FOR ALL GUYS THAT LIKE REFERENCING GOLFS SOTG......
ulticritic
his third round? sure, it was within the letter of the rule, but i
dont think it was within the "spirit" of the rule. any way he wound
up gacking a 4 ft putt so those that believe in the nonsensical
concept of karma......i guess this would have been one of those cases.
and i still cant figure why someone wasnt there to mark his ball with
one of those "location flags". or why they dont simply put an ID on
ther ball so it can be properly identified without adjusting the lye
Colin
A brief reply rant to your initial rant. Did my best not to provide
any decent reasoning or analysis to put us on even footing.
And for all the guys saying that refs will clean up the game who want
one single incident to use as a basis for totally reconsidering their
position, watch any basketball game. That's entertainment value.
It's the referees that make those players so athletic and fun to
watch. I love watching phenomenal athletes try in vain to shoot a
basketball while getting hacked by other phenomenal athletes. And
stoppages are fun and exciting, so long as they are preceded by a
whistle.
ulticritic
my point was just that everybody cheats and or manipulates the rules
no matter the sport, the creed of the sport or the rule enforcement
process of the sport. its just human nature. SO.........rules and
the way they are managed should ALWAYS be set up so that they dont
enable that human nature to take advantage of them.
Parinella
Golf's Spirit of the Game differs from ultimate's (or, as you'd say,
the spirit zealot's interpretation of spirit) in that there is no
spirit or intent of the rule in golf, only the rule in pure black and
white. There is no common sense allowed.
Colin
Yes. Manage the rules in a way that there are penalties for
cheating. I approve.
JSH
apply to ultimate because there is no defense, but _all_ pro-ref
arguments apply. great logic skillz dude.
ulticritic
how convenient for fanaglers. i also thought it was bullshit that
barns got to pick up his ball last night then replace it wen he was in
the deep rough after the horn sounded. they should MAKE YOU PLAY
untill you are in the fairway at the least. oh well, hes all but out
of it now. GO DUVAL
ulticritic
>
> - Show quoted text -
just as long as the partial players are involved(or as per
you.....initiate) in the process, eh?
JSH
the stopped time i thought.
ulticritic
this isnt a ref issue as much as its a human nature issue
ulticritic
> and WTF are you doin watchin golf anyways? its real boring due to all
> the stopped time i thought.
its the nature of the game though. and i know that goin in. the last
thing one expects from an action sport like ultimate is for it to be
so severly mismanaged that its unwatchable. also, the way that its
presented leaves very little down time.........for the tv spectator
anyways.
JSH
> On Jun 22, 12:24 pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:
>
> this isnt a ref issue as much as its a human nature issue
right, because human nature is such that cheating only works if there
is no ref. in ulticitic land maybe...
also, since refs dont call travels in basketball, what makes you think
refs/observers will do a good job calling them in ultimate?
also, i will retroactively claim that all past anti-ref comments from
golf are also due to human nature, not that it doesnt have defense. so
now you have to go back and refute all of those, too. of course, you
are too intellectually lazy to do anything of the sort.
ulticritic
> On Jun 22, 12:57 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 12:24 pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:
>
> > this isnt a ref issue as much as its a human nature issue
>
> right, because human nature is such that cheating only works if there
> is no ref. in ulticitic land maybe...
its not that it dosent occur its just that the rules and basic concept
of keeping players out of the process dosent enable it nearly as
much. in this case it was the rules and ref that enabled barns to
adjust his lye
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> also, since refs dont call travels in basketball,
since when? oh wait, youre just tryin to be cute
------------------------------------------------
what makes you think
> refs/observers will do a good job calling them in ultimate?
well lets just say they would do a better job than the
players.........and what makes me think that is the partiality factor
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> also, i will retroactively claim that all past anti-ref comments from
> golf are also due to human nature, not that it doesnt have defense. so
> now you have to go back and refute all of those, too. of course, you
> are too intellectually lazy to do anything of the sort.
but golf DOES have refs........its just a little heavy on the spirity
thing too. BUT, that philosophy is more condusive to the stand still,
no-defence nature of that game. whereas there is no place for that
philosophy in an action sport like ulti. and if they couldnt pull it
off with soccer then why do you guys thin you can pull it off?
JSH
> its not that it dosent occur its just that the rules and basic concept
> of keeping players out of the process dosent enable it nearly as
> much. in this case it was the rules and ref that enabled barns to
> adjust his lye
and? so then go to rec.sport.golf or whatever and complain about the
rules of golf. do you think the explicit rules should be ignored so
that your idea of whats right/wrong is applied in every sport?
> > also, since refs dont call travels in basketball,
>
> since when? oh wait, youre just tryin to be cute
you must have missed the video that was a posted about basketball refs
only calling travel a couple of times when there were hundreds of
travels.
> but golf DOES have refs........its just a little heavy on the spirity
> thing too. BUT, that philosophy is more condusive to the stand still,
> no-defence nature of that game. whereas there is no place for that
> philosophy in an action sport like ulti. and if they couldnt pull it
> off with soccer then why do you guys thin you can pull it off?
well no refs works perfectly fine in pick up basketball, and that is
an action sport. and lower levels of tennis do not have refs, is there
no defense in that? yet you want refs in rec league. you are bad at
arguing.
ulticritic
> On Jun 22, 1:32 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > its not that it dosent occur its just that the rules and basic concept
> > of keeping players out of the process dosent enable it nearly as
> > much. in this case it was the rules and ref that enabled barns to
> > adjust his lye
>
> and? so then go to rec.sport.golf or whatever and complain about the
> rules of golf.
if i were a lifetime member i would........why dont you go complain to
basketball that they dont enforce traveling properly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> you must have missed the video that was a posted about basketball refs
> only calling travel a couple of times when there were hundreds of
> travels.
are you/they talking about the whole sport or just the nba?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> well no refs works perfectly fine in pick up basketball,
then why dont they use that system in ALL formal organized comp?
there has to be a logical reason
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and that is
> an action sport. and lower levels of tennis do not have refs,
if only ultimate could evolve to that point
----------------------------------------------
is there
> no defense in that? yet you want refs in rec league. you are bad at
> arguing.
if i'm so bad at it then why do all other sports subscribe to my same
philosophy of using them in all organized comp? save lower levels of
tennis
JSH
you are an idiot. i said you were bad at arguing, which is different
from having a good idea.
besides, lots of other sports use round spheres instead of discs. lets
use balls in ultimate.
ulticritic
>
> you are an idiot. i said you were bad at arguing, which is different
> from having a good idea.
so you admit then that having sports reffed ISNT a bad idea????? lets
hear you argue that point then. how would/could it differ from any of
the pro ref arguments i've presented?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> besides, lots of other sports use round spheres instead of discs. lets
> use balls in ultimate.
go for it. if fact a friend of mine, while teaching ultimate to 10
year olds, switched over to using a soccer ball (due to the lack of
disc skills that resulted in a trunover with each and every throw) and
not only did they have a lot more fun but they also were able to
complete succesive passes. so.........
are you one of those ballists? or are you just saying that using refs
should be exclusive to ball sports? what about hockey?
JSH
> On Jun 22, 1:54 pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:
>
> so you admit then that having sports reffed ISNT a bad idea????? lets
> hear you argue that point then. how would/could it differ from any of
> the pro ref arguments i've presented?
if you got that from what i said you are even more of an idiot. it
might be a good idea, it might be a bad idea. but in any case, it is
not because you call people spirit zealots and post ad nauseum on RSD.
none of your "arguments" convincing in the slightest. maybe you should
go read up on logic and argumentation.
>
> go for it. if fact a friend of mine, while teaching ultimate to 10
> year olds, switched over to using a soccer ball (due to the lack of
> disc skills that resulted in a trunover with each and every throw) and
> not only did they have a lot more fun but they also were able to
> complete succesive passes. so.........
>
> are you one of those ballists? or are you just saying that using refs
> should be exclusive to ball sports? what about hockey?
different sports have different rules, different equipment, different
officiation. there is nothing inherently wrong with ultimate not
having refs just because the sports on tv have refs.
ulticritic
so the fact that ultimate is a disc soprt (as opposed to ball) aint
got shit do do with anything?????
JSH
man toad you are dense. or maybe i am bad at explaining. so heres my
final shot.
other sports use refs, so ultimate must use refs too.
other sports use a ball, so ultimate must use a ball too.
ulticritic
i look at it mor like this.....
other sports use refs.......ultimate should too
other sports use objects(balls, pucks, discs)......ultimate should too
(which they do)
so your covered in the "object" dept, you just got to get with the
program in the ref dept
you seem to be saying that since ultimate uses a different object that
they should be somehow exempt from requiring the incorporation of
refs. thats wierd logic.
JSH
ROFLs. you are accusing me of using weird logic when i am using YOUR
logic. i will stop feeding the troll now.
ulticritic
if you used my logic you would understand the basic universal want,
need, use and appreciation for the standardization of officials in all
sports(including ulti)........in official, non pick up comp any ways.
JSH
sorry toad, but if i used your logic my brain would ASPLODE from over
9000 self contradictions a year. so i am sorry to say i cannot use
your logic.
sorry, i said i would stop feeding him, but i just couldnt resist this
one...
ulticritic
if my arguments suck so bad the why did you CONVIENENTLY NOT respond
to any of these comments?
>
> > well no refs works perfectly fine in pick up basketball,
>
> then why dont they use that system in ALL formal organized comp?
> there has to be a logical reason
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSH
> On Jun 22, 1:48 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> if my arguments suck so bad the why did you CONVIENENTLY NOT respond
> to any of these comments?
really toad, i have given you many chances to engage in an intelligent
debate with me. but you are unable to stay on topic, unable to refute
any of my arguments, unable to apply to see how your "logic" fails in
multiple ways that i am simply unable to. you think that just because
you came up with something means it _ONLY_ applies to the other side
of the debate. you purposefully misconstrue what i say, creating straw
mans left and right. you are really no better than those stupid
loudmouths Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage. you commit argument ad
hominem, ad nauseum, and many other fallacies left and right. your
favorite fallacy is argument from emotion, by the way.
why did you change my word "ball" into "object"? when i say ball, i
mean ball, you retard. not "object". yes, there is a difference
between the two, altho ball is a subset of object. if me to debate
you, dont change my words. i dont go round changing your words now do
i?
i would be quite surprised if you even knew what the word logic means.
quite simply, you dont know how to debate in a reasonable manner. you
certainly do know how to debate in a schoolyard name calling fist
throwing manner fit for elementary school.
ulticritic
>
> sorry toad, but if i used your logic my brain would ASPLODE from over
> 9000 self contradictions a year. so i am sorry to say i cannot use
> your logic.
well i guess i just have to be thankful that the promoters and
marketers of ALL other sports do
JSH
> On Jun 22, 6:26 pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:.
>
> marketers of ALL other sports do
who gives a damn about "ALL" other sports. we are talking about
ultimate. last time i checked, all sports differed in how they are
officiated. there is no reason for something to have to ultimate just
because other sports have it. by the way, this fallacy is argument
from popularity. just because "ALL" other sports do something does not
necessarily make it right for ultimate. almost all other sports on tv
use a ball of some sort instead of a disc, using your logic, ultimate
would have to use a ball instead.
ulticritic
>
> really toad, i have given you many chances to engage in an intelligent
> debate with me. but you are unable to stay on topic, unable to refute
> any of my arguments,
WHAT ABOUT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT PICKUP BBALL WORKS FINE.......yet they
NEVER use thar sotg(if you will) meathod in ANY formal comp.......from
little league to the nba?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unable to apply to see how your "logic" fails in
> multiple ways that i am simply unable to. you think that just because
> you came up with something means it _ONLY_ applies to the other side
> of the debate. you purposefully misconstrue what i say, creating straw
> mans left and right.
then why do you allow yourself to get so caught up in it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
you are really no better than those stupid
> loudmouths Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage.
neither are you
--------------------------------------------------
you commit argument ad
> hominem, ad nauseum, and many other fallacies left and right.
and you dont?
----------------------------------
your
> favorite fallacy is argument from emotion, by the way.
whatever it takes
---------------------------------------------
>
> why did you change my word "ball" into "object"? when i say ball, i
> mean ball, you retard. not "object".
is a ball not an object....is a disc not an object.....is a puck not
an object? i guess i'm just not making a distinction between the
oject a sport is played with and how that particular sport should be
arbitrated.........like you seem to be doing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, there is a difference
> between the two, altho ball is a subset of object. if me to debate
> you, dont change my words. i dont go round changing your words now do
> i?
piss off faggot......i'll changw whatever th fuck i want. get your
shiot straight and i wont have to fix it
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> quite simply, you dont know how to debate in a reasonable manner. you
> certainly do know how to debate in a schoolyard name calling fist
> throwing manner fit for elementary school.
eh, i know both......nothin school yardish about my question/argument
concerning the distinction between pickup bball and organized bball.
JSH
honestly, i dont really care what works or not in other sports.
ultimately, only what works or doesnt work in ultimate matters to
ultimate.
> neither are you
woah, what a coherent argument! toad get the logic star of the day.
> is a ball not an object....is a disc not an object.....is a puck not
> an object? i guess i'm just not making a distinction between the
> oject a sport is played with and how that particular sport should be
> arbitrated.........like you seem to be doing.
this tree leaf is green. the grass is green. therefore, when you say
tree leaf it means green.
> eh, i know both......nothin school yardish about my question/argument
> concerning the distinction between pickup bball and organized bball.
i know, and you never ever call names. never ever call people spirit
zealots, or "2"s, whatever the fuck that means.
JSH
and retard, i do not argue that you are an idiot, therefore you are
wrong. you are a retard, therefore you are wrong. if you deleted all
the insults from all the posts i have made, my arguments still stand.
but the same is not true of your insults, or Bill O'Reilly's, or Mike
Savage's. i dont argue by only attempting to frame the debate in
favorable terms, by calling the opposition names.
ulticritic
a gazillion people......some of which are ultimate players. not as
many that are of the spirit zealot persuasion though
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we are talking about
> ultimate.
but isnt ultimate a sport
----------------------------------------------------
last time i checked, all sports differed in how they are
> officiated.
but they all have officials.......in all organized comp, whereas
ultimate dosent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there is no reason for something to have to ultimate just
> because other sports have it.
well what dosent it have that all other sports have.......besides refs
and other officials ate every level save pickup
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by the way, this fallacy is argument
> from popularity. just because "ALL" other sports do something does not
> necessarily make it right for ultimate
dosent make it wrong either........but thats what the spirit zealots
would have you think
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. almost all other sports on tv
> use a ball of some sort instead of a disc, using your logic, ultimate
> would have to use a ball instead.
nope, just an object. but just because the object is different doees
that mean the arbitration process must be different too. and whatr
about all the similarities.........why include those yet exclude refs?
JSH
>
>
> a gazillion people......some of which are ultimate players. not as
> many that are of the spirit zealot persuasion though
well, here comes the Bill O name calling.
> but isnt ultimate a sport
guess you dont know what the word "other" means.
> but they all have officials.......in all organized comp, whereas
> ultimate dosent
observers are officials. it doesnt matter if you call them refs or
observers or umpires.
> dosent make it wrong either........but thats what the spirit zealots
> would have you think
that is certainly true. i am just pointing out holes in your
arguments, not arguing for the other side. of course, that is too
nuanced for your binary brain to understand.
JSH
on TV. maybe ultimate should toss out that rule, cuz obviously it
_must_ be tied to how popular the sports are.
JSH
official! its magic man. 2 whole thingys at the same time! must make
them 2s on your stupid scale too!
ulticritic
> > WHAT ABOUT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT PICKUP BBALL WORKS FINE.......yet they NEVER use thar sotg(if you will) meathod in ANY formal comp.......from little league to the nba?
>
> honestly, i dont really care what works or not in other sports.
well thats part of your problem.......as ultimate is a result of other
sports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ultimately, only what works or doesnt work in ultimate matters to
> ultimate.
well, refs work in ultimate. i've seen it first hand. i'm assuming
you havent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> this tree leaf is green. the grass is green. therefore, when you say
> tree leaf it means green.
no but they are both plants
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> i know, and you never ever call names. never ever call people spirit
> zealots, or "2"s, whatever the fuck that means.
again.....you seemed ashamed to be classified as those so it seems
that its just you that perceive it to be an insult
pinto
> > other sports use refs, so ultimate must use refs too.
> > other sports use a ball, so ultimate must use a ball too.
>
> i look at it mor like this.....
> other sports use refs.......ultimate should too
> other sports use objects(balls, pucks, discs)......ultimate should too
> (which they do)
Hrmph.
Other sports use officials... ulty does too.
Other sports use objects... ulty does too.
Now we can have a big happy group hug with all them other sports.
Figuratively speaking.
~p
ulticritic
dats yo bizzzzzness
JSH
> On Jun 22, 7:14 pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:
> well thats part of your problem.......as ultimate is a result of other
> sports
why? because you said so.
> well, refs work in ultimate. i've seen it first hand. i'm assuming
> you havent
well, they dont work well enuf to keep your NUA running, apparently.
> no but they are both plants
so when you say tree you really mean plant?
if i say a tree has a trunk, then all plants have a trunk?
> again.....you seemed ashamed to be classified as those so it seems
> that its just you that perceive it to be an insult
you use it as an insult. i triple dog dare you to say that calling
people 2s is not an insult in your worldview.
ulticritic
>
> Hrmph.
>
> Other sports use officials... ulty does too.
not in the same capacity........due to spirit overtones. you know
this.......dont play dumb
ulticritic
> On Jun 22, 7:55 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 7:14 pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:
> > well thats part of your problem.......as ultimate is a result of other
> > sports
>
> why? because you said so.
nope, the pamphlet in the original rules of the game that were sold
with the oldschool whamos said that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > well, refs work in ultimate. i've seen it first hand. i'm assuming
> > you havent
>
> well, they dont work well enuf to keep your NUA running, apparently.
like i said, it was ahead of its time. womens professional soccer
didnt take the first go around either(as with numberous other sports
leagues)......does that mean they shouldnt try it again
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > no but they are both plants
>
> so when you say tree you really mean plant?
>
> if i say a tree has a trunk, then all plants have a trunk?
man youre a geek
---------------------------------------------------
>
> > again.....you seemed ashamed to be classified as those so it seems
> > that its just you that perceive it to be an insult
>
> you use it as an insult. i triple dog dare you to say that calling
> people 2s is not an insult in your worldview.
it isnt. if your ok with it. if you aint then maybe it is. what is
insulting about it to you.
JSH
> On Jun 22, 7:59 pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:
> nope, the pamphlet in the original rules of the game that were sold
> with the oldschool whamos said that
still irrelevant to whether or not refs work in ultimate. bet the
oldschool whamo rules didnt mention observers or refs either, so they
must be a bad idea.
> like i said, it was ahead of its time. womens professional soccer
> didnt take the first go around either(as with numberous other sports
> leagues)......does that mean they shouldnt try it again
or maybe it was really behind its times.
> man youre a geek
i am a geek, but that is irrelevant. what you meant to say was "man,
you know how to use logic and i dont".
> it isnt. if your ok with it. if you aint then maybe it is. what is
> insulting about it to you.
sorry, but calling people zealot anything is basically an insult, with
possibly a tiny number of exceptions. which is why your "scale" doesnt
put the people on "your" side as zealots.
ulticritic
> On Jun 22, 8:07 pm, ulticritic <ulticri...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 22, 7:59 pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:
> > nope, the pamphlet in the original rules of the game that were sold
> > with the oldschool whamos said that
>
> still irrelevant to whether or not refs work in ultimate. bet the
> oldschool whamo rules didnt mention observers or refs either, so they
> must be a bad idea.
BZZZT WRONG!!!!! the original rules of ultimate had a section called
'OFFICIALS" which basically said that refs could beused to call a game
in which all calls would be final. your out of your league pal, when
it comes to the history of this sport.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > like i said, it was ahead of its time. womens professional soccer
> > didnt take the first go around either(as with numberous other sports
> > leagues)......does that mean they shouldnt try it again
>
> or maybe it was really behind its times.
well that cant be as the many of the college x rules came directly
from nua comp. school this guy jacob
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > man youre a geek
>
> i am a geek, but that is irrelevant.
to cool people it totally relevant.
----------------------------------------------
what you meant to say was "man,
> you know how to use logic and i dont".
hardly
-------------------------------------------
>
> > it isnt. if your ok with it. if you aint then maybe it is. what is
> > insulting about it to you.
>
> sorry, but calling people zealot anything is basically an insult,
why would george steal from the yankees......ehp, sorry.....i meant to
say, why would i insult myself?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
with
> possibly a tiny number of exceptions. which is why your "scale" doesnt
> put the people on "your" side as zealots.
do you consider people that are opposed to gay marriage as being more
zealous (look the word up) than those that are OK with it. in the
same reguard, do you consider the people opposed to refs in ulti more
zealous than those that are ok with it (or at least some
experimentation with it)? i mean, the only difference is that the
straight marriage zealots want to protect the sanctity of straight
marriage and the spirit zealots want to protect the sanctity of
spirit. i'd say its pretty damned accurately disriptive.
JSH
> On Jun 22, 8:13 pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:
>
> well that cant be as the many of the college x rules came directly
> from nua comp. school this guy jacob
there still are no refs in ultimate, even if observers have been given
slightly more power.
> to cool people it totally relevant.
cool people like toad. if by cool you mean stupid, then you are 100%
correct.
> why would george steal from the yankees......ehp, sorry.....i meant to
> say, why would i insult myself?
so you finally admit calling someone a zealot is an insult. score one
for me.
> do you consider people that are opposed to gay marriage as being more
> zealous (look the word up) than those that are OK with it. in the
> same reguard, do you consider the people opposed to refs in ulti more
> zealous than those that are ok with it (or at least some
> experimentation with it)? i mean, the only difference is that the
> straight marriage zealots want to protect the sanctity of straight
> marriage and the spirit zealots want to protect the sanctity of
> spirit. i'd say its pretty damned accurately disriptive.
sorry, but the word zealot does not mean "more zealous". just as the
word idiot does not mean "more idiotic."
JSH
you do. in fact, i even know what logical fallacies are, which is
about 9000 levels above where you are at.
ulticritic
> there still are no refs in ultimate, even if observers have been given
> slightly more power.
you say that as if its somthing to be proud of
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> > why would george steal from the yankees......ehp, sorry.....i meant to
> > say, why would i insult myself?
>
> so you finally admit calling someone a zealot is an insult. score one
> for me.
so when i proclaim I AM A REF ZEALOT....I'm insulting myself????
-------------------------------------------------
>
> > do you consider people that are opposed to gay marriage as being more
> > zealous (look the word up) than those that are OK with it. in the
> > same reguard, do you consider the people opposed to refs in ulti more
> > zealous than those that are ok with it (or at least some
> > experimentation with it)? i mean, the only difference is that the
> > straight marriage zealots want to protect the sanctity of straight
> > marriage and the spirit zealots want to protect the sanctity of
> > spirit. i'd say its pretty damned accurately disriptive.
>
> sorry, but the word zealot does not mean "more zealous". just as the
> word idiot does not mean "more idiotic."
way to avoid the question
lets try again, and this time try not to be such a techno weenie
do you feel that people that are opposed to gay marriage to be zealots
(and again look up the term so we are simply using it in a discriptive
manner) or zealous???
and do you think gay people would consider them to be zealots, you
know, because they want to protect the sactity of marriage
ulticritic
you are a desperate mutha fucka aint ya
JSH
> On Jun 22, 9:44 pm, JSH <j...@mises.com> wrote:
>
> > there still are no refs in ultimate, even if observers have been given
> > slightly more power.
>
> you say that as if its somthing to be proud of
i didnt say it that way. but i do compliment your ability to see
things that are not there.
> way to avoid the question
>
> lets try again, and this time try not to be such a techno weenie
>
> do you feel that people that are opposed to gay marriage to be zealots
> (and again look up the term so we are simply using it in a discriptive
> manner) or zealous???
> and do you think gay people would consider them to be zealots, you
> know, because they want to protect the sactity of marriage
zealot
1. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
2. A fanatically committed person.
someone can be a zealot for gay marriage, or zealot against gay
marriage. the fact that someone is not on "your" side of a debate does
not make them automatically a zealot. nor does someones _position_ for
or against an issue necessarily correspond to _how strongly_ they are
for or against. a person can be zealously against gay marriage just as
easily as one can be zealously for gay marriage. the fact that someone
chooses to be against gay marriage does not automatically make them a
zealot.
if a person posted hundreds of insulting comments for OR against gay
marriage in the course of a single month, they would be a zealot. the
only zealot here is you, there are 0 spirit zealots. but you use
zealot as a term to polarize and frame the debate in a manner which
favors your side, similar to how demagogues like Bill O abuse
language.
> you are a desperate mutha fucka aint ya
name calling and cursing at me. schoolyard was right, buddy.
ulticritic
>
> zealot
>
> 1. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
> 2. A fanatically committed person.
or......a ferment or even militant proponent of somthing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> someone can be a zealot for gay marriage, or zealot against gay
> marriage.
well if tow fags want to get married and i say "i dont give a
fuck......let em get married" or, for the sake of the ref
argument....."i dont give a fuck.....let em play ulti with refs" then
i dont see that as being zealous, i see that as being tolerant
BUT
if those same fags want to get married and you say "no, thats not
right......i dont think they should be allowed to be married" or,
again....."no, thats not right.......i dont think they should be
allowed to play ulti with refs" then i find that to be zealous because
it aint got shit to do with you so why should you even care......and
it is a very intolerant attitude.
see the difference?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the fact that someone is not on "your" side of a debate does
> not make them automatically a zealot.
thats not where i make the distinction though as i have already
stated that i am a ferment and even militant proponent of refs. its
the fact that they arent allowed that make the people that are
tollerant of them more progressive than those that are opposed to
them. why would people that arent zealous about NOT using them in
ultimate give a fuck in the first place?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nor does someones _position_ for
> or against an issue necessarily correspond to _how strongly_ they are
> for or against.
again thats not where i make the distinction either. its more in the
fact that the people that are opposed to gay marriage, like those that
are opposed to refs in ulti are pushing their values and morals on
others. You dont find that to be somewhat zealous.......even if they
are only passively opposed? ya see, i am not personally opposed to
people playing barefoot sotg ulti in various situations BUT some
people, spirit zealots specifically (that also make up the lions share
of the upa admin) ARE IN FACT opposed to ANY ULTIMATE being played
with refs. pres of our BoD, peri, has made that quite clear on many
occasions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a person can be zealously against gay marriage just as
> easily as one can be zealously for gay marriage. the fact that someone
> chooses to be against gay marriage does not automatically make them a
> zealot.
i think it does......and again the distinction is that its none of
their fuckin bizzzz to begin with? i mean, how the fuck does it
effect them in the forst place.......and how is someone that has a
live and let live attitude get labled a zealot. speaking of
which......are you for or opposed to gay marriage?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> if a person posted hundreds of insulting comments for OR against gay
> marriage in the course of a single month, they would be a zealot.
well duh, i'm a fucking zealot!!!!!! thing is, i dont give a fuck.
you caring and bein insulted makes you even more of a zealot yourself
----------------------------------------------------------------
the
> only zealot here is you, there are 0 spirit zealots.
are you saying that no one is a ferment proponent of not allowing/
wanting refs in ulti????? how long have you been playing this sport
again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but you use
> zealot as a term to polarize and frame the debate in a manner which
> favors your side,
so? whatever it takes. our side has a lot of catching up to do.
unveiling the truth is just one of my tactics in getting the
progressionists activated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
similar to how demagogues like Bill O abuse
> language.
they sure didnt do it, or HAVE TO DO IT, nearly as much when w was in
office. The fact that i seem to have your undivided attention on this
issue is what tells me i'm onto somthing with this campaign cause you
know, the spirit zealots have complete control of this sport and the
progressionist just sit by and take it. seems like you would take
comfort in that fact and simply ignore me yet you fight me tooth and
nail. are you concerned that the days of the spirit zealot are
numbered or that i might actually be activating the progressionists?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > you are a desperate mutha fucka aint ya
>
> name calling and cursing at me. schoolyard was right, buddy.
hey, i just calls it like i sees it
Joe Segal
> do you consider people that are opposed to gay marriage as being more
> zealous (look the word up) than those that are OK with it. in the
> same reguard, do you consider the people opposed to refs in ulti more
> zealous than those that are ok with it (or at least some
> experimentation with it)? i mean, the only difference is that the
> straight marriage zealots want to protect the sanctity of straight
> marriage and the spirit zealots want to protect the sanctity of
> spirit. i'd say its pretty damned accurately disriptive.
Do you think that everybody who's against having refs in ultimate is
against it "because the want to protect the sanctity of spirit"? Is
that what all of this "spirit zealot" stuff from you has been about
all along?
ulticritic
>
> Do you think that everybody who's against having refs in ultimate is
> against it "because the want to protect the sanctity of spirit"?
do you think that everybody who's against gay marriage is against it
"because they want to protect the sactity of marriage"? and where do
you stand on that issue again? if you are for gay marriage (or not
against it, as i am) how do you view those that are opposed to it?
dont consider it to be rather pretentious for other to puch their
but to answe you question......why else would someone be opposed to or
intolerant of just the notion of allowing refs in the
game........especially if it wouldnt effect them directly in any way
shape or form.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is
> that what all of this "spirit zealot" stuff from you has been about
> all along?
boy, your quick.......NOT