Another attack on @srayzie (ProtectVoat)

submitted ago by Crensch

This post from @youllrememberme starts off with three paragraphs of useless personal information about the user.

The next paragraph, he tells the new refugees to use their votes to remove bad words, but totally is not telling you to brigade. As if anyone really believes him.

This seems like a logical explanation why v/GreatAwakening wasn't the rendezvous point and why Q has never linked to anything there, just look at srayzie & @shizy's comment history. Are those the people we want representing the Q community? BUT.. there's more...

Does he mean users that would say "grab 'em by the pussy"? Or that don't shy away from bad words?

Carebear boomers want to take down the deepstate, but somehow can't deal with bad words? And what, exactly, is it about bad words that will hurt Q's brand? He thinks Q might not like BAD WORDS when he gets to see shit that apparently will cause even the toughest of us to feel sick to our stomachs?

As an alternative, we're supposed to trust censoring mods? Or a BO from 8ch that mods the same censoring mods from Reddit?Censoring is preferred over bad words for Q? REALLY?

I became friends with srayzie on twitter and was included in a group chat with other voat users. In that group chat I got some interesting information. A user was specifically talking to srayzie and asking "her" to look at a message that was sent on voat, but here's what happened.

So someone acted like he was srayzie, and that's evidence that he is? No, you set this up and have absolutely ZERO link from ASolo to Srayzie here. Anyone looking at this for more than a few seconds could figure this out.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1tpmpz&s=9

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10pnl74&s=9

Why don't I see that stylish SRAYZI~E on screenshots with srayzie?

And ASolo writes NOTHING LIKE @srayzie.

ASolo:

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2416922/12032133 http://archive.is/bFEeM

Find me some parentheses in srayzie's comments that aren't used for smiley faces:

https://voat.co/user/srayzie/comments

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

youllrememberme ago

This post from youllrememberme starts off with three paragraphs of useless personal information about the user.

It proves how long I've been witnissing the bullshit. So, not really pointless when I'm on a 5 month old account.

The next paragraph, he tells the new refugees to use their votes to remove bad words, but totally is not telling you to brigade. As if anyone really believes him.

This is how Voat is supposed to work. I was simply teaching people that they don't have to fall into the trap of deleting shit. Hence the comment "...with votes alone."

Does he mean users that would say "grab 'em by the pussy"? Or that don't shy away from bad words?

You are a libtard, aren't you. Bad words have nothing to do with it. Alienating good Americans (white, black, jewish, asian....) from looking into this movement has everything to do with it.

As an alternative, we're supposed to trust censoring mods? Or a BO from 8ch that mods the same censoring mods from Reddit?Censoring is preferred over bad words for Q? REALLY?

No, were supposed to trust Q, the reason we're all here in the first place. Q trusts whoever set up the new board.. and would you look at that, 2 of the same mods from v/theawakening. Interesting srayzie was never asked.. Well, not really. Hahaha

So someone acted like he was srayzie, and that's evidence that he is? No, you set this up and have absolutely ZERO link from ASolo to Srayzie here. Anyone looking at this for more than a few seconds could figure this out.

How did ASolo get the message from "joe" and know who it came from when "joe" didnt know s/he was talking to ASolo until an hour later?

This is the weakest shit I've seen you come with yet crensch. Then again, it must be rough to find dirt on someone who's been completly honest. You obviously don't have an open mind like you claim to in every other one of your other threads calling people out.

Vindicator ago

It proves

I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means

youllrememberme ago

If course you do, you're part of the team.

Vindicator ago

You've outgassed a lot of hot air, but I haven't seen you prove shit.

youllrememberme ago

Trusting yours or @crensch's opinion on this is like trusting Comey's investigation of Hillary. Piss off.

Vindicator ago

LOL. Opinion isn't required. The truth speaks for itself.

SearchVoatBot ago

Bleep bloop, someone mentioned this comment!

'ATTENTION PATRIOTS: This is not to cause divide, it's to unite. You deserve to know.' was posted in v/theawakening and includes this reply from Crensch:

https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/2740422/14036775

This one?

Your comment was so amazingly pathetic I was going to let you forget about it.

You're really not very smart, are you?

This notification (#1205) was posted automatically by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress this notification by appending a forward-slash(/) to the Voat link. More information here.

Crensch ago

It proves how long I've been witnissing the bullshit. So, not really pointless when I'm on a 5 month old account.

No, it's a baffle-with-bullshit tactic, and means absolutely nothing to anyone.

This is how Voat is supposed to work. I was simply teaching people that they don't have to fall into the trap of deleting shit. Hence the comment "...with votes alone."

Try to convince anyone of that - go for it.

Does he mean users that would say "grab 'em by the pussy"? Or that don't shy away from bad words?

What are you even referring to, retard?

You are a libtard, aren't you. Bad words have nothing to do with it. Alienating good Americans (white, black, jewish, asian....) from looking into this movement has everything to do with it.

There are no Americans that aren't white. Everything else is (((constitutional amendment allowed))).

There especially are no Jewish americans.

No, were supposed to trust Q, the reason we're all here in the first place. Q trusts whoever set up the new board.. and would you look at that, 2 of the same mods from v/theawakening. Interesting srayzie was never asked.. Well, not really. Hahaha

Q very clearly wants the boomers destroyed, then. The compromised cancermods that censor cannot possibly be sanctioned by Q, but nice try.

How did ASolo get the message from "joe" and know who it came from when "joe" didnt know s/he was talking to ASolo until an hour later?

You either staged that, or someone else did, or someone was fucking with you, most likely. 3 far more plausible explanations right there.

This is the weakest shit I've seen you come with yet crensch.

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

Then again, it must be rough to find dirt on someone who's been completly honest. You obviously don't have an open mind like you claim to in every other one of your other threads calling people out.

Kek. Try to make that one stick. I've changed my mind on things that have been argued well before.

You can't even keep an internally consistent logic to your arguments. It's not that I'm not open minded, it's that I don't believe bullshit.

youllrememberme ago

No, it's a baffle-with-bullshit tactic, and means absolutely nothing to anyone.

No, this is just you ad hominem bullshit. I explained that so you idiots couldn't come say "whatever 5 month old account", as usual.

Try to convince anyone of that - go for it.

There's a 2 year old account that already mentioned it in the thread. Done.

What are you even referring to, retard?

That was your comment you fucking moron, I just forgot the ">"

Q very clearly wants the boomers destroyed, then. The compromised cancermods that censor cannot possibly be sanctioned by Q, but nice try.

They abviously were, you just don't qant to admit it because it makes you look bad.

You either staged that, or someone else did, or someone was fucking with you, most likely. 3 far more plausible explanations right there.

Hahahaha that's all you got? I staged it? Hahahaha

It wasn't a compliment.

You can't even keep an internally consistent logic to your arguments. It's not that I'm not open minded, it's that I don't believe bullshit.

You can't argue any of it, my logic is sound.

Wanna take another swing?

Crensch ago

No, this is just you ad hominem bullshit.

Literally not ad hominem. Not even the non-fallacy definition faggots like you try to squirm to when shown it's not ad-hom fallacy.

I'm SPECIFICALLY addressing your argument here, not you.

I explained that so you idiots couldn't come say "whatever 5 month old account", as usual.

You're too stupid to get a fallacy you're trying to label me with correct. I think you have bigger things to worry about.

There's a 2 year old account that already mentioned it in the thread. Done.

Who? Ian? This guy?

Kek. Good company you've got there.

That was your comment you fucking moron, I just forgot the ">"

Like I remember every line I write. Get your shit together, faggot.

They abviously were, you just don't qant to admit it because it makes you look bad.

No. The O was sanctioned by Q, but nice try on slipping that one past me.

Hahahaha that's all you got? I staged it? Hahahaha

Easily done. I could stage you admitting to fucking children just as easily as that.

It wasn't a compliment.

What you meant for it to be is irrelevant.

You can't argue any of it, my logic is sound.

You can't even accuse me of a fallacy properly, and you try to dismiss my "staged" comment with hand-waving as if it's impossible or even improbable.

Wanna take another swing?

Wanna stand up first?

youllrememberme ago

I'm SPECIFICALLY addressing your argument here, not you.

No, you were specifically attacking me for explaining who I am. Did you forget you wrote this?

This post from youllrememberme starts off with three paragraphs of useless personal information about the user.

Who? Ian? This guy?

Kek. Good company you've got there.

No, it was someone who I've never seen before. But, you can keep bringing up Ian if you're that proud of that thread.

No. The O was sanctioned by Q, but nice try on slipping that one past me.

And the O chose people he trusted, which happen to be 2 mods from v/theawakening.

Wanna stand up first?

I don't need to.

BTW.. Did you see one of your mods admitted they know I'm not Ian and that was all a deflection?

https://voat.co/v/theawakening/2737220/14072752

Crensch ago

No, you were specifically attacking me for explaining who I am.

1) You accused me of ad hominem WELL after that comment.

2) That's still not ad hominem fallacy. I was mocking you, and dismissing your stupid background bullshit, not basing my argument off of my mockery of you.

3) How does it feel to not even know what the ad hominem fallacy is while accusing me of participating in it?

Did you forget you wrote this?

When you accuse me of ad hominem well after the supposed infraction without clarifying, the misunderstading is YOUR fault.

And the O chose people he trusted, which happen to be 2 mods from v/theawakening.

Which is sanctioned by Q? There's one answer, and you've gotten it wrong this whole time.

I don't need to.

You don't even know what the fallacy you accuse me of means. You really do need to get off your ass and do something like read a book.

BTW.. Did you see one of your mods admitted they know I'm not Ian and that was all a deflection?

Act like a duck, and all that. You definitely argue like Ian, so it's not a stretch. What do I care about this? You're too stupid to even get a fallacy you accuse me of right, and too stupid to clarify what comment you meant when you accused me of it well after the fact.

youllrememberme ago

The whole premise of that part of your comment was a ad hominem attack, I just got sick or replying to it so I called you out. Now your entire argument is based on that? LOL Desperate?

You don't get it! REEEEE!

Oh, I get it. This is comical.

ad hominem - marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

Crensch ago

ad hominem - marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

The FALLACY requires me to base my arguments off of your faults. The dictionary definition of "ad hominem" is colloquially known as "personal attack" or "invective". Nobody uses "ad hominem" outside of the label of the fallacy because it's misleading, colloquially.

Crensch ago

The whole premise of that part of your comment was a ad hominem attack,

Show me where I used a fault of yours as a basis for my argument.

youllrememberme ago

I already have.. You opened your thread with a direct attack on me.

This post from @youllrememberme starts off with three paragraphs of useless personal information about the user

BUT BUT BUT it's too late now!

1) You accused me of ad hominem WELL after that comment.

Hilarious! 🍿