So, who got paid, to toss the doubt, under the guise of, ""allegedly"".

 You are the only one that has used that term here besides me.  I was not paid, were you paid?  

What is that about? You don't answer just turn words around and attack?

 What "attack" could there possibly be?

 MnSpring is imagining up a scenario where a human was "paid" to use the word "allegedly" in some relation to this case.  The only humans here that have used the word "allegedly" to describe the content within this topic has been MnSpring and I.  I was not paid.  

 "Alleged" is a normal and common legal term because rights granted to defendants in the US legal system are that they will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Unless of course you are Balwin apparently, then it's a conspiracy of some sort.
 

"YaKnow, you Could cut and paste an example.."

 I already did, in bold, posted the exact words.  The being "paid" to say "allegedly" is MnSprings theory, he could clarify further.

 Refusing to answer questions and instead attacking a human that asked them... I wonder where I've seen that before.

I don't see the connection to what you were going on about earlier.

Before it was
If you accurately report on something bad that happened, then you support that it happened.

How does that compare to

Was someone paid to say allegedly?

And I don't understand how that would ever happen.

Maybe I should read the whole thing,, I'm pretty sure I've missed some of this.
Just waiting to feel the eyelids droop, and it's probably not gonna play along.

I don't see the connection to what you were going on about earlier.

Before it was
If you accurately report on something bad that happened, then you support that it happened.

 Yes, the evidence I provided using MnSpring's own words, indicates to me, that if I post information about a topic, like Fauci for instance, I am "defending" Fauci.  Or if I clarify the CDC did NOT say something a lying website told people they did, that can only mean I am "defending" the CDC.  Somehow this is the only outcome some people here can come up with.

 The only reason I brought that up in this post is because MnSpring claimed I was "defending" the actions of the Prosecution when I said it was "good" they kept the case open to re-charging Baldwin by means of using the words "without prejudice".  My belief is that his lack of understanding about how the US Judicial system works leads him to believe that Baldwin would not be re-charged, and that I "defended" that incorrect assessment.




How does that compare to

Was someone paid to say allegedly?


 I don't know.  MnSpring asked that question.  My assessment is only MnSpring and myself have used the term "allegedy" to describe this post topic.  I was not paid to use that word, that is all I can speak to.

 MnSpring is implying someone is being paid to "toss the doubt" into the Baldwin case by means of using the word "allegedly", without any reference.  I think that word is used in every criminal court case since it is part of US law.

 Bottom line is the charges against Baldwin were dropped and he can be charged again.  The rest of this conversation is just nonsense arguing about things that never happened, like that I "defended" any action at all.

(Oh wait, ‘Observed Reality’, is not,  really real)

 Only the Observed part is "real" as a human using Observed reality can refuse to Observe something thus removing it from their reality.  



I would not call that, QUESTION, ‘imagining’, I would call it, REALITY !

 I believe it is reality that people pay for things, including immoral or unethical actions.  I never said this does not happen.  I said you are imagining a scenario where this happened with the Baldwin case as I do not think you have Observed this action, or you would not have asked the question.  Also you present no evidence.  Bringing up any other scenario on the planet, people on planes, someone at a ranch, none of that is evidence about someone "paying" to use the word "alleged" in the Baldwin case.

 I have not been paid to use the word "allegedly" in context to this topic, that is all I can speak of with certainty.  I beleive every US criminal case uses the word "alleged" since all US criminal cases assume the defendant  innocent until proven guilty.

 If anything I would be surprised, and highly question the legitimacy, of any US criminal court case that did not use the term "alleged" and instead assumed guilt of the defendant - in writing.  Again... in writing, so before anyone brings up the Jan 6th nonsense, all those humans have "alleged" terminology in their prosecution documentation that PG provided reference to.

 Bottom line is Baldwin is not currently being charged as new evidence has been presented that the Prosecution wants to further prepare for court, so they can possibly re-charge Baldwin.  

 So according to your logic.
A  person, seeing a tree laying on the ground, yet not observing that tree falling, can say, ‘the tree never fell’ ?


 No.  A person refusing to Observe a tree laying on the ground can claim since they have not Observed it, it is not part of reality.  My Observed Reality is I see standing trees, not fallen trees.


A person saw that tree upright, then later, (after it fell and was on the ground), did not observe it falling, can say, ‘the tree never fell’ ?

 No.  A person refusing to Observe a tree laying on the ground can claim since they have not Observed it, it is not part of reality.  They haven't Observed trees laying on the ground.


A person seeing that the tree was about to fall, then closed their eyes, can say, ‘the tree never fell’ ?

 That's closer.  Your questions show how poor an argument of Observed Reality is.  It is blatantly selective.  They can refuse to Observe something then claim it's not part of their Observed reality, even when everyone else has evidence of a fallen tree.


 Now lets say a person is told many trees are falling dead due to excessive climate change and is offered information showing millions of dead trees.  That person refuses to look at the information, justifying they do not need to, because their "Observed Reality" is that they have not Observed many dead trees where they are.
 
 Since they did not Observe millions of dead trees, the claim that trees are dying/falling from climate change is false.  As if their Observed Reality is a reflection of everything on the planet, and therefore information on the contrary is wrong.  Everyone else knows climate change could or could not be causing dead trees, and that any one human's Observations are not enough information to know.


 None of this will change, whether a human observes it or not, that Baldwin is not being charged right now, but can be in the future.  Evidence supports that.

I Use what I have seen. I see what is going on.

 And if you refuse to look at something, you don't "see" it.  Like refusing to Observe the number of living vaccinated humans.  You literally refuse to discuss it or acknowledge living vaccinated kids in any way, but if someone does that to you, you call them "gutless".

  Do you "see" many dead kids in your area?  Are there actually more kid funerals than normal, or do you instead "see" websites on the internet that give you long lists of living humans lying to you about them being dead?  You can find anything on the internet to support your pre-decided views, anything at all, hat is actually happening in your area?  Are there more dead kids than normal, it should be very easy to tell if even 1/50th of the amount Your sources claim is true.


Funny who is doing all that suddenly dying thing.
You run your mouth about it all you want, but I've seen how accurate you were.


 No you don't because you refuse to actually look at anything I present.  Instead you argue over information You provide, that I read for you.

 When I say there's no way 300000 kids died in TX in 2021, information You repeatedly provided and defended, You interpret that as me saying vaccines are safe.  I never said that.  

 But since you refuse to Observe that I never claimed vaccines to be safe, or effective, it is not part of your Observed Reality.  So you can continue to make false statements about what I said, and to you it's real.  To everyone else they can see I posted the vaccine batch numbers and age demographics shown to be most at risk, because they do not refuse to Observe that fact.