Somebody mail the Page Family a copy of the U.S. Constitution

In article
,
" wrote:

On Dec 27, 11:57 pm, Michael Press wrote:
" wrote:

Dumbass Page-in-law may be guilty of misdemeanor
assault; it's up to Drunk Overalls Guy to press
charges if he wants. Or perhaps a civil suit: I look
forward to the testimony about the pain and suffering
caused by a noogie from Cori Page.

You wrote

It's not something people should get arrested for,
but a little retaliation is in order.

I take you to mean that physical interference
with someone voicing their opinion is acceptable.
It is not acceptable to me. Not ever.

Defender of Freedom,

The full quote from me was:

It's not something people should get arrested for,
but a little retaliation is in order. I think giving
the heckler a noogie would be about right.

It sounds more like a Tony Soprano-esque advocacy
of violence once you removed the word "noogie."
Usually, "noogie" is a clue to unseriousness.

Speaking of noogies, let's talk about SNL or John Belushi.
Did you ever watch "Animal House"?
Do you remember the scene where there's a
drippy hippie kid on the stairs singing
"I gave my love a cherry ... " really badly,
and eventually Bluto freaks out, grabs the
guitar and smashes it into little pieces?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9JYq-mXprw

I laughed and laughed ... and I was a drippy
hippie kid. But clearly, this is unacceptable.
Did you get up and walk out of the movie?

I have pursued this thread to be clear on
what you think because of something you
said. Best I can figure, you consider it
acceptable to physically hinder someone
voicing their opinion.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Carl Sundquist wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Carl Sundquist wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Carl Sundquist wrote:

What has been lost in this whole thread is what a hypocrite Magilla is.

In the absence of definitive information as to who initiated the
physical assault, why doesn't Magilla recognize the Page clan's right to
verbally express their wishes that the hecklers stop heckling? Who cares
whether Page does or doesn't make excuses, does that somehow nullify his
clan's first amendment rights?
Where does the Gila Monster deny anybody liberty
to address the heckler with a request, however phrased,
to cease heckling.

Magilla started off by claiming that the Page clan denied the hecklers
their first amendment rights by physically assaulting them. Then he
showed his Magina, saying that if someone rushes him outside a bar after
accosting him in the parking lot and he hits that person because he
perceived that person to be an imminent threat to him, that doesn't mean
he "started" the fight.

As I said before, perception is a very subjective thing and what one
perceives as reality can be terribly distorted if one is agitated and/or
drunk and perception does not automatically give one justification to
initiate physical countermeasures.

Magilla thinks it was ok for the hecklers to deny the Page clan their
right to express themselves verbally (in the same sense that he claims
the Page clan tried to deny the hecklers) in the same scenario and same
public park where the hecklers are entitled to free speech.


You told Ben "You think it is alright for somebody to initiate
violence." Why so silent in this instance?

Silent on what? That somebody physically interfered with
somebody else, and a fight ensued. What do you think I
would be saying? We do not have enough facts. People
fought over a difference of opinion. I do not support it.

Clearly you have been following the thread. I just wondered why you felt
the need to call out Ben but not Magilla for saying essentially the same
thing (that at some point moving from verbal to physical confrontation
can be acceptable).

I see.

I was surprised by Ben's stand; surprised enough to see if that
is exactly what he thinks. Magilla says he will take on someone
he considers a physical threat. Ben says he will stand on the
other side of the street and savor physical suppression of an
opinion. What do I tell Magilla? "Bad monkey. No biscuit." ??
What do I tell Ben? Nothing. Not my job.

--
Michael Press

On Dec 28, 8:07*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Dec 28, 7:32*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

The legal threshold to justify an act of self defense is reasonable perception
that you will be assaulted. *When Page's brother in law came up to the
heckler, he believed it was to start a fight. *So he defended himself.. *It was
a defensive act when viewed in context.

That's a lie, and you're a liar. The video is clear.



Dumbass -


It isn't clear. The important thing is who initiated physical contact
and the video doesn't show that.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On Dec 28, 8:04 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

Perception is a very subjective thing and what one perceives as reality
can be terribly distorted if one is agitated and/or drunk.

Which is why you don't go around harassing drunks or people who you suspect of
drinking....

Finally a reasonable statement.

The reason you don't go around harassing drunks,
verbally or physically, is not because it would be
morally wrong to harass drunks. It's because if you
get into a confrontation with drunks, you can expect
to wind up in a fight. It doesn't matter whether you
or they throw the first punch - you're still in a fight
you didn't want, with a drunk guy who will probably
keep fighting until you or he gets seriously hurt.

Both Drunk Heckler Guy and Dumbass Page-in-law
screwed this up. They both engaged in behavior
that predictably caused an over-reaction from the
other party.

Drunk Heckler Guy has the "excuse" that he did
his dumb thing while drunk. Dumbass Page-in-law
doesn't, but I don't think this makes him more culpable,
because that's not much of an excuse.

Ben

On Dec 28, 9:32 pm, Michael Press wrote:

" wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9JYq-mXprw

I laughed and laughed ... and I was a drippy
hippie kid. But clearly, this is unacceptable.
Did you get up and walk out of the movie?

I have pursued this thread to be clear on
what you think because of something you
said. Best I can figure, you consider it
acceptable to physically hinder someone
voicing their opinion.

Grand Inquisitor,

You continue to conflate what I consider
predictable and what I consider acceptable.

Morals are complicated. Practice can be
boiled down to the maxim: "Don't do stupid ****."
Shouting like a dumbass to interrupt a radio
interview, and pushing a drunk dumbass to
get him to stop shouting, both count as stupid
****, even if one of them is opinion and
the other is "hindering" it.

Or see:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...6a53e772ec33ed

Ben

Ben

Carl Sundquist wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Carl Sundquist wrote:

What has been lost in this whole thread is what a hypocrite Magilla is.

In the absence of definitive information as to who initiated the
physical assault, why doesn't Magilla recognize the Page clan's right to
verbally express their wishes that the hecklers stop heckling? Who cares
whether Page does or doesn't make excuses, does that somehow nullify his
clan's first amendment rights?
Where does the Gila Monster deny anybody liberty
to address the heckler with a request, however phrased,
to cease heckling.

Magilla started off by claiming that the Page clan denied the hecklers
their first amendment rights by physically assaulting them. Then he
showed his Magina, saying that if someone rushes him outside a bar after
accosting him in the parking lot and he hits that person because he
perceived that person to be an imminent threat to him, that doesn't mean
he "started" the fight.

As I said before, perception is a very subjective thing and what one
perceives as reality can be terribly distorted if one is agitated and/or
drunk and perception does not automatically give one justification to
initiate physical countermeasures.

The legal threshold to justify an act of self defense is reasonable perception
that you will be assaulted. When Page's brother in law came up to the
heckler, he believed it was to start a fight. So he defended himself. It was
a defensive act when viewed in context.

If you want to debate the nuances, you first have to debate the gross. And
walking up to someone to confront them is 99% of starting a fight. Wars are
started over perceptions and misinterpretations of intent once geographical
boundaries are crossed.

When you defend yourself, you don't wait until you are hit first. You strike
when you feel in danger. That's why ANY fan-on-fan confrontation is wrong.
Fan on athlete confrontation however is fair game and safe.

I don't care how you slice this pie - it was Page's relatives who were the
troublemakers. They acted like soccer hooligans from England. Whereas the
only thing you people claim the heckler did was to "insult Page" or
"disrespect Page." Page is a ****ing player!

That's like saying that if an American President insults a foreign leader,
it's the same thing as if he told a few B-52's to fly over their airspace.
Only one of those activities is going to lead to war.


Magilla

Hey Magilla,

We should let this guy off and go about his business because in his
perception he was ok to drive, right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1023813/Pictured-Shocking-moment-drunk-driver-ploughed-group-cyclists.html

Drunk driving has nothing to do with defending yourself because you fear for your safety. Apples and orangutans.

Magilla

On Dec 28, 4:04 pm, Howard Kveck wrote:

By the way, r15757 is also right in his post about the hardcore scene. There were
a lot of jocks involved and, consequently, a lot of territory marking. In this case,
it was a New York/New Jersey band and Berkeley antagonists, who liked their bands a
little less posey. Berkeley kids would do the same to SF bands at times. It was a
weird, cliquey scene.


I thought of this as not so much from jocks as a
social class, but from the same kind of young-male
testosterone-fueled stupidity that makes groups
of young jocks scary at times. But, I wasn't around
those shows much in the true hardcore heyday,
catching on in the late 80s perhaps.

A couple of months ago, I went to see X, original
lineup, at a big local theater. They still rock, quite excellent
for an (ahem) oldies act. After the show, I was
standing in line at the merch table and started talking
to a tall tattooed guy, about my age, who had driven
down a couple hours from Phoenix for the show.
At that moment, some even older dude somehow
got in a fight with the security guys behind us and
was being dragged off to get kicked out, complaining,
kind of like the "I'm being oppressed!" peasant from
Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The tattooed guy
and I said: "Damn, it's just like old times."
"Except we're not in a church basement."

Ben

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Carl Sundquist wrote:

What has been lost in this whole thread is what a hypocrite Magilla is.

In the absence of definitive information as to who initiated the
physical assault, why doesn't Magilla recognize the Page clan's right to
verbally express their wishes that the hecklers stop heckling? Who cares
whether Page does or doesn't make excuses, does that somehow nullify his
clan's first amendment rights?
Where does the Gila Monster deny anybody liberty
to address the heckler with a request, however phrased,
to cease heckling.

Magilla started off by claiming that the Page clan denied the hecklers
their first amendment rights by physically assaulting them. Then he
showed his Magina, saying that if someone rushes him outside a bar after
accosting him in the parking lot and he hits that person because he
perceived that person to be an imminent threat to him, that doesn't mean
he "started" the fight.

As I said before, perception is a very subjective thing and what one
perceives as reality can be terribly distorted if one is agitated and/or
drunk and perception does not automatically give one justification to
initiate physical countermeasures.
The legal threshold to justify an act of self defense is reasonable perception
that you will be assaulted. When Page's brother in law came up to the
heckler, he believed it was to start a fight. So he defended himself. It was
a defensive act when viewed in context.

If you want to debate the nuances, you first have to debate the gross. And
walking up to someone to confront them is 99% of starting a fight. Wars are
started over perceptions and misinterpretations of intent once geographical
boundaries are crossed.

When you defend yourself, you don't wait until you are hit first. You strike
when you feel in danger. That's why ANY fan-on-fan confrontation is wrong.
Fan on athlete confrontation however is fair game and safe.

I don't care how you slice this pie - it was Page's relatives who were the
troublemakers. They acted like soccer hooligans from England. Whereas the
only thing you people claim the heckler did was to "insult Page" or
"disrespect Page." Page is a ****ing player!

That's like saying that if an American President insults a foreign leader,
it's the same thing as if he told a few B-52's to fly over their airspace.
Only one of those activities is going to lead to war.


Magilla
Hey Magilla,

We should let this guy off and go about his business because in his
perception he was ok to drive, right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1023813/Pictured-Shocking-moment-drunk-driver-ploughed-group-cyclists.html

Drunk driving has nothing to do with defending yourself because you fear for your safety. Apples and orangutans.

Magilla


You're right, presuming the person fearing for his/her safety is of
sound mind.

"Carl Sundquist" wrote in message
...
MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

Amit Ghosh wrote:
On Dec 26, 12:15 am, MagillaGorilla
wrote:
Amit Ghosh wrote:
On Dec 25, 11:55 pm, MagillaGorilla

Just something to think about below. It sure makes the quasi-law discussion
much less important. And Press may even appreciate it. It's the basis of
how technical stuff gets into being.


"Manners are of more importance than laws.
Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend.
Manners are what vex or soothe,
corrupt or purify, exalt or debase,
barbarize or refine us, by a constant,
steady, uniform, insensible operation,
like that of the air we breathe in."

Burke, E.

"Paul G." wrote:

On Dec 28, 7:32Ýpm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

The legal threshold to justify an act of self defense is reasonable perception
that you will be assaulted. ÝWhen Page's brother in law came up to the
heckler, he believed it was to start a fight. ÝSo he defended himself. ÝIt was
a defensive act when viewed in context.

That's a lie, and you're a liar. The video is clear. McAnus wasn't
defending himself, he was attacking and pursuing Book. And the pee-
stained coward McAnus had help, two against one. Only another pussy
would take McAnus's side in this.

-Paul

The video is incomplete and the confrontation started off camera. Wade Book
confronted Cale McAninch. That was 99% of how the fight started right there.

Book won't have to worry about protecting Page's "honor" anymore once he's
suspended because he skipped his dope test. Karma ends up punishing those who are
troublemakers.

Cale McAninch has God on his side.

Take care,

Magilla