Quote:
Actually, I've become convinced that youchose to ignore the logic of my arguments simply because they came from me, and as a residue of our political debates, you can't deal with the idea that I could be right.
That's just outright ridiculous Plaw. And you know it. Our political disagreements have never interfere with anything else that we have done. At least on my end. That's really just an imature statement.

Quote:
You made two decisions, which by not thinking them through and giving the other league members the opportunity to present the arguments against those decisions
Ok, as for the first decision. Well I remember stating that I would set their lineups for them and keep them active. This was part of a discussion that you claim never took place. So here is what you said :
Quote:
Originally posted by plawrence:

[b]Reg Dunlop hasn't played since day one of the season, so I would just lock his team now, and by the end of the season everyone will have had the same number of opportunities to play against that same team, so it's fair to everyone.
To start managing his team now is unfair to the people who have to play him more times in the future, since everyone who played him already was playing the same, "un-managed" team.
Buffalo Chill
I'd do the sme thing for him. Lock his team now, and it will come out pretty close to being fair at the end.
Those who played him at the beginning will suffer a bit of a disadvantage, but it's not that big, since even when he was playing, he wasn't playing 100%.

Doing that, I think, is a lot fairer to everyone than to start managing his team 100% in the middle of the season, which is very unfair to those who still have to play him an extra time.
[/b]
When I said that I would contact them to ask them to start playing and managing their teams again, you said :
Quote:
Originally posted by plawrence:

BTW, I certainly don't think that we have any obligation to Reg and Buffalo to give them the opportunity to start managing their time again, considering that they basically weren't managing them in the first place. I'd just lock the three of them out now, leave it that way, and forget about them.
As I said, we don't owe them the opportunity to start playing again.
I think that the diologue that went on here would be considered a discussion about what to do. I was willing to keep things going and manage the teams. You didn't agree. I then offered to give them the opportunity to come back and play. IceMan did. You disagreed. So I went with locking out the 2 remaining teams. After what I consider a discussion.

Even several others took part in this discussion that you claim never took place :
Quote:
Originally posted by DonMichaelCorleone:
Can we simply delete the teams that aren't playing anymore or do you want to just restore free agents and leave it as is so that it's fair to teams that won't play the no teams as much.

As I've said it really doesn't make a difference to me because I'm only playing for fun, if this was football I would choose to freeze the teams as they were.
Quote:
Originally posted by Just Lou:
PL, you make good points, but I think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. If you're playing an inactive line-up, you should still score at least 7 or 8 points. The difference IMO is minimal.
As far as my going on to place the players on waivers, I sent everyone an e-mail through the league and everyone, except you, was for it. Just Lou even posted about it.


Quote:
Originally posted by Just Lou:
FWIW, DC did ask me earlier if I had a problem with this, and I told him no. We will all have a shot at the available players, although the good teams will have to give up better players to get them.
You yourself even admitted making a mistake with your pick in putting in for those players that I made available to everyone by placing them on the waiver list :

Quote:
Originally posted by plawrence:
Hmmmm.....

That's another big mistake I made

When I looked at all the player's stats, I never thought to look at their games played.

That's what happens when you don't follow the game, I guess.

Charra was a pretty good pickup for you, too. Him, I just flat-out missed or i wouldv'e grabbed him.

And if DC didn't get Alfreddson, he would've gotten Demitra, I imagine. Not that much of a difference.
And after that you went off on your rampage.

You and I discussed the options in regards to what to do withe the inactive teams. You disgreed with my first two suggestions, so i tried compromising with you and took your third one by locking out the teams. I e-mailed everyone and got responses from everyone about my intent on releasing the players. All were for it but you. Yet for someone who was so much against it you did put a claim in for a player, and to boot you beat out IceMan for that player, but yet you claim that he was given an advantage.

How you can sit here and tell me that I did not allow for a discussion and did not give any of the others a chance to voice their feelings is a flat out lie.


And getting back to that ridiculous comment that I chose to ignore you was because of our political disagreements. Well first off I did not ignore you as explained above. Maybe you chose to go into what has basically turned into a 3 page rant on here because YOU are the one that holds a grudge about our political disagreements. Maybe you chose to bash me as a commissioner and rant about this as a way to get back at me for our poitical disagreements.

That sounds ridiculous, right? Well it is. And that is how ridiculous you sounded when you made that statement.


Don Cardi


Don Cardi cool

Five - ten years from now, they're gonna wish there was American Cosa Nostra. Five - ten years from now, they're gonna miss John Gotti.