From: NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.trump,can.politics
Subject: Re: I Knew Alan Baker Would Be A Faggot...
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 09:58:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:06:47 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>On 2026-01-17 06:56, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:17:15 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-01-16 19:44, Skeeter wrote:
>>>> In article <10kes86$26qks$5@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2026-01-16 18:14, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>> In article <10keiop$23gth$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 09:24, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... and say this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:34:23 -0800, Alan says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Road?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/OC9smu9.mp4
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/Lfbiqwg.jpeg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> See those people standing thar, stoopit? WHAT are they standing on?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Were any of those people in the direction she intended to travel?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure they were.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do YOU know where Good was "intending to travel"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was making an illustrative point. YOU moved the goalposts, as usual, with
>>>>>>>> your fallacy of the specific.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> She could have gone down the street MADE A 3-POINT TURN and came back at the
>>>>>>>> officers, them, having to draw the weapons again and shoot her again.
>>>>>>> So by pretending you know her intent was to run over an "officer"...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well you seem to be able to read minds you tell us.
>>>>>
>>>>> So when he states her intent he's NOT reading minds?
>>>>
>>>> BUTWHATABOUT!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...you then pretend they need to protect against future "attacks".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She was turning away from the officer, doofus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a one way street on a very icy road. No telling what
>>>>>> could happen.
>>>>> Actually there is "telling" that the car could not have gone to its left
>>>>> with the wheels turned right.
>>>>
>>>> But it went straight.
>>>
>>> No, it most certainly did not. COULD not have with the wheels turned all
>>> the way to the right.
>>
>> But you claim he was standing in front. If she turned she wouldn't
>> have him with the front headlight.
> > > You can't have things both ways dingdong.
>
>1. We don't know that he was actually hit.
>
LAUGHTER.
Yeah sure. All the videos were edited...
>2. But if he'd been standing close enough he COULD have been hit.
He WAS hit.
>
>Seriously, this isn't tough to have figured out on your own, numbnuts.
Oh I've already figured out the facts. It's just you and a couple of
liberal dingdongs who haven't.
>
>But neither changes the fact that her intent can be inferred from her
>actions.
Intent is irrelevent in this case. The actions taken by her is the
only evidence necessary.