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
view the rest of the comments →
youllrememberme ago
It proves how long I've been witnissing the bullshit. So, not really pointless when I'm on a 5 month old account.
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.
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
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.
Crensch ago
No, it's a baffle-with-bullshit tactic, and means absolutely nothing to anyone.
Try to convince anyone of that - go for it.
What are you even referring to, retard?
There are no Americans that aren't white. Everything else is (((constitutional amendment allowed))).
There especially are no Jewish americans.
Q very clearly wants the boomers destroyed, then. The compromised cancermods that censor cannot possibly be sanctioned by Q, but nice try.
You either staged that, or someone else did, or someone was fucking with you, most likely. 3 far more plausible explanations right there.
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
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, this is just you ad hominem bullshit. I explained that so you idiots couldn't come say "whatever 5 month old account", as usual.
There's a 2 year old account that already mentioned it in the thread. Done.
That was your comment you fucking moron, I just forgot the ">"
They abviously were, you just don't qant to admit it because it makes you look bad.
Hahahaha that's all you got? I staged it? Hahahaha
It wasn't a compliment.
You can't argue any of it, my logic is sound.
Wanna take another swing?
Crensch ago
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.
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.
Who? Ian? This guy?
Kek. Good company you've got there.
Like I remember every line I write. Get your shit together, faggot.
No. The O was sanctioned by Q, but nice try on slipping that one past me.
Easily done. I could stage you admitting to fucking children just as easily as that.
What you meant for it to be is irrelevant.
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 stand up first?
youllrememberme ago
No, you were specifically attacking me for explaining who I am. Did you forget you wrote this?
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.
And the O chose people he trusted, which happen to be 2 mods from v/theawakening.
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
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?
When you accuse me of ad hominem well after the supposed infraction without clarifying, the misunderstading is YOUR fault.
Which is sanctioned by Q? There's one answer, and you've gotten it wrong this whole time.
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.
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?
Oh, I get it. This is comical.
Crensch ago
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
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.
BUT BUT BUT it's too late now!
Hilarious! 🍿