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

On Dec 29, 12:18*am, "Sandy" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sandy, You and Carl are decent civilized human beings who realize that
to get respect you have to give some. Unfortunately a huge portion of
America in particular thinks Jackass, and Lenny Bruce, on stage, are
perfect models for full time behavior and interaction with others.
Vulgarity, volume, and personal attacks lose most or all of their
impact when they become the standard. O'Grady understands this well,
as is evidenced by his current commentary.
Lafferty on Lance was a perfect example of Magilla on just about
everything, and how to NOT make a case.
Bill C
Magilla's case using other sports doesn't hold water because they
practice SERIOUS crowd/people control and when and how they are
allowed to heckle. Arrests, ejections, stripping of season tickets
with no compensation are all way up in the last few years in both the
NFL, and MLB for improper fan behavior.

On Dec 28, 8:30*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*"Paul G." wrote:



On Dec 27, 11:44*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*"Paul G." wrote:

On Dec 27, 10:44*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*"Paul G." wrote:

On Dec 26, 4:59*pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Dec 26, 4:28*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

On Dec 26, 3:16*pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

On Dec 26, 2:48*pm, Carl Sundquist wrote:

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Dec 26, 9:43 am, "Paul G." wrote:
On Dec 26, 8:32 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

"Paul G." wrote:
Here's the video:
http://cyclofile.com/
So you think it's a complete coincidence that the only people assaulted by
McAninch just so happen to be related to Page? *If McAninch were the true
aggressor how come the only people he fought with happened to be related to the
Excuse Maker himself?
The video clearly shows a lot of people listening to the interview,
which is interrupted by a drunken lout bellowing insults and
obscenities. What's not shown is Page's relatives telling the drunk to
shut up. That's within THEIR rights. Got that? *

snip

Dumbass -

That is correct, but then they put their hands on him..

Even so, if they had any real perspective, they wouldn't even tell him
to shut up. They should be happy that someone cares. As Dale Earnhardt
used to tell Jeff Gordon, "If they're booing you, it means you're
doing your job".

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Who put their hands on whom first?

Dumbass -

Supposedly the Pageinlaw put his hands on the heckler's shoulders,
then the heckler tried to push him off and it was on.

Allegedly. Who knows what really happened?

Yeah- that's what the drunk guy, McAnus claims happened. * Only a
monkey would accept the word of a drunk without question.

Dumbass -

He offered to pay for his share which is more than the other side is
doing.

It take two to have a fight.

You obviously didn't see the video. Suppose I'm drunk and shove you
onto a bunch of bikes. And then I suggest that you're half at fault
because it takes two to have a fight, and therefore you should pay
half the damages.

It is a fight. In a fight everything is a weapon.
Who says McAnich demands the other side pony up?

It's in there somewhere. The bike owner wants to be compensated,
McAnus has already said he'll pay 1/3. *I'd say that shows
consciousness of guilt.

Or a sense of responsibility without guilt.
No support for the assertion that he says others should pony up.

Do I have to spoon feed you? *VeloNews: "At least one of the
participants, Cale McAninch, says he's willing to pay his share of the
damages."
""I'm not accepting all the blame for this, but I was a third of it,"
he said."

I say there is a difference between acknowledging a portion of
the fiscal responsibility, and saying somebody else should do the same.

--
Michael Press

It's out there somewhere. I couldn't find the exact quote again, but
that is what he means about accepting 1/3 of the blame. Notice he's
not accepting half of the blame, he's so concerned about what it's
going to cost that he's admitting that it was 2 against 1.
-Paul

On Dec 28, 8:48*pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
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.

You know the Santa Claus suit guy who just killed 8 people? Suppose
you saw a video of the second half of his rampage. Would you be saying
"The important thing is who initiated physical contact and the video
doesn't show that?"

Probably not, and I'll assume you aren't a complete idiot and can
reasonably infer from his later actions that he wasn't acting in self
defense.

Same thing with this video. McAnus's actions in the video are not
remotely consistent with someone acting in self defense. On the other
hand, Book's actions are completely defensive. From this you can
logically infer that McAnus physically attacked Book. There is no
evidence that Book ever attacked McAnus, and abundant evidence that
McAnus aggressively and repeatedly attacked Book.

That video would be quite sufficient to convict McAnus in court,
beyond a reasonable doubt.
-Paul

On Dec 28, 9:29*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
"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.

Nonsense. McAnus was drunk and disorderly. That was 99% of how the
fight started right there.
-Paul

On Dec 28, 10:50*pm, Carl Sundquist wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Carl Sundquist wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
" wrote:

On Dec 25, 3:45 pm, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

http://www.velonews.com/article/8608...-city-cyclocro....

...and highlight the First Amendment. * Last time I
checked, you can't
punch people for speaking their mind in a public place.

Dumbape,

As a legal mind such as yourself knows,
the First Amendment says the government can't
punch you for speaking your mind, but the First doesn't
prevent Johnny Page's brother in law from punching
you, or Cori Page from putting you in a headlock.

Merry Christmas,
Ben
It's called assault, jackass. *And although the First
Amendment cannot
technically be violated by a layperson, assaulting someone
because you don't
like what they say is still a felony.

There was only one criminal there that day: Page's
brother-in-law and his
wife.

Thanks,

Magilla

I still don't know for sure who initially laid hands on whom.
Do you?
Carl,

The beauty of this case is you don't have to know the
details. *Why? *Because the
only people who got into a fight with the heckler happened to
be Page's
relatives. *The fact that nobody else claimed to have been
assaulted - except
Page's relatives - kind of tells you who started it.

Heckling an athlete is fair game. *Fights happen at sporting
events only when
fans start interacting negatively with other fans. *There is
no evidence this guy
was saying anything negative about Page's wife or her
brother. *It is unlikely
this guy even knew who Cori or her brother were.

So if the fight were started by the heckler, then riddle me
this: how come the
only people he assaulted happened to be related to Page?

Cori and her brother don't deny they accosted this guy and got
in his face. *At
some point this guy reacted - either from some minor push or
punch or from a
violation of his personal space that he interpreted to be a
threat to him.

If you rush me outside a bar after accosting me in the parking
lot and I hit you
because I perceive you be an imminent threat to me, that
doesn't mean I "started"
the fight. *The person who started the fight in that case is
the person who is
physically confronting the other person.

It's obvious that Cori and her brother ae troublemakers. *
Anyone who isn't a
cheerleader for Jonathan Page has to answer to them.

Magilla

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....

Magilla

Why is that?
Because a reasonable person knows that it's hard to judge the
perceptions of others. *So
accosting them at a sporting event with an angry tone of voice
when in fact they did
NOTHING to you is an aggressive move. *The heckler made no
aggressive move whatsoever
towards Cori or her brother. *They were the ones who sought out
the confrontation, and
they got it.

The heckler was nothing but a heckler. *You people are way too
offended by speech.

Magilla

If the heckler began the physical confrontation, then he was way too
offended by speech.

And he just so happened to start a fight with people who also just
so happened to be Page's
relatives? *Was that just a coincidence?

Magilla

Are you now saying that the heckler initiated the physical assault?

Page's family were concerned parties to the person being heckled. He was
in the middle of an interview. Why should that surprise you that they
stuck up for him? If someone heckled your wife, would you just sit back
and let it happen or would you ask them to stop?

Fan-on-fan interaction is how fights start. *You simply don't do it. *
You are crossing a line that you shouldn't trespass. *Cale McAninch had
every right to heckle Page because he was a player on the sporting
field. *When you attend a sporting event, you do not have an equal right
to harass other fans simply because you don't like what they said about
your favorite athlete or who they did or didn't cheer for.

Is that an amendment or just a felony?



As a fan you need to mind your own ****ing business with respect to
other fans.

Page's wife is not just another fan.

If you go to a professional sporting event in a stadium and heckle the
athletes, nobody will ask you to leave. *You have every right to do that
and there is an expectation by everybody that that will occur (or at
least /can/ occur). *However, if you start confronting and harassing
other fans, you can be kicked out or arrested. *Or in the case of Book,
you'll get the "crap kicked out of you."

It's called spectator rules 101. *Book and Cori need to take that
class. *

Who said "You have a First Amendment right to express yourself in a
public park." (unless, apparently, you're part of Page's group)

and

"You people develop these bizarre standards of decorum and then try to
retrofit them to a situation."

And when they finish that class, they need to take the WADA Code
class.

This thread is over.

Pussy.

Well said. He lost and he knows it: "This thread is over."

Damn right, it's all over for the Gorilla:
http://www.first-magazine.net/wp-con...mbo2.2/images/
gor1.gif
-Paul

Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
drunk can be a reason but never an excuse.

Sorry, perhaps explanation is a better word than reason, in this case.

On Dec 28, 11:13*pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 28, 9:48 pm, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

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.

Actually, I disagree. *Both parties always have
the option not to escalate. *So if Dumbass shouts,
Assklown pushes him, Dumbass punches
Assklown, Assklown puts Dumbass in a headlock,
Dumbass punches Assklown's lights out ...
At no point did anyone really need to invoke
"self-defense" as in fearing for the lives.
When Assklown pushed Dumbass, Dumbass
could have walked away rather than starting
punching. *

Did you see the video? Book is trying to get away. McAnus is
attacking him and pursuing him. Book could not, in fact, walk away.
-Paul

On Dec 28, 11:38*pm, Carl Sundquist wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Fan-on-fan interaction is how fights start. *You simply don't do it. *
You are crossing a line that you shouldn't trespass. *

"Don't try to obfuscate this issue with this Miss Manners bull****.
Manners mean one thing to one person and something else to another."

Cale McAninch had

every right to heckle Page because he was a player on the sporting
field. When you attend a sporting event, you do not have an equal right
to harass other fans simply because you don't like what they said about
your favorite athlete or who they did or didn't cheer for.

As a fan you need to mind your own ****ing business with respect to
other fans.

When did you make up this delusional idea that fans don't heckle other
fans? It simply isn't reality.

If Magilla had any grasp of reality we wouldn't be having this
conversation.
-Paul

On Dec 29, 1:47*am, Donald Munro wrote:
wrote:
This is also why Usenet arguments go on as long as they do.

At least there aren't any virtual Sachs bikes around to trample on.

Heh heh! Yeah, and notice how real fights are over in seconds and
these drag on forever?
-Paul

On Dec 29, 4:00*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:09:28 -0500, MagillaGorilla

wrote:
Fan-on-fan interaction is completely different and
always wrong and inappropriate
behavior.

No way. *If someone can't take it they shouldn't dish it.

Yeah. But someone looking for a fight can always find some excuse to
be "provoked".
-Paul