|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
Anton Berlin wrote: sadistic humor. rbr has trained me to believe there is no other kind. As Asher can attest, it's cocking up my facebook rep something awful. Yes. |
Ads |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
On Nov 14, 7:30*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
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. Hey Monkeyboy, Just what the hell was the doctor intending when he opted to "teach them a lesson?" He was going to slow them to the speed limit (which they were under) ? He was going to make them stop? No, he was trying to **** with them in any way possible and could not have cared less about the outcome. No, this ****ing asshole doctor knew exactly what he was doing and the jury got it right. And, in contrast to you, the doctor is smart enough to know it, too. However he's got the money to have the attorneys continue to lie on his behalf. Let's see what happens. I say he opts to continue the lies. More power to him if I'm wrong DR |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
In article ,
Donald Munro wrote: Ryan Cousineau wrote: rbr has trained me to believe there is no other kind. As Asher can attest, it's cocking up my facebook rep something awful. Do a proper cock job and post something about fleshlights on Susan's wall. YOU ARE NOT HELPING! -- Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/ "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls." "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them." |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
"William R. Mattil" wrote:
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 ? You were one of the people who thought he was innocent throughout his trial...that the lab techs framed him because of a French conspiracy. I still think you donated to his fund but don't want to admit it. Magilla |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
RicodJour is an idiot
z wrote:
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. For the record, you declined to give an example of a husband-wife coach/athlete situation on the U.S. Olympic team. Magilla |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
DirtRoadie wrote: On Nov 14, 7:30*am, MagillaGorilla wrote: 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. Hey Monkeyboy, Just what the hell was the doctor intending when he opted to "teach them a lesson?" He was going to teach them the same "lesson" he taught the other cyclists he brake-checked....and it certainly wans't injury. He was going to slow them to the speed limit (which they were under) ? He was going to make them stop? Yes. something like that. No, he was trying to **** with them in any way possible and could not have cared less about the outcome. I think you mean "could have cared less," and not "could not have cared less." No, this ****ing asshole doctor knew exactly what he was doing and the jury got it right. Did he also "know what he was doing" in the 2 prior incidencets which resulted in NO INJURY ot the cyclists? And, in contrast to you, the doctor is smart enough to know it, too. However he's got the money to have the attorneys continue to lie on his behalf. What an attorney says in court is not evidence so the jury shouldn't have considered it as a "lie" for the doctor. Thanks, Magilla |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
z wrote:
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? That they were going only 30 mph downhill. Liz Hatch descends faster than that. Thanks, Magilla |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
z wrote: 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. So are you saying the police won't do anything about attempted murder with a deadly weapon? Magilla |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
MagillaGorilla wrote:
You were one of the people who thought he was innocent throughout his trial...that the lab techs framed him because of a French conspiracy. You have no proof of this. Like most of the drivel you post, you make it up as you go along. I still think you donated to his fund but don't want to admit it. Monkeys aren't capable of rational thought. As you have proven so many times. Bill -- William R. Mattil http://www.celestial-images.com |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
"William R. Mattil" wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote: You were one of the people who thought he was innocent throughout his trial...that the lab techs framed him because of a French conspiracy. You have no proof of this. Like most of the drivel you post, you make it up as you go along. You have never denied it. Why not go on record and say that you think Floyd is guilty? I' ll tell you why you don't...because you're one of these 9-11 conspiracy freaks who thinks the guvmint imploded the buildings. You think the female lab techs conspired to frame Floyd because a Frenchman didn't win. I still think you donated to his fund but don't want to admit it. Monkeys aren't capable of rational thought. As you have proven so many times. Bill -- William R. Mattil http://www.celestial-images.com Why not just deny that you donated to his fund? All you have to say is, "I did not donate to Floyd's fund and I think the guy is guilty as ****." Say that and I will believe you. But you won't because you know you did donate to his fund and you don't want to say he is guilty because you don't believe he is. Thanks, 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 |