|
Well, Carl, the "meds" crack was 'cause you have seemed unusually eager to pick a fight recently; and cause your 6:46 [i think it was] post seemed rather disorganised, self-contradictory, and sputtering: not up to your usual [past] standard; esp. the "I don't believe ...", and the "difference between careless & accidental ..." part(s). I was making a smart-a$$ crack: maybe mine need adjusting first ....
And, I have to admit, that if you are right about my #1, and if #'s 2 & 3 are also prohibited by the rule, then I DON'T understand the FED rule about "careless" bat throwing.
I also noticed that you didn't really answer my questions about #'s 2 & 3: #2 is not intentional because not a form of protest - I buy that - is it therefore to be sanctioned as "careless"? And is #3 a "carelessly thrown" bat? I had not thought so, but I freely admit I may not understand what the FED honchos want.
My reading of the case plays has caused me to "understand" that what is being prohibited is where there is an actual risk of harm, "carelessly" ignored: not true accidents or incidental contacts; much less harmless, nay "careful" throwings, such as described in my #2. But I could be wrong. I will say that, before today, I have never heard of anyone enforcing the "careless bat throwing" prohibition in the circumstances I posited in my 3 examples.
|