Suspicious behavior from u/NOMOCHOMO, u/carmencita & MANY others... (Lampshadematerial)

submitted ago by argosciv

Section 1

u/NOMOCHOMO (inc. u/Piscina) to @shewhomustbeobeyed:

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2777433/15691668/5/ | https://archive.is/Sa12R |

  • NOMOCHOMO comment timestamp: 12/21/2018 7:05:35 AM UTC
  • shewhomustbeobeyed comment timestamp: 12/20/2018 4:30:05 PM UTC

NOMOCHOMO selectively chose to reply to shewhomustbeobeyed, whose comment was made 14 hours, 35 minutes and 30 seconds prior.

Anon to v/QRV - "Mods Vindicator and Srayzie on the Pizzagate sub defending satanist pedophile Michael Aquino. Attacking another Pizzagate Mod think- and she resigns in protest.":

https://voat.co/v/QRV/2926720/ | https://archive.is/bfFjH

  • Posting time: 23 hours ago on 12/21/2018 5:47:59 AM UTC
  • Last edit time: 23 hours ago on 12/21/2018 5:57:22 AM UTC

The above v/QRV submission was made 1 hour, 17 minutes and 36 seconds before NOMOCHOMO selectively commented in reply to shewhomustbeobeyed.

The following 2 comments from NOMOCHOMO are those with timestamps closest to the comment from shewhomustbeobeyed, which NOMOCHOMO selectively replied to:

Before:

After:

In the comment which was after shewhomustbeobeyed's comment, we see NOMOCHOMO link to the following thread by u/Stosh21:

In their comment, NOMOCHOMO pings u/StevenDKelley, who only ever made 1 comment(seen in the above thread) and has since been inactive for nearly 2 years.

StevenDKelley's comment, which was made over a month after the submission was posted(well after said submission would have dropped from the front page of v/pizzagate):

Looking back at the main post, at the bottom we see this said by Stosh21:

btw, My name is Steven D Kelley, google me if you want more.

Looking back at the rest of the comments in this submission, who else do we see?

u/SaneGoatiSwear:

To be continued...

Section 2

Days later, after the selective reply to u/shewhomustbeobeyed, we see u/NOMOCHOMO, u/carmencita, u/3141592653 & u/maurice working together to push a bullshit narrative that South Park is "normalizing" pedophilia -- when it is perfectly obvious to anyone remotely familiar with South Park, that their goal is absolutely not to "normalize" such things:

Indeed, notice how the four of them don't want to touch on the real background story of "B. Super Adventure Club", the title of that episode being "The Return of Chef"?

See here for said background story, which involves the suspicious death of Isaac Hayes, his connection to Scientology & his reaction to a prior episode(titled "Trapped in the Closet") which explained that Scientology is a global scam worth millions:

Root of Corruption - Part 18: Bridge the gap (comment 1/4)

Here's a sidenote regarding u/3141592653:

Strongly reminds me of the time that u/carmencita tried to prop up blatant disinfo(which I debunked using a simple reverse-image search) using the usual heart-string-pulling tactic, posted by u/dtneslo(who did see that it was likely disinfo):

Looking back at the above thread made me laugh, a lot, because look at who/what can be seen:

That's a lot of suspicious behavior, but there's more...

First, notice that even u/Piscina showed up, after my debunk, acting oblivious & trying to keep the narrative alive:

Now, let's get back to the subject of ol' George Webb, shall we?

Just before my debunk(and after u/carmencita pinged u/fogdryer, u/Cc1914 & others), u/EffYouJohnPodesta showed up, pulling heart-strings and neglecting to address the article's disinfo:

Next, she jumped straight on u/dtneslo's comment which mentions distrust of George Webb - where she uses aggressive strawman tactics to try to smear/discredit:

Now take a look at the replies to the above:

Here is an archived link to the twitter comment: https://archive.is/TJaK6

If the screenshots are legit, Jenny(JEM) was sick of Webb before she died.

Final note:

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2679509/13583555/ | https://archive.is/DAvMw (u/carmencita, in a rare show, makes note of Turkey being involved in nefarious PG-related crimes, but insists on mixing it with other elements and Israel - nobody follows up. When asked for more, u/carmencita advertises themselves, u/new4now and u/fogdryer, without providing a direct link.)

To be continued...

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

argosciv ago

Just an example showing that I'm not the one downvoting here and even upvoted 3141592653's comment:

https://files.catbox.moe/jn4bf4.jpg

"Can't see username logged in, must be fake!"

^ Tell yourself whatever you want.

cc: @Vindicator @Crensch @srayzie @kevdude @Shizy

NOMOCHOMO ago

Hahahaha Remove the Log from your eye:

"Can't see username logged in, must be fake!"

^ Tell yourself whatever you want.

Edit (2 hours later)

I win because I clipped out the context

Exactly. You keep accusing me of what you're guilty of

Argosciv lampshades himself in a single comment.

You are so dumb

argosciv ago

Did I clip out context? No, I merely gave you shit for trying to claim some sort of victory and for yourself, clipping context in order to kick up a stink about being ignored.

Anyone interested will be able to see exactly what you said and exactly what I said. They'll also notice that you're still trying to claim victory over, well, being ignored*. Except, your comment wasn't the only one I felt no need to respond to. SWMBO asked to stop being pinged - yet you felt compelled to ask for her thoughts and see if you can get her to engage you in private message... you also feel compelled to try to weaponize the past(an obsolete narrative) in an attempt to manipulate think- and @srayzie... you know what that follows, right?

ES attempting to manipulate/groom female users. You really, really seem to fixate on them, just like he does.

(I'm not pinging think-, because she also asked me to leave her alone. I have chosen to respect that and have only responded to her here twice here, when appropriate. I've also ignored a couple of her comments to me, not because they're invalid, but because there's no sense in making her angry.)

* That's the funny part, your emotional reaction to being ignored and the attempt to /thread.

You're gonna be even more pissed off when you realize that "To be continued" is still very much active.

"You are so dumb, I win because I said so and because I said you're dumb!"

^ Again, obviously just giving you shit with an interpretation of your behavior - you like to think it's okay for you to interpret mine, so, fair's fair, right?

Please, another "I win" comment, it's totally not showing how badly you want this to be over.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Did I clip out context?

Yes you did. You claim a screenshot shows you upvoting a submission, but your login name isn't visible. Your screenshot is missing very pertinent context related to your claim that you argosciv are upvoting.

If you're gonna accuse me of being an alt, you should care about your own optics.

you also feel compelled to try to weaponize the past(an obsolete narrative)

The "obsolete narrative" (I assume you mean the Getty bunker?) isn't my concern, nor am I "pushing it". My concern is your intentional misquoting of @stosh21

Looking back at the main post, at the bottom we see this said by Stosh21:

btw, My name is Steven D Kelley, google me if you want more.

However, If you read stosh21's comments, they clearly state they are not stevendkelley and that quotation is from kelley's original Facebook post.

You are intentionally are confusing who is who, and thereby label my pinging of @stevendkelley as "suspicious". Considering you've edited so many of your comments for "clarity" I don't understand why you aren't fixing this glaring mistake in the body of your post.

You've repeatedly stated I've "clipped context". Please explain exactly what you mean. What relevant context have I left out? You just repeat your claim without explaining it.

ES attempting to manipulate/groom female users. You really, really seem to fixate on them, just like he does.

Dude. I dont believe anybody here is what they say they are. Even if you have a photo linked/Twitter account. Just because you have a gendered username doesn't mean anything on the internet. Especially on a forum where we're researching things people get killed over.

To say I "fixate" on female users, you'd have to 1- count all of my interactions, 2- quantify them between male/female (not cherry pick specific interactions/say they represent a trend). 3- You'd have to prove each user is indeed Male or Female 4 - Somehow prove that commenting/responding = fixating (which is a logical leap 5 - prove that supposed fixation is "manipulative/grooming" (an armchair psychological leap) 6 - prove my gender because if I am female, it wouldnt be "fixation"

And then you have to rectify such claims with your other claims that many of these accounts are my alts. Am I therefore grooming myself?

You are spinning in circles dude. Do whatever you want. But you are only looking more and more ridiculous.

I kinda think I've already established my credibility. And if downvoats are any sign not very many people find your posts useful (though I suppose you'll just say those are alts/manipulated people hating on you)

P.S.

(I'm not pinging think-, because she also asked me to leave her alone. I have chosen to respect that and have only responded to her twice here, when appropriate. I've also ignored a couple of her comments to me, not because they're invalid, but because there's no sense in making her angry.)

Bullshit. She asked you a pointed QUESTION about why part of your post was relevant to your claims.

You didnt answer it. Not a comment, a question. That doesn't seem "respectful" to me.

argosciv ago

Oh god lol.

You have no idea just how badly(much) you proved my point about your behavior here.

You claim a screenshot shows you upvoting a submission, but your login name isn't visible.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

You've repeatedly stated I've "clipped context". Please explain exactly what you mean. What relevant context have I left out? You just repeat your claim without explaining it.

I said it thrice directly in relation to the above, because that's exactly what you tried to do, change the context of the image because it(and being ignored) upsets you. Don't play stupid now.

The "obsolete narrative" (I assume you mean the Getty bunker?) isn't my concern, nor am I "pushing it". My concern is your intentional misquoting of @stosh21

LOL!

You are intentionally are confusing who is who, and thereby label my pinging of @stevendkelley as "suspicious". Considering you've edited so many of your comments for "clarity" I don't understand why you aren't fixing this glaring mistake in the body of your post.

Hahahahha!

@Vindicator @Crensch @kevdude @Shizy ^^

This is great!

And then you have to rectify such claims with your other claims that many of these accounts are my alts. Am I therefore grooming myself?

Playing stupid again ey? Where exactly did I state in explicit terms that the other users pinged/mentioned are your alts?

And don't just rely on the title of the first follow up to this thread, which you're either deliberately misreading or are too stupid to understand.

To say I "fixate" on female users, you'd have to 1- count all of my interactions, 2- quantify them between male/female (not cherry pick specific interactions/say they represent a trend). 3- You'd have to prove each user is indeed Male or Female 4 - Somehow prove that commenting/responding = fixating (which is a logical leap 5 - prove that supposed fixation is "manipulative/grooming" (an armchair psychological leap) 6 - prove my gender because if I am female, it wouldnt be "fixation"

Oh but many of these users do/have state(d) their gender and I'd hazard a guess that quite a few of them are being honest about it. Can you prove otherwise? Are you calling think-, @srayzie and others liars? Or do you just not trust that they're being honest?

Are you saying that "Donkey" is wrong to attack them for being female, because they might not be?

LOL! So, females can't fixate on other females? Why's that?

You are spinning in circles dude.

Oh god lol... again, you have no idea. Or do you?

And if downvoats are any sign not very many people find your posts useful (though I suppose you'll just say those are alts/manipulated people hating on you)

Ah but of course you would try to rely on this as an indicator of your validity - the voting means very little here, considering that of course those users mentioned aren't going to be happy.

Makes sense that you think the downvotes matter, seeing as how you're quite likely one of the people downvoting just to create that perception and then capitalize on it. Kinda reminds me of this, just saying.

Which, hey, it's normal for you to downvote in a thread about you - don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're genuinely downvoting that which you disagree with and that's not sarcasm in the slightest.

I do however find it kind of funny that my replies to you aren't getting immediate downvotes after that screenshot, though. Sure, people will come in and downvote them a little later, but that's their/your prerogative - I on the other hand, feel no obligation to downvote even though there's a few comments more than worthy of it(not talking about yours, either).

Bullshit. She asked you a pointed QUESTION about why part of your post was relevant to your claims.

You didnt answer it. Not a comment, a question. That doesn't seem "respectful" to me.

Have a good ol' ree over that. Not every comment(or question, if you must split hairs) warrants a response - the ensuing discussion would be irrelevant and would turn into an argument that need not be had, because I have no reason to anger her. But of course, you'll keep trying to spin it to make it look like I'm disrespecting her, because as usual, you want to perpetuate the infighting. That's becoming more and more obvious.

Yes, I've read the entirety of your comment, it's just so damn hilarious that I'm not gonna quote every portion of it.

You just put the icing on the cake, as it were. Predicted ahead of time.

Do whatever you want.

Ditto. This next part is going to be even more interesting.

Have a real hard think about why I ignored the comment of yours which you're trying to use as a means to claim victory. Think real hard. Don't just settle for the conclusion that makes you feel happy and accomplished, think about it.

To be continued...

All questions in this comment are rhetorical and do not require a response - feel free to respond if you're so inclined, though.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Oh but many of these users do/have state(d) their gender and I'd hazard a guess that quite a few of them are being honest about it. Can you prove otherwise? Are you calling think-, @srayzie and others liars? Or do you just not trust that they're being honest?

Nope I don't trust them to be honest. Nor am I calling anyone a liar.

I judge people by the content of their posts, not the gender they claim to be on an anonymous forum.

argosciv ago

Ah shit, gotta redo some pings because of quotes. LAME!

See parent.

See also parent of parent - note the timestamp. Called it 13 minutes ahead of time xD

@Shizy @srayzie + @MolochHunter