ASA obstruction clarification needed

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The book, nor it's contents, stand alone as a sole entity.

Mike, you used the wrong its. Oh wait (he said, getting it), you did that to make your point! You sly fox you!

You are correct. It is not an English textbook. In some cases, the only way to properly make a point or a case is to use some syntax or idiom or whatever that is not correct.

How many of you are on AOL? You hear something that is VERY incorrect practically every time you sign on. ("You've got mail," for those of you scoring at home.)

This is not directly solely at people on this board (as SRW can attest), but if some folks spent as much time working on their umpiring as they do on grammar, we'd have a vastly improved umpire corps.

We all know what the rule means. Move on.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I wonder what some of these folks would do to the US Constitution?

Hell, you don't get halfway through the first 15 words before there is a glaring mistake.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Dakota]

So, you're resorting to the defence of the guilty, I see.... "Mommy, Tommy did it, too." (Tommy Jefferson).

"Defence" is not an error, BTW. It is the British spelling.

While I agree with your general point, that is no reason for the "editors" (using the term loosely) to continually go into print with the rule book every year with known syntax errors, grammar errors, and other confusing wordings.

How many editions of the rule book did it take for them to fix the loophole in the 3rd strike rule?

Fixing known problems is not rocket science, and it should not be that big a deal.

For the rule in the OP, sure, once it is explained, everyone who was confused by the wording gets it, but what is wrong with fixing the wording so people are not confused? And, it has nothing to do with making the rule book cover every possiblity. It is just making it clear what the rule actually means by some simple English language editing.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I wonder what some of these folks would do to the US Constitution?

Hell, you don't get halfway through the first 15 words before there is a glaring mistake.

I'm gonna regret this ....

But I don't see the mistake in the first 15 words (or the rest of the passage for that matter.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I'm gonna regret this ....

But I don't see the mistake in the first 15 words (or the rest of the passage for that matter.

If perfect is perfect, how can something be "more" perfect?

[Dukat]

But if you have not yet reached a perfect union then can you not do something to try and reach a "more perfect union" meaning more toward perfection than you were before?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dukat

But if you have not yet reached a perfect union then can you not do something to try and reach a "more perfect union" meaning more toward perfection than you were before?

I'll bet you know where extra virgin olive oil comes from!

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'll bet you know where extra virgin olive oil comes from!

Certainly wasn't Popeye...

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If perfect is perfect, how can something be "more" perfect?

It's called hyperbole.

Unfortunately, the US has lost this sentiment, and now relies on oxymorons. Central Intelligence Agency being one of them.