Jury Idiocy Comes to Montana

[Skarp]

I don't buy that.

Profit driven? Sort of the idea of being in business, isn't it? There are a lot of things many different companies do that are not NECESSARY, but they do it anyway if it will positively affect their profit margin. One of the most obvious involves what we are all doing right now, using software that the company (Microsoft, Apple or any other) selling it already has the next generation already coming out of it's beta mode.

How outdated software applications is analogous to products known to injure people is a mystery to me.

Then maybe you should find someone with a 3rd grade level of reading comprehension to place that comment within the context of which it was made.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Yeah, I've read this and many other "legal" accounts and opinions and they pretty much say the same thing. And I really don't give a damn how hot the coffee was (if you could read what people actually type, you would have seen I agree it was and still is too hot), if you are stupid enough to place it between your legs while attempting to open it, you do not deserve sympathy or excessive amount of awarded money.

You know, MTR, on occasion you have a dipshit quotient about you that approaches all-time Heybucket highs. It's one thing when some 1-post moron from Texas makes a dumbass comment about my reading comprehension...quite another when a regular contributor to this board does. If you want to compare reading and reasoning skills, I suggest you find another target.

I took your comment out of context? You mean the context in which I said that knowingly causing injuries to people in the pursuit of profit is reprehensible, and you responded with an absurd retort about the pursuit of profits that had absolutely nothing to do with injurious conduct? I was actually being kind when I said that the relevance of your example was a mystery to me. In truth it was completely idiotic...about as useful to the topic under discussion as informing me that lake Baikal is the 6th most voluminous lake in the world.

You don't give a damn about how hot the coffee was because drawing distinctions through the application of reason is a foreign concept to you. I'd dumb the argument down to help you understand it, but I suspect even then I'd be wasting my time.

[Sam]

Well Moefoes,

Let's talk about risk...since your other arguments don't really mean much.

I assume you are advocating leaving the high performance bats as they are, and you make the typical "put your kid in a bubble" strawman argument. Nobody is saying that you shouldn't allow your DD to participate in any activity that has the slightest risk. Everyone acknowledges that there are risks associated with the game. Its funny, though, that very few people will promote doing the right thing here, which is to minimize the risk. This game, as with baseball, was born with wooden bats. The sole reason for the performance bat revolution was to make crappy hitters into good hitters. The game is a travesty because people are too lazy to teach kids how to hit....so the bat manufacturers enter the party with their claims of "added distance", "really packs a wallop", etc.....they have to make them "hot" to justify the parent of a kid that can't hit paying $300 for the bat. They want to see little Susie Suckie hit a homer...and if a pitcher gets mamed on a comebacker, so be it.

We can make the game safer and purify it by going back to wooden bats. It would be easy. We are lucky this tragedy struck baseball before it happened in a softball game. We can change before it happens, so that a softball parent won't have to sue ASA and a batmaker. We can be smart about it.

You may have a different opinion regarding risk management. You may let your 6 year old walk a mile to school KNOWING that there are 102 registered sex offenders living between your house and the school. I'll drive mine to school and back.

[coachmatt]

our kids are never really safe.....

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bar ... JYCp8I9qUs

[MoeFoes]

Well Moefoes,

Let's talk about risk...since your other arguments don't really mean much.

I assume you are advocating leaving the high performance bats as they are, and you make the typical "put your kid in a bubble" strawman argument. Nobody is saying that you shouldn't allow your DD to participate in any activity that has the slightest risk. Everyone acknowledges that there are risks associated with the game. Its funny, though, that very few people will promote doing the right thing here, which is to minimize the risk. This game, as with baseball, was born with wooden bats. The sole reason for the performance bat revolution was to make crappy hitters into good hitters. The game is a travesty because people are too lazy to teach kids how to hit....so the bat manufacturers enter the party with their claims of "added distance", "really packs a wallop", etc.....they have to make them "hot" to justify the parent of a kid that can't hit paying $300 for the bat. They want to see little Susie Suckie hit a homer...and if a pitcher gets mamed on a comebacker, so be it.

We can make the game safer and purify it by going back to wooden bats. It would be easy. We are lucky this tragedy struck baseball before it happened in a softball game. We can change before it happens, so that a softball parent won't have to sue ASA and a batmaker. We can be smart about it.

You may have a different opinion regarding risk management. You may let your 6 year old walk a mile to school KNOWING that there are 102 registered sex offenders living between your house and the school. I'll drive mine to school and back.

Well then I am safe in assuming that you have lived your whole life by these opinions and DD has only swung a wood bat. Or did you just develope these morales today?
I do advocate the use of high performance bats because I own some. If I said I didn't advocate them yet I own 5 then I would be a hypocrite like yourself.
I wouldn't mind seeing wood bats being used as I stated.
As far as your thoughts regarding risk management....
My kids dont ride bikes in the street. They dont play with fire. And no they dont walk to school. But I am willing to bet as you pass all those little 6 years olds while driving DD to school KNOWING the danger they are in you have yet to offer a ride, stand by to assure their safety, or bring it to the parents attention.
SAVE THE WORLD SAM!!! But you only do it at your convience....

[SkinnyFats]

Sam, here's what you seem to be missing. You see, all the dads here on Heybucket have kids with cheetah-like reflexes. They don't have to worry about their kids; they just teach them to "snag the comebackers" instead. Only chumps have kids who can't defend themselves against juiced bats - those kids can play right field, or better yet - just stay home and watch the Disney Channel.

And when their kid hits what used to be a weak opposite field pop-up, and instead it goes over the fence, they get to brag about it at the water cooler on Monday.

[Sam]

Moefoes,

I am a hypocrite....pretty much all parents are....we have to be. We all ask our kids not to do the THINGS WE DID....so I'm betting you are also a hypocrite.

Teach your kid how to hit.

How is she going to feel if she hits a ball that kills a kid? What are you going to tell her? "It's OK...she knew the risks....she knew that the bats were juiced so that you could hit a ball hard enough to kill her even though you don't really have a good swing. Shake it off and get on 1B...we have a friendly to win."

[softballdadcoach]

I tend to lean more towards the position MTR professes, but regardless of that, I have this question.

If a ball off a wood bat travels @ 88mph, and off a 'hot' bat travels @ 98 mph--is it really going to make a difference to the pitcher who started 40 or 43 feet away and finished her pitch some 3-6 feet closer? What I mean is, are either of the hit balls 'safer'--as in if I fall off a 2-story building or a 4-story building am I 'safer' falling from the shorter one? Either of these hit balls will reach the pitcher, all else being equal, before most girls can do little more than throw their hands up defensively. If my math is right, a 98mph ball travels 144 feet per second, and a 88mph ball travels 129 feet per second. In either case, the batted ball travels from bat to the pitchers rubber in well under 1/2 a second. Also, in terms of the force either of these balls exerts upon a pitchers body upon striking, is the difference 'real' or negligible?

I understand the line of reasoning behind wanting wooden bats, but I question if it really makes an appreciable difference...

[access2]

DD was moved to play third this season, from SS position- where she is used to at playing- As coaches push her to move up- "creep- creep up"- I am sh*&ting my pants. Those shots from bigger 2nd year kids in her division can turn on a missed outside pitch- and look out!

[Sam]

I tend to lean more towards the position MTR professes, but regardless of that, I have this question.

If a ball off a wood bat travels @ 88mph, and off a 'hot' bat travels @ 98 mph--is it really going to make a difference to the pitcher who started 40 or 43 feet away and finished her pitch some 3-6 feet closer? What I mean is, are either of the hit balls 'safer'--as in if I fall off a 2-story building or a 4-story building am I 'safer' falling from the shorter one? Either of these hit balls will reach the pitcher, all else being equal, before most girls can do little more than throw their hands up defensively. If my math is right, a 98mph ball travels 144 feet per second, and a 88mph ball travels 129 feet per second. In either case, the batted ball travels from bat to the pitchers rubber in well under 1/2 a second. Also, in terms of the force either of these balls exerts upon a pitchers body upon striking, is the difference 'real' or negligible?

I understand the line of reasoning behind wanting wooden bats, but I question if it really makes an appreciable difference...

Let's turn your argument around....lets allow a 108mph bat because there isn't really an appreciable difference in the reaction time. Nobody would argue that. ASA lowered the standard from 100mph to 98mph. Why do you think they did that? ASA obviously found that there was an appreciable difference in reaction time....at only 2mph. I would argue that multiplying that by a factor of 5 would be well worth the reduction and buy the pitcher 5 times the reaction time that the 2mph change accomplished.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Much like MLB turned a blind eye to the juiced ball era and the steroid era because the powers that be perceived it was good for the game ( my opinion ) ... Are we doing the same with our 'hot bat' era ? ... many of us ( me included ) are quick to point the finger at MLB ... but DD's are still swinging a composite bat ... I have never seen a wood bat used in Womans or Girls Fastpitch ... I do see a couple models offered ... but until ASA, NSA or whoever take a stand, lower the MPH and force the manufacturers to de-juice the composite or aluminum bats, I don't see people purchasing bats that admittedly will not perform as well ... As much as I like to believe that I am for safety ... I would not send my team out there swinging wooden bats against a team swinging composite bats, unless that is what they told me they wanted to do .... But, I think I am going to buy a couple just for the heck of it ....