@snarlcakes yeah he’s probably a complete pussy but this whole thing is just shyte. The victims wife was out recording the whole thing. For what? Socials? Just stupidity all around.
https://twitter.com/alladdin1983/status/2009189041988649152?s=46
It looks like he almost got killed 6 months ago by an illegal immigrant. He's probably sick of getting dragged and hit by cars🤣
No way are they the same. Here is what CHAT GBT says
Here’s a comparison of posting style between the two Water Cooler posters on the Hoosier Huddle forum you asked about — MCMurtry666 (often shown as McM666) and Sharon Washburn (username sharinincarmel) — based on actual posts and interactions observed in threads:
🧠 MCMurtry666 (McM666) — Style & Tone
1. Direct and provocative language
- Posts tend to be blunt, unfiltered, and sometimes confrontational.
- Does not shy away from controversial opinions (e.g., race, politics) and speaks frankly about them.
2. Engages in vigorous debate
- Often replies with strong assertions that can stir responses from others.
- Uses strong rhetoric to defend his viewpoints.
3. Repetitive themes and political commentary
- Frequently frames arguments in political terms (e.g., media bias, party politics).
- Tends to revisit similar topics or viewpoints across threads.
4. Polarizing and opinion-heavy
- Posts are clearly driven by personal beliefs rather than neutral discussion.
- Can include broad generalizations (e.g., about groups or cultural issues).
5. Recognizable by language patterns
- Other users sometimes identify his style or phrasing distinctly.
Summary of McM666’s style:
👉 Blunt, provocative, politically charged — tends toward strong assertions and sparks debate or disagreements when engaging with other members.
💬 Sharon Washburn (sharinincarmel) — Style & Tone
1. Conversational and reactive
- Partakes in back-and-forth discussions with others on both political and non-political topics.
- Replies tend to respond directly to the preceding comment rather than launching monologues.
2. Frequently injects humor or personal flair
- Uses expressive punctuation and playful phrasing (e.g., “Oh my God what is with this obsession?!!!”).
3. Applies sarcasm or rhetorical questions
- Often frames points with playful or ironic tones rather than flat statements alone.
4. Politically opinionated but conversational
- Her posts reflect clear opinions (e.g., on national politics or policies) but are delivered in a more rhetorical and reactive style than McM666’s declarative tone.
5. Engages in personal interactions that can be bantering
- Uses familiarity in replies (“honey”, emojis, light sarcasm), which gives a different social dynamic compared to McM666’s bluntness.
Summary of Sharon’s style:
👉 Conversational, expressive, and somewhat playful — engages by responding to others with personality and rhetorical flair but less abrasive than McM666.
- McM666 posts with assertiveness and overt political positions, often stirring debate.
- Sharon Washburn posts with expressive, social, and sometimes humorous language, making her contributions feel more conversational even when on serious topics.
No way are they the same. Here is what CHAT GBT says
Here’s a comparison of posting style between the two Water Cooler posters on the Hoosier Huddle forum you asked about — MCMurtry666 (often shown as McM666) and Sharon Washburn (username sharinincarmel) — based on actual posts and interactions observed in threads:
🧠 MCMurtry666 (McM666) — Style & Tone
1. Direct and provocative language
- Posts tend to be blunt, unfiltered, and sometimes confrontational.
- Does not shy away from controversial opinions (e.g., race, politics) and speaks frankly about them.
2. Engages in vigorous debate
- Often replies with strong assertions that can stir responses from others.
- Uses strong rhetoric to defend his viewpoints.
3. Repetitive themes and political commentary
- Frequently frames arguments in political terms (e.g., media bias, party politics).
- Tends to revisit similar topics or viewpoints across threads.
4. Polarizing and opinion-heavy
- Posts are clearly driven by personal beliefs rather than neutral discussion.
- Can include broad generalizations (e.g., about groups or cultural issues).
5. Recognizable by language patterns
- Other users sometimes identify his style or phrasing distinctly.
Summary of McM666’s style:
👉 Blunt, provocative, politically charged — tends toward strong assertions and sparks debate or disagreements when engaging with other members.
💬 Sharon Washburn (sharinincarmel) — Style & Tone
1. Conversational and reactive
- Partakes in back-and-forth discussions with others on both political and non-political topics.
- Replies tend to respond directly to the preceding comment rather than launching monologues.
2. Frequently injects humor or personal flair
- Uses expressive punctuation and playful phrasing (e.g., “Oh my God what is with this obsession?!!!”).
3. Applies sarcasm or rhetorical questions
- Often frames points with playful or ironic tones rather than flat statements alone.
4. Politically opinionated but conversational
- Her posts reflect clear opinions (e.g., on national politics or policies) but are delivered in a more rhetorical and reactive style than McM666’s declarative tone.
5. Engages in personal interactions that can be bantering
- Uses familiarity in replies (“honey”, emojis, light sarcasm), which gives a different social dynamic compared to McM666’s bluntness.
Summary of Sharon’s style:
👉 Conversational, expressive, and somewhat playful — engages by responding to others with personality and rhetorical flair but less abrasive than McM666.
- McM666 posts with assertiveness and overt political positions, often stirring debate.
- Sharon Washburn posts with expressive, social, and sometimes humorous language, making her contributions feel more conversational even when on serious topics.
Damn. The mystery continues. Can’t argue with linguistic forensics.
AI is never wrong! It told us that Alabama had won the Rose Bowl, before kickoff!
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
@co-hoosier Dang! This is interesting... so Sharon is actually a Sharon, trying to sound like McMurt... S.M.H...
Dang! This is interesting... so Sharon is actually a Sharon, trying to sound like McMurt... S.M.H...
No. McMurt never was real. He was an imaginary friend created by the one posters here who had no sex, no accomplishments and no life. I figured it out and promised to keep the secret.
@boogie Split second decisions being torn apart by slow motion analysis.
Questions:
Was the victim ordered out of the vehicle?
Did the victim fail to exit her vehicle?
Did the victim attempt to flee law enforcement?
Was the agent in front of the vehicle when she hit the accelerator?
yes to all.
Did the agent wrongfully discharge his weapon? Possibly and he may face charges. But she made SO MANY BAD DECISIONS. If any of the above were no (including the agent no stupidly being in front of the vehicle) she lives. I don't know. This whole thing just makes me mad
wow, clear as day
Both feet of the murdering officer were outside the path of the car as the first shot was fired.
still shot, see the gunsmoke from the shot. See his feet, BOTH of them?
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
@boogie Split second decisions being torn apart by slow motion analysis.
Questions:
Was the victim ordered out of the vehicle?
Did the victim fail to exit her vehicle?
Did the victim attempt to flee law enforcement?
Was the agent in front of the vehicle when she hit the accelerator?
yes to all.
Did the agent wrongfully discharge his weapon? Possibly and he may face charges. But she made SO MANY BAD DECISIONS. If any of the above were no (including the agent no stupidly being in front of the vehicle) she lives. I don't know. This whole thing just makes me mad
Sure I agree with that.
What i don't agree with is after he shot the first time, there's no justifiable reason to fire two more shots into that vehicle threw the side window.
This would be easy to understand his point of view through his body cam, but they're not releasing that.
I wouldn't be eager to leave my car if rushed by an unidentified masked man, dressed all in black, running from an unmarked black pickup truck, screaming profanities at me, and violently yanking at my locked door handle. His jacket says "POLICE" on the back, but that's an angle she never saw.
I guess maybe you should say, "I'll be right out, you screaming lunatic". Trying to flee the scene was a terrible and yes criminal mistake she made, but one that shouldn't have cost her her life.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Agreed on both counts@boogie Split second decisions being torn apart by slow motion analysis.
Questions:
Was the victim ordered out of the vehicle?
Did the victim fail to exit her vehicle?
Did the victim attempt to flee law enforcement?
Was the agent in front of the vehicle when she hit the accelerator?
yes to all.
Did the agent wrongfully discharge his weapon? Possibly and he may face charges. But she made SO MANY BAD DECISIONS. If any of the above were no (including the agent no stupidly being in front of the vehicle) she lives. I don't know. This whole thing just makes me mad
Sure I agree with that.
What i don't agree with is after he shot the first time, there's no justifiable reason to fire two more shots into that vehicle threw the side window.
This would be easy to understand his point of view through his body cam, but they're not releasing that.
I'd probably agree with that but she knew exactly who those people were (eg. ICE agents) and that's why she was there in the first place.I wouldn't be eager to leave my car if rushed by an unidentified masked man, dressed all in black, running from an unmarked black pickup truck, screaming profanities at me, and violently yanking at my locked door handle. His jacket says "POLICE" on the back, but that's an angle she never saw.
I guess maybe you should say, "I'll be right out, you screaming lunatic". Trying to flee the scene was a terrible and yes criminal mistake she made, but one that shouldn't have cost her her life.
Latest Post: IU +3.5 vs UCLA Our newest member: David Dierking Recent Posts Unread Posts
