( recent thread on respect for vets)


Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.


Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI


Dave

lid wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)


Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.


Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI


Dave


Never try to pick a fight with an old man.
He'll just kill you.


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, lid wrote:

( recent thread on respect for vets)


Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.


Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI


Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

On Feb 23, 2:26*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)

Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.

Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI

Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. *The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. * He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. *Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. *Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. * Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. *They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

Well, not quite. When the 'youth' went back to his seat, the old
fellar egged him on one last time.

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.


Dave

Dave__67 wrote:
On Feb 23, 2:26 am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)
Oh dayummm......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4
better call the amber-lamps.
Hitler comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI
Dave
The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

Well, not quite. When the 'youth' went back to his seat, the old
fellar egged him on one last time.

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.


There's a pretty entertaining post-event interview with the old guy
posted on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ7Yx...eature=related

On 2/23/2010 12:13 PM, RBnDFW wrote:

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.


There's a pretty entertaining post-event interview with the old guy
posted on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ7Yx...eature=related


The guy is a character. I think I read he was also tasered multiple
times by the police at a baseball game after stirring up some sort of
ruckus, and sent for psychiatric evaluation. Note what is printed on the
back of his tee shirt.

Another funny aspect of this whole thing is the girl on the bus in the
purple tights wearing the headphones, who sits through the whole thing
as if nothing is happening. She has been given the name "Amber Lamps" by
those on the web who do such things, and there are several tributes to
her beauty and aloofness floating around the web.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:06:46 -0800 (PST), Dave__67
wrote:

On Feb 23, 2:26*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)

Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.

Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI

Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. *The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. * He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. *Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. *Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. * Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. *They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

Well, not quite. When the 'youth' went back to his seat, the old
fellar egged him on one last time.

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.


Dave


He used threatening and insulting language to provoke a fight and then
proceeded to commit grievous bodily harm. Five years is the tariff for that.
(in civilized parts of the world)


Mark Rand
RTFM

My take on the story is as follows:

The white guy is big (much bigger than the black guy), and an
experienced fighter.

The white guy took an accomplice along to record a video, so he
intended something worth of a video to happen.

The white guy picks a small black guy, insults him, then puts a show
for the video camera about how he did not mean what he meant, further
incensing the black guy but making a false impression that an insult
was unintentional.

The white guy taunts the black guy some more and retreats.

Black guy is angry, follows him, slaps the white guy in a manner that
left NO mark on his face (so he hit him lightly, if at all), and then
gets severely beaten up.

Does the white man deserve much sympathy here?

Not from me.

He intended to produce a show to post on the internet, succeeded at
that, at the cost of serious injuries to the black bus rider who did
not expect any trouble when he got on the bus.

i

Ignoramus26960 wrote:
My take on the story is as follows:

The white guy is big (much bigger than the black guy), and an
experienced fighter.

The white guy took an accomplice along to record a video, so he
intended something worth of a video to happen.

The white guy picks a small black guy, insults him, then puts a show
for the video camera about how he did not mean what he meant, further
incensing the black guy but making a false impression that an insult
was unintentional.

The white guy taunts the black guy some more and retreats.

Black guy is angry, follows him, slaps the white guy in a manner that
left NO mark on his face (so he hit him lightly, if at all), and then
gets severely beaten up.

Does the white man deserve much sympathy here?

Not from me.

He intended to produce a show to post on the internet, succeeded at
that, at the cost of serious injuries to the black bus rider who did
not expect any trouble when he got on the bus.

You missed the part about the black "man" being a convicted murderer,
carrying a concealed weapon, who was out on bail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0aB4AnKq1s

Jon

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:37:20 -0600, Ignoramus26960
wrote:

My take on the story is as follows:

The white guy is big (much bigger than the black guy), and an
experienced fighter.

The white guy took an accomplice along to record a video, so he
intended something worth of a video to happen.

The white guy picks a small black guy, insults him, then puts a show
for the video camera about how he did not mean what he meant, further
incensing the black guy but making a false impression that an insult
was unintentional.

The white guy taunts the black guy some more and retreats.

Black guy is angry, follows him, slaps the white guy in a manner that
left NO mark on his face (so he hit him lightly, if at all), and then
gets severely beaten up.

Does the white man deserve much sympathy here?

Not from me.

He intended to produce a show to post on the internet, succeeded at
that, at the cost of serious injuries to the black bus rider who did
not expect any trouble when he got on the bus.

i

You are incorrect. The video was shot by a young black women who was
completely unknown to either of the parties involved in the fight. It
was not set up by either of them. Not for YouTube entertainment or for
any other reason.
Dave

On Feb 24, 9:41*am, Mark Rand wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:06:46 -0800 (PST), Dave__67
wrote:



On Feb 23, 2:26*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)

Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.

Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI

Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. *The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. * He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. *Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. *Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. * Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. *They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

Well, not quite. When the 'youth' went back to his seat, the old
fellar egged him on one last time.

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.

Dave

He used threatening and insulting language to provoke a fight and then
proceeded to commit grievous bodily harm. Five years is the tariff for that.
(in civilized parts of the world)

Mark Rand
RTFM

I agree santa provoked the fight, but the other guy crossing the line
to physical made it legal self-defense.


Dave

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:41:58 +0000, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:06:46 -0800 (PST), Dave__67
wrote:

On Feb 23, 2:26*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, wrote:
( recent thread on respect for vets)

Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.

Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI

Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. *The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. * He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. *Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. *Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. * Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. *They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.

Well, not quite. When the 'youth' went back to his seat, the old
fellar egged him on one last time.

The old dude is somewhat well known in that area for picking fights.
But, if someone crosses the line from shouts to violence, getting
'egged on' is no defense- old guy lured him in, but he took a swing at
the old guy and got his ass handed to him, which is OK by me.

He's a tough *******, gotta give him that.


Dave


He used threatening and insulting language to provoke a fight and then
proceeded to commit grievous bodily harm. Five years is the tariff for that.
(in civilized parts of the world)

I haven't yet seen the videos, but let me get this straight: In your
"civilized" world, the guy who does the _talking_ is the agressor (who
goes to jail) and the guy who actually throws the _punches_ is the
poor victim (who goes scott free)? Do you honestly consider that fair
community policy? Words are illegal but fighting is not?

Bloody 'ell. I'm sure glad I don't live Over There, Mark.

When I was growing up, kids were taught not to fight with the adage
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
We learned to ignore the verbal bullies.

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:59:48 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I haven't yet seen the videos, but let me get this straight: In your
"civilized" world, the guy who does the _talking_ is the agressor (who
goes to jail) and the guy who actually throws the _punches_ is the
poor victim (who goes scott free)? Do you honestly consider that fair
community policy? Words are illegal but fighting is not?


Watch the videos and make your mind up on who is the guilty party in the
incident. IMO the guy who actually provoked the incident and then threw the
_punches_ is the aggressor, who now seems to be being feted for his actions.

Mark Rand
RTFM

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:26:06 -0600, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:19:04 -0500, lid wrote:

( recent thread on respect for vets)


Oh dayummm......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZf39fzu1Q4

better call the amber-lamps.


Hitler comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxcNzz4PMI


Dave

The older fella clearly retreated rather than engage. The younger
aggressor pursued and attacked. He's probably lucky to be alive.

Everyone knows that seniors are fragile. Any violent physical attack
must therefore be construed by them as deadly threat and dealt with
accordingly if possible. Old vets aren't as strong and quick as young
men, but combat skills and experience aren't totally forgotten when
hair turns gray or disappears altogether. Most vets hated every
horrible day of combat but the survivors became competent at it. They
do not regard a fight as recreation or sport but as an activity to be
avoided if at all possible. Most of them are not easy to provoke. They
know that if attacked they must stop/drop their attacker before they
are greviously or fatally harmed, and that things can get legally
messy after successful self defense because many Americans revile the
veterans that did battle by command of the politicans those Americans
elected.


Hear Hear!

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.