|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
William Asher wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote in : William Asher wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: If somebody brake-checks you on the highway for tailgating...do you call 911 and scream into the phone, "Please help me...somebody just tried to assault me with a deadly weapon...hurry, come quick." Not if there's no collision. So the "assault with a deadly weapon" is valid only if the person traveling behind the car that does the brake-checking is a spaz and can't stop in time? Interesting. But if it really irritates you that people talk on the cell phone, so you drive around looking for people on the cell phone to teach them a lesson by cutting in front of them and stopping short for no reason, and you cause a collision where someone gets hurt, and then you brag about what you were doing to the responding police officer and how you had done it several time before with no accident, you might have reason to expect to be charged with felony assault with a motor vehicle. The doctor no doubt engaged in reckless driving. But he didn't assault them with a deadly weapon. In order for me to buy that was his actual intent, he would have just run them over from behind, no? Why drive ahead of them and hit your brakes..especially given that the other times you did it resulted in no collision? Doesn't make any sense to do it again if your experience in all the other incidents was that it causes no collision. This isn't a good contrarian position for you because anyone can deliberately cause an accident, If it's an accident, then you agree there was no intent involved (look up the word accident) - thanks for supporting my argument by using specific words that mean the doctor had no malicious intent to cause a crash. which is what this guy did, and that is a felony if you can prove it was deliberate. According to you, OJ Simpson is innocent and Robert Blake is also innocent because a jury said so. The only way your position is defensible is if it were a one-time occurence, The previous times actually is something in the doctor's favor because it PROVES his experience with brake-checking cyclists in hi car was that it caused no injury. Why would this time be any different? but the doctor bragged to the police he liked doing this, The doctor did not brag to the police. He simply said he was trying to teach them a lesson. M understanding of that lesson was that he wanted them to ride single file so he brake-checked them. The cop (and you), not to mention the jury, misinterpreted that to mean he wanted to hurt them with his car. If that were the case, why not just run them down from behind? and had done it before, which means it was deliberate and a felony. I agree. the doctor had NOT CAUSED ANY INJURY with his brake-checking in the two prior incidents. So it proves his intent was to do the SAME THING in the 3rd incident, which was to NOT cause injury. If he wasn't such a dumb**** he would have kept his mouth shut and he would have gotten off with a ticket and a misdemeanor. The problem in this case was the jury was stupid and the cyclists had poor riding skills. Let me ask you something : how much money did you donate ot the Fraud Fairness Fund? because it definitely sounds like you still think those French lab techs had a vendetta against Fraud and tried to frame him so he wouldn't win the Tour de France (even though they testified they don't even follow cycling). Magilla Look, the doctor thought same as you, incorrectly, that *causing* an accident by stopping short wouldn't result in a felony. But it did mainly because he was so full of himself he admitted what he did to a cop. He admitted what?...that he wanted to teach them a lesson? Isn't that what he taught the other cyclists he brake-checked and who were never injured? It was a willful, deliberate act that caused serious injury. The act was deliberate, which is why I would have found him guilty of reckless driving. But the injury was unanticipated given his prior experiences doing the same thing with cyclists which resulted in no injury. If you're going to do that, you have to be willing to lie about it You're arguing that if you point a pistol at someone, they duck, and you fire a round over them, it's just a harmless prank. No, the gun analogy is yours, not mine. So you do that several more times at different people, and they all duck, and it's still a prank. Only then you do it to a guy with a fused spine who can't duck and you shoot him in the head. I love how you initially say only "pointing a gun" is analogous to what Dr. T did...and then you morph that into "shooting" a person. Shooting a person would be analogous to Dr. T running over the cyclists from behind...something he absolutely did not do. Do you really think the jury will let you off with your argument that "well, all the other people before this guy ducked so this guy is a moron because he didn't and I wasn't trying to shoot him?" No. But what does this have to do with the Dr. T case which did not involve a gun? This isn't your best work (even the velodrome argument was better, and you took it in the jimmy big time on that one) because the guy you are defending admitted, to a police officer at the scene, he was trying to do what he did. And what he did is a felony. So you're saying when somebody brakes checks you on the highway, they are intending to assault you with a deadly weapon? And yeah, I think Landis got jobbed. Not because the test was wrong, but because he was only doing what everyone else was doing. Okay, so you agree he is a fraud and was guilty. But then, I think that about everyone getting popped for doping and I'm a little malleable in terms of ethics when it comes to doping because I like watching supermen in action. I think that comes from a lifetime of reading comic books and wanting to think that out there, somewhere, someone is putting his fist up against some nasty alien, and then you hear a "snikt" and the alien falls over dead. -- Bill Asher No cyclist is superman. Superfrauds perhaps. Magilla |
Ads |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
z wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote: William Asher wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: If somebody brake-checks you on the highway for tailgating...do you call 911 and scream into the phone, "Please help me...somebody just tried to assault me with a deadly weapon...hurry, come quick." Not if there's no collision. So the "assault with a deadly weapon" is valid only if the person traveling behind the car that does the brake-checking is a spaz and can't stop in time? Interesting. Can you prove he is a spaz? Please cite other crashes where he has rear ended a car. Yeah, his crash. Magilla |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
RicodJour is an idiot
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:34*am, MagillaGorilla wrote: RicodJour wrote: On Nov 10, 2:24*pm, William Asher wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: If somebody brake-checks you on the highway for tailgating...do you call 911 and scream into the phone, "Please help me...somebody just tried to assault me with a deadly weapon...hurry, come quick." Not if there's no collision. *But if it really irritates you that people talk on the cell phone, so you drive around looking for people on the cell phone to teach them a lesson by cutting in front of them and stopping short for no reason, and you cause a collision where someone gets hurt, and then you brag about what you were doing to the responding police officer and how you had done it several time before with no accident, you might have reason to expect to be charged with felony assault with a motor vehicle. * This isn't a good contrarian position for you because anyone can deliberately cause an accident, which is what this guy did, and that is a felony if you can prove it was deliberate. *The only way your position is defensible is if it were a one-time occurence, but the doctor bragged to the police he liked doing this, and had done it before, which means it was deliberate and a felony. *If he wasn't such a dumb**** he would have kept his mouth shut and he would have gotten off with a ticket and a misdemeanor. * You know, a thought strikes me - odd, but it happens once in a while - I wonder what they'd find if they investigated how the Damned Doctor treated cyclists that came through his ER. *Maybe his road rage translated into road rash rage. *If I were a lawyer I'd be stirring up a nice law****, excuse me, lawsuit against the doctor and the hospital. Ever hear of statute of limitations? Normally you're funnier and more insightful. *This is stupid, even by rbr standards. *At least you've gotten it turned into a discussion of brakes and one man's lone crusade to rid the world of a dangerous method of mounting rear brakes that has worked reliably for over 50 years. *That is gold. * No, no, NO! *Don't you remember the high incidence of Campy brake failures all through the 60's, 70's and 80's? *You know, the brakes that were identical except for the length of the bolt - they failed all of the time and the number of deaths was...oh, wait...never mind. R=retard. *Did you get around to calling Harry Havnoonian, the mechanical engineer and framebuilder with a degree from Drexel who mounts brakes on the opposite side of the seat stays? *I didn't think so. Opinions vary, the laws of physics do not. The issue at hand is not the location of the brake mounting, it is your spurious analysis of the physics involved. Drexel is a second rate engineering school - graduate program not even ranked in the top 50, undergraduate hovering around 90. Sorry. BTW, you may want to check with your buddy - show him this thread and ask him if he wants to be associated with you and what you are posting. Methinks not. I have an extra credit assignment for the class at large. Whoever can work up a chart showing Nim's post-spurt posting spurts plotted along a time line, and determine his medication schedule, will be exempt from the next week's pop-quiz. R Why don't you write in to Lennard Zinn and see if he answers it. But I like how you now are also saying that a framebuilder who holds a degree in mechanical engineering is wrong. Yeah, I'm sure you know more about framebuilding and bicycles that HH. Damn, you're a dickweed. Magilla |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
RicodJour is an idiot
z wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote: RicodJour wrote: On Nov 10, 2:24 pm, William Asher wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: If somebody brake-checks you on the highway for tailgating...do you call 911 and scream into the phone, "Please help me...somebody just tried to assault me with a deadly weapon...hurry, come quick." Not if there's no collision. But if it really irritates you that people talk on the cell phone, so you drive around looking for people on the cell phone to teach them a lesson by cutting in front of them and stopping short for no reason, and you cause a collision where someone gets hurt, and then you brag about what you were doing to the responding police officer and how you had done it several time before with no accident, you might have reason to expect to be charged with felony assault with a motor vehicle. This isn't a good contrarian position for you because anyone can deliberately cause an accident, which is what this guy did, and that is a felony if you can prove it was deliberate. The only way your position is defensible is if it were a one-time occurence, but the doctor bragged to the police he liked doing this, and had done it before, which means it was deliberate and a felony. If he wasn't such a dumb**** he would have kept his mouth shut and he would have gotten off with a ticket and a misdemeanor. You know, a thought strikes me - odd, but it happens once in a while - I wonder what they'd find if they investigated how the Damned Doctor treated cyclists that came through his ER. Maybe his road rage translated into road rash rage. If I were a lawyer I'd be stirring up a nice law****, excuse me, lawsuit against the doctor and the hospital. Ever hear of statute of limitations? Normally you're funnier and more insightful. This is stupid, even by rbr standards. At least you've gotten it turned into a discussion of brakes and one man's lone crusade to rid the world of a dangerous method of mounting rear brakes that has worked reliably for over 50 years. That is gold. No, no, NO! Don't you remember the high incidence of Campy brake failures all through the 60's, 70's and 80's? You know, the brakes that were identical except for the length of the bolt - they failed all of the time and the number of deaths was...oh, wait...never mind. R R=retard. Did you get around to calling Harry Havnoonian, the mechanical engineer and framebuilderwith a degree from Drexel who mounts brakes on the opposite side of the seat stays? I didn't think so. Jackass. Magilla Can you take off the binder bolt from your front brake then show us how well you can stop on a steep downhill due to the brake being forced against the fork crown? The results should be about as successful as when the original MG tried to ride with an open front skewer. Of course none of believe your words, so a link to the YT video will suffice. HANS Henrik Oersted First of all, before I beat you to death for this most recent post, I must again ask you if you've located the link that shows a similar husband-wife Olympic coach relationship like Andy Sparks/Sarah Hammer that you mocked me for not knowing about in the context of the Becky Quinn thread. Second, the bolt is the fulcrum and absorbs some of the forces, but not all of them. On the front brake the bolt absorbs maybe 20% of the braking force. On the rear brake it absorbs probably 80%. On both brakes, the bolt is crucial for the brake caliper to work. Stop misrepresenting my argument. Magilla |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
"William R. Mattil" wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: So you did donate to the Fraud Fairness Fund...that explains a lot. Wrong again Asshat. That calibrates your ability to distinguish between facts vs. fiction. This is also untrue given that I can easily tell that 99% of what you write is fiction. So the beatings continue ........ Don't quit your day job. Bill -- William R. Mattil http://www.celestial-images.com Answer my question...did you or did you not donate to the Fraud Fairness Fund? It's obvious you did but don't want to admit it because it makes you look like a jackass....like somebody who actually thinks the French lab techs wanted to frame an American because they were jealous. The fact is they could give a **** less about cycling. But you can't admit that even though it's obvious to everyone now that Fraud was a fraud and he did it. Magilla |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
MagillaGorilla wrote:
z wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: William Asher wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: If somebody brake-checks you on the highway for tailgating...do you call 911 and scream into the phone, "Please help me...somebody just tried to assault me with a deadly weapon...hurry, come quick." Not if there's no collision. So the "assault with a deadly weapon" is valid only if the person traveling behind the car that does the brake-checking is a spaz and can't stop in time? Interesting. Can you prove he is a spaz? Please cite other crashes where he has rear ended a car. Yeah, his crash. Magilla WTF??? |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
RicodJour is an idiot
MagillaGorilla wrote:
z wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: RicodJour wrote: On Nov 10, 2:24 pm, William Asher wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: If somebody brake-checks you on the highway for tailgating...do you call 911 and scream into the phone, "Please help me...somebody just tried to assault me with a deadly weapon...hurry, come quick." Not if there's no collision. But if it really irritates you that people talk on the cell phone, so you drive around looking for people on the cell phone to teach them a lesson by cutting in front of them and stopping short for no reason, and you cause a collision where someone gets hurt, and then you brag about what you were doing to the responding police officer and how you had done it several time before with no accident, you might have reason to expect to be charged with felony assault with a motor vehicle. This isn't a good contrarian position for you because anyone can deliberately cause an accident, which is what this guy did, and that is a felony if you can prove it was deliberate. The only way your position is defensible is if it were a one-time occurence, but the doctor bragged to the police he liked doing this, and had done it before, which means it was deliberate and a felony. If he wasn't such a dumb**** he would have kept his mouth shut and he would have gotten off with a ticket and a misdemeanor. You know, a thought strikes me - odd, but it happens once in a while - I wonder what they'd find if they investigated how the Damned Doctor treated cyclists that came through his ER. Maybe his road rage translated into road rash rage. If I were a lawyer I'd be stirring up a nice law****, excuse me, lawsuit against the doctor and the hospital. Ever hear of statute of limitations? Normally you're funnier and more insightful. This is stupid, even by rbr standards. At least you've gotten it turned into a discussion of brakes and one man's lone crusade to rid the world of a dangerous method of mounting rear brakes that has worked reliably for over 50 years. That is gold. No, no, NO! Don't you remember the high incidence of Campy brake failures all through the 60's, 70's and 80's? You know, the brakes that were identical except for the length of the bolt - they failed all of the time and the number of deaths was...oh, wait...never mind. R R=retard. Did you get around to calling Harry Havnoonian, the mechanical engineer and framebuilderwith a degree from Drexel who mounts brakes on the opposite side of the seat stays? I didn't think so. Jackass. Magilla Can you take off the binder bolt from your front brake then show us how well you can stop on a steep downhill due to the brake being forced against the fork crown? The results should be about as successful as when the original MG tried to ride with an open front skewer. Of course none of believe your words, so a link to the YT video will suffice. HANS Henrik Oersted First of all, before I beat you to death for this most recent post, I must again ask you if you've located the link that shows a similar husband-wife Olympic coach relationship like Andy Sparks/Sarah Hammer that you mocked me for not knowing about in the context of the Becky Quinn thread. Second, the bolt is the fulcrum and absorbs some of the forces, but not all of them. On the front brake the bolt absorbs maybe 20% of the braking force. On the rear brake it absorbs probably 80%. On both brakes, the bolt is crucial for the brake caliper to work. Stop misrepresenting my argument. Magilla I don't have to. You misrepresent your own. |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
MagillaGorilla wrote:
RicodJour wrote: On Nov 10, 11:40 am, MagillaGorilla wrote: DirtRoadie wrote: Try this one: "Yes Judge, I pointed my loaded gun at the victim and pulled the trigger. But I only intended to teach him a lesson. I had no idea the bullet might actually hit him or hurt him. In fact, I never hit anybody the last few times I shot at someone. " MG - you don't begin to grasp the nature of legal "intent." You equate brake-checking with pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger? That's a disingenuous analogy. Not at all. As usual your assumptions cloud your understanding. The person with the gun could be unskilled with their weapon of choice, I agree...those two cyclists were unskilled.... making any collision with a vehicle virtually always the driver's fault. Magilla Aside from the singular incident at hand (especially since you are in the tiny, tiny minority insistent that the riders were at fault), what other facts can you cite to prove that the two riders were unskilled? |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
MagillaGorilla wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote: On Nov 10, 9:40 am, MagillaGorilla wrote: DirtRoadie wrote: On Nov 9, 1:01 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote: You guys are not holding the state to their burden of proof. You guys are so prejudiced against Dr. T and you can't get around the fact that the guy actually didn't want to hurt them with his car. Try this one: "Yes Judge, I pointed my loaded gun at the victim and pulled the trigger. But I only intended to teach him a lesson. I had no idea the bullet might actually hit him or hurt him. In fact, I never hit anybody the last few times I shot at someone. " MG - you don't begin to grasp the nature of legal "intent." You equate brake-checking with pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger? Yes. Is there something you don't understand? Little matter, the jury understood. 7 counts, 7 convictions, and it only took a few hours after a 3 week trial. So when someone brake-checks you on the highway, do you call 911 and say someone just "tried to kill" you and to get an officer out to your location immediately...like you would do if someone pointed a loaded gun at you? See, you don't rally believe what you are saying. You're just talking frivolously from your keyboard. The fact is, we've all been brake-checked on a highway, and none of us called 911. Why? Because we didn't believe we were being "assaulted with a deadly weapon." We all believed the guy in front was simply "trying to teach us a lesson not to follow so close." Nobody wants to wreck their cars, asshole given insurance and police reports, etc. Thanks, Magilla We don't often call 911 because A) no crash occurred and B) we know there is an extremely small chance that the police can or will do anything about it. Just are there are arson/insurance cases there are numerous people who intentionally wreck their cars. And 911 isn't called every time a gun is pointed at someone else, either. |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
MagillaGorilla wrote:
"William R. Mattil" wrote: MagillaGorilla wrote: So you did donate to the Fraud Fairness Fund...that explains a lot. Wrong again Asshat. That calibrates your ability to distinguish between facts vs. fiction. This is also untrue given that I can easily tell that 99% of what you write is fiction. So the beatings continue ........ Don't quit your day job. Answer my question...did you or did you not donate to the Fraud Fairness Fund? Given your extremely limited comprehension skills it's easy to see how you would miss the answer that was given. But since you apparently missed it let me try it another way. Wrong again Asshat ....... Now is there anything there that you are too stupid to comprehend ? It's obvious you did but don't want to admit it because it makes you look like a jackass....like somebody who actually thinks the French lab techs wanted to frame an American because they were jealous. You don't have a clue about what I think. Just keep flinging that feces. The fact is they could give a **** less about cycling. This matters not one bit in regards to this discussion this discussion. But you can't admit that even though it's obvious to everyone now that Fraud was a fraud and he did it. What Floyd Landis is or isn't again is not germane to this discussion. Do you actually have anything intelligent to add to this discussion ? Bill -- William R. Mattil http://www.celestial-images.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: Thompson 25.0 seatpost | antony galvan | Marketplace | 1 | September 20th 06 02:17 PM |
Kudos to Tommy Thompson! | Jombo | Unicycling | 1 | July 6th 06 10:29 PM |
R.I P. Hunter S. Thompson | Dave W | Mountain Biking | 4 | February 22nd 05 12:08 AM |
FS: Thompson Seatpost | Frankie | Marketplace | 0 | December 21st 04 06:52 PM |
FS: New Thompson X4 Stem, NIP $55 | Jordan Hukee | Marketplace | 0 | December 17th 04 01:59 AM |