Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksabr
OK, this is the last time I am responding to this kind of thing.
You are flat wrong on this. At no point did I claim that "nowhere in the article does it say that". What I said was, quote, "there is nothing in the link you provided that confirms that MLB owners wanted to eliminate the DH in 2009, and did not only because of the MLBPA". And there demonstrably isn't, and as proof, here's the link to that never-edited post. Everybody here can easily go back for themselves and see that's the case, if they had any interest in doing so. |
There's only one point I still need to argue with, having reread the thread and seen that, unlike how it felt to me at the time, when you voiced skepticism that the idea of "Dump the DH in return for a 26 man roster" was proposed (which at the very least it was by the competition committee, and while I have no source for this I very clearly remember an MLBPA response similar to "The 26th man will make the minimum salary; everyday DH's make much more than that.") you took care to say not to take your skepticism personally. I did, and it's hard to avoid taking personally the suggestion that I fabricated what I said, but if you were skeptical your initial response was not as unreasonable as it felt at the time.
However, what you did say when you said the link did not confirm that the owners wanted to eliminate the DH wasn't that the link was unreliable, but (to quote) "There is nothing in the link you provided that confirms that MLB owners wanted to eliminate the DH in 2009, and did not only because of the MLBPA. If you insist there is, then you will have to cite chapter and verse from that article."
This seems to suggest that the
article didn't say it. You welcomed me to "cite chapter and verse from the article," which I then did. If "chapter and verse from the article" was not enough, which is reasonable on looking back-- what the article did was prove that I wasn't making the whole thing up, that there really was at least that discussion, but not much more was proven-- then don't simply ask for me to cite it from the article.
There were other ways to make the point that it didn't necessarily go as far as I thought, such as Scudworth's suggestion that when the Competition Committee made its proposal, it's very possible that the MLBPA voiced strong opposition then, and it likely never got far enough to see whether the owners as a group actually would go along with it, if the MLBPA had not voiced opposition.
I admit to overreacting what I saw as an accusation of making the whole thing up, when I clearly remembered the proposal, and while there were other things I still feel I have a right to object to, you asked for proof of the proposal in a fairly nonconfrontational way, and in that area I overreacted.