-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Campus Police Will Look at any "Criminal Component"
- Thread starter PlayerRep
- Start date
- Status
dupuyer griz said:
Well you’re welcome to your opinion but threatening someone’s safety IS against the law. It is not ok. I’m not sure that’s what alpha did but he has done it before so it wouldn’t surprise me. Also there is the added threat that he’s saying this to a woman.
I’m not advocating for what’s her face as she’s just another person my age who is just constantly trying to be the victim of “the white man.” But again, it’s simple, it’s not ok to threaten anyone. She may have unjustly felt threatened and therefore nothing will happen but do you honestly think Alpha is incapable of crossing that line?
G-BEARS said:
You need to know what an accusation is before you “accuse” someone of that. When did I say he broke the law? In fact I said I’m not sure he did...I don’t care enough about this whole shit to look into what he and she spewed at each other. 10/10 on your reading skills though
AlphaRep1
Well-known member
Mike posted a meme and an address, that is all he did. I know this because he did it from our law office in Billings.
I want to add the following comment on the subject.
I’ve watched this unfold over the last week or so and it seems some people are fairly misdirected on what it is all about. This has nothing to do with UM or Bobby Hauck, or Ken Haslam, or anyone else. Mike is in no way associated with them and they sure as hell would never put him forth as a spokesman for them in any way. None of us would do that.
To me this seems to be about a trend with people being able to claim they are somehow a victim of something and then start some sort of fight with those they profess to be the perpetrator of some injustice to them or those they are protecting.
It does not matter that their claims may be completely false or erroneous on the facts of the matter. It seems now that all a woman on social media has to do is level accusations and walk away. Then what is left is a person dealing with the aftermath and no repercussions to the attacker.
They are simply introduced as the victim and we all have to just play along and treat these people with a gentle touch and nod and act like what they say has value even when we know it to be incorrect.
Why?
If somebody makes a claim about your son, brother, daughter, sister, mom or dad and that claim is incorrect then you would rightly say that this person is either misinformed or a liar. I don’t see any problem with doing so in any situation I guess and think Mike must have just gotten sort of fed up with this same thing.
It is sort of comical that a lot of people want to try and make this issue about something else via subterfuge while resting on this alleged victimhood complex and the coddling culture that seems to have grown the last 20 years.
Mike gave this person back what she was giving out So we are all supposed to feel sorry for her in spite of being misinformed about a topic she wants to spearhead against someone?
Personally, I am sort of tired of liars and professional self absorbed victims being able to make any claims they want against others without reprisal while acting like an ill informed jerk offs.
Once in awhile it is nice to see a no account person held to account by someone.
This entire incident had nothing to do with Montana, football, Hauck or the University. This was done to a woman that does this stuff to others. I have known Mike for over 15 years and it is uncommon for him to do anything like this. I absolutely disagree with the way he went about this and I and his lawyer repeatedly told him not go about this the way he did. Attacking people on social media is cowardly and should never happen.
I am glad Mike did it to this person, she needs to learn what the other side is like when she is is trying to label innocent people with heinous things.
I want to add the following comment on the subject.
I’ve watched this unfold over the last week or so and it seems some people are fairly misdirected on what it is all about. This has nothing to do with UM or Bobby Hauck, or Ken Haslam, or anyone else. Mike is in no way associated with them and they sure as hell would never put him forth as a spokesman for them in any way. None of us would do that.
To me this seems to be about a trend with people being able to claim they are somehow a victim of something and then start some sort of fight with those they profess to be the perpetrator of some injustice to them or those they are protecting.
It does not matter that their claims may be completely false or erroneous on the facts of the matter. It seems now that all a woman on social media has to do is level accusations and walk away. Then what is left is a person dealing with the aftermath and no repercussions to the attacker.
They are simply introduced as the victim and we all have to just play along and treat these people with a gentle touch and nod and act like what they say has value even when we know it to be incorrect.
Why?
If somebody makes a claim about your son, brother, daughter, sister, mom or dad and that claim is incorrect then you would rightly say that this person is either misinformed or a liar. I don’t see any problem with doing so in any situation I guess and think Mike must have just gotten sort of fed up with this same thing.
It is sort of comical that a lot of people want to try and make this issue about something else via subterfuge while resting on this alleged victimhood complex and the coddling culture that seems to have grown the last 20 years.
Mike gave this person back what she was giving out So we are all supposed to feel sorry for her in spite of being misinformed about a topic she wants to spearhead against someone?
Personally, I am sort of tired of liars and professional self absorbed victims being able to make any claims they want against others without reprisal while acting like an ill informed jerk offs.
Once in awhile it is nice to see a no account person held to account by someone.
This entire incident had nothing to do with Montana, football, Hauck or the University. This was done to a woman that does this stuff to others. I have known Mike for over 15 years and it is uncommon for him to do anything like this. I absolutely disagree with the way he went about this and I and his lawyer repeatedly told him not go about this the way he did. Attacking people on social media is cowardly and should never happen.
I am glad Mike did it to this person, she needs to learn what the other side is like when she is is trying to label innocent people with heinous things.
G-BEARS said:
Oh so you want proof that he’s been threatening to people before? Chris has this great feature on this website that allows you to look at the history of posts from years past. Feel free to take a look anytime. When you do that and can honestly tell yourself he hasn’t done that here then we can have a discussion
PlayerRep said:
"Well you’re welcome to your opinion but threatening someone’s safety IS against the law. It is not ok. I’m not sure that’s what alpha did but he has done it before."
Read that again. And tell me that she didn't say what he has done before was against the law. Interested to see you spin this, fascinating stuff.
Fahque said:
Haha, definitely not AG1. I see now that it was just a case of poor writing, which I previously offered as an explanation. I've read that quote to several people (non-egrizzers) and they understood it the same way I did. AG1 controversial yes (a douche-bag often), against the law no. I write things often that get taken the wrong way, usually own up to it and don't try to blame others with nasty comments.
G-BEARS said:
You have poor reading skills then. "threatening someone's safety is against the law." The topic of that sentence is the act of threatening someone. I say, "it is not ok." It pertaining to the previous topic. followed by the same "it" in the next sentence. You're arguing writing skills with someone vastly more educated in that topic. I will not claim that I write perfectly on here as more often than not I am on my phone, but if you're going to critique it at least have a solid argument.
Also it is moot as threatening someone by definition is against the law. He has threatened people, I would imagine often times indirectly. It is still against the law.
- Status
