Originally Posted by
23ska909red02
Originally Posted by
jefffort5
Originally Posted by
23ska909red02
Originally Posted by
jefffort5
Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
^ Already read it before.
You said "ok..but playing organized ball...you know you officals win/lose a game for you "
Soooo... like I said you're saying 'You've never played organized ball, so your opinion is invalid.'
thats def not a translation for that...
O.K., so even if a person hasn't played organized ball, they can still have a very valid opinion on officiating. Someone who has played organized ball does NOT have a more valid opinion than someone who hasn't.
Would you agree with that statement?
you know what...idk....but if you played ball...you know from jump...ur number one complain isnt going to be officiating
If you played ball?
But that's exactly the question: what if a person didn't? Is their opinion less valid because they didn't play?
So far, all you're doing is showing that you think a person's opinion is invalid if they didn't play ball, but you don't want to just go ahead and say 'Yes, a person's opinion is invalid if they haven't actually played.'
If that's an incorrect assumption on my part, then... again...
(it's not a hard question)
Even if a person hasn't played organized ball, they can still have a very valid opinion on officiating. Someone who has played organized ball does NOT have a more valid opinion than someone who hasn't.
Would you agree with that statement?
It really shouldn't be that hard to answer with one of these two:
- "Yes, I agree with that statement. Someone who hasn't played organized ball has just as valid an opinion as someone who has."
- "No, I disagree with that statement. Someone who has played organized ball has
a more valid opinion than someone who hasn't."