Lifetime

thanks lou

I can't copy and paste right now but read Rule 8 section 7 that specifically deals with collisions.

Just last week i watched a CSUF runner go through the USC catcher that was blocking. Run counted and no argument by the coach, so I believe you're incorrect.

WTF? The whole argument is that most of the time the catcher isn't even blocking the plate. A lot of the times the catcher is setting up for a swipe tag and the runner still chooses to run him over. It has nothing to do with woosification of America. No clue what you're talking about. It has to do with eliminating unnecessary injuries and keeping the game as safe as possible. As usual...you find a way to miss the point.

And that argument is without merit. Most of the time a plate collision occurs, the catcher is blocking the plate.

and yet the reality is, the play is fairly rare and injuries from the collision are even rarer. 

you cant bowl over a catcher in high school ball (or college for that matter)

That's the normal position gb

The part where you described the *usual way the play happens. And let's not exaggerate the catcher concussion issues as a result of said collisions

That is inaccurate Cali.

not true about Estrada's career after the collision

no

Why not? If you'd like to mention other groups feel free to do so.

because it's not a repcon issue. That serves as nothing more than your attempt to stick a poker in the beehive.

why single them out?

repcons?

So you'd be open to an amendment that addresses modern weaponry with regards to the second amendment?  

Not sure what in my comment lead you to that conclusion, but I'd be open to the process Glen. That's the way the system is supposed to work.

thats what the amendment process is for Kody, by design

go pound salt!

So you gave an answer to how many shots you estimate were fired?

yes. again, not the answer you jackasses were looking for. And here you are, in a completely unrelated thread, still being a jackass trying to stir up trouble, as per your usual.

It must have been deleted immediately after you posted it, because nobody other than yourself saw a response.

it's still there. 

oh lol,sorry I didn't misinterpret what you actually said for what you meant to say. so tell me, what did you really mean again?

Of course. By using the word "bunch", I implied bananas, which means that the women in the truck weren't in real danger. Or maybe it was a veiled racial slur directed at any black officers who were present. Or perhaps I implied Bradys, which means that the whole thing was staged to film a bad sitcom, trivializing the real danger in the situation.

 

People who concern themselves as much with how something is said as with the content are too tedious for me to deal with.

No response on the shots fired by LAPD at the blue truck?

actually, I gave a response. it just wasn't the one you jackasses were prodding for.

hmm, I was hoping you were going to explain how that works.

no response on the 1st Amendment question?

and this is unusual or unexpected from a GM after losing one of their starting OF and fielding questions from the press about how the outfield is going to look or if certain players might be traded? I dont see the issue here.

uh, you also said that because of that they could not objectively interpret the Constitution. so you're saying that they side with the crowd but they don't side with the ideals and regardless of that they cant be objective? that seems reasonable enough.

Uh, no. I said that they were on the side of that crowd, not that they were part of it or that guns were their primary focus. Thanks for playing.

so how much has Dipoto been in the press lately about Bourjos being the starting CF?