jerryskids

These are the hot new thing in the majors. They kinda look more like a bowling pin than a torpedo to me, with the thickest part of the bat customized to where each individual hitter tends to contact the ball. Bonus is that because the center of mass is shifted towards the handle, the bat requires less torque to swing. The Yankees are the biggest users and they are on a ridiculous homer barrage to start the season. Interestingly, Judge isn't using one, but he has 4 homers already, because Judge. https://www.mlb.com/news/yankees-discuss-new-torpedo-bats?partnerId=it-20250331-13066583-mlb-1-A&utm_id=it-20250331-13066583-mlb-1-A&lctg=91012582 for full story. If anything remotely close to this success continues, I imagine darn near every hitter is going to try to implement this type of bat during the coming offseason.

High of 71 here in Phoenix today, with winds picking up in the afternoon. Cooling off into the mid 60s until the weekend. This is crazy cool for this time of year. I'm golfing Thursday morning and will need to bundle up. GB climate change.

I almost posted this exact sentiment in Honcho's Terminator thread. I don't know what is talking in his head, but it isn't Jesus. I think he needs an exorcism.

Oops, thanks yes, fixed.

In your special 1 on 1 seshes with Jesus, does he tell you to insult other Christians and generally be a blithering idiot on a fantasy football message board?

I know right?! My biggest takeaway from this thread is that we owe naomi a belated bachelorette party. Seriously though naomi: did you discuss this with your husband prior to getting married? One of the good things the Catholic Church does for engaged couples is have each person independently take a survery: on a scale of 1-7, how important is _______? (having kids, saving money, church, etc.). There aren't right or wrong answers per se, but rather the goal is to see if the couple is generally aligned on major, non-compromisable topics. Sounds like you both are on the fence. I love my kids, and I know several older couples without kids who seem somewhat sad about it, but... it's kinda late in life to take such a big step if you are both meh about it. Also practically: would you be OK with one or two kids with Downs or other genetic problems? Do you have health insurance that would cover such a situation?

Not exactly classified info, but perhaps a relevant story: when I started work at an electronics firm out of college, the firm was maniacally protective of proprietary information. All bags were checked leaving the building for instance. The reason they treated it so seriously was because in the recent past, an employee stole proprietary trade secrets, the company sued him, and... they lost. They lost because the defendant claimed that the company had not shown that they treated the info with appropriate importance, and the court ruled in their favor. Actually, it might have been a criminal trial, it was before my time there. Anyway, point is, if I played a lawyer on the internet and was defending Goldberg, I'd argue the pattern of Hillary, Trump, and Biden, along with the cavalier way Goldberg was added to the thread (allegedly), as evidence that the government has not shown a pattern of seriousness on this matter.

Unfortunately, Comey set precedent by letting Hillary off that the government doesn't care about protecting classified information.

I had no facts that Covid came from the Wuhan Coronavirus Lab, rather only the coincidence that the virus came from Wuhan and Wuhan has a Coronavirus Lab. That's exactly what I'm speculating.

I guess I still have that weird suspicion that the person accidentally added to a war plan chat was the editor of the Atlantic with a long history of anti-Trumpism. I suspect the Lefties will give me laugh emojis that I would dare suspect anything but that it was a complete accident, and that Goldberg is a hero for the way he handled it. Smells a little like the Wuhan wet market lie to me.

Has anyone here used Signal? I haven't, but other chat apps like WhatsApp tell you who added you to a chat group. I presume Signal does the same. So Goldberg should be able to incontrovertibly tell us who added him.

Agreed, that's the most annoying part. If he, say, bumped a Pam Bondi thread with some update on her, then added a bible quote about how she is a flag and pedero and going to hell unless she converts to his cult, then at least it would make sense.

Two dozen TaylorMade TP5 golf balls, used but mint (AAAAA) condition, for about $50 on eBay. That's half the price of new. They arrived this weekend and I'm impressed -- not a blemish on them, they look brand new. A few do have logos on them, but eh, whatever.

We're going to go all @squistionon the semantics? Your first paragraph is still word salad to me vis a vis the topic, but by any intelligent attempt to parse it: by saying I'd need to define big issue, then providing another (unrelated) issue as an example of a bigger issue, you are implicitly saying that men in women's sports does not meet the criteria of "big issue" for you.

This thread didn't go as Rusty had hoped.

I've been pretty much out of pocket on vacation the past three days, so I apologize if this has been discussed: Has Goldberg definitively stated who added him to the Signal chat?

Hard to take this unbiased reporter seriously with tripe like this.

There is a third option where they agree that such participation is inexcusable. Instead we get folks like @Sean Mooneysaying that he has daughters, but he doesn't care about this issue until we solve women's health, world hunger, and climate change.

Pfft, no it's not. A generic "your wife's got a ginormous poosay" comment is all in good fun. Now, if he had previously confided that his wife had a severe case of giantpoosayitis, and people made fun of that... then that would be uncalled for. Like when people make fun of his wife's drinking, that's uncalled for. HTH.

It has nothing to do men in women's sports. Food, water, and oxygen are more important than women's health issues. Should we replace those with your issue A. They are equally unrelated.

Tim thinks that because he believes it wouldn't have impacted the election, it's OK that media outlets, sometimes at the... suggestion of the FBI, suppressed the story.

I still don't understand your issue A.

Oh, that. I guess "big issue" means an issue worth resolving. If it is as infrequent as you assert, it shouldn't affect too many trans kids. I also don't understand your comparison to women's health issues, or why you believe that if issue A is more important than issue B, then issue B should not be addressed.

I didn't see a question from you to me. Also, you bring up a good point about club teams, which have taken over the high end of a lot of HS-age sports, as I'm sure you know. Part of the reason my daughter stopped pursuing softball was she was at a point where she needed to strongly consider a club team, and neither she nor I liked the vibe of the teams around here.

A few things. Since you didn't source your data, I looked it up. According to a CDC survey, 3.3% of high school students identify as trans, with another 2.2% questioning. https://abcnews.go.com/US/3-us-high-schoolers-identify-transgender-cdc-survey/story?id=114619209 That's one in 20 to 30 students. As such I'm incredulous at your "only five" data. How many kids are on a track team? Soccer team? That is backed up by the number of threads here about it. Your take on it, and the attempted diversions of Lefties who don't like to confront the topic, is to pull the "yet another trans thread$#@!" card. But, it's not like people are making up the contents of the threads in question. Have you asked yourself how there can be so many threads on this topic, if it is as rare as you assert?