Kirk Gallaway

Jeff, I'll have to check Dan Bern out. So next year it's 15 seconds between pitches and 20 if they're runners on base? It seems a bit extreme. i did about 20 regular season timings this year and it came to over 30 seconds average! But when does the clock start? When the batter steps back to the plate? What time constraints does the batter have? What is the penalty for exceeding the limit, a called ball? Ok the first article below covers that in detail. No shift--- that's ok with me, but won't some fielders shift right after the ball is released? No 7 inning doubleheaders-- Of course that's fine with me. Designated hitter in National League-- Good move because of Charley Finley 26 to 28 man roster- of course, they use so many pitchers now. But I had also heard this week on the radio that pitchers would face a 3 batter minimum, also no automatic runner on second in extra innings games. If so, good riddance! i hated that! But I don't see it listed in either of the articles below. https://www.si.com/mlb/2022/09/09/mlb-new-rule-changes-explained-2023-season-pace-of https://www.si.com/mlb/2022/09/09/mlb-new-rule-changes-explained-2023-season-pace-of .

Cliff: In my book you and most everyone on this Forum chronically mid-uses the phrase “deep state” as an exclusively Globalist entity. The Deep State now is so ubiquitous, it could mean almost anything. Actually, if you remember, I've sort of scoffed at the "Deep State" for that reason. I don't use the phrase except in describing other's account of their deep state. There is a need for a phrase. It's almost a requirement here that everybody has a "deep state". It's kind of "Identity politics", right Ben? I understand the 3 distinctions you make. The problem IMO, with the Yankees and the Cowboys thing is that people always take it so literally. I think the common perception of the right wing conspiracy "woke" here is not the least nuanced , and that everybody in all 3 groups is a "globalist" outside of Trump. (whose a globalist) **** Congrats to Dusty and the Stros, though they're not my favorite team. Dusty lives at least in part in Sacramento still! Dusty and I go back a long way. Since we got him from the Dodgers in the 80's. then he became our manager. Then in game 6 in 2002 World Series and the Giants up 3-2 over the Angels., he pulled Russ Ortiz who had a one hitter going with one out in the 7th, leading 5-0, when he then allowed his second hit!! Then reliever Felix Hernandez ends up the inning allowing a 3 run homer, and the Angels come back to tie in the eighth!, then go ahead and take game 6 and then game7! The Giants lose the series! And that was near the beginning of the era when they'd just pull the pitchers, who were doing great, and take their chances with the bullpen. It backfired bad on us! But I noticed the managers were no longer even second guessed about it! Having been a pitcher while growing up. I knew my era was over! The other day Houston won game 4 over Philadelphia, with a combined no hitter! But who gives a sh-t about a "combined no hitter?" Who'll ever remember the names of 3 pitchers who combined in a no hitter? Particularly now with the way they're switching pitchers! There could be a 6 pitcher no hitter now.! Anyway, Sorry, but how often does a major sports season end?

Cliff, in the way of explaining Ben that I see: Ben sided with the rioters aggression against his Capitol probably because he couldn't conceive in his "American Deep State" model they wouldn't just slaughter them all. So he and others here are left with concocting "deep state false flag" conspiracy theories involving the FBI, NSS and the MSM with one overriding purpose, to get Trump, and refusing to look institutionally at the involvement, destruction of evidence and stonewalling of the Secret Service and Trump's 3 hour dangerous indifference to the riots. Not to mention the many pronged organized plans to subvert our Democracy that are ongoing to this day, as well as the testimony among many of his aides that Trump knew all along he lost the election. That and a naive hope from Thailand that these rioters actually had a coherent populist philosophy that would hijack the GOP or be a real third party, though he had no specifics at all how that would happen, and the politicians who now hold his initial position are among the wackiest, most militant and dangerous, which he maybe is coming to realize.

Ad hominem attacks! You're changing the subject. You hijacked the thread to LinnieMaeLand as if it that testimony was highly suspicious, and I gave you the context, as the reason why I think you have nothing there. And I said if you can drum up more suspicion in the future, be my guest, but I'm not holding my breathe that it ultimately will go anywhere. We'll see where it goes. Good luck!

Listening is believing. One thing you learn when you grow up in a castle, and look out the moat everyday at thr hungry peasants out in the village is you don't want to stoke envy among the proletariot. off mic 2009 "I don't run around pretending to be a man of the people, I'm absolutely not a man of the people at all." off mic 2008 Yep, the truth is all pretty much here. Now it's time to pick up the pieces of shattered illusions, but like the nation, that's not coming easy! I love his commentary about Bill O' Reilly phony populism that he eventually has emulated and become. ***** Yeah, you don't pretend to be a man of the people? BS!, as the beginning of this clip shows! Carlson, heir to the Swanson Fortune, is the the Fox News Corporate State mouthpiece for the ultra wealthy. A network, who will never talk of social security and medicaid, because they are the trying to discourage people from having any hope of a safety net in the future. You know his background. Unfortunately critical thinking is so lacking today. I can listen to 10 minutes of any Tucker broadcast and show what he's deliberately avoiding. Besides here's some easy things.Do you know anybody around you named TUCKER? He has a son named, BUCKLEY. Are you guys so politically illiterate, you don't know who he's named after. CIA crypto fascist William BUCKLEY that's who. A lot of people have to ask themselves, "are they really a closet elitist? or just an another every day Joe, swallowing the Kool Aid.

Been seeing a lot of Tucker's pictures here lately. I'll add another one. Tucker Carlson caught in conversation. "I don't run around pretending to be a man of the people, I'm absolutely not a man of the people at all." Yeah, you don't pretend to be a man of the people? BS!, as the beginning of this clip shows! Carlson, heir to the Swanson Fortune, is the the Fox News Corporate State mouthpiece for the ultra wealthy. A network, who will never talk of social security and medicaid, because they are the trying to discourage people from having any hope of a safety net in the future. You know his background. Unfortunately critical thinking is so lacking today. I can listen to 10 minutes of any Tucker broadcast and show what he's deliberately avoiding. Besides here's some easy things.Do you know anybody around you named TUCKER? He has a son named, BUCKLEY. Are you guys so politically illiterate, you don't know who he's named after. CIA crypto fascist William BUCKLEY that's who. A lot of people have to ask themselves, "are they really a closet elitist? or just an another every day Joe, swallowing the Kool Aid.

Whoa, I come back here tonight, and it does seem to be a rather childish over reaction that I assume may have been boiling below the surface. You must be very easily intimidated, John. No John , just because I don't think Ruth Paine is a 60 year CIA agent, doesn't mean I'm a LNer.It was playful little nudge, John to remind to relax. Nothing more. As I nicely told you before, and I'll elaborate now. No, I don't think your release of Linnie Mae testimony means anything other than she was probably anticipating for months her testimony before the big Feds in Washington, who are trying to link her as bringing LHO to the assassins perch. Particularly in light of the intimidation tactics used by the Dallas Police on her brother! If it sounds rehearsed, it probably was! And I do think understanding the context is important! If she had even gotten legal counsel before that, I wouldn't have blamed her, but maybe she couldn't afford it! As I said before, She mentioned and repeated that there might be a job there, but she didn't know, but Wesley had applied. Draw whatever conclusions from that you want, and investigate her further and good luck! Whether you hit pay dirt or it ends up being another "soggy loofah of logical fallacy" we shall see. My guess is that it will end up being another waste of time, but we got plenty of that. To the forum. If I actually started an unwanted diversion with DVP, I apologize. .

Even after all the salacious rumors about Paul Pelosi and his assailant knowing each other were put to bed by both parties. Trump tries to capitalize on someone getting his skull smashed in with a hammer, just like the lying pos he is..Queued at 1:00. How about this: 74% of the American public feel our democracy is in danger but only 8% list it as their number one concern!

Oh, and that isn't an ad hominem attack, Chris? W. didn't single you out! ***** Exactly Dubs!, (heh heh!) We've spent so much time correcting false statements and fact checking, (particularly to Ben) and then to find there's no real discipline to answer relevant questions or even stay on a subject for long. The knowledge base is very thin because it's driven by online searches solely designed to confirm biases and give no real supporting knowledge or background in any subject, so they fail and beat to a hasty retreat to another subject when brought to any scrutiny. Chris spent his first 2 years here just railing that there was any meritocracy or fact checking, And whining how we could so skeptical of the JFKA, and yet be so uncool that this forum wasn't just a free for all where he could advance just any dystopian conspiracy theory he wanted to peddle, to nodding agreement. I think there must be a number of websites more suitable to your tastes, but you're always compelled to come back here, I assume because you've probably tried and know you can't get the quality of response you get here. We should probably charge you!. heh heh It would be a lot of fun for us to monitor the sites where you guys would end up with like minded conspiracy theorists. I'm sure with the discipline, and the razor thin superficial knowledge, it would be an unorganized, anti factual, free for all zoo, yet very humorous to watch.

I feel I should make something clear because of Sandy's new position here. I initiated a Pm to Sandy , as another forum member I've had good relations with, who I've always thought had a degree of independence although I didn't always agree with him and I disagree with him about this matter. Sandy gave me his opinion which in no way I interpreted as using his position to try to stifle discussion on this forum, but just in general conversation as we had previously had on the forum.

Sandy in PM , I saw it that you actually lectured me as to my foolhardiness in trying to undermine the forum authorities on this subject, who I think you were counting on for support, but you found out the case against RP has been vaulted here to almost utter certainty of RP's guilt, at least half, on innuendo. It would never remotely stand up in court. And yes, I do think your theory is grasping at straws. But as I said before , you at least a postulate a detailed theory which no one here or really anywhere among the "Ruth is guilty" authors has ever been really willing to do, that I know of, which should tell you something. Your theory only makes it infinitely easier for Ruth to eventually come out and tell everything she knows without any legal repercussion. If it were true, I would end up hating her silence more than Jim Di and Allen, and that's a lot!

Witnesses within Trump's own cabinet say Trump admitted he lost.This was all knowingly started by Trump. There are legal ways to contest elections and they've been tried. It's been investigated and in 60 of 61 court cases, Giuliani came up with nothing. Trump's followers follow whatever he says, because either they're lost without him, or his politicians are afraid of him.. Don't make this into a free speech issue. Of course they have the right.

Yeah, pretty incredible Ron! Ron, now you're copying John's lines of Linnie Mae testimony,,Both of you implying meaningful deception.. John, I know you're conscious of class matters, which I Iike. You guys may have your eyes to the conspiracy stars, but do you ever consider you might just be harassing everyday folk? I know it's no final word on Linnie Mae's character but I looked up her obituary, she was a nurse, active in her Baptist Church, so religious, supposedly just like Ruth! But you got to get up pretty early in the morning to pull the wool over our eyes. Right? https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/102461058/linnie-mae-randle

Interesting. Gotta check it out! Didn't Tunheim make a statement a while back, that he looked through the files and there was "no smoking gun?"

Well there you have it Cliff. This is the zoo we've inherited. As you've seen, We now have a poster shrieking in a desperate soliloquy for Putin to launch a blitzkrieg on the people of Ukraine, and rationalizes it as a desire for peace, when in reality it's to satisfy his adolescent masochistic need for flogging for his self righteous shame about being an American. Over and over with his posts, you're left with a rather empty feeling that some people can't do anything for anything other than selfish reasons. Ben I hope you don't work as a security guard in Chiang Mai. Because all I've ever seen from you is sort of Alfred E. Newman "what me worry" hippy dippy attitude about having anything worth protecting except Ukraine, as someone whose instincts were to show endless compassion for the people who broke into the Capitol over the police protecting it. Of course Brian Sicknick's death became an endless topic of scoffing diatribe for Ben, whose so repetitive, he can't even remember his last post. Ben launched into Brian's Sicknick's death for the MSM's first 24 hour misreporting that Sicknick was hit by a fire extinguisher, but then afterward , mercilessly completely discounts the fact that he died the next day from a heart attack after trying to protect the Capitol, as being in any way related to the riots! Just such carelessness, But if I was serious about protecting my sh-t, Ben.. I would take one Matt over a hundred of you. Below is a 1/6 Capitol policeman, (with the tatts) who would have been killed by the 1/06 rioters if he hadn't cried out that he had kids and one guy of the mob shielded and ended up protecting him. The occasion of this clip is Brian Sicknick's wife is getting involved in a political ads against election denier Kari Lake's similar campaign scoffing at the Capitol Police and praise of the rioters. Our unnamed "kiddie section" which also includes Chris should view this. I fully expect Chris to shriek out loud (SOL) at the realness of this guy, and again retreat to the tough love white male cocoon of the religious authoritarian Jordan Peterson. heh heh

Wow, that's a real whopper Sandy. heh heh So Ruth was such a die hard anti communist , she would willfully pass on false information from the CIA framing both Lee,( who she was told for the first time, was an agent who was set up by the Russians assassins as a patsy, and was innocent) and the Russians in the assassination of JFK, and they were sure that wouldn't lead to WW3?But you think Ruth thought just the opposite. You realize her actions implicated Lee with the Russians and the Cubans? So Ruth has been lying about Lee for the last 60 years, besmirching his reputation when she was told all along Lee is actually a hero, who was trying to foil a Russian plot to kill Kennedy? And none of the information that has surfaced over the last 60 years has given her one doubt at all about this story? As you mentioned, it was shortly determined after the assassination that we didn't want to pursue the Russian angle and risk WW3. So as it turns out, her testimony is relatively small, and her contribution copied letter was largely ignored, because Oswald was killed before standing trial. Why wouldn't Ruth just come out and say everything she knows now, instead of incriminating someone she was at least told was a hero? She wouldn't be prosecuted now for false evidence, telling what she knows. And to lie about it with such conviction, for 60 years? I think we were all sort of misdirected, by your sense of conviction, considering you hold such a highly speculative theory.

Sandy:I believe that: Oswald was a CIA agent. Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA assets. Ruth was probably baby sitting Marina for the CIA. Oswald wasn't told that Ruth was CIA, and Ruth wasn't told that Oswald was CIA. But they probably all suspected that that was the case. Ruth was instructed by her CIA handler to get Oswald to apply for the TSBD job, and Oswald was instructed by his handler to do what Ruth said. So in your first post, I tried opening it, but since I couldn't, from what I read. Am I to assume it's a disclaimer that all this is conjecture? Then in your last post , you're saying #5 about Ruth's handlers actions was specifically conjecture. Ok But that doesn't preclude my pointing out flaws in your #5 and asking you questions about them. For the 4th time. Do you have an answer? ***** After Lee is apprehended, Ruth realizes she was the one who was instructed to put Lee in the sniper's nest. She's aware now she will be taking on suspicion and accusation. She has 2 choices 1) to come clean and reveal her handlers or 2) become an accessory after the fact to the murder of the POTUS, JFK who she presumably thought was a good President (OK,I thought you said that, but maybe you think it's just BS!) At that point , RP is no longer an "unwitting accomplice" but an accessory to the murder of JFK. Right? She knows she's to be investigated and in all those 1000's of questions by the WC she is to be asked, she's in a desperate life struggle to save her neck and that of her handlers. Right?

I do get the picture Tom. I thought a number of Ruth's answers seem evasive in her testimony. But I was asking you specifically if you had seen Max's film? And if you thought her answers were evasive there?. I must confess, I wish I could see it again with my super critical Ruth glasses! Damn, I'm finishing this post and I open a second post from Sandy and come back and have to start the post again! I hate that!

Jim welcome back! I think Jonathan's always demanding "evidence" is a bit obnoxious. We are spitballin' here. Ive never really heard you flesh out your theory. But now that we're on the same page. Sandy said this. Sandy; Ruth was instructed by her CIA handler to get Oswald to apply for the TSBD job, and Oswald was instructed by his handler to do what Ruth said. So this is not conjecture? Do you subscribe to this as well? Then if you could, answer me this. . After Lee is apprehended, Ruth realizes she was the one who was instructed to put Lee in the sniper's nest. She's aware now she will be taking on suspicion and accusation. She has 2 choices 1) to come clean and reveal her handlers or 2) become an accessory after the fact to the murder of the POTUS, JFK who she presumably thought was a good President (OK,I thought you said that, but maybe you think it's just BS!) At that point , RP is no longer an "unwitting accomplice" but an accessory to the murder of JFK. Right? She knows she's to be investigated and in all those 1000's of questions by the WC she is to be asked, she's in a desperate life struggle to save her neck and that of her handlers. Right? If so, I've always assumed from your inferences that RP is up to her eyeballs in guilt. If you feel that way. Do you want to come out and say it? Or whatever insights you can provide as to what Ruth knew or was coached before the assassination, or what she knew or was possibly coached after the assassination, would be appreciated.. Thanks Thank You

My cowboy movies? Explain

Bievenidos Cliff!, mi bahia norte compadre! So you actually know Ben from years ago? hooo boy! Now Putin has actually stooped to buying arms from Iran? Wow pretty impressive! I guess that's why Trump destroyed Obama's peace initiative with Iran. hmmm

Oh come on Sandy, you posted almost exactly the same time. He wrote that before you posted. He's now going to turn off discussion on his film, just like you. Running from answering any of my questions, but in your case, starting up new threads and now apparently hijacking the "killing floor". Was that your doing? I stood up for your right to use conjecture for your theories, but if they target the conjecture, you shouldn't be surprised, still it doesn't mean your theory is wrong. I gave you latitude. I've asked about 8 questions on these threads and I've gotten answers to none of them. I assume when people don't answer direct questions, that they don't have courage of their convictions. I recently asked you a question to explain your theory. Will you please answer it now? Kirk to Sandy: . And it is conjecture, but it is your theory! And your entitled to conjecture, and can reasonably expect to hear it's conjecture, which doesn't mean it's wrong.. So as I was saying. According to your theory, After Lee is apprehended, Ruth realizes she was the one who was instructed to put Lee in the sniper's nest. She's aware now she will be taking on suspicion and accusation. She has 2 choices 1) to come clean and reveal her handlers or 2) become an accessory after the fact to the murder of the POTUS, JFK who she presumably thought was a good President (OK,I thought you said that, but maybe you think it's just BS!) At that point , RP is no longer an "unwitting accomplice" but an accessory to the murder of JFK. Right? She knows she's to be investigated and in all those 1000's of questions by the WC she is to be asked, she's in a desperate life struggle to save her neck and that of her handlers. Right?

Tom: Re; Ruth taking in Marina, I think you and Jonathan are both right. I think it's self interest and a bit of concern. But the question has become so loaded,even apart from alleged spying, it breaks into speculation about interrelationships, lesbianism, marriage breaking. Why touch it? Tom:Also, Ruth was never deposed by the HSCA or ARRB, which is just insane, and Garrison didn’t know her testimony well enough to ask the right questions, Yes a lot of missed opportunities. I assume you've seen the film? Max asks a lot of questions I always thought I would have asked, but some not, which you have to expect. Like about the eventual dinner with the Paines and GDM's in 1966. I never did get an idea that RP was really evasive, but you might not be satisfied with all her answers. But I agree with you, there's nothing really nefarious here. Let' recap, Since the thread is about the film. Max never answered what his goals were, but in conversation here, I think the primary goal was to preach to the converted, that Ruth is hiding a lot, which would have been fine.. I think maybe during the course of filming he may have realized: To have any crossover appeal,It was a Herculean task making a film that serves to incriminate a rather youthful, lucid 90 year old woman and that was probably a loser from the gitgo. But there's enough people on this forum who will love it just because Max expresses their frustration with unanswered questions. I enjoyed it. I think Max thought at the beginning it might turn out to be more of a smoking gun, but there wasn't anything near it. Then Jim Di , who has said here, he was the biggest independent commentator on the film ended up bailing on Max here, saying he would have made a much more incriminating film!. Folks, this is live right here! You can't make this stuff up! But then in this last page, Max bemoans and mischaracterizes "Ruth Defenders" and calls it "a curious attitude , not one I would engage with". Isn't that the "blanket censorship" you're talking about Tom? but of the opposite variety? I think that's been the status quo here honestly for a long time. But the irony is Max is saying he won't engage with people who simply recognize the film he ended up being honest enough to make! Max as a good film maker, was being taken where the film lead him! Don't you wish all the research here was like that?

Roberts delays handover of Trump tax returns to House panel https://news.yahoo.com/roberts-delays-handover-trump-tax-135528279.html Is this more evidence of the all powerful, American Exceptional "Deep state' going after Trump?

To give you some background about Musk's purchase of twitter. Musk did at the peak of the market agree to buy twitter at 54.20 a share. He claimed to do research as the share price was tumbling and made a claim that twitter was 25% bots. I remember Ben going with Musk's figure here at the time. But twitter said it was 5-6%, and likely Musk was trying to bargain the price down in a tumbling market. Not to say Twitter's estimate would be completely accurate. Anyway, Musk tried to get out and Twitter said no way and took him to court and made Musk pay the $54.20 per share he agreed to pay, on a stock that was valued to be around $17 a share. So Musk ended up paying triple what it's fundamentals said the share price should be. Great deal, huh?