|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
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 |
Ads |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
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 |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Michael Press" wrote in message ... In article , Yeah, let's just go to war and kill a bunch of people - including hundreds of children..including little 5 year old girls with doe eyes) because I THOUGHT someone (whose name I don't know) said they were going to nuke Israel. But I don't even have to KNOW THE PERSON'S ****ING NAME WHO SUPPOSEDLY SAID IT. Dude, Bush wasn't even willing to let Israel fly their jets OVER Iran to do a strategic preemptive bombing run on Iraq. So Kunich is advocating a position that was even too radical for Bush. That's just crazy insane. You people are off da hook irresponsible. http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/iransnukes.html "It should be obvious that Israel and the rest of the world have an absolute maximum of three months to destroy Iran's nuclear program or they WILL get nuked by Iran. The problem is that the rest of the world is dragging its feet hoping the problem will go away just like Europe did prior to WWII. Gee, I guess our brilliant, all knowing, all wise, highly educated, and grossly over paid natural elites running this planet just don't learn from history." http://web.israelinsider.com/Article...rity/12945.htm "Israel must destroy Iran's nuclear program within the next 12 months or risk being attacked with an atomic bomb, the former head of the Mossad told the British Sunday Telegraph." Tom, Iran has a right to nuclear weapons, just like Israel and the U.S. does. The fact that you don't like them is not enough to bomb them believe it or not. You would be one scary mother****ing President, let me tell you...you would be bombing England because you read some quote on the Internet from some political pundit with a paid anti-British agenda. You're so frivolous in your analytical skills. Magilla |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
RicodJour is an idiot
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 |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
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. 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 |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
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 |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
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 |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
DirtRoadie wrote: On Nov 10, 8:08*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote: "DirtRoadie" wrote in message ... On Nov 10, 9:40 am, MagillaGorilla wrote: 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. And if he drives the way he's posting here it won't be long before HackiSacki is joining him behind bars. I'd bet dollars to bananas that the monkey has some law school experience. I'd also bet with strong odds that he flunked out or dropped out. He has enough knowledge to know some of the lingo, not nearly enough to suggest that he knows what he is talking about. He argues as if he actually believes he is making a valid point and when challenged, changes his facts as he sees fit. Like the emperor and his new clothes, he stands naked before the world, which does not revolve around him. Yeah, I evidently don't know as much about the law as Sandy, who thought that Kashechkin's lawsuit was a great idea and would likely prevail. But I ridiculed him, said his lawsuit was going to get dismissed, and that he would be suspended (everything I predicted turned out to be true and everything Sandy said turned out to be incorrect). In the end, the judge and CAS decided the case the way I said it was going to be decided. So how come you don't even question Sandy's legal acumen? As a result of that, Sandy killfiled me because like Tom Kunich - he's a pussy who can't stand it when you show him he's wrong. Thanks, Magilla |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
--D-y wrote: On Nov 10, 10:57*am, MagillaGorilla wrote: Michael Press wrote: In article , *MagillaGorilla wrote: Michael Press wrote: In article , *MagillaGorilla wrote: DirtRoadie wrote: On Nov 6, 8:42Â*am, MagillaGorilla wrote: Not true. Â*Under the law, Dr. T lacked Mens rea to be found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Silly monkey - "The mens rea is established upon proof the defendant willfully committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result in injury to another, i.e., a battery. Although the defendant must intentionally engage in conduct that will likely produce injurious consequences, the prosecution _need not prove a specific intent to inflict a particular harm_" People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206, 865 P.2d 704, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 (Cal. 1994) Dr. Thompson's previous 2 brake-checking incidents resulted in no injury. This is a fact. *This was going to be brake-checking incident #3 or "teach them a lesson #3" according to Dr. T.'s testimony. You really think he meant to get his $35,000 car wrecked and injure those 2 guys on the way to work? *60 years of never hitting anyone with his car and you think that he left his driveway that day saying "I'm gonna injure me some scumbag cyclists today with my car." C'mon. *The jury ****ed up because Dr. T's attorney didn't explain it like me an Anders just did. *We established reasonable doubt right here in front of you. *Dr. T's lawyer took the asshole-lawyer approach and opted to deny he was involved in those previous incidents (now the doctor looks like a liar). *Me and Anders embraced those 2 previous incidents to show the outcome was NO INJURY and that's what the doctor expected this 3rd time. *And the lawyer also doesn't know the sport well enough to know that those 2 guys were probably more pre-disposed to wrecking (we all know those people in the local group rides...always kissing the pavement no matter what).... How do you not grab any brake in the 75 feet it took Dr. Thompson's car to go from 35+ to zero? *I even have my doubts that Dr. T braked harder this time than in the 2 previous incidents. *I just think he encountered 2 riders with Rasmussen and Hatch skills (say, weren't those 2 riders off the back because one of them had already crashed?). *Hatch stacked it on a solo descent and almost killed herself. *I'm surprised the district attorney in Dr. T's case didn't indict the asphalt. The prosecution proved intent. Proving intent is difficult. Once accomplished, Dr. Thompson is hosed. He meant to generate a dangerous situation. I agree they proved intent. but only that his intent was to do the same thing he did in the 2 previous occasions, which was to harass the cyclists, not to seriously injure of kill them. *The state did not prove that given Dr. T's experience in what happened when he braked in the 2 prior incidents. The hammer clicked on an empty chamber the first two times. That means it will continue to do so. He created a dangerous situation. That's too vague to mean anything. *When you drive down the road and a tractor trailer is coming the opposite way at 55 mph and separated by a yellow line..that's also "dangerous." * But it's done every second of every day. * I don't think what Dr. T did was especially dangerous...I thought it was foolish and reckless and that he intended to annoy, and harass the cyclists, but to not to seriously injure them. *His 2 prior experiences and results (which resulted in no injury to the cyclists) is reasonable doubt that he wanted them dead or seriously injured. 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. * You guys do the same thing with the lab techs at the LNDD when an American tests positive...you automatically start with this intent bull**** and "they should go to jail." He is guilty of ADW. You may not think it is fair, but it is the law. The jury got it wrong. *I don't have to believe OJ was innocent just because the jury did. *Dr. T still has appeals, but I doubt he will prevail down that road. There are all kinds of things you cannot get away with legally. Putting a man trap in your house, and having an intruder injured in it will get you convicted of a felony and then the intruder will pick you clean. There is a thread here. Don't do stupid stuff. Don't generate circumstances where somebody can get hurt. That statement is too vague...riding a bike in a pack "generates circumstances where somebody can get hurt." But we don't charge the peloton with assault with a deadly weapon when somebody ****s up on their bike and cases a crash. Do not like my verbalization? Then reread People v. Colantuono above. "The mens rea is established upon proof the defendant willfully committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result in injury to another," -- Michael Press It's up to a jury to determine what all those words mean with respect to any given circumstance. *So reciting them doesn't "prove" anything. *I am entitled to see the facts differently than you. *The problem I have with you people is you believe you KNOW that the doctor INTENDED to cause serious injury or death with his $35,000 car after he left his driveway only minutes before to go somewhere. *And the evidence simply doesn't show that. *All it shows is he brake-checked some asshole cyclists and they crashed. *In is prior incidents, there was no crash. You people were just as sure that Floyd was framed by French lab techs. *Your level of certainty is nothing more compelling than your visceral hatred of anyone who causes problems for cyclists. * You were just like that in the Van Impe thread. Van Impe thread? Nevermind... I don't "know" what the doc intended. If this in fact is your position, then under the rules of law you must find him NO GUILTY of assault with a deadly weapon. Don't need to know. Don't care. He did something illegal and two people got hurt as a direct result, one of them pretty badly. Jury found him guilty. WRONG...You clearly do not understand the jury instructions. Just listen to yourself ...."I don't really know for sure what his intent was, but I'm going to find him guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT of a crime that requires me to know that was in fact his intent." You are exactly what is wrong with the jury system in this country...dumb people who decide cases based on your own ****-logic. If you wrote the judge in the Dr. T case and said "I'm not sure what his tent was...the judge would respond then you must him not guilty. Just like the scum that walk into a 7/11 and point a gun, we don't need vigilante MV operators on the road, talking ****ing with cyclists or any other ROW users. --D-y So you call 911 when somebody brake checks you on the highway and scream into the phone to the 911 dispatcher that "somebody just tried to kill me?" No you don't. Magilla |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
Michael Press wrote:
In article , MagillaGorilla wrote: Michael Press wrote: In article , MagillaGorilla wrote: Michael Press wrote: In article , MagillaGorilla wrote: DirtRoadie wrote: On Nov 6, 8:42Ãâ‰*ÂÂ*am, MagillaGorilla wrote: Not true. Ãâ‰*ÂÂ*Under the law, Dr. T lacked Mens rea to be found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Silly monkey - "The mens rea is established upon proof the defendant willfully committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result in injury to another, i.e., a battery. Although the defendant must intentionally engage in conduct that will likely produce injurious consequences, the prosecution _need not prove a specific intent to inflict a particular harm_" People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206, 865 P.2d 704, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 (Cal. 1994) Dr. Thompson's previous 2 brake-checking incidents resulted in no injury. This is a fact. This was going to be brake-checking incident #3 or "teach them a lesson #3" according to Dr. T.'s testimony. You really think he meant to get his $35,000 car wrecked and injure those 2 guys on the way to work? 60 years of never hitting anyone with his car and you think that he left his driveway that day saying "I'm gonna injure me some scumbag cyclists today with my car." C'mon. The jury ****ed up because Dr. T's attorney didn't explain it like me an Anders just did. We established reasonable doubt right here in front of you. Dr. T's lawyer took the asshole-lawyer approach and opted to deny he was involved in those previous incidents (now the doctor looks like a liar). Me and Anders embraced those 2 previous incidents to show the outcome was NO INJURY and that's what the doctor expected this 3rd time. And the lawyer also doesn't know the sport well enough to know that those 2 guys were probably more pre-disposed to wrecking (we all know those people in the local group rides...always kissing the pavement no matter what).... How do you not grab any brake in the 75 feet it took Dr. Thompson's car to go from 35+ to zero? I even have my doubts that Dr. T braked harder this time than in the 2 previous incidents. I just think he encountered 2 riders with Rasmussen and Hatch skills (say, weren't those 2 riders off the back because one of them had already crashed?). Hatch stacked it on a solo descent and almost killed herself. I'm surprised the district attorney in Dr. T's case didn't indict the asphalt. The prosecution proved intent. Proving intent is difficult. Once accomplished, Dr. Thompson is hosed. He meant to generate a dangerous situation. I agree they proved intent. but only that his intent was to do the same thing he did in the 2 previous occasions, which was to harass the cyclists, not to seriously injure of kill them. The state did not prove that given Dr. T's experience in what happened when he braked in the 2 prior incidents. The hammer clicked on an empty chamber the first two times. That means it will continue to do so. He created a dangerous situation. That's too vague to mean anything. When you drive down the road and a tractor trailer is coming the opposite way at 55 mph and separated by a yellow line..that's also "dangerous." But it's done every second of every day. I don't think what Dr. T did was especially dangerous...I thought it was foolish and reckless and that he intended to annoy, and harass the cyclists, but to not to seriously injure them. His 2 prior experiences and results (which resulted in no injury to the cyclists) is reasonable doubt that he wanted them dead or seriously injured. 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. You guys do the same thing with the lab techs at the LNDD when an American tests positive...you automatically start with this intent bull**** and "they should go to jail." He is guilty of ADW. You may not think it is fair, but it is the law. The jury got it wrong. I don't have to believe OJ was innocent just because the jury did. Dr. T still has appeals, but I doubt he will prevail down that road. There are all kinds of things you cannot get away with legally. Putting a man trap in your house, and having an intruder injured in it will get you convicted of a felony and then the intruder will pick you clean. There is a thread here. Don't do stupid stuff. Don't generate circumstances where somebody can get hurt. That statement is too vague...riding a bike in a pack "generates circumstances where somebody can get hurt." But we don't charge the peloton with assault with a deadly weapon when somebody ****s up on their bike and cases a crash. Do not like my verbalization? Then reread People v. Colantuono above. "The mens rea is established upon proof the defendant willfully committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result in injury to another," -- Michael Press It's up to a jury to determine what all those words mean with respect to any given circumstance. Wrong again. The judge tells the jury the law. The judge tells the jury what the words mean. Then the jury determines if there is a violation of the law, etc. What I meant was the jury decides their application, not their definition. Rarely does a jury need the definition of a word from a judge. Jurors routinely violate those instructions and meanings by judges and usually find people guilty simply because they don't like them or assume they are guilty. Just look at the OJ jury...OJ's DNA at the scene of the crime and they think he's not guilty. C'mon, give me a ****ing break. So reciting them doesn't "prove" anything. I am entitled to see the facts differently than you. The problem I have with you people is you believe you KNOW that the doctor INTENDED to cause serious injury or death with his $35,000 car after he Wrong again. Thompson intended to create a dangerous situation. That's why I would have found him guilty of reckless driving. But there was no intent to assault those cyclists and in hs prior incidents - of which we know there was 2 - there were no injuries. So the doctor's expectation for injury would be low. Also, surely you would agree the doctor knew that if he used his car to cause an accident his insurance rates would go up, he might get a ticket...he might even be charged with something...but he didn't believe there was going to be any collision, so he didn't think any of those things applied. Have you ever been brake-checked on a highway? Once you answer this question and tell us what happened (no injury/no collision) and the fact that you didn't call 911 or even file a complaint against the driver...that pretty much tells me how you actually feel about the act of brake-checking. But because it was done to cyclists and the cyclists were spazzes and got hurt (because they were flipping him off instead of riding their brakes) you assign all sorts of nefarious intent to Dr. T that simply wasn't in his mind at the time he did it. The guy was probably on his way to the ****ing convenience store to get some half-and-half. left his driveway only minutes before to go somewhere. And the evidence simply doesn't show that. All it shows is he brake-checked some asshole cyclists and they crashed. In is prior incidents, there was no crash. You people were just as sure that Floyd was framed by French lab techs. Your level of certainty is nothing more compelling than your visceral hatred of anyone who causes problems for cyclists. You were just like that in the Van Impe thread. Non sequitur. -- Michael Press You were one of the people who believed Fraud Landis was innocent too, so...talking to you is like talking to a wall. In your mind, those French female lab techs INTENDED to frame Fraud..they HATED him because he was an AMERICAN. You were just as sure of their malevolent INTENT as you are of Dr. T''s guilt. But to everyone else, we all know that Fraud doped, got caught, and these French girls don't even give a **** about cycling. Magilla |
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 |