0-3

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 6:22:15 PM6/23/16

to

Three police officers go to trial in the Freddy Gray death. Three
aquitals.
--

BobbyK

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 6:35:23 PM6/23/16

to

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:22:11 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:

>Three police officers go to trial in the Freddy Gray death. Three
> aquitals.

acquittals

Alan Baker

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 7:09:45 PM6/23/16

to

On 2016-06-23 3:22 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Three police officers go to trial in the Freddy Gray death. Three
> aquitals.
>

And you think that's a good thing?

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 7:11:49 PM6/23/16

to

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

Absolutely. Innocent men deserve protection from politicians and
nut jobs.
--

Carbon

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 7:35:06 PM6/23/16

to

It's telling that you were so quick to assume the officers were innocent.
You never did know one way or the other, and you still don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVRxdPWV3RM

Alan Baker

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 7:47:21 PM6/23/16

to

Innocent how, exactly?

This was a man who died while in their custody.

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 8:07:19 PM6/23/16

to

Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

I did not assume anything. I waited for the courts to decide. You
on the other hand did the opposite.
--

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 8:20:04 PM6/23/16

to

Is this Baker or Baker Jr.?
--

Alan Baker

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 8:46:13 PM6/23/16

to

The courts never decide anyone is innocent, simpleton.

They decide that their guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 9:08:27 PM6/23/16

to

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

Or innocent. You pass judgment based on emotions. You really are
a bad person.
--

Alan Baker

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 9:10:23 PM6/23/16

to

So you accept that...

OJ Simpson was innocent?

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 9:19:44 PM6/23/16

to

That is what the court said bad person.
--

Carbon

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 9:21:18 PM6/23/16

to

There was no finding of innocence. Not guilty means, literally, the court
cannot prove guilt. IIRC this has been explained to you at least once
before.

Alan Baker

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 9:44:54 PM6/23/16

to

1. No, it is not.

2. You ducked the question.

Do YOU accept that the not guilty verdict in his case means that OJ
Simpson is definitely innocent of killing his wife?

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 9:52:28 PM6/23/16

to

I accept the verdict. Do you?
--

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 9:52:55 PM6/23/16

to

Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:08:24 -0500, Moderate wrote:
>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>> On 2016-06-23 5:07 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:11:47 -0500, Moderate wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely. Innocent men deserve protection from politicians and nut
>>>>>> jobs.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's telling that you were so quick to assume the officers were
>>>>> innocent. You never did know one way or the other, and you still
>>>>> don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVRxdPWV3RM
>>>>
>>>> I did not assume anything. I waited for the courts to decide. You on
>>>> the other hand did the opposite.
>>>
>>> The courts never decide anyone is innocent, simpleton.
>>>
>>> They decide that their guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable
>>> doubt.
>>
>> Or innocent. You pass judgment based on emotions. You really are a bad
>> person.
>
> There was no finding of innocence. Not guilty means, literally, the court
> cannot prove guilt. IIRC this has been explained to you at least once
> before.
>

Or innocent.
--

Carbon

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 10:05:51 PM6/23/16

to

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:52:52 -0500, Moderate wrote:
> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:08:24 -0500, Moderate wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 2016-06-23 5:07 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:11:47 -0500, Moderate wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Absolutely. Innocent men deserve protection from politicians and
>>>>>>> nut jobs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's telling that you were so quick to assume the officers were
>>>>>> innocent. You never did know one way or the other, and you still
>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVRxdPWV3RM
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not assume anything. I waited for the courts to decide. You on
>>>>> the other hand did the opposite.
>>>>
>>>> The courts never decide anyone is innocent, simpleton.
>>>>
>>>> They decide that their guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable
>>>> doubt.
>>>
>>> Or innocent. You pass judgment based on emotions. You really are a
>>> bad person.
>>
>> There was no finding of innocence. Not guilty means, literally, the
>> court cannot prove guilt. IIRC this has been explained to you at least
>> once before.
>
> Or innocent.

I salute your relentless stupidity.

Alan Baker

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 10:09:19 PM6/23/16

to

On 2016-06-23 6:52 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2016-06-23 6:19 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 2016-06-23 6:08 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Or innocent. You pass judgment based on emotions. You really are
>>>>> a bad person.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you accept that...
>>>>
>>>> OJ Simpson was innocent?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is what the court said bad person.
>>>
>>
>> 1. No, it is not.
>>
>> 2. You ducked the question.
>>
>> Do YOU accept that the not guilty verdict in his case means that OJ
>> Simpson is definitely innocent of killing his wife?
>>
>
> I accept the verdict. Do you?
>

Why do you keep ducking the question?

Do you accept that OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife? That's what you
claim a "not guilty" verdict means, so why won't you just say it?

Carbon

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 10:09:50 PM6/23/16

to

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:52:25 -0500, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2016-06-23 6:19 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 2016-06-23 6:08 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Or innocent. You pass judgment based on emotions. You really are a
>>>>> bad person.
>>>>
>>>> So you accept that...
>>>>
>>>> OJ Simpson was innocent?
>>>
>>> That is what the court said bad person.
>>
>> 1. No, it is not.
>>
>> 2. You ducked the question.
>>
>> Do YOU accept that the not guilty verdict in his case means that OJ
>> Simpson is definitely innocent of killing his wife?
>
> I accept the verdict. Do you?

I accept the finding that the court was not able to find OJ guilty. This
in no way implies innocence. Again, this has been explained to you before.

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 10:15:26 PM6/23/16

to

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> On 2016-06-23 6:52 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>
>> I accept the verdict. Do you?
>>
>
> Why do you keep ducking the question?
>
> Do you accept that OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife? That's what you
> claim a "not guilty" verdict means, so why won't you just say it?
>

I answered your question. Why are you ducking my question?
--

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 10:17:59 PM6/23/16

to

Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

Innocent until proven guilty. Canada must have different
statutes, because you two don't get it.
--

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 10:18:58 PM6/23/16

to

You are too stupid to do that.
--

Alan Baker

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 10:21:49 PM6/23/16

to

No. You ducked my question.

Moderate

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 10:32:07 PM6/23/16

to

No you ducked my question.
--

Carbon

unread,

Jun 23, 2016, 10:52:20 PM6/23/16

to

Not guilty is not a finding of innocence, you tool.

Moderate

unread,

Jun 24, 2016, 4:23:13 AM6/24/16

to

Of course. A person is innocent until proven guilty. After a
successful defense they are no longer innocent.

You are an idiot.
--

Moderate

unread,

Jun 24, 2016, 8:22:19 AM6/24/16

to

Moderate <nos...@nomail.com> Wrote in message:

> Three police officers go to trial in the Freddy Gray death. Three
> aquitals.

> --
>

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/23/ex-texas-cop-who-threw-teen-
to-ground-at-pool-party-will-not-be-charged.html
--

MNMikeW

unread,

Jun 24, 2016, 9:55:50 AM6/24/16

to

It shows Mosby is a partisan idiot who had no case.

Michael

unread,

Jun 24, 2016, 10:46:26 AM6/24/16

to

"Moderate" wrote in message news:nkhnej$9au$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

>Three police officers go to trial in the Freddy Gray death. Three
> aquitals.

>--

And rightly so. The mutt was bashing his head against the walls of the van.
The POS did it to himself. A proven fact.

Unfortunately, your post brought out the resident Asshole ballbuster without
a life, to bob, weave, throw out red herrings, beg for attention and move
the goalposts. He really should get a life instead of sitting in his
shithole dreaming up ways to break balls. What a sad, pathetic, little
freak.

My wish today for the dumb fucks here who have an issue with the not guilty
charge is; they be is treated by the legal system the same way the police
officers were.

Carbon

unread,

Jun 24, 2016, 10:58:27 AM6/24/16

to

The assumption of innocence until proven guilty does not mean that people
are innocent, or even thought to be innocent. They are being charged with
doing bad things after all. It is a legal mechanism, nothing more.

The court did not find OJ innocent. They found him not guilty. The
distinction is obvious to everyone here but you:

> So you accept that...
>
> OJ Simpson was innocent?

That is what the court said bad person.

> You are an idiot.

That means so much coming from you.

John B.

unread,

Jun 24, 2016, 7:50:22 PM6/24/16

to

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 7:35:06 PM UTC-4, Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:11:47 -0500, Moderate wrote:

> > Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> >> On 2016-06-23 3:22 PM, Moderate wrote:
> >>

> >>> Three police officers go to trial in the Freddy Gray death. Three
> >>> aquitals.
> >>

> >> And you think that's a good thing?
> >

> > Absolutely. Innocent men deserve protection from politicians and nut
> > jobs.
>
> It's telling that you were so quick to assume the officers were innocent.
> You never did know one way or the other, and you still don't.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVRxdPWV3RM

In Mod World, anytime a white person kills a black person, it's
a good thing regardless of the circumstances.

Dene

unread,

Jun 24, 2016, 8:55:46 PM6/24/16

to

--------------

This time Moderate is right.

-Greg

Carbon

unread,

Jun 24, 2016, 9:15:43 PM6/24/16

to

> This time Moderate is right.

He keeps trying to claim that people were found innocent by the courts. A
finding of not guilty is not a finding of innocence.

Alan Baker

unread,

Jun 24, 2016, 11:41:42 PM6/24/16

to

No.

He is not right.

A finding of "Not guilty" is not a positive finding of innocence.

Dene

unread,

Jun 25, 2016, 10:22:19 PM6/25/16

to

---------------

Then what is???

Greg

Alan Baker

unread,

Jun 25, 2016, 10:27:11 PM6/25/16

to

It is a finding that guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt
and hence innocence will be ASSUMED.

There is a difference between an assumption and a positive finding of
innocence.

Moderate

unread,

Jul 27, 2016, 1:23:11 PM7/27/16

to

Moderate <nos...@nomail.com> Wrote in message:

> Three police officers go to trial in the Freddy Gray death. Three
> aquitals.

> --
>

Charges dropped on everyone else.

--

MNMikeW

unread,

Jul 27, 2016, 1:36:22 PM7/27/16

to

And our resident race baiting troll is silent. This is what happens when
your bullshit agenda trumps the truth.

John B.

unread,

Jul 27, 2016, 1:38:31 PM7/27/16

to

You love it when white cops kill black people, dodn't you?

Moderate

unread,

Jul 27, 2016, 2:13:15 PM7/27/16

to

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

No. I hate it when people like you blame the cops absent the
facts. The Hillary show was full of it last night.

Half the cops railroaded in Baltimore were non-white.
--

Alan Baker

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 9:54:33 AM7/28/16

to

I wonder if you'd care to explain why the police van with Freddie Gray
in it drove around for nearly 45 minutes when it was no more than a 4
minute drive between the location of his arrest (1700 block of Presbury
Street) and the Western District police station...

John B.

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 11:55:51 AM7/28/16

to

I haven't blamed any cops for anything. But I'm willing
to look at these things objectively without pre-conceived
assumptions about who's to blame. I don't think you can
say that.

Moderate

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 1:32:48 PM7/28/16

to

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

No, I don't care to explain.
--

Alan Baker

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 5:22:59 PM7/28/16

to

Of course you don't...

...because you can't.

A 4 minute drive became nearly 45 minutes...

...a "second suspect" was supposedly picked up...

...but the police never produced him/her...

...but nothing improper was going on.

Moderate

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 5:29:11 PM7/28/16

to

Says the guy who doesn't pre-judge.

You are so bad you make judgments after charges are dismissed.
--

MNMikeW

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 5:50:27 PM7/28/16

to

Textbook Baker double standard.

Alan Baker

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 5:52:03 PM7/28/16

to

On 2016-07-28 5:29 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2016-07-28 1:32 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>
>> Of course you don't...
>>
>>
>> ...because you can't.
>>
>> A 4 minute drive became nearly 45 minutes...
>>
>> ...a "second suspect" was supposedly picked up...
>>
>> ...but the police never produced him/her...
>>
>> ...but nothing improper was going on.
>>
>
> Says the guy who doesn't pre-judge.

I'm just relating the undisputed facts.

Gray was arrested 4 minutes from the Western District station of the
Baltimore PD.

They did spend nearly 45 minutes to get him to the station.

They did violate department policy about belting in arrestees.

Those are all facts.

Facts you can't face.

As has been pointed out to you many times now, "Not guilty" does not
mean "Actually innocent".

>
> You are so bad you make judgments after charges are dismissed.
>

The charges weren't all dismissed...

...shows either you're dishonest or ignorant. You pick.

Alan Baker

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 5:52:15 PM7/28/16

to

Why won't you address the facts, Mikey?

MNMikeW

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 5:58:52 PM7/28/16

to

You don't deal in facts little man.

Alan Baker

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 6:27:46 PM7/28/16

to

I do deal in facts, Mikey.

Every thing I just posted is factual.

Moderate

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 7:04:39 PM7/28/16

to

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
> On 2016-07-28 5:58 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2016-07-28 5:50 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>> Moderate wrote:
>>>>> Alan Baker<alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>>>> On 2016-07-28 1:32 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course you don't...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...because you can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 4 minute drive became nearly 45 minutes...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...a "second suspect" was supposedly picked up...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but the police never produced him/her...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but nothing improper was going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Says the guy who doesn't pre-judge.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are so bad you make judgments after charges are dismissed.
>>>>
>>>> Textbook Baker double standard.
>>>
>>> Why won't you address the facts, Mikey?
>>
>> You don't deal in facts little man.
>
> I do deal in facts, Mikey.
>
> Every thing I just posted is factual.
>

Nothing you post is factual. It is always veiled in absurdity.
--

Moderate

unread,

Jul 28, 2016, 7:10:17 PM7/28/16

to

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
> On 2016-07-28 5:29 PM, Moderate wrote:
>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>> On 2016-07-28 1:32 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course you don't...
>>>
>>>
>>> ...because you can't.
>>>
>>> A 4 minute drive became nearly 45 minutes...
>>>
>>> ...a "second suspect" was supposedly picked up...
>>>
>>> ...but the police never produced him/her...
>>>
>>> ...but nothing improper was going on.
>>>
>>
>> Says the guy who doesn't pre-judge.
>
> I'm just relating the undisputed facts.
>
> Gray was arrested 4 minutes from the Western District station of the
> Baltimore PD.
>
> They did spend nearly 45 minutes to get him to the station.
>
> They did violate department policy about belting in arrestees.
>
> Those are all facts.
>
> Facts you can't face.

How is 'nearly' a fact?

>
> As has been pointed out to you many times now, "Not guilty" does not
> mean "Actually innocent".
>
>>
>> You are so bad you make judgments after charges are dismissed.
>>
>
> The charges weren't all dismissed...
>
> ...shows either you're dishonest or ignorant. You pick.

Obviously not all were dismissed. Three or four people were
prosecuted and found, INNOCENT.

--

David Laville

unread,

Jul 29, 2016, 6:25:00 PM7/29/16

to

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:22:57 -0400, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

>> No, I don't care to explain.
>>
>
>Of course you don't...
>
>
>...because you can't.
>
>A 4 minute drive became nearly 45 minutes...

Correct, to put more restrains on him and pick up a second person.

>...a "second suspect" was supposedly picked up...

He was, it's the witness in the back of the van.

>...but the police never produced him/her...

They have, but they never gave his name because it was an on going
investigation.

Still making up facts to fit your narrative, huh?

Alan Baker

unread,

Jul 29, 2016, 9:21:37 PM7/29/16

to

On 2016-07-29 6:24 PM, David Laville wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:22:57 -0400, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> No, I don't care to explain.
>>>
>>
>> Of course you don't...
>>
>>
>> ...because you can't.
>>
>> A 4 minute drive became nearly 45 minutes...
>
> Correct, to put more restrains on him and pick up a second person.

Who was this second person...

...and how long does it take put on more restraints...

...and why wasn't one of them a seatbelt?

>
>> ...a "second suspect" was supposedly picked up...
>
> He was, it's the witness in the back of the van.

What's his name?

>
>> ...but the police never produced him/her...
>
> They have, but they never gave his name because it was an on going
> investigation.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

Show his testimony.

Alan Baker

unread,

Jul 29, 2016, 9:23:11 PM7/29/16

to

On 2016-07-28 7:10 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2016-07-28 5:29 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>> On 2016-07-28 1:32 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of course you don't...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...because you can't.
>>>>
>>>> A 4 minute drive became nearly 45 minutes...
>>>>
>>>> ...a "second suspect" was supposedly picked up...
>>>>
>>>> ...but the police never produced him/her...
>>>>
>>>> ...but nothing improper was going on.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Says the guy who doesn't pre-judge.
>>
>> I'm just relating the undisputed facts.
>>
>> Gray was arrested 4 minutes from the Western District station of the
>> Baltimore PD.
>>
>> They did spend nearly 45 minutes to get him to the station.
>>
>> They did violate department policy about belting in arrestees.
>>
>> Those are all facts.
>>
>> Facts you can't face.
>
> How is 'nearly' a fact?

Nearly 45 minutes is a fact.

>
>>
>> As has been pointed out to you many times now, "Not guilty" does not
>> mean "Actually innocent".
>>
>>>
>>> You are so bad you make judgments after charges are dismissed.
>>>
>>
>> The charges weren't all dismissed...
>>
>> ...shows either you're dishonest or ignorant. You pick.
>
> Obviously not all were dismissed. Three or four people were
> prosecuted and found, INNOCENT.

No. They were found "Not guilty".

You accept that that makes them "innocent" but you won't accept that a
decision not even to charge Hillary Clinton does the same.

Moderate

unread,

Jul 29, 2016, 9:57:08 PM7/29/16

to

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

He doesn't know anything about the case.

Alan Baker

unread,

Jul 29, 2016, 11:18:48 PM7/29/16

to

So tell me what I don't know...

Moderate

unread,

Jul 30, 2016, 7:51:38 AM7/30/16

to

I don't have that much time.
--

Alan Baker

unread,

Jul 30, 2016, 2:40:50 PM7/30/16

to

You actually think you're clever, don't you?

Michael

unread,

Jul 30, 2016, 3:13:48 PM7/30/16

to

"Moderate" wrote in message news:nni4c7$pbb$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

The DLS is way too stoopid to educate. IT actually believes IT'S smart and
knows EVERYTHING.

A great example of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Alan Baker

unread,

Jul 30, 2016, 3:17:27 PM7/30/16

to

On 2016-07-30 12:13 PM, Michael wrote:
>
>
> "Moderate" wrote in message news:nni4c7$pbb$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
>
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2016-07-29 9:57 PM, Moderate wrote:
>>>
>>> He doesn't know anything about the case.
>>>
>>
>> So tell me what I don't know...
>>
>
>> I don't have that much time.
>
>
> The DLS is way too stoopid to educate. IT actually believes IT'S smart
> and knows EVERYTHING.

You only think that because you know so very little...

:-)

Michael

unread,

Jul 30, 2016, 3:26:23 PM7/30/16

to

"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:nniug6$hif$1...@news.datemas.de...

Thanks for confirming what I said. You really are a Dumb Little Shit who
keeps shooting yourself in the foot.

If you were dead, the world would be a better place.

So why don't you end all your torture and off yourself?

OK, I'm moving on now, DLS. Catch you on another thread.

I give you the gift of the last word. And I can bet you will bite.

Bye.

Dene

unread,

Jul 31, 2016, 3:44:19 PM7/31/16

to

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 8:18:48 PM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:

> So tell me what I don't know...

The following is what you do know...

Alan Baker

unread,

Jul 31, 2016, 3:49:30 PM7/31/16

to

Wow. You've shown yourself to be on a mental level with "Moderate".

You must be so proud.

:-)

MNMikeW

unread,

Aug 1, 2016, 9:42:54 AM8/1/16

to

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! Total lack of self awareness.