You engage in semantics to avoid answering questions. That is your tactic. I could go back and point out exactly when you did that to help you understand but I won't.
You are an umpire? Oh my gosh that's amazing! That gives you valuable insight that mere citizens can never attain.
You obviously don't understand what logic means.
So you think if I make an assumption or accusation about someone I have to have proof to believe that? That's real stupid.
Again Mr. umpire sir. I see a pattern not duplicated with unexplainable bad calls. Call it whatever your sweet little heart desires. Dispute the calls. Show how they weren't bad calls.
Please substantiate your claim that you aren't biased in calling a ballgame. I need real proof. Otherwise you cannot make that claim on the internet.
What grade are you in?
First, please go back and point out where I'm playing semantics? Do you even know how to spot a semantical argument?
Second, it's laughable that you say you could go back and point out exactly where I did, but you won't. How convenient.
Third, yes, being an umpire gives me more insight into this issue than a person not an umpire. Do you understand why? Because the claim being made here is that the officials are cheating. Well, it would take an official to give someone an insight into the mindset of an official, compared to someone who isn't an official.
If you allow your biases to rule you, you wouldn't make a good umpire or official.
However, if you have integrity and you're responsible and professional, you won't allow bias to sway your calls.
So let's see, a person who is an official and who can tell you first hand how he calls games vs. a person who isn't an official but is clearly a fan of a particular team he thinks is being cheated because of calls. Which one is more credible? Which one is more logical?
Fourth, I don't think I said you need proof to believe something. You can believe whatever you want. But when you accuse someone of something, the strength of your argument hinges on proof. Otherwise, you're as silly as the person who believes that an invisible elephant upholds the sky.
Fifth, do you know what a straw man argument is? I'll tell you. A straw man argument is one where a person takes what was said by another, twists or changes it and then tries to dismantle not the original point but the one of his own creation. Where did I say the calls weren't bad?
Are you even paying attention to the argument? I said the calls could have been bad. But saying that the refs are cheating is beyond saying the calls were bad. Again, you're ascribing motive, and you don't have any evidence to support your claim.
Please, before you call arguments stupid or accuse someone of not applying logic, understand what is being discussed and understand terms, concepts and their proper usage.
Sixth, your asking me to substantiate my claims I'm not bias is assinine as it is juvenile. I already gave you an example. There were coaches on a team that I disliked, yet when it came time to make the right call, I did. Even though my call resulted in the team with coaches I disliked winning the game. I have no reason to lie. I'm anonymous. There's no motivation for me to claim otherwise.
However, I'm not the one claiming the refs are cheating and have bias against the Cowboys.
YOU and Cowboyvic are the ones making this claim. So it's not my job to prove bias or cheating.
IT'S YOURS. This is how the real world works.
Lecturing me about logic. Pulease. LOL!
