Interference - Page 3

ChampaignBlue · #31 (**permalink**) Sat Jan 18, 2003, 02:05pm

I think you're still a % short. Having been a Peace Corps Volunteer in Africa, I feel safe in stating that the people in 3rd world countries like Americans, it's the American government that they dislike. No law aimed at citizens is going to stop terrorism but a few laws aimed at the government might. Jim

greymule · #32 (**permalink**) Sat Jan 18, 2003, 02:40pm

We used to have laws aimed at restricting the power of government and affirming the rights of individual citizens. I can think of a list of 10 offhand. However, most of those laws have been turned on their head. Some are now even interpreted as meaning the opposite of what their framers actually intended.

On the bright side, the government has not yet dared to try to quarter troops in my home.

Skahtboi · #33 (**permalink**) Sat Jan 18, 2003, 07:29pm

Quote:

Originally posted by greymule
"If guns are outlawed, only the police will have guns."

I thought that it was "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Scott

greymule · #34 (**permalink**) Sat Jan 18, 2003, 08:32pm

You're right, Skahtboi. That's the standard version. Libertarian liberals altered the wording from "outlaws" to "police" as a reflection of their political philosophy.

There's a short quiz you can take to see where you stand on a two-dimensional scale of liberal, conservative, libertarian, and authoritarian. In the United States, the liberal-libertarian quadrant contains the smallest percentage of the four. But it didn't always.

IRISHMAFIA · #35 (**permalink**) Sun Jan 19, 2003, 11:54am

Quote:

Originally posted by greymule
You're right, Skahtboi. That's the standard version. Libertarian liberals altered the wording from "outlaws" to "police" as a reflection of their political philosophy.

There's a short quiz you can take to see where you stand on a two-dimensional scale of liberal, conservative, libertarian, and authoritarian. In the United States, the liberal-libertarian quadrant contains the smallest percentage of the four. But it didn't always.

There are some places where the two are interchangeable. Just kidding, but sometimes not as far off as I would wish.

I also have little respect for lifestyle/political labels and those who make their decisions based on them.

Skahtboi · #36 (**permalink**) Sun Jan 19, 2003, 04:28pm

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
I also have little respect for lifestyle/political labels and those who make their decisions based on them.

Some of the sanest words I have heard in days on here!

Scott

Dakota · #37 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2003, 11:07am

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
I also have little respect for lifestyle/political labels and those who make their decisions based on them.

Which, I assume, is not the same as those who actually have a lifestyle/political set of principles and make decisions based on them.

Too many people make decisions (political / lifestyle) based on feelings or emotions, which are fleeting and heavily dependent upon immediate circumstance.

It's a horrible way to umpire and a horrible way to live.

Buck912 · #38 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2003, 01:08pm

Anyway, now back to the thread at hand. I want to thank everyone for their feedback, and I do agree with the last opinion given by West. I'm also glad a few of you seem to like my term "statue." I'll keep trying to come up with more likable ones. Yeah, right.......

SamNVa · #39 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2003, 03:12pm

I think others have mentioned this, but it may have been lost in the discussion. If the batter swings at the pitch, she does not have to immediately freeze into a statueonce the catcher begins to amke a play on a stealing runner; she is allowed reasonable movement normally associated with recovering from the swing.

SamC

Buck912 · #40 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2003, 04:46pm

Excellent, excellent point Sam. Thanks again to all.....

IRISHMAFIA · #41 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 20, 2003, 09:31pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Buck912
Excellent, excellent point Sam. Thanks again to all.....

And that is one of the reasons ASA says an act must be with the intention of interferring with the catcher's attempted throw to be considered interference.