Well at this point I am glad to see that it happened and that u/Crensch's doxx team has been taken down and with that @Puttitout showed Voat as well that what u/Crensch did was in the wrong.
I am happy that justice was served where it needed to be served, equally.
This is an assumption you are throwing out there but without real proof of it. And it is one you are hanging with because of the fact that it convenes your constant search for attacking v/ProtectVoat which failed quite poorly to say the least.
But please, keep equating me to them.
I don't equate you to them, they didn't organized a doxx party like you did with alts. Nor tried to defend any doxx attempt at all. I mean u/WhiteRonin spread multiple links to something that I made sure to report myself from which other users got banned for what they did in the anon sub. But he never defended doxxing anyone.
But please, keep equating me to them. I'm sure it helps you feel better about all the dishonesty you've shown in the past month and a half.
Sure I have been the dishonest one, that is why your attacks against have failed so badly... I was the dishonest one. I was the one betraying my principles and beliefs to attack my counter parts. I was the one defending doxxers all along... You can keep diverting my dear typhoon but you are nothing more than a whistle now...
This is an assumption you are throwing out there but without real proof of it.
"I bet I can make you madder"
Next day - yelp dox.
kek.
And it is one you are hanging with because of the fact that it convenes your constant search for attacking v/ProtectVoat which failed quite poorly to say the least.
I don't need to search for anything to attack PV with. I just pick from myriad things it, and kevdude, have done wrong whenever I feel like it.
I don't equate you to them, they didn't organized a doxx party like you did with alts.
You just admonished me for throwing assumptions out there with no real proof.
You've shown yourself to be dishonest, and a hypocrite.
You just admonished me for throwing assumptions out there with no real proof.
I admit is an assumption I have a really strong feeling about it. That is why I no longer trust you. You supported the users that recently got banned for doxx (posted on this post)
You've shown yourself to be dishonest, and a hypocrite.
Not really I extended my opinion about what you showed in the past when interacting with those users and pinging them.
How am I lying when I am saying that is how I see it?
You're stating it as a fact. You're accusing me of doing exactly what you did 100% for sure.
That is how you see me, and again, character judgements coming from you are meaningless.
No, you actually did lie. Your comment was not a question, or a pondering, it was a statement. You stated it as one sentence. No caveats until called out on it.
No, you actually did lie. Your comment was not a question, or a pondering, it was a statement.
I don't need to ponder my opinions nor put a question mark. When I express an opinion I do it as a statement. So far your actions haven't prove me wrong.
I don't need to ponder my opinions nor put a question mark. When I express an opinion I do it as a statement. So far your actions haven't prove me wrong.
You're the one with the claim. The onus is on you to support it.
You're the one with the claim. The onus is on you to support it.
Your defense of a user posting information that was never linked on Voat before just because it was on public records just to say I am a liar is quite a big proof if you mind me say... but you don't because convenience will lead your argument to what you want it to be... if I let you to... which ... won't happen.
Your defense of a user posting information that was never linked on Voat before just because it was on public records just to say I am a liar is quite a big proof if you mind me say...
That was THEIR justification for using pics that were deleted from her social medias. They didn't use public searches, sguevar. They lied about it, but that was their justification for it. That was also HIS justification. (assuming gender, whatever)
but you don't because convenience will lead your argument to what you want it to be... if I let you to... which ... won't happen.
You're kinda stupid, aren't you? Overusing ellipsis, and talking about convenience as if it's some kind of useful metric here.
That was THEIR justification for using pics that were deleted from her social medias. They didn't use public searches, sguevar. They lied about it, but that was their justification for it. That was also HIS justification. (assuming gender, whatever)
The link she did of her twitter account is proof enough of reasonable doubt. Whether you like that or not, that is besides the point.
That was also HIS justification. (assuming gender, whatever)
And yet the link of the information the user posted was never made on the post I flaired as possible misinfo. Whether he is trying to justify to copy cat what the other users did. That address was never posted on Voat before. u/srayzie's twitter that had access to all the 3 photos did. That is the major difference.
You're kinda stupid, aren't you? Overusing ellipsis, and talking about convenience as if it's some kind of useful metric here.
LMAO, and again I should care of your judgement because?
The link she did of her twitter account is proof enough of reasonable doubt. Whether you like that or not, that is besides the point.
The links of them doxxing themselves is proof enough. Whether you like that or not, is besides the point. But you'll put a "misinfo" flair up despite not having checked on it.
And yet the link of the information the user posted was never made on the post I flaired as possible misinfo.
So? Public searches. You can google it, just like you said I needed to do in the other comment.
Were srayzie's other two pics misinformation?
No, because they're not of one of your chosen ones.
Whether he is trying to justify to copy cat what the other users did. That address was never posted on Voat before. u/srayzie's twitter that had access to all the 3 photos did. That is the major difference.
No, that twitter did not. You JUST admitted it was only one that it had access to at that point.
You LIE.
LMAO, and again I should care of your judgement because?
I don't care what you think. Keep talking, maybe I'll make a nice little story out of your dishonesty here as you continue to make stupid and boneheaded responses to me that show you're dishonest, have double standards, and will do anything to defend zyklon/gg/kevdude.
The links of them doxxing themselves is proof enough. Whether you like that or not, is besides the point. But you'll put a "misinfo" flair up despite not having checked on it.
That address was never linked.
So? Public searches. You can google it, just like you said I needed to do in the other comment. Were srayzie's other two pics misinformation? No, because they're not of one of your chosen ones.
Again with your public searches. It is clear that you see not what those users did as something wrong. So no point in discussing it further. You definitely are not trustworthy if you can't say it.
Were srayzie's other two pics misinformation?
At one point they were. But if the users also did a google search on her apart her twitter account, those two others showed on her other social medias next to the twitter one. You don't know if they got them from there or from her twitter before she removed them. That is reasonable doubt.
No, that twitter did not. You JUST admitted it was only one that it had access to at that point. You LIE.
I will repeat myself: You don't know if they got them from there or from her twitter before she removed them. That is reasonable doubt.
I don't care what you think. Keep talking, maybe I'll make a nice little story out of your dishonesty here as you continue to make stupid and boneheaded responses to me that show you're dishonest, have double standards, and will do anything to defend zyklon/gg/kevdude.
Go for it. You think I care? I stand by my words Crensch. You did organize that doxxing party, to counter attack what u/srayzie was going through. You have stated before that if someone threaten your kids you would make sure to take the matter on your own hands before addressing it through the proper channels. And as understandable as that can be, it doesn't make it right. I again, I stand by me saying you did organize that party.
It was found by public searches, moron. The same public searches you think I should have done to get srayzie's pics. Right? Remember that?
Again with your public searches. It is clear that you see not what those users did as something wrong. So no point in discussing it further. You definitely are not trustworthy if you can't say it.
GOOGLE SEARCH to find it, right? That's all I did. Public searches like that. That's apparently all soob did, too, because I found every ounce of information using the same means.
At one point they were. But if the users also did a google search on her apart her twitter account, those two others showed on her other social medias next to the twitter one. You don't know if they got them from there or from her twitter before she removed them. That is reasonable doubt.
Meaning what, sguevar? What SOOB did is NOT a dox by this metric.
I will repeat myself: You don't know if they got them from there or from her twitter before she removed them. That is reasonable doubt.
KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK
You did organize that doxxing party, to counter attack what u/srayzie was going through.
Prove it like I just proved you wrong, subhuman.
You have stated before that if someone threaten your kids you would make sure to take the matter on your own hands before addressing it through the proper channels.
So? Were these my kids?
And as understandable as that can be, it doesn't make it right.
Like I would give a fuck about your opinion.
I again, I stand by me saying you did organize that party.
You can't even stop lying and being wrong in a single comment, you should probably just stop making accusations altogether.
view the rest of the comments →
followthemoney ago
Only after she is mad about her criminal history showing up. Nothing was being done before that.
sguevar ago
Well at this point I am glad to see that it happened and that u/Crensch's doxx team has been taken down and with that @Puttitout showed Voat as well that what u/Crensch did was in the wrong.
I am happy that justice was served where it needed to be served, equally.
Crensch ago
And somehow, I'm still here.
Which means I didn't do anything wrong.
Kek.
sguevar ago
Mmm. So by that logic u/WhiteRonin either. Am I correct?
Crensch ago
Kek. Not at all. Dude posted dox info all over the place. Kev's the one that leaked it all.
But please, keep equating me to them. I'm sure it helps you feel better about all the dishonesty you've shown in the past month and a half.
sguevar ago
This is an assumption you are throwing out there but without real proof of it. And it is one you are hanging with because of the fact that it convenes your constant search for attacking v/ProtectVoat which failed quite poorly to say the least.
I don't equate you to them, they didn't organized a doxx party like you did with alts. Nor tried to defend any doxx attempt at all. I mean u/WhiteRonin spread multiple links to something that I made sure to report myself from which other users got banned for what they did in the anon sub. But he never defended doxxing anyone.
Neither u/kevdude.
The only one on record that I have seen defending doxxing attempts on Voat was you u/Crensch on this post of yours: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3274898.
Sure I have been the dishonest one, that is why your attacks against have failed so badly... I was the dishonest one. I was the one betraying my principles and beliefs to attack my counter parts. I was the one defending doxxers all along... You can keep diverting my dear typhoon but you are nothing more than a whistle now...
Crensch ago
"I bet I can make you madder"
Next day - yelp dox.
kek.
I don't need to search for anything to attack PV with. I just pick from myriad things it, and kevdude, have done wrong whenever I feel like it.
You just admonished me for throwing assumptions out there with no real proof.
You've shown yourself to be dishonest, and a hypocrite.
@Vindicator @kestrel9 @argosciv @sandhog @pieceseeker
sguevar ago
I admit is an assumption I have a really strong feeling about it. That is why I no longer trust you. You supported the users that recently got banned for doxx (posted on this post)
Not really I extended my opinion about what you showed in the past when interacting with those users and pinging them.
Crensch ago
So you lied. You claimed I organized a doxx party with alts.
You're a liar.
Because you're a liar?
Gothamgirl ago
You have got to be kidding me, you Srayzie and shizy did exactly that...
Shizie ago
Hahahaha! Bullshit! Lots of people don't like you and talk shit to you and about you!
sguevar ago
How am I lying when I am saying that is how I see it?
That is how you see me, and again, character judgements coming from you are meaningless.
Crensch ago
You're stating it as a fact. You're accusing me of doing exactly what you did 100% for sure.
No, you actually did lie. Your comment was not a question, or a pondering, it was a statement. You stated it as one sentence. No caveats until called out on it.
sguevar ago
I don't need to ponder my opinions nor put a question mark. When I express an opinion I do it as a statement. So far your actions haven't prove me wrong.
Crensch ago
You're the one with the claim. The onus is on you to support it.
sguevar ago
Your defense of a user posting information that was never linked on Voat before just because it was on public records just to say I am a liar is quite a big proof if you mind me say... but you don't because convenience will lead your argument to what you want it to be... if I let you to... which ... won't happen.
Crensch ago
That was THEIR justification for using pics that were deleted from her social medias. They didn't use public searches, sguevar. They lied about it, but that was their justification for it. That was also HIS justification. (assuming gender, whatever)
You're kinda stupid, aren't you? Overusing ellipsis, and talking about convenience as if it's some kind of useful metric here.
Kek.
sguevar ago
The link she did of her twitter account is proof enough of reasonable doubt. Whether you like that or not, that is besides the point.
And yet the link of the information the user posted was never made on the post I flaired as possible misinfo. Whether he is trying to justify to copy cat what the other users did. That address was never posted on Voat before. u/srayzie's twitter that had access to all the 3 photos did. That is the major difference.
LMAO, and again I should care of your judgement because?
Crensch ago
The links of them doxxing themselves is proof enough. Whether you like that or not, is besides the point. But you'll put a "misinfo" flair up despite not having checked on it.
So? Public searches. You can google it, just like you said I needed to do in the other comment.
Were srayzie's other two pics misinformation?
No, because they're not of one of your chosen ones.
No, that twitter did not. You JUST admitted it was only one that it had access to at that point.
You LIE.
I don't care what you think. Keep talking, maybe I'll make a nice little story out of your dishonesty here as you continue to make stupid and boneheaded responses to me that show you're dishonest, have double standards, and will do anything to defend zyklon/gg/kevdude.
Gothamgirl ago
@Crensch lol so you don't remember at Christmas time when she posted he own pics to GA?
sguevar ago
That address was never linked.
Again with your public searches. It is clear that you see not what those users did as something wrong. So no point in discussing it further. You definitely are not trustworthy if you can't say it.
At one point they were. But if the users also did a google search on her apart her twitter account, those two others showed on her other social medias next to the twitter one. You don't know if they got them from there or from her twitter before she removed them. That is reasonable doubt.
I will repeat myself: You don't know if they got them from there or from her twitter before she removed them. That is reasonable doubt.
Go for it. You think I care? I stand by my words Crensch. You did organize that doxxing party, to counter attack what u/srayzie was going through. You have stated before that if someone threaten your kids you would make sure to take the matter on your own hands before addressing it through the proper channels. And as understandable as that can be, it doesn't make it right. I again, I stand by me saying you did organize that party.
Crensch ago
It was found by public searches, moron. The same public searches you think I should have done to get srayzie's pics. Right? Remember that?
You literally accepted public searches:
GOOGLE SEARCH to find it, right? That's all I did. Public searches like that. That's apparently all soob did, too, because I found every ounce of information using the same means.
I know it because they claimed it themselves, moron. http://archive.fo/oKH4Q
@Rotteuxx
Meaning what, sguevar? What SOOB did is NOT a dox by this metric.
KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK KEK
Prove it like I just proved you wrong, subhuman.
So? Were these my kids?
Like I would give a fuck about your opinion.
You can't even stop lying and being wrong in a single comment, you should probably just stop making accusations altogether.
Rotteuxx ago
Why did you fake ping me with a "-" in front of the "@" ?
@sguevar
Crensch ago
The dash is normal for a name behind a quote. Didn't realize it ate the dash and didn't ping.