Possible rules changes for 2009

[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.