Rev. Larry Hodges > A man of extreme self-contradictions

[Olsen]

Larry continues to insist that he supports the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation Massacre because long pips were driving away millions of children from the sport & slightly reducing the Aspect Ratio will be immediately identified children an dthey would all hav ecome back to the sport after 1998.
Yet Larry Hodges has no problem with spin glues & spoosters continuing to endanger the health of children, pregnant women & specttaors othe rthan players. If you do not know, Larry Hodges successfully fought tooth & nail to have the spin glue ban of 1995 repeald.

And the most bizarre of all, is the fact that Larry Hodges wants the Frictionless Pips Ban of 2008 repealed. So if I understand this correctly, the 1998 Aspect Ratio Change helps millions of children to come back to the sport but yet magically, the frictionless pips of 2008 will have no effect on children at all. Magic

Go figure

[WC Zheian]

I dsagree because when you are involved in USATT & ITTF political matter, you need to do what benefits you the most.
In 1995 there was strong opposition to spin glue ban & Larry found it beneficial to him politically.
In 1998, there were also lots of complaints from robotNazis about pips who wer already angry about ITTF daring to ban their spin glues. They expected some reparation payments from ITTF equipment committee members if they want to keep their jobs. So they had to try hard (twice) to get the 1988 Durban Aspect Ratio Redution Regulation (after it failed in 1995) . Naturally Larry had to go with the flow not to upset the roboptNazis

Now after 2008 on the other hand, there was soem complaints about the ban on frictionless pips. So again Larry Hodges had to pretend like he supports the veterans.

I see nothing wrong with Larry did , just like any seasoned politician would do and sell their souls & only care about their personal approval from the masses.

[Karin V]

Larry ,
If you can, please just give me a satisfactory explanation to the following 3 very simple questions & I would gladly apologize to you & I will admit thet I am totally wrong & you & ITTF are correct

1. In 1995 you got the spin glue ban repealed by the ITTF You admitted that that spin gluing can be harmful to players , ecpecially children, Yet you got the glue ban repealed. Why ?

2. In 2000 you stated that you support the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation Massacre. You said that you support the change becuase it benefits children. Can you explain how ? How did children got less traumatized by Butterfly Feint Long & TSP P1 Curl (bothe were banned by 1998 change) but won't be equally traumatized by Yasaka Phantom 007 & Double Fish 1615 etc, which remain approved on ITTF LARC to this day

3. Around 2014 or 2015 you demanded (in OOAK forum) the repeal of the Frictionless Pips Ban of 2008. Can you explain how repealing the 2008 FP Ban won't traumatize children lot more than Feint Long ?

Thank you

[Paul Alan]

2. In 2000 you stated that you support the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation Massacre. You said that you support the change becuase it benefits children. Can you explain how ? How did children got less traumatized by Butterfly Feint Long & TSP P1 Curl (bothe were banned by 1998 change) but won't be equally traumatized by Yasaka Phantom 007 & Double Fish 1615 etc, which remain approved on ITTF LARC to this day

I just checked his blog where he talks to himself (after being forced to leave RSTT forum) .
In that blog he repeatedly states that he was not active in table tennis in 1998 when the rule was passed.

OK let us assume it is indeed true (though it is not , as you can see below)

In 2000 he was back in tabletennis and posted in RSTT Forum that he supports the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation Massacre because it protects billions of children from leaving the sport due to the evil long pips.
It is perfectly fine if he was not active in table tennis in 1998 . But he was very much active in 2000 as he is today.
What was his excuse then (in 2000) ? What is his excuse today ?