Quote from Veteran Official that's seen the most A-11 Games in the Nation
 

Dear Officials:

Today, the new article came out about the A-11 Offense from American Football Monthly, you can read the whole thing on their web site. But it is interesting when they interviewed Sam Moriana, a 50-year Veteran Official, and the one Ref in the nation who has seen more A-11 games than any other Official. There are lots of similar quotes from Refs like this one, but this is very interesting....

Thanks, KB


Myths vs. Facts - The A-11 Offense a Year Later
by: Mike Kuchar
Senior Writer, American Football Monthly
© January 2009


The A-11 offense is impossible to be refereed due to determining pre-snap who is eligible and who is ineligible.

Sam Moriana, 50-year veteran of officiating, (CA)

“Any good high school official who is competent would have no problem officiating a game showcasing the A-11 scheme. They just need to be alert as to who is eligible on each play. They just have to be on their toes. It doesn’t take extra work, just intelligence. There may be flags thrown on each play, but once the ball doesn’t cross the line of scrimmage (let’s say on a screen play for instance) we just pick up the laundry. It’s really no big deal. We have had no complaints from any officials whatsoever that have refereed their games. The biggest pressure really is on the wing men – the head linesman and the line judge – because they are the ones who determine who is eligible. Piedmont doesn’t jockey back-and-forth. They let their position players be known which makes it easier on us. They declare it. They stay in the SKF (Scrimmage Kick Formation) with two deep backs all the time at least seven yards behind the LOS so they can still deploy five potential receivers. I think it’s only a matter of time before college rules committees take a look at this formation and allow it for downs other than fourth in the college game and make it an every-down possibility.”

How about visiting the other thread and answering:

What is the purpose, spirit, and intent of the numbering exception?

Crickets are still chirping.

Not many of us who have said we could not officiate this ridiculousness. That is not the issue.

Just wondering.....why can't you run this and just make sure 5 of your 11 are wearing 50-79 and are on the LOS? What advantage do you get by not having 5 numbered 50-79 on the LOS?

He never gives up. I often wonder, if it's so legal, then why is he trying to convince us?

BTW, Mods, I'm pretty sure it's against forum rules to post copyrighted material.

TXMike - Surely you jest. Then you would be running an offense in line with the rules concerning the proper numbering of players.

What a concept to actually have the offense match the rules as they were intended!

People quote paragraphs from copyrighted rule books all the time. Why is this any different?

Having contact with the webmaster of NFHS.org, I know that they do not have a problem with references used in discussions. They do not, however, allow the rules to be posted in whole on websites.

Those copyrights on rule books (except those of proprietary games like Monopoly) are bogus, and would never stand up legally. That's because copyright is not meant to protect utilitarian writing such as instructions. And they know it, which is why Fed & NFL copied freely from NCAA's language, most of which can be traced back even further, and why minor leagues that write their own copy freely from the above as well, as other pro leagues did from NFL's -- and then had the cheek to put on their own copyright notices! I know of at least one long verbatim passage that was in common between the Canadian Rugby Union and NCAA, going back to before NCAA was founded. There exists a tiny bit of remaining inherited shared wording between the International Rugby Football Board and North American football governing bodies, in the definitions of the kicks.

The only possible intellectual property protection a football organiz'n could have on the details of its rules would be a patent, such as the one Arena Football had on the method of use of the rebounding screen. They can trademark their properties, and copyright authorized accounts of games played within the organiz'n (though not the facts of the results themselves, which are news -- unless they played the games in secret), but not have a meaningful copyright on the wording of their rules, regardless of any notices claimed to that effect.

Robert

They wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to sue for a violation of their copyright. All someone would have to do would to submit to the court an NCAA rule book, and show that the great majority of Fed's content is verbatim from there -- and that's before even getting at the legality of copyright on instructions.

If Fed then said they only meant to protect the provisions that were uniquely their own, the question to be asked would be, "Have you tried to protect those bits as trade secrets?"

The only thing Fed could do would be to sue for trademark infringement if someone published a "counterfeit" rule book saying it was authorized by Fed, like copies of designer clothes, etc. As long as it's not represented as a book printed for and sold or licensed by Fed, it's OK.

See the case of Affiliated Hospital Prods. versus Merdel Game Mfg.

Robert

Being from the academic world, any quote that is copied directly from a copyrighted work should be cited somehow, which I believe we do all the time by citing the rule number and which rule code we're citing from. You folks have nothing to worry about. Important thing is you give credit where credit is due (although the way FED writes their stuff....).

Hey you California guys, is this for real?

This guy is a 50 year veteran official. That means he's probably in his 70's. Can he really even still effectively officiate and keep up? Kind of a "Johnny come lately" last minute witness for the defense or is it just some made up guy. Either way, not a very creditable testimony.

The biggest pressure really is on the wing men – the head linesman and the line judge – because they are the ones who determine who is eligible.

Duh! .. oh, what about the U.. er.. and the B ... oh well, never mind. Nice try. See ya grandpa!

NFHS Rules Quiz
 

With the discussion of copyrighting and shareing, I had a question to this body who seems fairly knowledgeable about this stuff. I offered to send a copy of the Part II quiz on a local HS site to allow people to see how well they would do. I was told by another official that I was not allowed to do that because the material had copyright protection. He said they had been warned previously by the NFHS for doing this.

Is this a similar issue in that technically I shouldn't forward it but if challenged in court I would probably win. I want to honor the spirit of the copyright so I'm not going to do it. I was just wondering if this was a similar issue.

I'll hang up now and listen to your answer.

AFM just happens to be selling a certain product on DVD.

I am shocked that no dissenting view is presented....:rolleyes:

I had hoped once the Presidential election was over, the lunatic fringe would crawl back into their hole and all the vile chatracter assassination BS would melt away. I guess not.

Apparently JayBird, you don't even know if this official exists or anything about him, but you are quick and eager to trash him and 50 years of service to football. You should be embarrassed, but I doubt you have enough class to know why.

Let's add some more smoke about the evils of copyright infringement. The way these discussions are spiraling, I think hyenas might have a legitimate gripe.

This has to be said.

It is not character assassination to point out an obvious flaw in someone's argument when they clearly do not know (or do not say) the proper procedure. And to name this person as evidence of what other officials might think is a little silly.

I am sorry this little crusade you are trying to take when someone disagrees with someone is a little over the top. This has nothing to do with the election or the current (or soon to be) President of the United States.

Peace

EXACTLY! I'm gald you've finally come over to our side ! We don't know if he exists, yet KB is willing to put him out there as a testimonial. 50 years of experience in what capacity? Being old doesn't mean you're good. I rather hear what is resume is during those 50 years. I think it's odd that KB left that out. If he's done 20 state finals during those 50 years don't you think KB would want the world to know that?

I was hoping KB and the lunatic fringe WOULD go away. But you're still here. Pity.

Tick tock on the A-11. It will be all gone and forgotten soon enough. Boo hoo.

For a test like that, the question copyright law asks is whether there would be a great number of ways to express the same content. If the test is just short answer stuff about Fed officiating, then the answer is probably "no" -- that there are only a few ways to put questions testing one's knowledge of that subject. In that case, a copyright would tend to convert knowledge of the subject into a secret -- which it is not -- and thereby provide an illegitimate means of monopolizing knowledge about the subject.

It's like recipes. A cookbook can have all kinds of chitchat between the recipes that would be copyrightable, but not the recipes themselves because practically speaking there are few useful ways to express such useful knowledge.

However, I know people who like you feel that when an author has done a lot of work compiling recipes (in these people's case, recipes for fireworks), that even if they're not secrets, they won't communicate them to others because they want the author to benefit from the sale of the books. If you feel the same way about Fed and their revenue, fine.

Still, the particular compilation of test questions is copyrightable, the way a long passage of a cookbook covering several recipes would be protectable by copyright, even without a lot of chitchat in between. I suppose someone might make the same argument about the order of chapters or sections in a rulebook, but it would apply only if the rules would read as easily regardless of the order they were presented in.

Robert

Sam is 79 and apparently is the assignor of the East Bay Officials. It is unclear in 5 minutes of Googling if he is still an active official.

What is clear is that Sam is the only official widely quoted in different articles about this offense. He must be KB's example of an official who "likes" the offense.

Would it be fair to ask Sam if he's being compensated for his endorsement?

And is there anything in that short snippet from KB that even proves the claim of the post headline. i.e. that he has seen more A-11 games than any other official? ? ? ? ? If he is an assignor, I doubt he has actually seen (and more importantly, OFFICIATED) many games of ANY offense.

Do any of you bother to read the garbage you write. This is getting insane. You are so wrapped up in this A-11 contoversy you'd rather jump to all sorts of negative speculations, presume the absolute worst about an individual you don't know and make all sorts of asinne accusations without any thing to back them up aside from your imaginations.

If you don't believe what coach Bryan, or anybody else has claimed, you are totally free to ignore it, but personally attacking someone you don't even know is what little girls do throwing a hissy-fit.

RichMSN is ready to call this man a liar, and questions whether or not he's still active. Based on what?

Waltjp seems ready to question his integrity presuming he's getting paid to say certain things, whether they're true, or not. Where does that suspicion come from?

Daggo66 seems eager to questions the man's competence over a 50 year career. ("being old doesn't mean you're good"), and somehow feels competent to demand a resume' to prove what?? That his 50 years satisfyies Daggo66's standards? Just who the hell are you to define standards for judging anyone competent, Daggo66?

I am so glad I don't have to worry about ever stepping on a field with any of you. You are so quick, so eager to slash and burn a man who has spent 50 years on the field, for what? Because this man has rendered an opinion of doing something that doesn't fit your view of how something so stupid as this argument, over a formation whose legality and appropriateness is currently under discussion, may yet turn out.

What happened to the "3rd team on the field" concept, the idea of respecting those who do what we do, of supporting fellow officials because we understand the difficulty of the job and the unreasonable expectations we face.

I don't think petty sniping, throwing unsubstantiated allegations against the wall and spreading rumors as a defense against a differing perspective is what anyone had in mind when they speak of courage, honesty and the ability to remain calm and the force of reason and composure when everyone around us is being over emotional is all about.

Some of you are way, WAY too full of yourselves.

Thanks for posting Mrs. Bryan....
 

now get back to ironing Kurt's shirts!

Seems to me if someone makes a claim like KB did, that this official has seen more A11 games than any other official, and uses that to give the fellow some sort of credibility in addition to his credibility as an experienced official, he ought to be able to back it up. The A-11 is all over the country KB would have us believe. So how does he know who has seen the most games. And an assignor would likely not be watching the games of one team. If he is any kind of assignor, he is looking at all the teams he assigns for.

AJ, you become more amusing with each passing day.

I'd rather be full of myself than what you are, sir.

Let me get this straight. BTW, this is my real name and first initial of my first name. Are you telling me, that if I am using my real name and I say that I worked the Big Ten for 20 years and I worked in the NFL this past season, no one is supposed to not only try to verify that information, but just ignore it on its face? Then I keep coming back to give more evidence as to why I have to be listened to or evidence that I actually working in the Big Ten or NFL, with more evidence that cannot be verified?

If you honestly believe that, something is seriously wrong with you. Not because I say so, because there is not an area in society that if I make a claim that is not true, my credibility is going to be in question. And if I have a history of making claims that are not true, then people are going to challenge my motives. They are doing that when it comes to politics and our leaders, to our sports figures and the way the media challenges claims of accomplishment or how they got to where they are today. There is nothing about that childish, unprofessional or out of line to question the evidence that someone claims.

All of this would really go away if KB would just let the issue go. No one told him or me to post this information about this official and based on "experience" which you do not seem to have much of, many of us do not see a team in a two year period of time so much more than anyone else. Not unless you only work one school every single game you work during that period.

Dude, wake up already. :rolleyes:

Peace

That would be character assassination. Shame on you. ;)

Why am I not allowed to dispute what someone has "claimed". Why must I ignore it? Does KB's right to make a statement superscede my right to dispute it?

Based on the same standard we use for everything here. If someone posts a ruling, we will ask for the rule reference. If someone makes a claim they should be prepared to have a reference.

The information is posted as a testimonial. Quite often testimonials are paid.

You never cease to amaze me! We are not allowed to dispute someone's statement since you feel it is personally attacking someone, yet that is exactly what you do each and every time you post here. The difference between you and me is that I will answer your question. You can't go into a job interview and state that you graduated at the top of your class in Harvard unless it is on your resume and it can be verified. As far as me being able to define standards, I have trained many officials over the years. My basic standard is whether or not I would accept that person on my crew. Our organization has officials that have been working for over 15 years that I would not accept, yet there are some with less than 3 years experience that I would accept in a heartbeat.

This is no different than requesting the rule reference. I don't care how long someone has been officiating, I want to know how good they are.

I think that I can safely speak for most of the members on this forum, that we are equally glad that we don't have to worry about stepping on the field with you!

The old saying is that some people have 15 years of experience and some have one year of experience 15 times. I'm with you - there are 30 year vets in this area I would not accept on my crew. They know it all.

(OT: My football crew consists of one guy who's got 5 years (all on my crew), one who has 4 years (all on my crew), one who has 3 years (all on my crew), and a 10 year guy who filled in when I sacked 2 other guys from my crew 3 years ago. I'd take this crew ANYWHERE.)

Daggo66, allow me to offer you some sound advice; when you say something stupid, and it's pointed out to you, you have 3 options; consider the criticism, ignore the criticism or defend what you've said with even more stupid observations. You seem stuck in repeatedly choosing the latter.

I'm tired of saying there is nothing wrong with disputing what someone has said, disagreeing with anything you feel needs to be disagreed with or challenging something. The key is how you go about disagreeing or challenging something.

Again, you get to make choices, you can question, disagree with or challenge the subject matter with logic and common sense or you can attack the person who hold a differing opinion with ridiculous personal attacks, imanginary presumptions and smart alec little barbs, or demand ridiculous requirements to satisfy some higher sense of purpose that somehow you think you've been anointed to set.

I'm just guessing, but I imagine you've been doing this, thing we do, for somewhere between 3 and 7-10 years, because you seem stuck in that phase of officiating, we all have to get though, when we realize that we actually do know and understand more than most idiots who buy tickets and stoll along some sidelines, and think that makes us important.

If you last long enough to get through this phase, you'll realize that although you know and understand a lot more than you did, it's not nearly enough or anywhere close to knowing and understanding what you ultimately need to. You'll eventually realize that you still leave an oder in the bathroom, and you might understand that the reason God gave you two ears, and only one mouth was to teach a lesson. Unfortunately, some officials never get past that phase where they think they know everything and have become smarter than everone else.

Rather than direct all your focus on nit picling everything someone with a different perspective offers, you might consider that those tidbits, right or wrong, have been offered respectfully and usually stick to the subject matter, rather than attack or demonize some imaginary motivation for your disagreeing. The negative emphasis in these discussions has come from only one direction.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, so long as you don't become disageeable or insulting. Manners and civility are things your parents were supposed to teach you, and although they may have tried valiantly, that message doesn't seem to have taken. I don't really care what your "basic standard" is, or need to know your specific objectives, because, as one official to another, I presume it's to be as good as you can be.

Here's another flash, you may someday grow to understand, some officials are actually a lot better at what we do than others, and you may actually not be as high up on that general list as you think you are. That doesn't mean you're not working as hard as you can to be the best you can be, or deserve less respect for your efforts.

I'll give you another piece of sound advice, don't presume you speak for anyone but yourself, because invariably you don't.

Once again you've proved my point, thank you.

Stop guessing, you're way off.

At this point I have decided that I will no longer engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Feel free to continue and have the last word, or couple hundred anyway.

Thank you Kurt and Sam!

Please comeback next month when the A-11 is history.

I wouldn't presume to "tell" you anything, but I would never even think about verifying whatever you claim is your history or accomplishments. I choose, rather, to base how much attention and credibility I'll apply to what you say, to what I find the value of what you've said, actually is.

You seem to be awfully insecure about your credibility and what others think of your observations. I might suggest that if you're comfortable and secure with your credibility, and believe your observations have value, that's really all that you can do, and all that should be necessary.

I've read your input on multiple issues for several years and find it most often to be relevant, appropriate and instructive, because you usually stick to the salient specifics of whatever point or subject is being discussed. Occassionally you do tend to drift a little towards overbearing and pompous, but usually not to the extent of eliminating the basic value of your observations.

I've found most of your suggestions, even those I may not totally agee with, rational and reasonable and hope you wouldn't reject my right to disagee, should I feel disagreement was appropriate. However, I would hope I'm smart enough to offer any disagreement respectfully, and in such a manner that I might hope to persuade you, or others, to consider my perspective or create a discussion from which I might be persuaded to consider a different perspective. Otherwise what's the point in responding. Whatever my response might be, the manner in which it was delivered only reflects on me.

These discussions, on this subject, turned sour when some (I'm not going to bother to specify who said what, when) got off the track of the issue and went after the messenger. You mention our political process, which has over the past few decades, largely seen the political debate hijacked by spin masters, on both sides, who use rumor, innuendo, unsubstantiated accusations to slime and slander opponents for the express purpose of blowing smoke in voters eyes, unfortunately, often successfully.

I just hate to see these, normally valuable exchanges about very specific, relevant topics follow down the same road of, "if you don't see it my way, you're the devil". A lot of the pure garbage that has been offered in these recent discussions is nothing to be proud of, and what is saddest, is totally unproductive and unnecessary.

Don't roll your eyes, look in your mirror. I look in mine and what I see is always a long way from perfection looking back, and no matter how much I yell at the image to change it won't improve until I do.

My questions:

1) Sam says five eligible receivers. Did he mean 5 plus the player receiving the snap? There should be 6 as the player under the snapper is eligible.

2) Flags on each play!? Yikes! That sounds like a real slow game and I cannot imagine coaches, players, spectators, etc. getting tired of all the picked up flags.

3) "The biggest pressure really is on the wing men – the head linesman and the line judge – because they are the ones who determine who is eligible." Isn't this what wing men do all the time? I think he means they have to determine eligibles and once the ball is snapped determine where the ineligibles are. He does not mention the U who must determine players who are eligible by number but ineligible by position. Without the numbering exception the U only has to look for easily identifiable numbers 50-79. The expectation is when the numbering exception is in the U focuses on a kick but must be alert for a fake or blown kick.

Without attacking Coach Bryan personally you have to wonder his motives. The game seemed to be just fine without the A-11. Maybe soccer would be a better game for him, they don't have the complication of numbering requirements.

Are you ever going to be able to write a response less than 500 words that says anything of substance?

The cure for verbal diarrhea, BTW, is a big glass of STFU.

I'll try. I doubt very much whether you have sufficient intelligence to grasp anything of substance. Usually when really stupid people have nothing to add, they try and shout or be obnoxious out of frustration. You are a perfect example. (40 words)

ajmc's observations are right on the money. Read them again if you don't agree.

In the meantime, maybe the mods should lock this entire Football forum for a week! :D

Enough already!:mad:

This forum has been a great sharing experience and at times has gotten a bit personal but overall you can exchange great thoughts and ideas with officials from various places.

Maybe you should not participate if you feel the need to personally attack.

I wouldn't think answering a direct question, would qualify as a (uncalled for)personal attack, but then again, that's only my opinion and I've never suggested my opinions are always right. Just goes to show, knowing the rules doesn't mean you will always execute them properly.

It is clear that you have no credibility on this or many other issues. For one you have not been working very long and you have no idea what is expected of officials on or off the field. That is certain. If you cannot bring up a point of view without attacking someone personally, then I am trying to figure out why you are still here. You have contributed nothing but trying to tell people that have been here a lot longer than you have, how to take on points that are very relevant to the discussion.

I am overbearing and pompous, but you tell the entire board, that they cannot dispute the facts of an "endorsement" with the only purpose to try to justify why a rule should be put in place or not? I think there are a lot of officials with a lot of experience here and they are irrelevant but some unnamed, unknown officials with 50 years of experience know more than everyone here. I do not know about you, but have you done the math on how old someone would have to be to have 50 years of experience. I know 50 year olds having trouble keeping up with the game physically without this offense, but a 50 year football officiating experience guy, is more knowledgeable than anyone else here? WOW!!!

Wait a minute, you can try to talk about what you feel I am thinking, but no one here can question the motives of a person that only comes here to talk about one issue. Then when he comes to talk about that issue, we cannot address their evidence (that they bring to the table, not anyone else) because it is a personal attack or unprofessional?

See the difference between you and me; I have no problem what you think of me. The fact is that whatever you think of me, I have proven on many occasions that what I say to be credible, because not only do I back those claims up, I use my real name and those claims or comments can be verified. And you have yet to give a name, a place you work or live or any relevant information that proves that you have not only the standing to say the things you do, but the experience to back it up. People on this board knew of things I did and I did not even have to tell anyone. And there are many others here that have that same transparency in their words.

So is rumor or innuendo, when someone brings what they call a fact to the table and people see holes in those claims. Like I said earlier, if I claimed to have worked in the Big Ten or NFL that information is easily verifiable by a lot of people. And if it is not verified, someone is going to claim that I am lying or misrepresenting my history or resume. I do not know that you comments make sense. Actually based on this thread alone, you have made some rather personal comments about me and I do not see why that is OK, but we cannot figure out how one official knows more about one team than anyone else. IF you are an assignor and doing your job, you are not at that one school all the time. Sorry, but those are inconsistent facts given by KB and should be scrutinized on some level.

I am sorry, but that is another lie. There is a difference between not seeing something someone's way, and challenging the motives of the comments or the credentials of where those comments came from.

I will roll my eyes, because the hypocracy in your statements are in many ways stunning.

Peace

One of the things veteran officials learn is when to keep quiet. Maybe, that is why they are veteran officials.

I asked myself how many times have coaches questioned my judgement which is a personal attack such as "how can you see that?"

Now I could escalate that into something resembling insanity by making some personal remark or I could simply walk away and not justify the remark.

I ask any official on this forum what is the right thing to do?

Well, pretend this forum is the football field.

Are you saying that I can eject someone?:D

I don't care who's side you're on, that's funny. :p

This thread needs some humor:)

I didn't realize, Mr. Rutledge, you were authorized to speak for everyone, or determine what has, or doesn't have any merit. I must have been absent the day you were crowned.

I didn't tell anybody what they could, or couldn't say. I suggested that the immediate reaction and what was said, by some, about a 50 year official, who doubtfully anyone knows personally, was disgraceful, and it was. Yes, you are overbearing and pompous, not always, but frequently you seem to relish climbing up on a high horse if someone dares disagree with you or offers a different perspective. For the record, it's not becoming and doesn't add to the level of credibility you seem so concerned with. Don't assume silence means agreement, more likely it's a sign of simply ignoring you, and rolling eyes.

I'd love to see you confine your remarks to the subject, and drop all this ancillary, imaginary BS you keep trying to inject into the discussion to accomplish nothing but blow smoke and defend previously excessive comments that added nothing to the discussion.

The "things you'de done" don't provide you with a license to slander anyone because you don't happen to agree with, or like, what they think is a good idea. You keep trying to twist this interaction into someting it's not. All I've suggested is that you, and others, went too far in trying to bully and intimidate someone you disagree with by attacking his character and motivation which at best you are only guessing at. If you had any sense of manners or civility, you'd have understood what I was saying and responded accordingly, rather than pump up all your bluster and try and defend being stupid by being more stupid.

All this agita about who I am, what I've done, where I'm from and how long I've been doing what we do, doesn't mean squat. If I offer something worthwhile that has value, that's good, you're welcome to consider it. If what I offer is stupid, irrelevant or you just don't agree with it, your absolutely free to disregard it. I have already told you I've been doing, this thing we do, a lot longer than you. That doesn't guarantee I'm right, but it also doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Someone referenced the "opinion" of a 50 year official, which like any opinion we're all free to accept or reject. Just who do you think you are that you can demand that somehow this man, who simply rendered an opinion, must justify his very existence, his career, his accomplishments to satisfy the mighty Mr. Rutledge. If you don't think his opinion is valid, then ignore it, but demanding someone meet with your approval, sounds awfully like a pompous a$$. You're not some judge, nobody owes you squat.

There are significant differences between you and me. I understand that my perception is not always the best perspective and am willing to consider a different approach to consider if it might just be better. You don't seem capable to even consider that you may not be absolutely correct, and seem iadverse to even suggesting a possibility you might be wrong. Personal perfection is a heavy cross to bear.

I'm not arguing the merits of the A-11 offense with you, I'm suggesting you sometimes you have a real big mouth and trying to bluster your way through mistakes isn't working for you. You can either take that with a grain of salt, or just dismiss it out of hand. Either way, that's your decision and how you decide is entirely on you.

Guess he did not take my advice.:rolleyes:

My comments to you are not about the A-11 offense at all. And the funny thing I do not think I have even talked about the merits or lack there of in any of these recent discussions.

The funny thing is that I have asked you several times to verify your statements and you have chosen not to (because it is clear you have no evidence, just hyperbole). And I have yet to call you one name or suggest that you were out of line. I just asked for one statement where I or anyone said anything out of line and you have clearly not been able to produce one comment that I said or really what anyone has said. I can just reference your last few posts and I have more personal comments coming from you than you have ever read from me on this topic.

And if you do not like the way things take place here, you do not have to come here. But if you expect that I am going to back down from what I say, you have another thing coming (as from the song Judaist Priest used to say).


Peace

I would never go into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

Probably a good idea, RichMSN, I agree you likely wouldn't do all that well.

Hmmm, sounds like a personal attack.

Has the rules committee met yet? *yawn*

Jan 24-25 I believe

I'm a hyena. He can't make a personal attack against a hyena. :p

But are you viscous?:)