Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Politics and Violence - Steven Crowder Attacked by Union Thug... Where is the Media Outrage?

Yesterday, I posted an Open Forum debate for Michigan's new Right-to-Work law:

As most of you probably know, this "hot-button" issue was the talk of the day in political circles yesterday. Opinions have been flying, left and right, on social media, and they're surely continue to do so long after the fervor dies down.

What seems to be missing from the mainstream media's daily "news" reports is the violence that occurred on the lawn of the Michigan State Capitol during the union's protest of the passage of the Right-to-Work bills. A quick check of the MSM's websites does not mention that Fox News reporter Steven Crowder was viciously attacked by a union thug. Also missing is the union's violent destroying of an AFP, an organization that supports Right-to-Work legislation, tent. Is this deliberate? Are they intentionally not reporting the brutality and the animosity because it was a democratic faction that propagated it? Allegations, speculations and rhetorical questions aside, I think we can agree with some degree of certainty that if this was a GOP or Tea-Party rally and this kind of malicious attack occurred, it would be plastered front-and-center on every MSM news site out there. Of course, these occurrences are rare, and ones that do exist are simple propaganda. Republicans rarely act like this. We don't scream and yell and chant and attack when we don't get our way. It's just that simple. When Obamacare crossed key hurdles, (its passage and the Supreme Court's ruling), did republicans attack people? Did we threaten to riot if Obama was reelected. Of course not. We don't act like this... If we did, you'd hear a LOT more about it in the media.

Regardless, I want to post the video of Steven Crowder being attacked:

Keep in mind this is not my video. I'm not claiming any credit for it; it is a YouTube clip taken from Steven Crowder's YouTube page. 

I wanted to share this with everyone so that this video is out there, on the web, for everyone to see. If some people haven't seen it already, I hope this blog sheds light on this incident. Violence should NEVER be tolerated in any circumstance. Simple civic and political disagreements do not warrant violent, destructive behavior. Nothing does. But sadly, this is missing from the media's reporting. Democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, everyone should stand against violence in all forms, but the absence of acknowledgement of this attack and the violent nature of union behavior is often conspicuously "missed" by the media. Hmmm.

Has America become bias with violence? When someone tragically goes on a rampage with a gun, the media, quite noticeably, is quick to fire up its gun control debate. But when something like attack seenin the video this happens, (yes, this IS significant - a union thug attacking a reporter... could you imagine the outrage if a Tea Party member attacked Chris Matthews) there is hardly a peep. I'm not terribly sure it a bias does exist, so I'll leave it for discussion. 

Please share your thoughts below.  

Like what you read? Want to keep up with our blog's postings? Enter your email address for a free, direct-to-email subscription:


  1. Great points. It's just expected that the media wouldn't cover this. The media is a disease. Unions are a disease. Both of these are destroying our nation.

  2. Here in east Tennessee we have this carpenters union that sets up around town with these big banners that read "Shame on [insert business name or CEO's name]" and a small sign that reads "Labor Dispute".

    I approached one of these signs one day to inquire what the rub was. This particular sign read "Shame on Pastor Jones" and they were set up in front of a church. The union goons handed me a flyer with a picture of a rat walking on the American flag that read "shame on Pastor Jones for desecration of the American way of life....". The reason for the Shame on the Pastor? He built an addition on his church and did not choose the company that used union labor. I made a comment along the lines of, "That sounds more like sour grapes than a 'Labor Dispute'". That either triggered a Tourette syndrome attack in one of the union goons or he wanted to fight.

    A few months later I stopped at another sign. This time the people manning the sign were not union goons (I guess sending out idiots with violent tendencies isn't good PR). The guy explained to me that he was paid by the union but WAS NOT a member of the union. He went on to tell me that he was paid $10 per hour to sit with the sign for 4 or 5 hours per day. He was paid in cash and received no benefits.

    He was distributing union propaganda criticizing companies that hire people at below union wages, pay them cash as a 1099 contractor and do not provide them with benefits. You know, exactly the same thing the union is doing with these guys to hold up the signs.

    While they are disruptive to business they are entertaining at times. Especially the midget butterballs that think they are bad.

    I guess Steven Crowder is a better man than I am. I would have maimed that sack of crap for laying his hands on me.

  3. I read posts on twitter yesterday, describing the union member thugs as 'animals.'

    I'd refine that definition a bit.

    If you come across a wild animal out in the open, its first instinct is to flee ... but, if you corner that same critter, it will do its best to rip you to shreds.

    Poke a wasps nest and you're in for a wold of hurt.

    The damage these creatures do to their tormentor is secondary. Animals are driven by pure instinct and it's all about survival.

    Without the membership and their dues, union leadership fears for their OWN survival. Today, they're living high on the hog - doing little actual work - while getting fat on the backs of their union members.

    Interestingly, THEY and NOT those e-e-evil rich company owners - more closely align with the definition of the 'bourgeoisie' to the workers' 'proletariat.'

    Problem: They know the workers will do just fine without them - BUT - they can NOT allow them to be privvy to that FACT.

    Solution: Whip the membership up with lies and distortions... and allow THEM to do the dirty work.

    Obama STRAIGHT up LIED in his Michigan speech on Monday, stating their new law would do away with collective bargaining. It does NOTHING of the sort; it simply gives workers a CHOICE as to whether they want to belong to a union - or not.

  4. I happened to come across this article, and well, I wouldn't have heard of the issue in the first place if not for this website. So it only is appropriate to post it here:

    No argument from me in that it's a liberal source, sourcing liberal comments/interpretations of the event, but regardless of what you take and conclude from that it's pretty clear here that the Fox News clips do not tell the entire story.

    The man that retaliated and punched out Steve was very clearly, somehow (this is the great unknown), hit to the ground before getting up to punch Steve.

    This of course was left out of the clip that Fox aired, intentionally, but there's no certainty as to why. It could've of course just as easily been someone else that struck/pushed/tripped the guy, but it also could've been an attempt to get a rise out of a supporter for a better news story. Money talks. Either way, the clip is misleading.

    And of course, all news websites are guilty of this to some extent. I'm not picking on Fox.

    1. Not that I want to turn this into a squabble over what really happened in a franticly-taped video, but I don't know... It actually looks as Steve was the aggressor here, perhaps unintentionally?

      The very first second Steve is on screen, he is facing directly at the man that fell, and just about a foot or so away from him. The man clearly fell to the ground facing away from Steve, suggesting they weren’t fighting or anything beforehand.

      Perhaps he bumped into him from behind, and knocked him forward onto the ground on accident... or any one of a million different things... either way though, we’re not getting the full story here.

    2. Wait what? Steve Crowder is the aggressor here? How??? In a violent mob of nearly 10,000, somehow HE is the guy that is the aggressor? I know we disagree from time to time, but where is this coming from? I'm actually kind of shocked.

    3. Have you watched the video?

      The very first we see of Steve and the aggressor, is Steve facing towards the aggressor as the aggressor fell face-first (facing away from Steve) to the ground.

      There are any one of a million ways that could have gone down, that could have made either side guilty here. And we have no absolute evidence as to what really happened, yet. I said as much already.

      But, drop everything surrounding this event. Forget the unions, forget the protest, forget Republicans, forget Democrats, forget left, forget right. If someone showed me the first 5 seconds of that video, with Steve facing a man looking the opposite direction that just got knocked down onto his face, I'd think Steve could have initiated it.

      I think it's pretty clear to see why someone could think that.

    4. I've watched that video. I've seen others, but as you said, drop everything but that video. Crowder does nothing but face a direction. His arms don't extend in a pushing way, and in fact, if you look closely around when he fell, I know the camera turns away, look at Crowder's hands. He starts raisin then pawns up as he turns away. It's as if the man started to fall and Crowder pulls up with a "I am not being blamed for this." We see this in hockey a lot as someone falls. There is nothing that shows he pushed. There is nothing that shows him attacking, yelling, being aggressive. He isn't chanting or rabble rousing. I'm really shocked that though he is doing nothing of the sort, and though he is brutally attacked, I'm truly shocked that even based strictly on demeanor, you still say he is the aggressor. I 100% disagree.

    5. I, again, never said that my position is certain. That is my point; that it is uncertain, because we're missing information here.

      How did this man get on the ground, before the fight started? Why was he facing the opposite direction of Steve? Why did he immediately turn to hit Steve?

      And yes, ignoring the context of this situation completely, I would not see the first five seconds of that video and think "oh it's just a hockey thing." I'd see a man falling to the ground, face first, and immediately turning to punch the man behind him.

      9 times out of 10, that is because the person behind him started something. Or is this the twilight zone?

      Now, again, it is still uncertain. And even if Steve somehow did start it, whether Steve did it intentionally or not, who knows; I sure don't. But purely from looking at the video, it's just not so clear cut as everyone seems to want to make this video.

      I actually think the more likely scenario, is that he may have accidently bumped into the man and knocked him down. Now, yes that in a way does still make him the 'aggressor', and he doesn’t deserve that retaliation… but this would be a DRASTICALLY different story.

  5. RKen - Good evening. Late Friday, too!

    Frankly, nothing here holds weight, and I've seen numerous attempts to show Crowder didn't tell the whole truth fall flat. The "Fox News clips do not tell the entire story" does not mean it didn't tell the truth. Even in this similar example here, the author claims the opposing side is also inconclusive:

    I've seen this go on for a few days now... and there is no veracity at all to the claims of "Fox News edited these clips." None.

    First, Fox News did not produce the clips. The first clips released were done by Crowder. As someone who watched this as it was happening, he released his first video within the hour of it happening. I saw the video, and made no conclusion of it's "selective" editing.

    Secondly, as with the many posts I've seen going around online about "Fox News (again, this wasn't their film) selectively editing" like the one I already posted: - it uses the term "selectively editing" as if in a hope of a reader seeing the headline they will go "ohhhh I got it." If you watch the tape, and many others who make this claim, nothing they say or show provides any evidence contrary to the evidence Crowder showed. Most clips that make the air are "selectively edited" - they have to be... But it doesn't mean they're not true. This propagandized (nothing against you personally - but this is pretty obvious and it's going around the internet) attempt to attack the credibility of someone that was assaulted is pretty pathetic in my opinion. Crowder even addressed this with basically, "yes, things are edited... it doesn't affect the truth."

    I'm not really sure what is misleading about Crowder's clip? If the guy tripped over a root, would he show that?

    1. I said it was inconclusive on both sides, multiple times. I'm not sure, are you agreeing with me on that? I never argued against it. In fact, that was exactly my point here.

      The clips that Fox News aired did not include the part that showed the assaulter on the ground, before getting up to punch Steve. Neither does your video. I’m not sure what’s unclear about that, either? They, very clearly, opted not to include the part that shows the assaulter was obviously either hit/knocked first somehow, or involved in a scuffle beforehand.

      There’s no denying it lol. It’s in the very video you posted here.

      I get the feeling you didn’t actually watch the full video yet? Otherwise I’m a bit confused what you’re arguing.

      "I'm not really sure what is misleading about Crowder's clip? If the guy tripped over a root, would he show that?"
      If you believe that the protestor tripped on a root fully of his own accord, and immediately got up, and decided to hone in on one person specifically and beat on him... sure.

      But I hope you realize that while yes, we can never know for sure (again, my main point), that sounds quite a bit more unlikely than the scenario I described that you seemed to find unbelievable.

  6. Crap - to be honest I've been having this entire convo while at the mall (I did watch the video before I left) I'm only saying this because my phone is at 2% battery and is going to die. No matter how much we disagree I don't want you to feel disrespected by me just going quite. As always it's a good, nothing personal debate, but I'll have to get back to you :)

    1. Ha, don't worry about it. I don't expect a personal response to everything I put out there. :) I just wanted to bring a different perspective to the story I felt was relevant. I appreciate the heads up though.

      I'm about to vanish for a bit as well; the lady beckons. Been a long week!

      Have a good weekend, in any case.

  7. Rken you really disappointed me. You're usually pretty decent, but you fell for the Daily Kos, almost literally word for word:

    A man was assaulted for a difference of opinion, and these animals do whatever they can to spin the story in their favor. These are the moves of the Kos and I didn't think you'd ever sink to their level.

  8. @RKEN You are a shame for claiming that Crowder was the aggressor, evein unintentionally. YOu are a serious shame and you couldn't be any more false:

  9. @RKen - I watched and the video - as well as another. Crowder was no where near the guy when he fell/tripped/was pushed and ended up on the ground - at Crowder's feet...

    The guy THEN leapt up and attacked Crowder, who did NOT respond - even though I heard he's trained in some kind of martial arts.

    On Hannity, some union thug made the same assertion - that Crowder had attacked the guy first. Crowder put HIM in his place, as well (verbally).

    I too, am surprised that you'd believe and then re-post ANYTHING the Kos put out - unless you were actually there... and could verify with your OWN two eyes.

    These union thugs use the same old vile and disgusting tactics they've gotten away with for DECADES. MOST people have finally wised up to their underhanded, mostly illegal, cretinous, job-killing ways.

    AND their continued BAD behavior certainly isn't winning them ANY NEW friends.

    You, the Loaded up with Lefties Labor Commission, and Pres. Downgrade can stick up for them all you want...but face it... their bloated, out-of-control salaries and bennies have devastated companies, cities, counties, states and very SOON our country, if we do NOT get a grip on them!

    They're DONE and it's well past time for them to go the way of the dinosaur.

  10. Mn4Rick, Anon, Dara: I'm actually pretty disappointed in the refusal to acknowledge that there could ever, even remotely possibly, be another side to this story. I guess the saying "there's two sides to every story" doesn't exist when politics can be brought into the situation.

    This isn't about unions, supporting, or not supporting them. I actually made it very clear in a previous post that I supported the 'right to work' laws. So I don't know why that is even relevant.

    This isn’t even about politics. Or even about what may or may not be the most likely situation here.

    The fact of the matter is that it could be a union protest, or a tea party protest, or anything, and I would still question a video that very clearly was cut to help promote a story that would sell. And I’m sad to say that it seems evident that if this was a tea party protest, people here would be more open-minded to what the other side could be. Particularly when the part left out of the full clip that made the news networks, clearly shows something unexplained that is completely relevant (how that person ended up on the ground first).

    People interview at these protests and put themselves in potential harms way to make money, and sell their footage to make money, and interview afterwards to make money. A story about fighting, anger, and hatred always sells better than one that shows anything else. The more extreme the better.

    That isn’t to say that people don’t also do this for journalistic or other motivations, but to ignore the above completely and refuse to acknowledge that there could ever be ulterior motivations (particularly when there is actual footage clearly showing there could be something else going on here) is incredibly disappointing and close-minded, however unlikely it may be.

    This is one of those aspects about politics that bug me the most; the idea that there’s only ever one side to a story.

    1. I know that in a liberal's happy-go-lucky world, it appears to be a "hey guys, there is another way to look at this." I find this to be, more often than not a "hey guys, how can we spin this in our favor."

      Ever notice this takes place when liberals do something wrong? They do whatever they can to look at the "other side of the story," but when conservatives to something wrong, there is never another side? It's just what it is? Certainly Rken, you're not too blind to see this?

      But with respect to what you're saying, sometimes, no there is no other side. If you flipped a coin and it landed on tails, is there another side to it? Did it really not land on tails? I just can't simply go along with this constant spinning. If it was equal on the left and the right, maybe. But it's not. It's not even close.

      Any attempt to possibly say Crowder started this, was the aggressor, or was out to make money is just silly. It's a liberal spin attempt to gloss over, and almost justify, the fact that Crowder was brutally attacked. If the union attacker's behavior was exhibited anywhere else in any other setting, we would be shocked and out of breath with our slamming of this incident. But since it was a democrat guy who was "fighting for his rights" there is no condemnation, and in fact, there is near justification. Don't you find this a little odd, Rken? Is this what society has come to? Assuaging violence for due cause? Mindlessly washing people's opinions over for an agenda? How much more brainwashing must take place?

    2. I see it happen everywhere, Tea. I frequent quite a few different liberal, conservative, and moderate forums/blogs/news sites. And really, they're all very similar in that regard.

      When something happens that makes their ideals or party look bad there's a scramble to discredit it somehow, calling it a flat-out lie, or wrong, or biased, or providing any way to spin it into a positive. Everyone accepts and is open to whatever other theories or ideas could explain it away. But, when something happens to make their side look good, that open-minded point of view disappears. There’s suddenly only one possible explanation or side to the story. Any attempts to provide other perspectives are dismissed.

      As far as whether one does it more than the other? Who knows, impossible to really say? But I’d wager it’s more a product of human nature in relation to confirmation bias, as opposed to just Republican vs Democrats.

      So Tea, tell me, what do you think about this?
      This 19/yo man was assaulted while at a McCain rally by a member of the tea party. Now Tea, by your own logic in your very own post, do you accept that there is no other side to this story? That the only thing that matters here is the fact that there was violence, and it was wrong, and that any discussion of “but what about the other side/point of view” is a spin/distraction?

      I’m sorry, but I’m sure that if someone posted that video in an attempt to say “THE TEA PARTY IS VIOLENT”, you and most others here would have an argument of your own. And would question the man interviewed, and the situation (as they SHOULD, which is my point). But then where is the condemnation here?

      The ironic thing is that if you attempt to explain away what happened in that video, or offer an alternative point of view (again, as you SHOULD), or try to explain away in how it's different, you’re essentially proving my point.

    3. LOL WHAT? You can try to swing dance me with all the psychobabble you want, but you're completely dodging the issue with "well, what about this case" junk.

      DO you sincerely think Crowder was the "aggressor" as you said. Do you really think in this tumultuous environment, a guy that starts throwing haymakers and surrounded by people yelling and screaming and talking about killing mother fuckers isn't going to act violently. Or were they just peaceful and it was all Crowder's fault. Come on, you're better than this.

    4. This issue seems to becoming rather silly. I wish I could have continued the debate Friday, but my phone was dying while I was at the mall.

      I can see both points here for some of the discussion. I would agree with RKen that there are two sides to the story, and I would agree with Texas Tea that sometimes, after examination, another side simply doesn't exist.

      To me, my initial shock came at the issue of after seeing numerous takes and information on this, that somehow Steven Crowder was deemed the "aggressor." That's all that bothered me. In my opinion, it seemed that after an examination, this was one of those cases where there was no other side. I still believe, after seeing now tons and tons of footage on this, that this is the case.

      As far as two sides of every story, yes... we should always examine and check for this, and we should always get to primary source data (I'm an advocate of doing research and not simply believing what you're told). But, at some point, you have to reach a conclusion. In law, many times a "reasonable person test" is applied. I think, with this case, we reached that conclusion, and I have found that any attempts to label Steven Crowder as the aggressor have fallen hollow. That's nothing personal against anyone; it's just my opinion.

      As far as Texas'last point on who does it more, I can certainly see the reason this sentiment exists.

    5. Tea: How am I dodging the issue, when I'm the one that brought it up? lol

      I pretty clearly said a few times what my view is. This is one of my posts here:
      "I, again, never said that my position is certain. That is my point; that it is uncertain, because we're missing information here.

      How did this man get on the ground, before the fight started? Why was he facing the opposite direction of Steve? Why did he immediately turn to hit Steve?

      And yes, ignoring the context of this situation completely, I would not see the first five seconds of that video and think "oh it's just a hockey thing." I'd see a man falling to the ground, face first, and immediately turning to punch the man behind him.

      9 times out of 10, that is because the person behind him started something. Or is this the twilight zone?

      Now, again, it is still uncertain. And even if Steve somehow did start it, whether Steve did it intentionally or not, who knows; I sure don't. But purely from looking at the video, it's just not so clear cut as everyone seems to want to make this video.

      I actually think the more likely scenario, is that he may have accidently bumped into the man and knocked him down. Now, yes that in a way does still make him the 'aggressor', and he doesn’t deserve that retaliation… but this would be a DRASTICALLY different story."

      I, clearly, think that it is possible that something happened beforehand, involving that guy falling to the ground, that could’ve been related to or a cause of Crowder. Do I think it’s absolutely certain? No, but that’s my point; exactly what happened is uncertain.

      And you're fighting a strawman on whether I think the mob or the guy that attacked Crowder is exempt from any blame. I also, clearly, said that I don't believe that the man that attacked Crowder was justified (or innocent) in any case.

      I’m not trying to make excuses for them or even defend them, I’m simply pointing out that there could be another side here.

      Why does this have to be so black and white? It's like I either see it exactly one way and everything is sunshine and roses, or I differ from that and it automatically means I support unions, support violence, hate Crowder, am liberal, and brainwashed.

    6. @RKen - This---> Not in black and white - but LIVING color...

      Early in the vid. Tony the Thug shoves his sign in front of the camera, while a RTW supporter does a photo op w/Crowder; a bit later Tony the Thug interjects foul language and nasty comments while Crowder speaks to OTHER people - both pro and con.

      At 5:13 (left screen)you'll clearly SEE Tony the Thug start doing his best Banty Rooster imitation and engaging another guy (not Crowder)5:44 (left screen) Tony the Thug attacking the tent - his NAME ON HIS JACKET LAPEL.

      Crowder moves away - Tony the Thug sails through the air and lands on the ground BEHIND HIM; Crowder turns to see what's happened - Tony the Thug jumps up and starts throwing roundhouses.

      While ATTACKING the TENT, Tony the Thug quite PROBABLY: a)tripped over a tent peg ... or was deterred from his destructive and ILLegal behavior - by someone OTHER than Crowder - and HE FELL.

      The ONLY way Crowder 'antagonized' ANYONE at that 'rally' was BY DISAGREEING WITH THEM.

      And for THAT reason, Tony the Thug apparently felt it was his RIGHT to pummel another human being.

      YOU said: 'I’m not trying to make excuses for them or even defend them, I’m simply pointing out that there could be another side here.'

      There IS no 'other side' here!

      Video evidence from TWO different cameras show that during this incident - NO way, shape, or form was Crowder OR ANYONE in his party aggressive.

      The violence (on the tent and Crowder's person) was perpetrated ONLY by the UNION THUGS.

      So go ahead and PRETEND that UNION thugs are all misunderstood unicorn and puppy lovers. May Heaven help you should you ever have cause to 'cross' them.

  11. If that was the original video released, I would've never posted anything in the first place, nor would I have been so skeptical about whether there was another side to consider in this story.

    I don't understand why they wouldn't come out with the additional footage until over a week later, rather than show a clip that was deliberately cut to start with the other guy hitting the ground first. Which, obviously and rightfully so, would of course bring question to what happened leading up to the guy hitting the ground.

    "So go ahead and PRETEND that UNION thugs are all misunderstood unicorn and puppy lovers. May Heaven help you should you ever have cause to 'cross' them."

    I never said or even so much as implied anything like that; be fair here.

    I formed my opinion purely on the video footage available at the time, and to come here with new footage that was *not* available when I first posted my opinion and act all high and mighty about it is quite insincere to the situation. I had all the right in the world to question video footage that left questions unanswered, and whether or not new footage released a week, month, or year later proved or disproved anything doesn’t change whether I or anyone had the right to question it in the first place. Let’s be real here.

    1. RKen - Good morning, and happy end of the world to you!

      I have to keep this brief; soooo much going on at the office today (and this week, ugh). I'm still working on Modern Federalism III, but with the holidays, it's busy busy busy.

      I just wanted to say that I completely understand the point of "why not bring out THIS footage originally." It's all about information information information. In my opinion, truth and fact is the only thing that matters. If you have it, why not share it. Regardless of the actually things that the video shows, I too wondered (not just about this, but any incident like this) that when information exists, why was it not told. In this situation, especially when skeptics existed, (and yes, you are right, though we disagreed on what we extracted from the video, we should, in my opinion, ALWAYS be skeptical), why not bring forth this video immediately to stop the debate?

      I always advocate for "checkmate" positions... one in which there is no logical rebuttal... the "2 + 2 = 4" argument... where you have the data, info, and facts to show that this IS the case, and there is no other side. Not releasing pertinent information leaves people on any side further away from that point... which leads to more misinformation and skepticism. While we might disagree on application and analysis, you and I are firm believers in info, data, truth, evidence, and fact... as anyone should be.

      Now, back to the grind for me... ugh. I hope that after the holidays wind down, the lull in the content here (stuff other than morning headlines) goes away and some more in-depth debates and such go on. The holidays slow everything down... though that's not really a bad thing :-) Take care!

    2. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the follow-up with the new footage, Dara.

    3. Happy end of the world to you too, LME! lol

      Stay safe, have a good weekend, and Happy Holidays! (same to everyone else here too!)

      And yeah, frustrating when situations like that happen. It's almost as if it's done on purpose, and heck sometimes people likely do do it on purpose. Release only part of a story/evidence, watch people argue over the missing part for a while, then come in with the rest of the facts at a later time to make all that debate for naught.

    4. Oops! Still here : ) Glad I got all my Christmas shopping done *whew*

      Note: The ENTIRE unedited video on the right side of the split screen WAS available from the VERY beginning of all the hub-bub... all they added was the left vid. to the split screen.