Possible rules changes for 2009

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Good grief!

One example will do. Then again you have to have an example. Accountability is really not your strong suit I see.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

One example will do. Then again you have to have an example. Accountability is really not your strong suit I see.

Peace

Accountability to whom, for what? Why should I be required to waste any of my time looking through all the garbage to repeat "stuff" that's already been written. Daggo66 chose to ask a stupid rehtorical question and I chose to answer it, directly, to the extent I felt it deserved.

I've stated several times before, when I refer to "you" it is often a collective you (as in pack of hyenas) and I'm not going to bother separating the barbs. "Lie down with dogs (hyenas) you'll get up with fleas"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Accountability to whom, for what? Why should I be required to waste any of my time looking through all the garbage to repeat "stuff" that's already been written. Daggo66 chose to ask a stupid rehtorical question and I chose to answer it, directly, to the extent I felt it deserved.

I've stated several times before, when I refer to "you" it is often a collective you (as in pack of hyenas) and I'm not going to bother separating the barbs. "Lie down with dogs (hyenas) you'll get up with fleas"

You are accountable to the people here if you make statements (on here) that are incorrect. And if you choose not to answer questions after making very specific claims, then your credibility with people here goes in the toliet. And whether you realize it or not, if you ever try to talk about things in the future on this site that have nothing to do with the A-11, your comments will be under scrutiny by many people and dismissed by many people based on the fact you cannot answer a simple question. If you choose not to care that is your right, but do not expect people in the future to just give you a pass or accept your point of view.

Do what you want (I do) but then again I do not preach to the entire board to do anything I suggest. I am only talking to you about this issue.

Peace

[waltjp]

Just one question - does anyone else see the hypocrisy in complaining about personal attacks in one post and then referring to posters as a pack of hyenas?

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Just one question - does anyone else see the hypocrisy in complaining about personal attacks in one post and then referring to posters as a pack of hyenas?

Yes.

It must be fun for whoever evaluates his games and tells him what he needs to work on.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are accountable to the people here if you make statements (on here) that are incorrect. And if you choose not to answer questions after making very specific claims, then your credibility with people here goes in the toliet.
Peace

Perhaps you could remind me of what, "statements (on here) that are incorrect" I've made that you are referring to. While you're at it, what specific questions, that are within my power to answer, are you seeking guidance on? Questions about why other people may have chosen to do, or not do, something are obviously beyond the reach of my headlights. Perhaps you think your beams shine into the minds of others, sorry mine don't.

I presume that any statements I make here would be scrutinized by anyone who chooses to read them, isn't that what an exchange of perspectives is supposed to be all about. I'm not intending to preaching to anyone, I'm simply stating that certain comments and a certain tone is over the line, and all the empty threats, barking and posturing is not going to bring them back, or move the line.

Why would you think I, or anyone, should expect a pass or anyone should accept a point of view that doesn't merit acceptance based on it's own value? That's not the way things work, usually.

Waltjp, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think you can actually render a personal attack against a hyena. Although hyenas might not fully understand or agree with that assessment.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Perhaps you could remind me of what, "statements (on here) that are incorrect" I've made that you are referring to. While you're at it, what specific questions, that are within my power to answer, are you seeking guidance on? Questions about why other people may have chosen to do, or not do, something are obviously beyond the reach of my headlights. Perhaps you think your beams shine into the minds of others, sorry mine don't.

This is the most accurate statement you have made the entire time have been here.

Originally Posted by ajmc

I presume that any statements I make here would be scrutinized by anyone who chooses to read them, isn't that what an exchange of perspectives is supposed to be all about. I'm not intending to preaching to anyone, I'm simply stating that certain comments and a certain tone is over the line, and all the empty threats, barking and posturing is not going to bring them back, or move the line.

Yes you are preaching and that is why you have not shown one link, not one quote or one statement to show how people have been out of line. Just hyperbole from you because you do not like the fact that people can take another side or comment the way they do.

You are just about the only person that has introduced libel and slander in all these conversations, but cannot produce one fact that shows such activity.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Why would you think I, or anyone, should expect a pass or anyone should accept a point of view that doesn't merit acceptance based on it's own value? That's not the way things work, usually.

Waltjp, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think you can actually render a personal attack against a hyena. Although hyenas might not fully understand or agree with that assessment.

I have not asked you to accept one point of view of mine. Personally what you think about this issue is not my concern and never was and never will be. And the funny thing you have hardly read me talk about a point of view. I just want you to show one comment that someone said that was out of line or inappropriate or a lie. All you can do is get made because someone is telling the truth about someone's motives and someone's position.

Here are things you have not been able to dispute: Kurt is selling A-11 materials after claiming he was not. Kurt lied about approval with the NF for this offense when there was no such approval by the NF. Kurt has repeated these lies on this website or other websites. Kurt claims that officials all over the country approve of the offense. The last is not true just by the simple fact of what people are saying on this board alone.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is the most accurate statement you have made the entire time have been here.

I just want you to show one comment that someone said that was out of line or inappropriate or a lie.

Here are things you have not been able to dispute: Kurt is selling A-11 materials after claiming he was not. Kurt lied about approval with the NF for this offense when there was no such approval by the NF. Kurt has repeated these lies on this website or other websites. Kurt claims that officials all over the country approve of the offense. The last is not true just by the simple fact of what people are saying on this board alone.

Peace

Now, you're just being silly. Do you really expect me to wallow through all the garbage that's been laid out to prove to you where the smell comes from. Not likely.

Let's look at these "sins" you're so positive and worked up about. "Kurt is selling A-11 materials after claiming he was not" What you decry as being so negative as "selling", might just as accurately be seen as distributing and recurring the cost of doing so. KB obviously believes (right or wrong) in his idea, and has every right to try and promote it and try and persuade others to accept and believe it.

"Kurt lied about approval with the NF for this offense when there was no such approval by the NF. Seems like a really insignificant semantics argument. Is suggesting a declaration that something is "not illegal" a whole lot different than being "approved", possibly a poor choice of words, but does it make ANY real difference?

"Kurt has repeated these lies on this website or other websites." Without a lot more specifics, I can't comment, other than to suggest very often the word "lie" is a really poor choice of words and an excessive exaggeration. You might consider other words like; mistake, exaggeration, misunderstanding, stretch or spin that don't include the connotation of a deliberate and intentional effor to deceive or mislead.

"Kurt claims that officials all over the country approve of the offense." After spending some time on this, and other forums, I might question whether there is ANYTHING "officials all over the country approve of". Would this observation be an exaggeration? Somewhat, but would it have misled any official, who has been awake for the past 2 years, doubtful, so what difference does it make (advantage/disadvantage)?

Be honest, you can stack these, and other, transgressions on top of each other and they pose the same hazard as tripping over a sheet of paper. The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to promote an idea, he apparently believes in, perhaps excessively at times. So what.

It may very well be an idea that is wrong, an idea that may yet be judged not in the best interest of the game and ultimately prohibited. All that would prove is that it was a bad idea, a different assessment, a different perspective. The personal attacks, negative remarks about integrity and dishonesty, accusations of lying and deliberately trying to deceive, with claims that were so slanted no official on the planet could be misled by them, were all over blown, grossly exaggerated, progressively nasty and usually excessive.

Sorry Rut, but when the blood first hit the water, several of you lost control of your emotions and went in for the kill, which was totally unnecessary and added nothing to the discussion. All this huffing and puffing, demands for evidence and attempts at victimhood are not going to wipe the blood off your chin. Intentional or not, all this bullying, effort to coerce or intimidate and insistence on turning every minor detail, or poorly chosen phrase into it's worst imaginable conspiracy has simply gotten way out of hand. It is what it is, and how you deal with it is not going to change what it is.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Now, you're just being silly. Do you really expect me to wallow through all the garbage that's been laid out to prove to you where the smell comes from. Not likely.

Then why did you respond if what I am saying is garbage?

Originally Posted by ajmc

Let's look at these "sins" you're so positive and worked up about. "Kurt is selling A-11 materials after claiming he was not" What you decry as being so negative as "selling", might just as accurately be seen as distributing and recurring the cost of doing so. KB obviously believes (right or wrong) in his idea, and has every right to try and promote it and try and persuade others to accept and believe it.

I did not say I was worked up about anything. But your entire purpose the last few weeks was to suggest that people were being libelous or slanderous against Kurt based on a pack mentality. There is nothing wrong with Kurt selling anything, I am in a sales business. But I am also not denying that fact and never have and never will. Kurt claimed he was purely trying to change the game for the better and it was proven that was not the case. All you have to do is a Google search and you will see many products that Kurt is associated with to sell this offense as apart of his claiming the offense has been "approved."

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Kurt lied about approval with the NF for this offense when there was no such approval by the NF. Seems like a really insignificant semantics argument. Is suggesting a declaration that something is "not illegal" a whole lot different than being "approved", possibly a poor choice of words, but does it make ANY real difference?

I am sorry, but when you tell people that have insight on this that the NF has approved your offense and after you first make those statements several states outlaw the offense and vow to change current NF Rules, that is a misrepresentation of many facts. And the only evidence you can show for that approval is one quote the Chairperson of the Committee. But you exclude all the other comments from current and past committee members that clearly are not giving their "approval" to your offense. Then you are writing letters or preparing information for the committee for something that has already been "approved." I think Kurt thinks we are all stupid when he does not realize (like a lot of coaches do not know) how rules are changed. Look at every sports specific board and there is talk about new rules long before the committee actually meets to change anything. This comment alone took away a lot of Kurt's credibility and you do not have to take my word for it. Just look at the posts Kurt has taken place in.

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Kurt has repeated these lies on this website or other websites." Without a lot more specifics, I can't comment, other than to suggest very often the word "lie" is a really poor choice of words and a n excessive exaggeration. You might consider other words like; mistake, exaggeration, misunderstanding, stretch, spin that don't include the connotation of a deliberate and intentional effor to deceive or mislead.

You can look directly at the NF Website Discussion boards. This topic was discussed a lot over the last couple of years. Some of the most discussed topics involved this offense and Kurt took part in just about all of them. And many people here are some of the same people that read the same comments on the other board.

Originally Posted by ajmc

"Kurt claims that officials all over the country approve of the offense." After spending some time on this, and other forums, I might question whether there is ANYTHING "officials all over the country approve of". Would this observation be an exaggeration? Yes, but would it have misled any official, who has been awake for the past 2 years, doubtful, so what difference does it make (advantage/disadvantage)?

The difference it makes is you claim that what we have said and what I have said was out of line. IF you tell a story and it is found out to be not true, I think it is my right or anyone's right to state that you have lied or tried to mislead everyone with information. And the people that have been involved in these discussions have come from all over the world (not just country BTW). And when people in completely different jurisdictions have openly discussed their opposition to this offense and the rules used to allow it, then states follow by making the offense illegal, it is a little disingenuous to keep repeating as if officials all over the place have not seen any problems with your offense. And I have worked the offense and I do see this as possible problem for officials. And when I worked the offense I was working with 3 other state final officials and two of us later in the year became state final officials, so the officials I was working with had a lot of experience and understanding of the game. And the school that I witnessed running the offense, did not use the offense at their lower levels for some reason. And rules are not just for the varsity level, they are for all levels. It does matter when you make claims about who feels what and who they are. Kurt even misrepresented the article in which myself, a NF Committee member were also quoted in our comments as if to suggest that we "approved" or that there would not be review of the rules in the future. All things if you simply do a Google search are not hard to find.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Be honest, you can stack these, and other, transgressions on top of each other and they pose the same hazard as tripping over a sheet of paper. The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to promote an idea, he apparently believes in.

This is not about belief. What I just references is not about belief, those are facts. And the fact that you have yet to show one comment that I made or anyone else made that we were untrue is telling. That is all people have been saying and you accused them of being unfair or unprofessional to make such claims.

Originally Posted by ajmc

It may very well be an idea that is wrong, an idea that may yet be judged not in the best interest of the game and ultimately prohibited. All that would prove is that it was a bad idea. The personal attacks, negative remarks about integrity and dishonesty, accusations of lying and deliberately trying to deceive, with assessments and claimsthat were so slanted no official on the planet could be misled by them, were all over blown, grossly exaggerated and excessive.

Once again, I do not care about best interest of the game or if the offense is legal or not. As someone said, I was very open minded about this from the beginning and tended to be one of the voices that had little problem with the efforts of Kurt. But when he stated lying about facts and statements made by others, he lost me big time. If the NF chooses to not change the rule, I do not think it is going to make that big of a difference, because states will still likely outlaw the offense (more might follow) and I doubt I will see many teams where I am from try it or risk their entire season on such an unproven offense.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Sorry Rut, but when the blood first hit the water, several of you lost control of your emotions and went in for the kill, which was totally unnecessary and added nothing to the discussion. All this huffing and puffing and demands for evidence is not going to wipe the blood off your chin. Intentional or not, all this bullying, attempt to coerce or intimidate and insistence on turning every minor detail and phrase into it's worst imaginable conspiracy has simply gotten out of hand. It is what it is, and how you deal with it is not going to change what it is.

This conversation has been going on much longer than you even know. And when this conversation first started (well over a year ago) there were many people that objectively looked at the offense and what it brought. And officials were trying to figure out the premise and the rules that covered it. What you think you know, was long after Kurt lied, misrepresented and commented on things that were clearly not true or clearly proven to not be true. And you still have not shown one thing I have said that suggested that I have misrepresented facts or said anything that was slightly true.

And you are just like Kurt, when asked for specifics we cannot get a straight answer. But you have continually called me names all because I want you to prove what you say. And the main reason I keep responding to you, because I know you are not going to show a single thing that suggest I was out of line or unprofessional. And in the end that exposes what you know and what you not know. You have even said in this recent response, you do not even know the facts or the background.

Thank you for proving my point. That is all I wanted to do.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is the most accurate statement you have made the entire time have been here.

I just want you to show one comment that someone said that was out of line or inappropriate or a lie.

Here are things you have not been able to dispute: Kurt is selling A-11 materials after claiming he was not. Kurt lied about approval with the NF for this offense when there was no such approval by the NF. Kurt has repeated these lies on this website or other websites. Kurt claims that officials all over the country approve of the offense. The last is not true just by the simple fact of what people are saying on this board alone.

Peace

Now, you're just being silly. Do you really expect me to wallow through all the garbage that's been laid out to prove to you where the smell comes from. Not likely.

Let's look at these "sins" you're so positive and worked up about. "Kurt is selling A-11 materials after claiming he was not" What you decry as being so negative as "selling", might just as accurately be seen as distributing and recurring the cost of doing so. KB obviously believes (right or wrong) in his idea, and has every right to try and promote it and try and persuade others to accept and believe it.

"Kurt lied about approval with the NF for this offense when there was no such approval by the NF. Seems like a really insignificant semantics argument. Is suggesting a declaration that something is "not illegal" a whole lot different than being "approved", possibly a poor choice of words, but does it make ANY real difference?

"Kurt has repeated these lies on this website or other websites." Without a lot more specifics, I can't comment, other than to suggest very often the word "lie" is a really poor choice of words and a n excessive exaggeration. You might consider other words like; mistake, exaggeration, misunderstanding, stretch, spin that don't include the connotation of a deliberate and intentional effor to deceive or mislead.

"Kurt claims that officials all over the country approve of the offense." After spending some time on this, and other forums, I might question whether there is ANYTHING "officials all over the country approve of". Would this observation be an exaggeration? Yes, but would it have misled any official, who has been awake for the past 2 years, doubtful, so what difference does it make (advantage/disadvantage)?

Be honest, you can stack these, and other, transgressions on top of each other and they pose the same hazard as tripping over a sheet of paper. The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to promote an idea, he apparently believes in.

It may very well be an idea that is wrong, an idea that may yet be judged not in the best interest of the game and ultimately prohibited. All that would prove is that it was a bad idea. The personal attacks, negative remarks about integrity and dishonesty, accusations of lying and deliberately trying to deceive, with assessments and claimsthat were so slanted no official on the planet could be misled by them, were all over blown, grossly exaggerated and excessive.

Sorry Rut, but when the blood first hit the water, several of you lost control of your emotions and went in for the kill, which was totally unnecessary and added nothing to the discussion. All this huffing and puffing and demands for evidence is not going to wipe the blood off your chin. Intentional or not, all this bullying, attempt to coerce or intimidate and insistence on turning every minor detail and phrase into it's worst imaginable conspiracy has simply gotten out of hand. It is what it is, and how you deal with it is not going to change what it is.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Now, you're just being silly. Do you really expect me to wallow through all the garbage that's been laid out to prove to you where the smell comes from. Not likely.

Let's look at these "sins" you're so positive and worked up about. "Kurt is selling A-11 materials after claiming he was not" What you decry as being so negative as "selling", might just as accurately be seen as distributing and recurring the cost of doing so. KB obviously believes (right or wrong) in his idea, and has every right to try and promote it and try and persuade others to accept and believe it.

"Kurt lied about approval with the NF for this offense when there was no such approval by the NF. Seems like a really insignificant semantics argument. Is suggesting a declaration that something is "not illegal" a whole lot different than being "approved", possibly a poor choice of words, but does it make ANY real difference?

"Kurt has repeated these lies on this website or other websites." Without a lot more specifics, I can't comment, other than to suggest very often the word "lie" is a really poor choice of words and a n excessive exaggeration. You might consider other words like; mistake, exaggeration, misunderstanding, stretch, spin that don't include the connotation of a deliberate and intentional effor to deceive or mislead.

"Kurt claims that officials all over the country approve of the offense." After spending some time on this, and other forums, I might question whether there is ANYTHING "officials all over the country approve of". Would this observation be an exaggeration? Yes, but would it have misled any official, who has been awake for the past 2 years, doubtful, so what difference does it make (advantage/disadvantage)?

Be honest, you can stack these, and other, transgressions on top of each other and they pose the same hazard as tripping over a sheet of paper. The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to promote an idea, he apparently believes in.

Now, taking into account all that you stated above, why do you think he would join an officials forum in order to promote and make those claims?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The indisputable fact is there is nothing that has been stated, suggested or inferred that amounts to anything more than someone trying to dishonestly promote an idea, he apparently believes in will make him money.

I cut out all the BS, then I fixed it for you. You're welcome.