it take to convince you that nobody actually believes that rule knowledge is all it takes to be an outstanding official? You've been claiming all along that there are people who believe that. So what would convince you that they don't? What could we do here to prove ourselves to you, since you can't prove yourself to me? I'm not saying necessarily that I'd do it; I'm just curious what it would take to convince you that you'd actually made an error in judgment.

Chuck

[JRutledge]

Chuck,

I am glad you have claimed that you know what everyone that is an official thinks. I am glad you have had conversations with officials here and outside here and have come to a conclusion that we all should and do think alike.

You seemed to know more about this issue than anyone else.

Peace

[just another ref]

This thread is kinda like the jug of sour milk. We know it was sour days ago, so why do we all keep sticking our noses up to smell it again. Has any new ground been broken in the last couple of pages. If so, it escapes me. Does one side think the other will eventually surrender, or is this merely a battle of wills where neither is willing to give up the last word. By page 14 will the posts read: Oh, yeah? Yeah! Shall we take a vote of whose side we are on? Tune in again (hit refresh) to find the answers to these, but probably no other questions.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Chuck,

I am glad you have claimed that you know what everyone that is an official thinks.

This all started when you made this statement.

Originally posted by JRutledge
One of the main reasons it is not defined is because we have people on this board that think your test score is the determiner of what officiating is all about.

You accuse Chuck of knowing what people think, yet you made this very statement.

You're completely clueless.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by oatmealqueen
That "V" Palmer interview got me thinking about her superior "people skills". We talk about having good PS all of the time, but seems we never define exactly what that is. What are some of your opinions about important "people skills"?

Did we ever get any answers to this question?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy

Did we ever get any answers to this question?

You'll NEVER get answers. Only opinions.