Lifted Up

I saw plenty of you even though my first twig leader was PD. Actually I drifted into yours as summer came I think. Of course we have connected. I dont think I was at the vollyball games though. One thing we had in common was we both went out with the same corps lady, whose name you dont have to look far to find. Of course all those plants belonged to GS, that and listening to Seals & Crofts all the time were hallmarks of living in that apartment. Plus DK grabbing his handfulls of raw ground beef and downing them. At one time during the year, while you were WOW, he bought a can of squid somewhere. I opened it up one day, chopped up the squid, and made a salad to spread on crackers for twig. CR was just one of the hordes of medical people around at the time. One highlight was watching him get lots of exercise in and out of one clas that was run while he was doing the cleanse. Dont remember if that was while you were there or not. You can keep exercising your brain to remember if you wish, or you can e-mail me at smile092850@hotmail.com . I reveal all in private communication to friends and even most enemies. On that skit, the three of us wroe makeshift diapers...the "Three Little Babes" (plaigarized from the Three Little Pigs) ...while you dressed up western style as The Evil One. We were the first skit because CR was co-hosting the event with, I think, TG, so he could change out of his babe costume and do his emcee part.

Yea I was at Indy, got involved in 1975, PFAL January 1976. You sound suspiciously like the one I replaced in that apartment when someone went WOW and I became apprentice corps after ROA 1976. The apartment where I got to live alongside of plenty of vegetation. That should be enough clues, I wont mention your name, so I wont reveal it if I am right, or look like an *** if I am wrong. If you are the one, you did a fine job as the Evil One in that year ending branch skit contest...DK, CR and I were the "Three little Babes".

Maybe so. But I think it is hard to do that if the staying in touch is only electronically. At least in my experience. Probably not their fault, but my own expectations.

Wacky, this isnt the first time I have been able to agree with you. :)-->

Oldies, I think you say it better (and simpler) than I do. As for Catholics and Baptists being concerned about discovering the truth, evidently some of them are. Catholic Culture site review

John Lynn (as he has stated) has seen both good and bad in TWI. This includes the teachings. Does scrutiny, as seems the tone to me here, require rejection? Perhaps he HAS scrutinized the teachings and found them to be right, or does scrutiny by somepne's definition have to lead to rejection?

In view of the practices and pronouncements at that time to the contrary (i.e. adultrey is not a sin) , I think it was some independent thinking by someone who wanted to show from the Bible that adultrey IS wrong. It hasnt been the only time the obvious has been needed, as it is not so obvious to all. Obviously in TWI it WASNT obvious to all, including, of course, some leadership. Perhaps a better way to put it would be that you can't believe such a paper was needed.

If sex was so repressed in the U.S.S.R., by living conditions or otherwise, then why does my wife have so many relatives??? :)--> I am being fair; I am not counting the ones born since they came over in the 1980s. And BTW, they lived in rather harsh conditions as well.

The Rangers have been cursed since their beginning as the Washington Senators in 1961. Or shall we say, Texas fans have been Short changed. (Bob Short was the owner who moved them).

Good point. We can make our own decisions about what to believe without doing or saying something that would hurt someone.

I will join with Radar to "derail" this thread, wishing Jeff well. He is one of the people I got to e-know when I first came onto Waydale several years ago. In fact, a thread of his about trust was the first thread I posted to. Not that I have no interest in the thread topic; the letter that is. I am just not sure what I would say now. My experience with John Lynn in TWI was early...getting involved during his Indy rule.

Sweets, sweets, sweets. Who every heard of a birthday party without them? Standard fare for our office staff meetings and seminars is doughnuts. Once at a seminar I gave, I brought fresh fruit and "twister" to drink. (My seminar was on the formation of tornadoes). There was a little fruit left over. I am trying to picture the birthday girl's reaction if you asked her if she wanted frsh fruit for her birthday party!?! Probably the same as fried liver??? Anyway, today is THE day.

GS...or any ex-Way site...or any ex-anything site...or for that matter any message board (like the fan club board I have participated in) are cyber meeting places. Therefore we know only cyber people. It is hard to trust cyber people, especially anonymous cyber people, and therefore it is not always easy to believe them. In my years at Waydale and GS we have had a few ugly incidents of deception...incidents that have cost some of the people involved a lot. If the matter is small and doesnt affect us or upset us, we may choose to believe them, on the basis that if we are wrong it doesnt cost us anything. But when the matter is serious, and changes a lot, or makes us change drastically the way we think, testimony from anonymous cyber people doesnt quite do it. Much less second hand descriptions of something that supposedly happened to some other anonymous entry. That may have something to do with someone's account not being believed; with someone flipping out on you. There my be; I believe there are excellent reasons for remaining anonymous. Even I do it superficially, publicly, although in almost all private communications I tell all. However, that does not solve the believability problem, as understandable as the reasons are. So, if someone has trouble with people not automatically accepting their account, that person may have to make a choice or excercise some trust to obtain more believability. And that trust may be hard to give, in view of what that person had experienced, and in view of the reasons I gave above.

I didn't see the play; just read about it. However, the protest is apparently dead. If the ball passes any fielder except the pitcher, even if not touched, the runner is not automatically out if the batted ball hits him, but he is out if (everyone's favorite phrase) in the umpire's judgement, another fielder had a play on the ball to get a runner. What I read is in this case, Torre admitted that the second baseman may have had a play, but the key is the umpire's judgement is not going to be overruled.

Looks like the Ump didnt handle it right, but dunno about the protest. My take from your description is that the ump should have waited until the play was complete, call time, then give his warning. If there is good reason to believe that the batter would have made it to second anyway, the protest is dead. If the catcher was still holding the ball when the ump gave his warning, distracting the catcher from making a play, and if the runner was holding up before noticing the distraction, then the protest seems legit. But then, it would have depended on the interpretation of the people in your league who handle protests...and how much of a pain in the *** they felt it would be to drag everyone out at another time to replay the game from that point. Putting the reigns on aggressive play, especially runners running into fielders trying to make a tag, is a big thing with the kids, even the big ones. Such plays that would be called "giving your all" in pro ball are not tolerated in many leagues (including ours), and for good reason.

Happy Birthday Kelly!!!!! Aw, cmon, ya gotta have a fight with sis ONCE in a while.

It's still there. Most umpires are pretty lenient to the batter on that one though. The idea being that with some of the smoke big and even minor league pitchers throw, the batter doesnt have much time to get out of the way. Even with the teens and kids I have only called it a couple times in fifteen years, that is, not let the batter have first. The most famous case that I remember is when Don Drysdale was going for the consecutive shutout innings record and was pitching against, I think, the Giants. With the bases loaded and three balls on the batter, Drysdale hit a batter with a pitch, but the umpire didn't let the batter have first. Drysdale went on to set a new record. Oh, not only did the ump not allow the batter first, but he called the pitch a strike. If a pitch hits the batter in the strike zone it is just that, the batter doesnt go anywhere (except the dugout if it's strike three), and effort to get out of the way doesnt matter. The way some batters crowd the plate, I am surprised this hasnt happened more often.

Simon, I'll give you a passing grade on that one. The only exception to your description would be if, in the umpire's judgement, the batter dropped the bat with intent to interfere with the ball. But I'll bet you would figure that one correctly if you saw it. So where do you umpire?

You are right of course, Simon. Next one...and I am not thinking these up; this one came up just last night. Batter swings and tops one right in front of the plate...often called a "swinging bunt". As he starts down the line for first, he drops the bat in front of the plate. The ball rolls back and hits the bat (in fair territory). Is the batter out at that point, or is he still alive in his attempt to reach first base?

Because baseball play possibilities are so numerous, and the rules complicated enough, that when we attempt to discuss even a sample of the possibilities, it can sound confusing to the unstudies ear. A & C knew this and turned it into their classic routine by subsituting their interesting "names" for players. Because the play possibilities are so numerous, the rules have to be extensive to cover, as well as can be done, so that the umpire does not have to "guess" in rules situations. obviously there are a lot of judgement calls (ball or strike, safe or out, etc). But within that framework, we like to have something concrete to guide our decisions, so we can have some pretense of authority. If this is too boring for you, bear with me; you would never guess what I am thinking now in line with this. If a runner slides into home plate and the catcher puts the tag on him, I have to judge whether or not he did tag him, and if he did before or after the runner reached the plate. But before I make an out call, I must see concrete evidence that the catcher (or whatever fielder is involved) is still holding the ball in that glove. A lot of times in a plate collision, I have to search that out. The rules say he has to hold that ball. So I may not make my call for a few seconds. Determining what happended in real life can be like that for me. That is why I am so big on testimony. And for testimony to carry the weight of seeing that baseball in the catcher's mitt, I must know that it is reliable...the person doing the testifying must be more than an anonymous someone to me, and definitely more than someone else referring to an anonymous someone's words. In order not to tie up this thread on the wonderful subject of baseball, further explanations of my thinking, if desired (which may be unlikely) may be obtained by using the PT route or by e-mailing me at smile092850@hotmail.com . Now, for a personal tidbit... I have seen major league baseball games live at the following places... The Coliseum in Los Angeles Wrigley Field in Los Angeles (yes, there was one) Municipal Stadium in Cleveland DC/RFK Stadium in Washington Memorial Stadium in Baltimore Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington, MN Atlanta/Fulton Co. Stadium in Atlanta The big A at Anaheim (before it was closed in) Fenway Park in Boston Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia As you may corretcly guess, by the fact that many of the above either dont exist anymore or are not big league ballparks anymore, it has been quite many years since I have seen a big league game live. But, now the taste of being in real action (as an umpire) seems to be better.

Happy birthday Grizz! I will spare you the Russian bear hug.

All right, who's talkin'? Called seven games in a tournament over the weekend, including the championship game. Aside from forgetting to keep my hand out of the way on a pitch the catcher missed totally, it went well. A couple of rules points that came up, which not everyone seemed to know; how about you? Runners on first and third, two out, and the catcher missed a third strike. Is the batter automatically out? (Note, these are big kids, and we play regular baseball rules except for some substitution and pitching changes). Runner on first steals second on a foul tip, which is held by the catcher. Is the runner entitled to second, or must he return?

Now I KNOW I've seen you around the last day or two. Come in, Hawk!

Doesnt matter when the batter gets to first. Once a runner is forced out, the force is off for any preceeding runners. (Not for following runners).

From your description sounds like the ump blew the second out call...once the runner at first is forced at second, the runner at second should no longer be subject to the force. However, the no hitter is of course still good. Some of the kids leagues cant always get top notch umpires. Or a lot of them. I work mostly with the kids, but I am certified and qualified to work adult amateur games. Theoretically, I could work the local minor league games in a pinch, but that is not going to happen.