Rich Fields -- How Does He Rate?

[FOXSportsFan]

With all this debate over Rich and Randy, one has to believe that somewhere Jim Thornton feels he's getting shafted (note some sarcasm, though I liked his style).  Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't his audition episodes aired at about the time we had learned Rich got the gig, as I recall, correct?  If only I could have had them on tape to make a mock Price is Right bit...

[Playpal]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'122813\' date=\'Jun 29 2006, 04:45 PM\']
[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'122812\' date=\'Jun 29 2006, 04:25 PM\']
None of this suggests that there was anything nefarious about Rich's hiring. All it suggests is that the CBS on-line poll was a sham.
[/quote]
Right, which has always been my point, and I for one apologize if my suggestion of "shenanigains" (probably not the best choice of words, upon retrospect) implied anything underhanded. I figured I'd made the CBS-poll-sham point enough that folks would know what I meant.
[/quote]

Hey Guys.... I sincerely appreciate the clarity of all this.  But as you know, statements made such as this are often made with implied meanings.  However vaguely veiled, .....using words like "underhanded" and "shenanigans", are definetly misleading.  So I do feel it was with a bit of wreckless disregard to continue the implications regarding his hiring.   It would seem to imply more than a sham from a CBS website. Yet I do appreciate the effort at present to clarify.    
 Still, I must add.., your reference to the CBS poll, is also curious to me, since I heard that it was quite close between the two, (West & Fields)  I don't know how reliable your source is.  However, for anyone to assume they would make such an important decision as this based on such an unreliable method as a website poll, is just ridiculous.  The outcome of such things can so easily be manipulated, and with a system that virtually let  any one person vote hundreds of times, was certainly not a clear cut indication of who the general public might really want.  It was too easily manipulated, and could not be of any real value.  I think the powers that be knew that.  So, no matter who was leading in that poll, I am not suprised that the final decision was not based entirely on that.   It may have had value, but feel it was there for more of a entertainemnt value.   But, again.... my opinion.
In closing... thank you all for allowing me to post my opinions, and for beginning to understand at least from where I stand.   I suppose we can all .."agree, to disagree"!  We are obiviously all game show fans, so that is a start to having one thing to agree on.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'Steve McClellan\' post=\'122814\' date=\'Jun 29 2006, 07:46 PM\']
[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'122796\' date=\'Jun 29 2006, 03:27 PM\']PJTP?  How about KJTK?  (For the Yiddish-impaired: Kvetching Just to Kvetch.)[/quote]
Sorry, that acronym is already in use.
[/quote]
Hey, if people haven't been booted for reusing bad Deal or No Deal puns, I can reuse an acronym. :-D

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'dzinkin\' post=\'122877\' date=\'Jun 30 2006, 08:27 AM\']
Hey, if people haven't been booted for reusing bad Deal or No Deal puns, I can reuse an acronym. :-D
[/quote]
Seeing as Kleist isn't here to, well, Kleist anymore, it seems to me that it isn't reuse, it's recycling!

[chris319]

your reference to the CBS poll, is also curious to me, since I heard that it was quite close between the two, (West & Fields) I don't know how reliable your source is. However, for anyone to assume they would make such an important decision as this based on such an unreliable method as a website poll, is just ridiculous. The outcome of such things can so easily be manipulated, and with a system that virtually let any one person vote hundreds of times, was certainly not a clear cut indication of who the general public might really want. It was too easily manipulated, and could not be of any real value. I think the powers that be knew that. So, no matter who was leading in that poll, I am not suprised that the final decision was not based entirely on that. It may have had value, but feel it was there for more of a entertainemnt value. But, again.... my opinion.

Didn't we just get through saying it was a sham?

However vaguely veiled, .....using words like "underhanded" and "shenanigans", are definetly misleading. So I do feel it was with a bit of wreckless disregard to continue the implications regarding his hiring.

In case you missed it, I and others were pressing for details on the claim that it was underhanded, and we finally got a clarification.

You really need to read the board more carefully before you post your misinterpretations of ground we've already covered.

[Playpal]

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'122923\' date=\'Jun 30 2006, 03:06 PM\']

your reference to the CBS poll, is also curious to me, since I heard that it was quite close between the two, (West & Fields) I don't know how reliable your source is. However, for anyone to assume they would make such an important decision as this based on such an unreliable method as a website poll, is just ridiculous. The outcome of such things can so easily be manipulated, and with a system that virtually let any one person vote hundreds of times, was certainly not a clear cut indication of who the general public might really want. It was too easily manipulated, and could not be of any real value. I think the powers that be knew that. So, no matter who was leading in that poll, I am not suprised that the final decision was not based entirely on that. It may have had value, but feel it was there for more of a entertainemnt value. But, again.... my opinion.

Didn't we just get through saying it was a sham?

However vaguely veiled, .....using words like "underhanded" and "shenanigans", are definetly misleading. So I do feel it was with a bit of wreckless disregard to continue the implications regarding his hiring.

In case you missed it, I and others were pressing for details on the claim that it was underhanded, and we finally got a clarification.

You really need to read the board more carefully before you post your misinterpretations of ground we've already covered.
[/quote]

Wow Chris319.. thank you so much for you helpful advice.  But... I did read the board... I read the board just fine!   Did you?  Because you obiviously missed the fact that I was merely trying to say THANK-YOU for the clarifications,  and the acknowledgment that it was nothing more than [color=\"#FF0000\"]vague allusions[/color]. .....Still yet, you come off a bit aggressive towards me.  Sorry you feel so strongly. I know Mr. West is a "..personal friend..." of yours.   But this is not a personal attack on him, or you!  If you would kindly step out of your defensive stance on this, maybe we can let it rest.  At least, I am going to.

[chris319]

you come off a bit aggressive

If you would kindly step out of your defensive stance on this

It's a good thing you haven't been the least bit aggressive or defensive in any of this.

maybe we can let it rest. At least, I am going to.

Thank goodness.