Wow. I'm really glad you said this because it exposes a vital difference between us that I've been trying to elucidate - and suggests our fundamental quarrel might be less about this integrity/ conflict of interest pissfest and more about politics.

There is nothing to "dissent" against. Again. Wow. Do you feel that if one is dissatisfied with a private enterprise, that one's role should be to simply shop elsewhere ( in this case, for entertainment), and not make a fuss, because the enterprise cant legally oppress you like a govt can?

While baseball can reasonably be seen as just one of several entertainment choices, if you're a baseball fan, like us, the local team is a kind of monopoly, without meaningful competition. To your point, if this was a Blimpie outlet, I'd reserve my right to protest bad service, but at least I could take my business down the street and eventually shut up about it :-)  It's different letting go of baseball. It's a monopoly and my investment (financial & emotional) is much greater. Exiting gently into that good night is, to paraphrase Gonzo, "not an option". The other option you've bestowed is to more or less accept/enjoy MLB and the Dbacks, warts and all, without getting too uppity about anything intrinsically economic or structural - essentially, to love it or leave it.  

Maybe you find those choices satisfying and comprehensive, but I dont. I've chosen a third, dare I say distinctly American option, which is to vocally protest club moves that I sincerely feel have diminished customer satisfaction for a quasi-private product that I have helped finance via my taxes and patronage.

Do you honestly think that private entities should be spared the online wrath of unhappy customers because transgressions dont rise to the level of govt oppression or coercion? Union Carbide ring a bell? Bridgestone? I would never seriously entertain that Derrick Hall rises to that level, but your argument that private business s/b categorically immune from forceful, even strident, criticism is flawed, revealing, and, in all candor, kind of alarming.

you portray them as the most evil, unethical, vilest pond scum that ever dared step foot into this state.

Again, I think this kind of hyperbole just underscores how uncomfortable you are with dissent and criticism, generally, and where you're at on the spectrum of corporate fidelity. When it comes to sabermetrics, even though I dont always agree with you, you generally sound like a level headed, easy going guy. But when the subject turns to what might loosely be termed corporate integrity (sorry, I cant think of a better word, though I'm sure there is one) and corp vs the individual issues, you change skins and get uncharacteristically defensive. When fans got upset about the new colors, it wasnt enough to merely disagree with them, you had to paint them as unworthy, as non-fans. When people suggest the club open up their pursestrings beyond what they have already, you seethe about overextended Americans, ignorantly demanding it all. You recoil against any suggestion that the FO (or more generally MLB) was in any way responsible for lagging attendance, but are very quick to blame fellow Phoenicians for not getting with "the program". You feel compelled to turn public opinion when it's at odds with corporate policy, even if it means bullying ordinary people - and it's not very becoming. I may have contempt for particular front office tactics, but you, sir, IMHO, harbor contempt for ordinary people.

There is not one thing this ownership and management team has said or done that you have not criticized in the most strident and hateful of terms.  Furthermore, there is not one thing this organization has said or done that is praiseworthy, according to you.

Totally untrue in both spirit and fact. You really ought to subscribe to my newsletter to prevent further such "hateful and outrageous" claims ;-) Just off the top of my head, I praised Kendrick for having JC throw out the NLDS ball, I praised Moorad for his measured postgame comments after the clincher in Pittsburgh, I praised the org for $20 seats in the Diamond Level in the heat of a pennant race and I praise players and moves by Josh Byrnes on a regular basis. IIRC, I was the first local blogger to call the NL MOTY for Bob Melvin, way back on Sept 7th. In this very thread, I credited the FO for reducing ST prices in certain sections that were overpriced for a long time. So, coming from somone who complains that I go overboard, your claim is just ponderous nonsense, shoe. I'm just not "balanced" enough for your Fox News sensibilities, which as far as I can tell, is an 80/20 gung ho split in favor of whatever the hell these shysters run up the flagpole. You were in sales, right? It's clear from your unwillingness to castigate Hall's behavior in any spirited way, despite several open invitations to do so, that we dont share the same definition of 'ethical business practice'.

Imagine if you will, that a reporter in a high ticket town like New York or Chicago asked the Cubs or Mets Pres. why tickets were so expensive, and instead of responding with the usual, about  supply and demand, or charging what the market will bear, or saying his tix cost less than a Knicks game, this Pres. got up during a ballgame, on WGN or WPIX and said, "oh, no, our tickets arent expensive at all. Cubs tickets actually rank 15th in MLB pricing, so when you said we had the third highest prices you were grossly misinformed". And lets say he did this online, and at several other games, and had his broadcasting team reinforce this message. My question is, what do you think the press in CHI or NY would do to that guy? Answer: they would, quite justifiably, chew him up and spit him out. If he continued the nonsense, public pressure would mount, quite justifiably, for him to be removed as spokesman. This is essentially what Hall has orchestrated and, much to my chagrin, I appear to be the sole voice locally even bringing it up. I find that disappointing and even a little disturbing.    

You throw out words and accusations without responsibility

Well, I'm happy to review any claims on a case by case basis, but again, I disagree with the general spirit of what you're trying to say. I took a nasty potshot at Jim a while back that I regret. I made a remark about Kendrick back in 2005 that perhaps I should revisit, but generally speaking, as you know, I'm quite careful about how I word things. What you may not know, is that I actually take the concept of fairness quite seriously - but see the informational playing field differently than you do. Profiteer? You're hung up on profiteer? I meant profiteer exactly as you defined it and, trust me, have zero qualms about its usage.

And for the record, I've never accused this FO of any kind of tax crime. I've accused them of consistently misleading the public on a variety of issues, beyond what I'd call ethical salesmanship, and from that, I've suggested that perhaps they shouldnt be given the benefit of the doubt on some more serious issues. Mr Kendrick can corral MacGruder about transferring $5M of payroll between the 07 and 08 buckets, but if I suggest the possibility of a similar transfer between charitable buckets (an internal transfer and in no way a crime) by an org that lies about their pricing structure and misleads the public as to the impetus for several of their programs and policies, then my suggestions/suspicions, on a blog for goodness sake, are histrionically mischaracterized as legally binding accusations and I'm cast as an irresponsible demogogue.  

...maybe you consider raising or lowering their ticket prices unethical

Huh? Another strawman alert :-)

Your non stop tirade began when Colangelo was pushed out.

To clarify, I started blogging during the end of the Colangelo era, and it might surprise you to learn that, early on, I rubbed Jerry's face in it fairly regularly. It is true that this 'non-stop tirade' accelerated after the ouster, but your insistent implication that that's necessarily due to some sort of conflict of interest, business or family ties, or predetermined favoritism, is misplaced to the point of being amusing.

It accelerated because the new FO provided a wealth of ammo for me to skewer them with, more than I ever would have imagined back in 2004. Partly policy changes and some poor customer service experiences, but mostly on the public relations side, especially after Derrick comandeered the organizational spotlight and unleashed his signature torrent of Orwellian doublespeak. In my mind, his stuff is just begging to be attacked, and while some of my pre-Hall rants might've seemed more forced or contrived, since Derrick's arrival, alot of the  vitriol and satire pretty much wrote itself.  

In the interests of disclosure regarding "motives", I did have some poor customer service experiences under the new FO, some of which I've written about, most of which occured considerably after the "tirade" took off. It's part of what fueled my disdain towards the FO, but there's nothing scarring or mysterious there I'm trying to hide. I was, on several levels, a dissatisfied customer, just inundated with a goldmine of fodder to write about.

Finally, I think all writing, no matter how heartfelt, has a certain self aggrandizing quality to it. We bop back n forth online, in part, to show each other how smart we are. I'm no different. I dont wanna play the self righteous journalist card too hard here, and fully understand there's an entertainment component of tweaking the FO's nose, both for readers and myself, especially in terms of how one executes a given piece. But the underlying dissatisfaction, with MLB generally, some of this FOs stances in particular, and an unusually flaccid, enabling local media, is totally sincere.  

Believe it or not :-)