Does not follow...

If it doesnt fit anywhere else but you still want to share, this is the place
Post Reply
User avatar
Weetabix
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Weetabix »

Sepelyak was booked at Allegheny County Jail. She faces attempted homicide and arson charges and is set to appear in court on July 17.
You'd think the urine bucket could constitute some sort of assault as well.

Cop to Sepelyak: Urine big trouble now. We've got you for P & E.
Sepelyak: :?
Cop: Piss and extinguish.
Note to self: start reading sig lines. They're actually quite amusing. :D
User avatar
HTRN
Posts: 12397
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Does not follow...

Post by HTRN »

Vonz90 wrote:Me: Working on all of these home improvement projects is going to drive me to drinking.

Wife: You already drink

Me: Well there you go
Putting up smoke detectors while standing on a stepladder on a staircase after a couple of martinis is a really bad idea...

Or so I've heard.
HTRN, I would tell you that you are an evil fucker, but you probably get that a lot ~ Netpackrat

Describing what HTRN does as "antics" is like describing the wreck of the Titanic as "a minor boating incident" ~ First Shirt
User avatar
Steamforger
Posts: 2785
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:41 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Steamforger »

If college women are pitching softballs at the 65-72mph range and college men are pitching baseballs at 80-95mph (fastball) and between 55-85mph for all others, is there a reason women haven't moved to the baseball?

Is there a benefit to women sticking with the underhanded, fast-pitched, larger ball?

ETA- There is a significant difference in distance between home plate to the mound for them (43' v 60.5'), but I don't think that'd be enough to justify the sticking with the underhanded "spin" pitch versus just making the move to hardball.
User avatar
Rich
Posts: 2592
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Rich »

The upper body musculature of women is enough different (meaning less) that throwing an effective overhand fastball is pretty much impossible.

As far as I think I know. ;)
A weak government usually remains a servant of citizens, while a strong government usually becomes the master of its subjects.
- paraphrased from several sources

A choice, not an echo. - Goldwater campaign, 1964
User avatar
Darrell
Posts: 6586
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:12 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Darrell »

Rich wrote:The upper body musculature of women is enough different (meaning less) that throwing an effective overhand fastball is pretty much impossible.

As far as I think I know. ;)
There's a GIF of a young lady throwing a football over at reddit, she has quite an arm:

http://i.imgur.com/EQMyHF4.gifv

Still, she doesn't throw like a guy.
Eppur si muove--Galileo
User avatar
Rich
Posts: 2592
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Rich »

........she has quite an arm:

Indeed she does. At least while stepping into the throw.
A weak government usually remains a servant of citizens, while a strong government usually becomes the master of its subjects.
- paraphrased from several sources

A choice, not an echo. - Goldwater campaign, 1964
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Vonz90 »

Steamforger wrote:If college women are pitching softballs at the 65-72mph range and college men are pitching baseballs at 80-95mph (fastball) and between 55-85mph for all others, is there a reason women haven't moved to the baseball?

Is there a benefit to women sticking with the underhanded, fast-pitched, larger ball?

ETA- There is a significant difference in distance between home plate to the mound for them (43' v 60.5'), but I don't think that'd be enough to justify the sticking with the underhanded "spin" pitch versus just making the move to hardball.
The fastest ever baseball fast-ball by a women pitcher is in the low 80's. I think it is like 105+ for men. The difference in bone/muscle structure is too much to overcome.

I will not say that there will never be a female pitcher in MLB, but if so she will be a soft throwing pitcher with a knuckle ball, submarine pitch, something off the wall.
User avatar
randy
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: EM79VQ

Re: Does not follow...

Post by randy »

From the internet: With self driving vehicles you know that sooner or later there will be a country song about a guy who's truck left him.
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".
User avatar
Jericho941
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:30 am

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Jericho941 »

Vonz90 wrote:
Steamforger wrote:If college women are pitching softballs at the 65-72mph range and college men are pitching baseballs at 80-95mph (fastball) and between 55-85mph for all others, is there a reason women haven't moved to the baseball?

Is there a benefit to women sticking with the underhanded, fast-pitched, larger ball?

ETA- There is a significant difference in distance between home plate to the mound for them (43' v 60.5'), but I don't think that'd be enough to justify the sticking with the underhanded "spin" pitch versus just making the move to hardball.
The fastest ever baseball fast-ball by a women pitcher is in the low 80's. I think it is like 105+ for men. The difference in bone/muscle structure is too much to overcome.

I will not say that there will never be a female pitcher in MLB, but if so she will be a soft throwing pitcher with a knuckle ball, submarine pitch, something off the wall.
I think stature also has something to do with it, e.g. 6'10" Randy Johnson throwing 90 mph sliders and 100+ fastballs in his prime
Greg
Posts: 8486
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: Does not follow...

Post by Greg »

Finally stopped procrastinating and took my MO CCW training class. It's a state requirement. Involves classroom training on related law, familiarization with firearms, and a range portion where you have to show basic safety and competence.

Small class, only 3 of us. All of us were already familiar with guns, just finally getting our CCWs. Let me tell you how much I enjoyed spending a day in a room with gun people.

And the instructor was cool, he skipped over some stuff that was really too basic for us and spent extra time on some really interesting 'more advanced' stuff - mainly extra shoot/don't shoot scenarios we talked out, including a few he had devised to be deliberately challenging.

The range portion was interesting. The requirement is, take 20 shots at a human silhouette target at 7 yards, and get at least 15 hits in the black. We each took 20 practice shots, with the instructor giving us pointers as appropriate, then took our 20 official test shots.

Long story short - that's an easy requirement, of the 60 shots we collectively took only 1 landed outside the 10 ring, and that just barely. Wasn't me, somehow I slightly out shot them (tighter group) and they were teasing me about it.

Anyway, now I need to give the St Charles County Police some money, and start wasting money on holsters that turn out to be unsuitable. (I don't even *own* a holster, unless my Safepacker counts.)
Maybe we're just jaded, but your villainy is not particularly impressive. -Ennesby

If you know what you're doing, you're not learning anything. -Unknown
Sanity is the process by which you continually adjust your beliefs so they are predictively sound. -esr
Post Reply