Dagnabit; The Crazy Erica vs Big Truck Thread Has Been Pulled

So the only remaining mystery in this thread is obviously:

What happens when a landlord brake-checks his tenant?
 
SHOCKING!!!! ( my opinion on this ) . When I posted the initial thread on this I asked for more info, and more info is what we got. While I do think it's great that Erica has a mission that I believe she thinks is very noble and she is very passionate about, I can not side with her on this one. Also worth noting, the touching of some else's sheet I am totally on the fence about but going past that to the core issue I have to side with Big Truck on this one. I believe in principle he was totally right.

As far as I can tell, as long as the " TV table " was not shot, there would not have been any issues and that would have been simple enough. Many have made very good points - such as owner/ management should have handled this BEFORE it came to this. That said, both parties involved sure could of handled it differently as well. Hopefully in the future all rules will be laid out in advance and things like this can be avoided.
 
Hopefully in the future all rules will be laid out in advance and things like this can be avoided.

This isn't directed to you in particular, just referring only to the idea several have mentioned that it may not have been completely clear what was or was not ok to do...

One might could argue that it may not be crystal clear if it would be ok to just video tape, but not stream, the matches.

One might could argue that it may not be crystal clear if it would be ok to free stream before or after the PPV stream shuts down.

One might could argue that it might not be crystal clear if it would be ok to free stream other matches aside from the PPV matches.

Most would probably agree that you should probably ask the room owner, streamer, or tournament director to find out before doing it though and not asking probably indicates that you really don't care if it is ok or not.

But the one thing I don't think anyone can even begin to argue about is whether or not it would be ok to free stream the PPV match. Everybody knows without doubt that would be a huge no no without even having to ask anybody. And Erica tried free streaming the PPV table too. This isn't about her not knowing exactly what she should or shouldn't do, this was about her not caring. And in fact it was about her intentionally doing what she knew was wrong just so she could hurt the business of someone she disagrees with, and so she can gain adoration and recognition in the pool world for giving free streams, the adoration and attention she she has been desperately wanting and seeking for quite some time now.

You think this is really all about the players and the fans for Erica as she sometimes tries to allude to? Lets see if she would be willing to stream completely anonymously from now on if that is the case then. Zero chance that will ever happen. This is all about trying to be somebody in the pool world for her. She wants the "fame" and recognition and adoration in the pool world, and she wants to try to hurt anybody in her way to getting that. That is all this was really about, somebody was in her way and she didn't care that she was the one out of line, in her mind they were the one that was going to have to accommodate her and her wants, because to her, she is all that matters.
 
Last edited:
.... had an agreement with the owner, etc. ......
Jason

I believe I've seen this suggestion several times between the two threads.
Maybe I heard it wrong, but it sounded like Erica said she had permission to be there doing what she was doing.
If that's the case, why would she care that somebody got mad about it.
I would think the issue would be with the person that gave all the permission for multiple people to stream. I don't think it was her fault and it certainly wasn't BT's fault.
Nevertheless, he should have never put his hands on her stuff without her express permission, or at least not within her eye shot
 
This isn't directed to you in particular, just referring only to the idea several have mentioned that it may not have been completely clear what was or was not ok to do...

One might could argue that it may not be crystal clear if it would be ok to just video tape, but not stream, the matches.

One might could argue that it may not be crystal clear if it would be ok to free stream before or after the PPV stream shuts down.

One might could argue that it might not be crystal clear if it would be ok to free stream other matches aside from the PPV matches.

Most would probably agree that you should probably ask the room owner, streamer, or tournament director to find out before doing it though and not asking probably indicates that you really don't care if it is ok or not.

But the one thing I don't think anyone can even begin to argue about is whether or not it would be ok to free stream the PPV match. Everybody knows without doubt that would be a huge no no without even having to ask anybody. And Erica tried free streaming the PPV table too. This isn't about her not knowing exactly what she should or shouldn't do, this was about her not caring. And in fact it was about her intentionally doing what she knew was wrong just so she could hurt the business of someone she disagrees with, and so she can gain adoration and recognition in the pool world for giving free streams, the adoration and attention she she has been desperately wanting and seeking for quite some time now.

You think this is really all about the players and the fans for Erica as she sometimes tries to allude to? Lets see if she would be willing to stream completely anonymously from now on if that is the case then. Zero chance that will ever happen. This is all about trying to be somebody in the pool world for her. She wants the "fame" and recognition and adoration in the pool world, and she wants to try to hurt anybody in her way to getting that. That is all this was really about, somebody was in her way and she didn't care that she was the one out of line, in her mind they were the one that was going to have to accommodate her and her wants, because to her, she is all that matters.

Leo, I'm sorry Playa 9, did you miss where I said Big Truck was right? Not gonna go round and round as you already know. Good day sir.
 
At no point did big truck have the right to touch her equipment. Of she's alleging it was damaged and he's admitted moving it, he can be held responsible.

/QUOTE]

That knife cuts both ways. How did Erika plug Ray's ethernet cable into her laptop without touching it?

And, since we could see with our own eyes that the phone was working fine after the moving of it, there is no case here.
 
A landlord can't evict a tenant, touch their property or cut power....you can't go moving people's stuff cause you want to...

She isn't a tenant and he isn't a landlord.

You can't go plugging cords into other people's computers because you want to either.
 
Leo, I'm sorry Playa 9, did you miss where I said Big Truck was right? Not gonna go round and round as you already know. Good day sir.

Did you miss where I said this wasn't directed at you? It was the first line. It was directed in general to those that thought part of the problem was that it may not have been clear what was ok or not ok to do, and my point is that although clarity in "rules" is always better, that wasn't the real issue or cause of problem here. Don't know who Leo is either.
 
That's what we thought.

Typical of a cheap#%%, thinking everything should be free for them. You couldn't care less if BT has expenses, spent $ to get there, brought Efren, had an agreement with the owner, etc. As long as you get "your"(news for ya, it doesnt belong to you) view for free.

Have you ever asked "what's wrong with pool" well, look in the mirror.
Jason

tap tap tap
 
I believe I've seen this suggestion several times between the two threads.
Maybe I heard it wrong, but it sounded like Erica said she had permission to be there doing what she was doing.
If that's the case, why would she care that somebody got mad about it.
I would think the issue would be with the person that gave all the permission for multiple people to stream. I don't think it was her fault and it certainly wasn't BT's fault.
Nevertheless, he should have never put his hands on her stuff without her express permission, or at least not within her eye shot

It's actually been said multiple times that she was told to stop. I believe she was there to stream the 9 ball and the players she was streaming yesterday were not the 9 ball players.
 
Did you miss where I said this wasn't directed at you? It was the first line. It was directed in general to those that thought part of the problem was that it may not have been clear what was ok or not ok to do, and my point is that although clarity in "rules" is always better, that wasn't the real issue or cause of problem here. Don't know who Leo is either.

Of course. No worries.
 
At no point did big truck have the right to touch her equipment. Of she's alleging it was damaged and he's admitted moving it, he can be held responsible.

Obviously the free streams are a major competition for ppv. I will watch them over some 30 to 50 dollar 3 day stream because I can't just sit and watch 30 hours of pool. Streams like Erica s, mezz west coast, upsate Al and others always get several times the viewers as most ppv. It's not a sustainable model because you only have a few hundred hard core guys willing to pay the money.

If Erica took it upon herself to do "anything she wants" and plugs into Rays Ethernet connection Ray has every right to disconnect her connection, you could not be more wrong on that one. I can not comment much on the "free streamed" tournaments because most of the ones I have watched for short period were of poor quality compared to what Ray does. There is room for both of them in pool, its just that Erica should not be riding Rays coat tails buy streaming any of the same matches that Ray offers on PPV. I do not do Rays taxes but I would guess he is not getting wealthy streaming these PPVs and he probably puts in a lot of hours to bring them to us. I also think what Ray does is good for pool and people should not try to undercut him or find ways to stream his promoted matches for free or even at a discount.
 
That's what we thought.

Typical of a cheap#%%, thinking everything should be free for them. You couldn't care less if BT has expenses, spent $ to get there, brought Efren, had an agreement with the owner, etc. As long as you get "your"(news for ya, it doesnt belong to you) view for free.

Have you ever asked "what's wrong with pool" well, look in the mirror.
Jason

Good call, please allow me in your corner!!! :bow-down::bow-down:
 
Say you were camping and woke up in the middle of the night to loud noise coming from the camp site next to yours. You come out of your tent and see they have bright lights and music and dancing going on and you're wondering how the heck are they doing that. As you walk a little closer you see they have attached a cable to your car's battery.

Q: Do you have the right to shut this down?

Ray stated in the thread that Erica helped herself to his ethernet cable and when either Ray, himself, or one of his crew began fishing for *their* redirected cable that was going "under the stage", it pulled Erica's laptop off of a table where it was perched.

If it happened like that do you still feel that Ray was at fault?

After listening to the video what I heard was Ray being polite and reasonable and Erica repeatedly saying "Don't touch my shit" and "I can do whatever I want, wherever I want".

best,
brian kc

I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of what happened- Ray does not have the right to just yank on the cable. I believe that would fall under the phrase of something like "should have reason to believe would cause harm". Everyone knows you don't see a cable and just yank on it. It's reasonable to believe that doing so would cause harm to whatever the cable could be plugged into. So, I think legally, he is responsible for any damage to her computer.

That said, he does have the right to carefully remove the cable from her computer, providing her computer is out in the open. He does not have the right to enter any of her property, such as a car, ect., to retrieve it. Nor does he have the right to retrieve it if he has reason to believe doing so would cause damage.
 
I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of what happened- Ray does not have the right to just yank on the cable. I believe that would fall under the phrase of something like "should have reason to believe would cause harm". Everyone knows you don't see a cable and just yank on it. It's reasonable to believe that doing so would cause harm to whatever the cable could be plugged into. So, I think legally, he is responsible for any damage to her computer.

That said, he does have the right to carefully remove the cable from her computer, providing her computer is out in the open. He does not have the right to enter any of her property, such as a car, ect., to retrieve it. Nor does he have the right to retrieve it if he has reason to believe doing so would cause damage.

Lol. Thats all:rolleyes:
 
I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of what happened- Ray does not have the right to just yank on the cable. I believe that would fall under the phrase of something like "should have reason to believe would cause harm". Everyone knows you don't see a cable and just yank on it. It's reasonable to believe that doing so would cause harm to whatever the cable could be plugged into. So, I think legally, he is responsible for any damage to her computer.

That said, he does have the right to carefully remove the cable from her computer, providing her computer is out in the open. He does not have the right to enter any of her property, such as a car, ect., to retrieve it. Nor does he have the right to retrieve it if he has reason to believe doing so would cause damage.

The cable should not be plugged into anything. It is his and if it isn't plugged into something by him then there is no reason for him to assume someone else plugged it into something.
 
That's what we thought.

Typical of a cheap#%%, thinking everything should be free for them. You couldn't care less if BT has expenses, spent $ to get there, brought Efren, had an agreement with the owner, etc. As long as you get "your"(news for ya, it doesnt belong to you) view for free.

Have you ever asked "what's wrong with pool" well, look in the mirror.
Jason
Ok ....no need to be such a douche though champ.

I'm sure your 40 bucks ppv is gonna make it all better. 400 dudes watching pool on their PC is just awesome.....that will fix pool for sure.

Pool is a cluster%#! $

Only Jason's I know are pimple faced little mama's boys. She must be very proud.
 
Last edited:
The cable should not be plugged into anything. It is his and if it isn't plugged into something by him then there is no reason for him to assume someone else plugged it into something.

He see's the cable going over to where her stuff is set up, then he has every reason to believe it is plugged into something. It would take an idiot to assume that someone dragged the cable over there just for something to do and never had any intentions of actually using it.

Just to be clear, I am not defending her actions, or BT's for that matter. I have no dog in the fight. I was simply addressing a question that was asked. If the law got involved at all, he would most likely have to pay for repair to the computer, and she would most likely get arrested.
 
all i know is i was trying to ask her about seating at the event it was like i was talking to a rock.....made out of apple color wheel


seen quite a few upset people with the whole setup...one old fella from Philly was PIIIIISSSSEEEEDDDD lol.....play was great though, very nice matches indeed.

but i'd rather play and/or spectate this at laceys over buffs anyday
 
Back
Top