Just checked most of his postings and what I don't understand is what you are claiming here.
He gives posts and evidence of his claims himself but your assertions towards his intentions are vague.
So my question to you is have you checked all of the posts that he has made and double check them?
Here is the deal, usually when someone is giving desinformation they tend to keep their claims vague and also provide conflicting evidence to their claims which then make their assertions fall apart.
When someones looks to proof his point clearly, provides as much evidence that corroborate to the best of their capabilities what they are warning about.
None of the posts that he has done contradict in any way what he is stating: Some users use multiple sources that are proven to be fake news sources and that could have hidden personal interests in the middle of their postings, hidden. Which in fact makes them suspects of the matter. Not guilty. Being a suspect doesn't mean that you are guilty of anything, it just means that we are to be more careful when dealing with you or when checking what you post.
However your post is vague and your reference contradicts what you are saying in your vague comments which means that this complaint of yours is superficial and without substance.
Don't take me wrong, not trying to offend you, but it does seem that you have taken the matter personally against him, whilst he is just being objective, as I am being now, in his denunciations.
So in conclusion, I don't agree with your post. Thanks for leading me to the compendium of evidence he provided though.
Being a suspect doesn't mean that you are guilty of anything, it just means that we are to be more careful when dealing with you or when checking what you post.
I can see it, but again you haven't been proven to be guilty, you have been proven to use suspicious sources. That is it. Whether your intention was to desinform or not that is another matter for it is too hard to prove that. But users should be more cautious to see the links that you used in the past.
and what fucking approach should i be using? laying down, being quiet, letting my good name get trampled on?
i fucking look here one day to see i have an accusation thrown at my fucking face, and i'm being expected to say why i posted something that i found interesting, and now my fucking reputation is to just be tarnished, as people think i'm some sort of shill, because one fucking guy drops that shit on my doorstep?
@MadWorld you'd better get the fuck in this argument before the dumpster fire grows too large. i know how to make those grow real fucking large
Posted automatically (#21472) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
and what fucking approach should i be using? laying down, being quiet, letting my good name get trampled on?
I didn't say that ever. I provided you an example of what I would of done: "For example argue the evidence he is providing that show the sources you have used are fake or suspicious."
i fucking look here one day to see i have an accusation thrown at my fucking face, and i'm being expected to say why i posted something that i found interesting, and now my fucking reputation is to just be tarnished, as people think i'm some sort of shill, because one fucking guy drops that shit on my doorstep?
I for once would research further on why the site is considered suspicious, how could the site harm the community, etc. Then if I find no evidence of that argue why the site is not harmful. This is what I mean. argue your stance in a different way instead of ranting.
I for once would research further on why the site is considered suspicious, how could the site harm the community, etc. Then if I find no evidence of that argue why the site is not harmful. This is what I mean. argue your stance in a different way instead of ranting.
Can't say, I am not in your position. But I would use his evidence to see why it is considered as suspicious and try to argue why it is not the case using it against his denunciation.
You already showed you didn't know as you don't know what to look for to argue against his evidence nor "saw a sign" om what you shared.
Here you show you had no intention of damaging Voat.
However you didn't show that it wasn't a suspicious source hence you did use one.
In conclusion one has to be careful to check your posts as you don't always know if the sources you use are suspicious or not.
But im addition you could say that as it was brought to your attention the suspicious nature of the source you previously used, you will abstein from using it again.
In conclusion one has to be careful to check your posts as you don't always know if the sources you use are suspicious or not.
oh so now i'm fucking suspicious then i see. THAT'S WHAT I AINT FUCKING TAKING LYING DOWN HERE
i'd be putting more interest in his findings, but i just got shoved with that shit, how the fuck can i even be a neutral party in this now. no, i fucking cant. i'm being obligated to defend myself and thus i cannot take his finding to be neutral to me.
I agree you aren't lying about the fact that you didn't have any ill intention.
This is why you need to be calmer in this case to help your case.
Once are calmed you can see that the matter is not personal because he denounced several users of posting suspicious links.
His objective was to identify the possible threats (links) and possible suspects that could spread them with ill intentions. You just ruled you out of those ill intentions and show yourself as collateral of the others. You see what I mean?
This is why is better to see this type of situation with a cold mind.
view the rest of the comments →
sguevar ago
Could you please show references to the claim you are making. I need context to believe a man's word.
theoldones ago
https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3001782
below is the part where he shows metrics and attached is a blatant suspect list for each
https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3001782/16431113/10
sguevar ago
Just checked most of his postings and what I don't understand is what you are claiming here.
He gives posts and evidence of his claims himself but your assertions towards his intentions are vague.
So my question to you is have you checked all of the posts that he has made and double check them?
Here is the deal, usually when someone is giving desinformation they tend to keep their claims vague and also provide conflicting evidence to their claims which then make their assertions fall apart.
When someones looks to proof his point clearly, provides as much evidence that corroborate to the best of their capabilities what they are warning about.
None of the posts that he has done contradict in any way what he is stating: Some users use multiple sources that are proven to be fake news sources and that could have hidden personal interests in the middle of their postings, hidden. Which in fact makes them suspects of the matter. Not guilty. Being a suspect doesn't mean that you are guilty of anything, it just means that we are to be more careful when dealing with you or when checking what you post.
However your post is vague and your reference contradicts what you are saying in your vague comments which means that this complaint of yours is superficial and without substance.
Don't take me wrong, not trying to offend you, but it does seem that you have taken the matter personally against him, whilst he is just being objective, as I am being now, in his denunciations.
So in conclusion, I don't agree with your post. Thanks for leading me to the compendium of evidence he provided though.
theoldones ago
assumed guilty then. oh joy
can you fucking see the root of my question then?
sguevar ago
I can see it, but again you haven't been proven to be guilty, you have been proven to use suspicious sources. That is it. Whether your intention was to desinform or not that is another matter for it is too hard to prove that. But users should be more cautious to see the links that you used in the past.
theoldones ago
I SEE THAT I'M ASSUMED GUILTY THEN.
do you fucking see why i'm pissed about this yet?
sguevar ago
I do see why you are pissed off .
But your approach doesn't help your case. Do you see why I say this yet?
theoldones ago
and what fucking approach should i be using? laying down, being quiet, letting my good name get trampled on?
i fucking look here one day to see i have an accusation thrown at my fucking face, and i'm being expected to say why i posted something that i found interesting, and now my fucking reputation is to just be tarnished, as people think i'm some sort of shill, because one fucking guy drops that shit on my doorstep?
@MadWorld you'd better get the fuck in this argument before the dumpster fire grows too large. i know how to make those grow real fucking large
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/ProtectVoat comment by @MadWorld.
Posted automatically (#21472) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
sguevar ago
I didn't say that ever. I provided you an example of what I would of done: "For example argue the evidence he is providing that show the sources you have used are fake or suspicious."
I for once would research further on why the site is considered suspicious, how could the site harm the community, etc. Then if I find no evidence of that argue why the site is not harmful. This is what I mean. argue your stance in a different way instead of ranting.
theoldones ago
looking for signs such as...?
sguevar ago
Can't say, I am not in your position. But I would use his evidence to see why it is considered as suspicious and try to argue why it is not the case using it against his denunciation.
theoldones ago
intent and involvement is the question that's being brought into question.
sguevar ago
You already showed you didn't know as you don't know what to look for to argue against his evidence nor "saw a sign" om what you shared.
Here you show you had no intention of damaging Voat.
However you didn't show that it wasn't a suspicious source hence you did use one.
In conclusion one has to be careful to check your posts as you don't always know if the sources you use are suspicious or not.
But im addition you could say that as it was brought to your attention the suspicious nature of the source you previously used, you will abstein from using it again.
See what I mean?
theoldones ago
oh so now i'm fucking suspicious then i see. THAT'S WHAT I AINT FUCKING TAKING LYING DOWN HERE
i'd be putting more interest in his findings, but i just got shoved with that shit, how the fuck can i even be a neutral party in this now. no, i fucking cant. i'm being obligated to defend myself and thus i cannot take his finding to be neutral to me.
sguevar ago
You need to think objectively.
I agree you aren't lying about the fact that you didn't have any ill intention.
This is why you need to be calmer in this case to help your case.
Once are calmed you can see that the matter is not personal because he denounced several users of posting suspicious links.
His objective was to identify the possible threats (links) and possible suspects that could spread them with ill intentions. You just ruled you out of those ill intentions and show yourself as collateral of the others. You see what I mean?
This is why is better to see this type of situation with a cold mind.