Dr. Thompson I presume

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Oh, okay, so you agree then that the U.S. government and Barack Obama
commit assaults on children in Iraq and Afghanistan that result in their
death. By the way, who did you vote for in last year's presidential
election?

DirtRoadie wrote:
Are you suggesting California law applies in Afghanistan?

There's something to be said for incorporating Afghanistan? into
California. After all there's a ready home market for the poppy crop and
with the right taxes CA will be back in the black in no time (and the
governor can single handedly terminate the taliban too).

On Nov 3, 12:23*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

[content edited for brevity ]

This thread has reached the 100 post limit.
Thank you for participating.

MagillaGorilla wrote:
You ****ing liar. I was clearly referring to Dr. Thompson, not Dr.
Thomson.
I think you meant Dupond or perhaps Dupont.

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Tomorrow we're going to learn that a dog does not mean a cat. Please
bring your Speed Racer lunchbox to school as it will be a full day and
you'll need to eat lunch.

Do you supply the Ritalin ? (unless of course you're doing a course in
remedial fleshlight usage).

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Nov 3, 10:59 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

So if, according to you I'm wrong, go up to a cop and say, "I'm gonna
kill you with this
knife, mother****er." See what happens and then come back in here and
let us know.

How did the hypothetical suddenly jump from "abusive language" to
brandishing a weapon?

Do you note that this character MiniMinotar has a serious psychological
handicap? And it's unlikely that he rides a bike as well.

Why are people arguing with the fool?

On Nov 2, 9:27*am, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:

BTW, anyone who wants to try to outbrake my M3 or Boxster on their
bike at typical cycling speeds, I'd like to see you try it.


Sounds like I need to break out the clown car and do some beat-downs.

Why do you have those dorky cars and how long have you been waiting to
work them into an rbr thread?

On Nov 2, 10:00*am, DirtRoadie wrote:

I do hope the jury is slightly smarter than the average ape.

Dumbass,

They are taken from voter registration lists.


SLAVE

On Nov 1, 3:02*pm, Michael Press wrote:

Do you meet verbal abuse with physical assault?

Depends on if my purple is dry-cleaned and I got some spare change to
spend at starbucks.

"SLAVE of THE STATE" wrote in message
...
On Nov 2, 9:27 am, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:
BTW, anyone who wants to try to outbrake my M3 or Boxster on their
bike at typical cycling speeds, I'd like to see you try it.

Why do you have those dorky cars and how long have you been waiting to
work them into an rbr thread?

(HAAAAAAHAHAHAHHHAAAAAAAAA!) Wow, gotcha Anders.

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Fred Fredburger wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Paul B. Anders" wrote in message
...
On Oct 31, 11:30 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? A
bike can
stop faster than a car.

Wrong.

He demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge of the stopping
power of a bike. And for those others who aren't aware and don't want to
look like the fool that MG is - a bicycle can stop roughly half as fast
as an automobile because if you stop faster than about a half gee you
roll over the front wheel. A bicycle's center of gravity is too high for
rapid stops.


I might also add that the amount of rubber making contact with the road
on a bicycle is miniscule compared to a car, that's where all the
stopping power is. Friction is dependent on the size of the contact patch.

On the other hand, I've never rear ended a car. That's an interesting
enough trick that I wouldn't draw any conclusions based upon the limited
information I've seen so far. Emotionally, I'd like to see them lock the
driver up and throw away the key. That's not necessarily justice, however.

These guys rear-ended the car because instead of keeping their fingers on the
brake levers and expecting this guy they just harassed to stop, they were off
the bars flipping off the driver and verbally harassing someone who just
wanted to go to work. Personally, I thought that was a nice move by the
doctor. He's entitled to stop his car on the road.

California Vehicle Code

21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another
vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction
shall pass to the left at a safe distance without
interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken
vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and
exceptions hereinafter stated.

22109. No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the
speed of a vehicle on a highway without first giving an
appropriate signal in the manner provided in this
chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the
rear when there is opportunity to give the signal.

You must think that I don't really have a ****ing clue.

But since we're all here making fun of the monkey, I'd be more than happy to
address those 2 statutes you cite, counselor, in the context of this case. I'm an
educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak for why the district attorney in this
case did what she did.

You see, counselor, Dr. Thompson was not charged with violating either of those 2
misdemeanor statutes you cite above, so there is no compelling reason I can think
of to defend against them. It's called Law School 101. Perhaps that's a question
you might want to ask the district attorney who evidently didn't think those 2
statutes applied. But let me give you some insight into why she might have done
what she did, since this heat is ****ing killing me.

In 22109, the code does not mention anything about a driver of a vehicle not being
allowed to abruptly stop in front of a cyclist.

Did you look up the definition of `vehicle' in the
California Vehicle Code? Motion denied with extreme prejudice.

You said "He's entitled to stop his car on the road".
Dr. Thompson does not have a blanket right to stop in
any manner he sees fit. I proved this conclusively.

[...]

I did not read the rest of your message as you have
been proved wrong on the point I raised. If you have
something cogent and constructive to say please do so concisely.

Dr. Thompson had ineffective counsel. He should have brought me in as an expert
witness. I would have recreated the accident on videotape and shown that the only
reason the cyclists couldn't have stopped was because they were giving the shaft to the
doctor and trying to chase him down. The doctor didn't believe the cyclists would go
through his windshield, since it had never happened before. He only believed they
would have to lock up their brakes and get annoyed, just like had occurred in the two
previous incidents.

In the third incident involving Ron "Kiefel" and his buddy, Dr. Thompson had no idea hw
was encountering riders with Cat. 5 bike handling skills. I would have introduced
evidence to the jury that shows these two cyclists stack it routinely on training rides
and ride like **** in local crits. In fact, they were behind the other cyclists in the
group that day due to an accident by one of them, no?

I would also make sure to get some cyclists on the jury and then my closing argument
would be, "How was Dr. Thompson - a man who devoted his life to helping people in t he
ER - how did he know that he was stopping in front of two riders with the bike handling
skills of Rasmussen and Liz Hatch? (the jury would nod in affirmation as I played
Rasmussen's time trial from the 2005 Tour)

And then I would cross examine the cyclists and ask them if they donated to the Fraud
Fairness Fund to show the jury they were a bunch of liars who band together to try to
subvert the system and attack innocent people with false accusations. I would liken
Dr. Thompson to the female lab techs at the LNDD.

Dr. Thompson should of had me as his lawyr and he would have gotten off. I would have
beaten those cyclists down just like I beat you people down in here week in and week
out like a dirty doormat on a Kansas porch.

Extremely interesting. Still, Dr. Thompson may not stop his vehicle
on the public thoroughfare however he pleases without being in
violation of the vehicle code; contrary to what you asserted.

--
Michael Press