Lifted Up

Normally, the batter will not be credited with a hit if any preceeding runner is put out before reaching the next base if he is forced to vacate his original base by the batter or a following runner. My scenario is an exception which is specifically covered in the scoring rules. In Simon's scenario, the runner who is out had already reached the next base; he is out for passing the preceeding runner. The runner on third never reaches home, but neither is he put out. So, after further reflection, unless I later find a rule contradicting it, I would say Simon's scenario is correct as well...that is, the batter would be credited with a hit. P.S. A runner who is not forced to advance doesnt have to for the batter to have a hit. This happens often; such as runner on second, batter gets an infield hit to third, runner on second holding. Batter is credited with a base hit.

Rule 10.05(e) on my scenario. On yours, I don't know; I havent found the rule to confirm or deny it yet.

Yes. At least one way. Two singles; batters thrown out trying to stretch their hits. Three singles to load the bases. Sixth batter hits a bouncer down the third base line which strikes the runner who was on third in fair territory. (Runner should and almost always do lead off on the foul side of the line). Runner is out for interference, but batter by the rulebook is credited with a base hit. Six hits, no runs.

The fielder does have the right away if he is fielding the ball. But that does not negate the fact that obstruction (interference by the fielder) IS possible, and it is therefore a way the runner can score.

The runner would stay at third on catcher's interference. Unless the bases were loaded, but the premise of a runner tagging at second and going to third implies that is not the case. And if the bases do become loaded, like through walks, then the runner would have made it to third without moving over on the fly ball.

Hey, don't you realize umpires have fun on the field?! Okay, some umpires, anyway.

Umpire's judgement. Yes, assuming he is attempting to field the ball, but fielder interference (called obstruction) is also possible. Especially if two or more fielders are going for the ball, and the one not fielding it runs into the runner.

Does this thread need a certified baseball umpire?

Oldies, for someone who has gone on record as seeing abortion as the taking of a human life (I believe that is accurate, correct me if I am wrong).....why does rascal's testimony not horrify you? Ya know, as I have stated in the past, as as a few may be aware of, I am real picky about testimony. Second and third hand stories of this or that happened to so-and-so, such happened to so many people, or even presumed first hand accounts by completely anonymous sources don't often impress me. I do respect that there can be excellent personal reasons for not telling all, such as the horror of living through the event again in front of everyone, but it doesnt help the believability. THEREFORE, when someone is so open and detailed in their account, as Rascal has been, even to the point of answering your last question in detail, despite the tone of doubt you expressed in asking it.....I accept that testimony. Recently, on another thread, you asked a question that looked to me very reasonable to ask, and yet a certain poster came down on you, not just calling it a "stupid question", but the stupid question that "takes the cake", pretty much stating that you were an idiot even to ask it. See my response on the "Patton" thread, currently on page two of this forum as I post. If someone calls you an idiot...or if someone calls you a liar when you are giving testimony about what happened to you personally...it is quite a personal attack. Or were you there? Whate makes it more interesting is your apparent stand on the abortion issue, and whether or not someone agrees with you on that, it is surprising that you don't seem to see horror in what Rascal testified as to what she went through.

Exy, is your reluctance to embrace the Schoenheit paper at all related to the fact that is deals extensively with adultrey as a sin, but does not deal with its sometimes (often?) one sided, abusive nature???

Exy if it is putting a MAN on a pedestal that causes you pain, then aren't you just wild about RFR??? :D-->

Oldies and Goey are both right about Schoenheit. Yes, he did just what he should have done, and yes it was a big deal in that environment. Ex is right, too; we don't need to make him a big hero. But for that matter, I have seen no evidence that he considers himself as such. Let's just be thankful...to You Know Who...that he did it. Maybe he could have or should have done even more...I have a sneaking suspicion that may have something to do with Exxy's reply...but he didn't do what some others did...that is, nothing.

I don't think she is doing it for me, but Rascal I think knows how big I am on testimony. I having an issue with her about testimony regarding a different subject. However, in this case, Rascal has been giving oodles of testimony about what happened to her. Pain? Still hurting? What do you expect? But you make it sound like she is controlled or obsessed by the pain and blame. Rascal testified as to what happened to her and why, accepting both her own responsibility and telling of those in TWI who made it the "spiritual thing to do". Okay, I don't mean to get on you too much. I guess someone giving such testimony as Rascal gives COULD be buried in blame and guilt, even though I don't see any real indication of it. I think I know enough about her to feel quite safe that she has the pain well under control. Make that very well. Better than I do, I think, in some different matters. No, we are not best friends and lifelong buddies. But those of use who have been around for a while know her a lot better than we know most, because she has been so open and not anonymous. I AM NOT KNOCKING ANONYMOUS POSTING, for which there can be very good reasons. It is just much easier to believe and trust someone you know as a person and not just as an anonymous poster. Oh, and if the only reason I had to post here was to "defend" Rascal, I could have saved my breath. Another thing about us both being sort of "old timers" around here (sorry for the terminology, Rascal) is that I know she doesn't need ME to speak for her. And I know you are not criticizing her personally. But your response seems to dilute her testimony, which I have found very valuable for reasons I gave above.

During my deprogramming, I had the "pleasure" of "examining" a large binder of press clippings and letters which supposedly showed how bad TWI was. As Oak points out, stuff from the outside tends to reek with lack of authority. Some of the letters were interesting because thay had some stuff from the inside, but one didn't have the intended effect. It was a letter protesting Ohio University's decision to allow the use (rental) of its facilities for advanced class '79. The reasons the protester gave seemed to be taken from the clippings. Furthermore, and I think this was an "oversight", the letter was accomanied by the university's reply which made basically two points...that the decision to allow the rental use was not made on the group's (TWI) religious beliefs, and also that information obtained from Ball State University officials referred very favorably to TWI's care of their facilities during PFAL '77. BTW, the "Jesus Christ is not God" thing was apparently a prime motivator in arranging my deprogramming, in which a certain Lutheran Church was involved.

On the contrary, it seems from testimony that they DID focus on the godly aspect. Note Rascal's testimony above (but after lovematters post)... if abortion was advised, as Rascal testified, so that mom could better perform her spiritual duties, then what more godly justification is there? There of course would be a serious clash if this godly reason involved the taking of a life, thus the first breath doctrine.

Gee, Rascal, you mean that wasn't a dormant nonliving entity kicking around in there? Not to deny the fact that I sure had the easy part of things, but on a couple of occasions during our four together, I actually did feel those kicks...or were they punches? I know it's a big difference...like taking a punch from Ali in his prime with or without a couple of queen size mattresses seperating us. But it was enough to know that there was someone in there not just lying around dormantly waiting to come out.

Hmmmmmmm.....I think this judgement you have made night just be wrong. Of course, I dont have any black and white stats as to how many "pro-life" ( or "pro-choice") people are so nasty to the children already born. But, since you have included everyone... "The 'pro-life' people"...that doesn't matter.

Well, my familiarity with the original subject relates to my already mentioned Indy and corps lightbearers buddy. I was his "backstage assistant" when he did it. He repeated it later that year, then also at the ROA. Anyone remember at ROA 1978, I think it was before it started when the corps were there, an announcement requesting army type costume items? He didn't have the same stuff he did it atEmporia with, for reasons I can't remember.

I was there also and neither can I remember the lemonade. And actually it was kind of fun. I got my very brief (a couple of seconds) exposure in "Changed" , jogging across the center of the picture. Funny, my memory of Country Time lemonade comes from college, when I drank a bunch of it once and in less than a day my severe cold or flu, whichever it was, disappeared.

Aw, come on...5 months since anyone besides me has posted. Hawk, are you around?

Of all the stupid questions I've seen posted, this one really takes the cake. If a person was proclaiming himself Jewish, what business would he have going WOW or corps or anything? First of all, how we got from Patton into this...oh well. Being Jewish can refer to race or religion. Sure, there is debate about this matter, but when the holocaust id referred to, it is usually in the context of race. Hitler's purification theory was not primarily based on religious belief, as if Jewish people who declared themselves Christian would be exempt from his solution. There were certainly people of Jewish decent in TWI and involved in the WOW program and corps. Oldies' question is certainly a legitimate one, especially since his question obviously referred to race, having asked about being Black or Jewish. The Black part was left out in the quote. To question the matter as Steve did is certainly not unreasonable. But to refer to Oldies' question as not just a "stupid question", but as the one that "takes the cake" is IMO.

Such thoughts! Pardon me, Vickles, as I express my birthday wishes to you again... For Psalmie.... ----------~~~~~~~~~~~WWWHHHIIIIPPPPPPP!!!!!!! Now Vickles will be afraid to touch that cake!!!!

Last time I talked with him, he was supposed to be headed to Torrence CA for his interim year at the same time I went to Philly for 1978-79. When I started my final residence year at HQ I had no idea where he was (except not at HQ) and had too many other things going on (!) to inquire.

Dovey, you left out about 20 candles, I think... Happy Birthday Vickles!!!

That 8th corps General Patton was my pre-corps Indy buddy and my lightbearers partner. I remember him well. Dunno where he is today though.