• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Not essentially football related.... directly

signedbewildered said:
You must have quoted the wrong post? Did I say it was or wasn't significant? Pretty certain you were a lot harder on Davey than I was in previous threads.
Click to expand...

The point is that many women react different to comments/threats from guys than men do.
 
PlayerRep said:
signedbewildered said:
You must have quoted the wrong post? Did I say it was or wasn't significant? Pretty certain you were a lot harder on Davey than I was in previous threads.
Click to expand...

The point is that many women react different to comments/threats from guys than men do.
Click to expand...

Well (in general) I would agree with that but based solely on my post you responded to what would suggest to you my gender? Be specific.
 
PR, I haven’t read the order but i think the facts must have been established at the hearing that she was both a student and a season ticket holder which the court would then fashion the campus prohibition into the 1500 ft protection bubble surrounding her home or place of work. I also think he dodged a bullet, and I don’t know what Van der wetting requested, but I have heard of cases where the judge prohibited the respondent from even simply accessing the internet or social media not just posting on it. Could you imagine beimg saddled with that prohibition if you ran a business which I understand he does. From what I read in the article he is prohibited from only mentioning her on social media which for the average person should not really be a problem. I would be concerned if I were him though about someone trolling him or someone posing as him and posting garage about her in an attempt to make it look like he violated the courts order. I think i said before the violations are graduated and I believe the first two strikes are only misdemeanors and 3rd and subsequent of felonies. Any reported violation would be investigated by MPD and prosecuted by your city attorneys office. I would really be worried about people posting things under his name or whatever pseudonym he uses and taking screen shots to “preserve” as evidence. I guess we will see how vendictive her supporters and his enemies are. Cyber space is still like the Wild West. Lol. Sounds like a great party. Right on.
 
Dutch Lane said:
PR, I haven’t read the order but i think the facts must have been established at the hearing that she was both a student and a season ticket holder which the court would then fashion the campus prohibition into the 1500 ft protection bubble surrounding her home or place of work. I also think he dodged a bullet, and I don’t know what Van der wetting requested, but I have heard of cases where the judge prohibited the respondent from even simply accessing the internet or social media not just posting on it. Could you imagine beimg saddled with that prohibition if you ran a business which I understand he does. From what I read in the article he is prohibited from only mentioning her on social media which for the average person should not really be a problem. I would be concerned if I were him though about someone trolling him or someone posing as him and posting garage about her in an attempt to make it look like he violated the courts order. I think i said before the violations are graduated and I believe the first two strikes are only misdemeanors and 3rd and subsequent of felonies. Any reported violation would be investigated by MPD and prosecuted by your city attorneys office. I would really be worried about people posting things under his name or whatever pseudonym he uses and taking screen shots to “preserve” as evidence. I guess we will see how vendictive her supporters and his enemies are. Cyber space is still like the Wild West. Lol. Sounds like a great party. Right on.
Click to expand...
I really don't think it's wise to give people ideas about how to screw someone. I hope everyone just keeps their powder dry at this point.
 
Not giving anyone ideas- but if I was, conversely I would advise him to clean up his internet foot print, close down his football board, close the twitter account he says he doesn’t control and get new emails addresses, phone numbers the works and then make sure he has good anti hacking protection. I would tell him to be proactive and even file a post hearing brief and outline for the court the steps he has taken to protect both himself and her from that happening. Any competent high school hacker could do him some damage. Just saying :thumb:
 
Dutch Lane said:
Not giving anyone ideas- but if I was, conversely I would advise him to clean up his internet foot print, close down his football board, close the twitter account he says he doesn’t control and get new emails addresses, phone numbers the works and then make sure he has good anti hacking protection. I would tell him to be proactive and even file a post hearing brief and outline for the court the steps he has taken to protect both himself and her from that happening. Any competent high school hacker could do him some damage. Just saying :thumb:
Click to expand...
Did not intend to suggest you were purposefully trying to give people ideas. As for Schlosser moving forward, you make sensible suggestions. But a lack of good sense has seemed to prevail thus far.
 
All i can say is, it sure is nice not having AG spewing his crap on here any more ! Its good he can post and play with himself on his own site. Like all internet trolls......
 
Kind of surprised by this. Didn't know it went to court. The internet is full of people like AG1 and nothing ever happens to them. Just look at the latest Peter Fonda tweet.
 
Da Boyz Mom said:
statler & waldorf said:
Don't know anyone involved in this, but this Municipal Court Judge, has gone WAY beyond reasonable. Davey's started this shit. Where is the downside for her? Where are the restrictions on her, what she can or can't do, or where SHE is prohibited from going? It takes two to tango, and SHE needs to have her life equally f*****up by the judicial system.
Click to expand...

Davey's petition was ill-advised, factually inaccurate, and ultimately fruitless, but her behavior certainly never approached the level of stalking, harassment, and threats perpetrated against her by Alpha. If you cannot understand the difference then you need your head examined.
Click to expand...
Spot on observation. There is a huge difference between the two. The judge was reasonable and appropriately measured in her response.
 
griz5700 said:
I know two things with absolute certainty.

1. Mike is an intelligent friendly guy who loves this school, program and state.

2. Ms. Davey is the worst of the worst.
Click to expand...

Those both may be true, but I guess I have a different definition of intelligence than you. To me, the shit he pulled was something you would expect from an 8th grade bully. As an adult, guess what that type of actions can get you a lawsuit.

I in no way support Davies, I think she also is very much to blame and I cant stand people like her, however, as a man it is pretty freaking disgusting to threaten to stalk and cause harm to a woman and also say the shit he said without remorse. It makes us all look like idiots.

That being said, I'm not clear from the article if he isnt allowed to talk about women online ever, or just Davies, the title is misleading. If it is the former, that seems like 1st amendment rights there.
 
Odd that no charges were filed or restrictions put against Kathy Griffin when she staged a graphic and detailed faux beheading of President Trump.

Oh wait, she didn't tell anywone where he lived.

Double standard.
 
signedbewildered said:
PlayerRep said:
signedbewildered said:
You must have quoted the wrong post? Did I say it was or wasn't significant? Pretty certain you were a lot harder on Davey than I was in previous threads.
Click to expand...

The point is that many women react different to comments/threats from guys than men do.
Click to expand...

Well (in general) I would agree with that but based solely on my post you responded to what would suggest to you my gender? Be specific.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that you weren't a woman and therefore you wouldn't react the same way as a woman likely would.
 
BlackChickenHobo said:
Where are the threats?

Both of these people are trolls and are getting what they deserve but I never read any direct threat.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a direct threat to be against the law.
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
griz5700 said:
I know two things with absolute certainty.

1. Mike is an intelligent friendly guy who loves this school, program and state.

2. Ms. Davey is the worst of the worst.
Click to expand...

Those both may be true, but I guess I have a different definition of intelligence than you. To me, the shit he pulled was something you would expect from an 8th grade bully. As an adult, guess what that type of actions can get you a lawsuit.

I in no way support Davies, I think she also is very much to blame and I cant stand people like her, however, as a man it is pretty freaking disgusting to threaten to stalk and cause harm to a woman and also say the shit he said without remorse. It makes us all look like idiots.

That being said, I'm not clear from the article if he isnt allowed to talk about women online ever, or just Davies, the title is misleading. If it is the former, that seems like 1st amendment rights there.
Click to expand...

I think it's specific to Davies.
 
My primary takeaways:

1. Nice to see Alpha dressed in his best for the hearing (c'mon dude, every man needs to own at least one suit)

2. I'm mildly surprised you can print the word "sugartits" in a family newspaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top