NR is not Swansong, but he does probably know him and communicate with him. So should it be surprising they used similar arguments? So haven't you made an unproven claim about someone? Now should I go and call you a liar? Should I keep making posts calling you that from now until the end of time?

Let's talk about his original sin -- that he supposedly accused srayzie of bad intentions because of his ping list. Except I read NR's article and I didn't see it that way. NR saw the ping list and realized that FOT and other shills are already on Voat and ready to brigade the redittors into downvoted oblivion, and to drown them out with off-topic posts.

When I see non-stop accusatory posts and submissions against NR, it "validates his concern" because that is exactly what he was worried about. You can accuse him of "starting" the division by accusing srayzie -- but he never accused srayzie, he accused FOT and he said he DIDN'T KNOW srayzie.

And whether or not he "started" the infighting, he is not the one I see continuing it. I see a lot of other people like yourself making submissions and posts about it. Now one of your claims in that link is that NR/s insult-to-content ratio is 4-1, which means he may be contributing to the problem by insulting people.

I hope he has realized that is counter-productive, and I hope you come to the conclusion that this flame war on NR isn't really serving the community. Can we give both sides benefit of the doubt and drop the subject, so that the debate stays on-topic?

If you find NR posting misrepresentations, lies, or shoddy research I will listen. But if you are just still trying to defend srayzie, I think that point has been more than sufficiently made.

For anyone that interpreted NR's article and imputing srayzie, let it be known now and for all time that srayzie is innocent!

Now drop it!

I guarantee this will be my last post on the subject.