Glad to see that justice is being served and not applied unilaterally

Glad to see that justice is being served and not applied unilaterally (imgtc.ws)

submitted 5.2 years ago by sguevar

211 comments

PNG Open

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

followthemoney 5.2 years ago

Only after she is mad about her criminal history showing up. Nothing was being done before that.

link

sguevar 5.2 years 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.

link

Crensch 5.2 years ago

as well that what u/Crensch did was in the wrong.

And somehow, I'm still here.

Which means I didn't do anything wrong.

Kek.

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

Mmm. So by that logic u/WhiteRonin either. Am I correct?

link

Crensch 5.2 years 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.

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

Kev's the one that leaked it all

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.

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.

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...

link

Crensch 5.2 years ago

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.

Was I defending doxxing attempts, or was I showing how dishonest you were labeling it "possible misinfo"?

Oh, right. It was the latter. And you were very obviously in the wrong there. You had no way of knowing that, you just plastered the flair up, and told him you'd continue to do so on any of his posts.

You're so dishonest it's hilarious.

Sure I have been the dishonest one, that is why your attacks against me* have failed so badly...

Not one of my attacks has failed, but keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

I was the dishonest one. I was the one betraying my principles and beliefs to attack my counter parts.

Yes, and you don't seem to have many principles, since lying and being dishonest seem to be part of your modus operandi.

I was the one defending doxxers all along... You can keep diverting my dear typhoon but you are nothing more than a whistle now...

You're defending kevdude despite him being the only one that could have dropped the video linking srayzie's pic to her name. Those are private links, sguevar. How did gothamgirl/zyklon get them?

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

Was I defending doxxing attempts, or was I showing how dishonest you were labeling it "possible misinfo"?

Well on another comment I read you made you stated "this guy got you by the balls and you are scared" (paraphrasing) when you were addressing u/zyklon_b so you sure profited from that user's attempts.

Also you can claim that you were trying to show how dishonest I was being by the flair I put on the post however I did what was needed to defend a user from a doxx you felt quite passionately about. I do not regret my actions and I stand by them and all of Voat saw that hence your failure there.

Oh, right. It was the latter. And you were very obviously in the wrong there. You had no way of knowing that, you just plastered the flair up, and told him you'd continue to do so on any of his posts.

I flaired it and made the necessary inquiries through the same post. Again I do not regret it and even after your post I stickied it so everyone could see what you were encouraging there.

You're so dishonest it's hilarious.

You making a character judgement is even more funny but by all means keep it up.

Not one of my attacks has failed, but keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Well right back at you. You saw a win where there wasn't one to be honest with you. But as I said to you before: convenience is a dangerous drug.

Yes, and you don't seem to have many principles, since lying and being dishonest seem to be part of your modus operandi.

Well that since I stand by my words and my post history and comment history show my consistency you can keep repeating it all you want. Doesn't make it true.

You're defending kevdude despite him being the only one that could have dropped the video linking srayzie's pic to her name. Those are private links, sguevar. How did gothamgirl/zyklon get them?

To be honest with you I never watch them. Wasn't interested at all. And to my knowledge from what I understand the first person that got any of those vids/pics was Esoteric. So isn't that a reasonable doubt that can be consider? Or your pride doesn't let you see objectively? (I don't even know why I am asking... after all I know the answer to the last one)

link

Crensch 5.2 years ago

I did what was needed to defend a user from a doxx you felt quite passionately about.

So you lied. Got it.

You didn't defend anyone from anything.

The user claimed he used only public searches to find what he did about them, which is EXACTLY the excuse Trigglypuff and Rotteuxx used for srayzie. You had no way of knowing if it was a lie, yet you flaired it as misinformation. Not "Dox" Not "warning" nothing. Misinformation.

A lie.

And btw, I saw you floundering around not able to find the info he did, but I tried it myself later, and found far more than what he dropped. All public searches. But go ahead and call me a liar or untruthful after your constant lying and dishonesty here.

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

So you lied. Got it.

Your perception. I don't care much about it.

You didn't defend anyone from anything.

That is your insight and you are entitled to have it.

The user claimed he used only public searches to find what he did about them, which is EXACTLY the excuse Trigglypuff and Rotteuxx used for srayzie. You had no way of knowing if it was a lie, yet you flaired it as misinformation. Not "Dox" Not "warning" nothing. Misinformation.

Of information that was never linked before here on Voat. So no u/Trigglypuff nor Rotteuxx acted in the same way because u/srayzie had her persona twitter linked. What you are doing there is a false equivalency.

A lie.

Your characterization of my actions are not of my interest so keep going.

And btw, I saw you floundering around not able to find the info he did, but I tried it myself later, and found far more than what he dropped. All public searches. But go ahead and call me a liar or untruthful after your constant lying and dishonesty here.

I haven't called you a liar. I think you did organized those alts. Obviously not used by you. But that is my opinion on the matter. I have no interest in labeling anything else on you than you betrayed your principles and fell into convenience to wage your "war"... That is it.

link

wokeasfook 5.2 years ago

Your characterization of my actions are not of my interest so keep going.

So no dispute. Seems you did in fact lie. Just saying.

link

SearchVoatBot 5.2 years ago

This comment was linked from this v/ProtectVoat comment by @Crensch.

^{Posted automatically (#51903) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}^{(@wokeasfook: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Crensch)}

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

I flaired a post that was done by a user u/Crensch supported in his actions. The post contained an address apparently belonging th u/GothamGirl and that address was never shared on Voat before. The flair I put on it was possible missinfo as we needed to corroborate that the address was previous shared on Voat.

Through that post interaction you can see that I questioned the user about where was that address gotten from and when was it ever linked to Voat before.

The user confirmed that he got it from a public search engine but could never confirm that the address was ever posted on Voat before that one.

Hence the user got reported for doxx. And eventually banned for it.

I never took the flair out because that post needed to be flaired and that one was the one I did from the start.

Now you can join u/Crensch and believe that I lied. I don't care. I defended a user that was being doxx much as I defended u/srayzie before also.

However u/Crensch took advantage of the efforts done by the users banned (posted on the picture of this post) and even pinged them several times during their active interactions on Voat multiple times.

Which lead me to state my opinion that he coordinated a doxxing group on u/GothamGirl.

And I will keep stating my opinion. He hasn't shown me concrete proof of being otherwise.

But you can take it as you want.

link

wokeasfook 5.2 years ago

You haven't shown concrete proof either and you are the accuser. You are not representing yourself very well.

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

I am stating my opinion. That is it.

Take it as you want.

link

wokeasfook 5.2 years ago

Exactly

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

That doesn't change the fact that I do have probable cause/motive for his actions and me thinking he did coordinate that doxx team.

Until I do not see concrete proof that he didn't coordinated, as it seems to be with all his previous interactions with said users then my opinion will not change and I will express it as a statement.

Now I don't have a problem with acknowledging if I was wrong. But that only happens until proven wrong. He hasn't done it.

So this is a simple clash of opinions at this point. And I stand by mine.

link

wokeasfook 5.2 years ago

Until I do not see concrete proof that he didn't coordinated

Jesus Christ man that's some lefty madness. Guilty till proven innocent. Fuck that. The obligation is on you to back up your accusations. You haven't. And your cop out is that it's your opinion and he must prove his innocence. Marxism 101.

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

Jesus Christ man that's some lefty madness. Guilty till proven innocent. Fuck that. The obligation is on you to back up your accusations. You haven't. And your cop out is that it's your opinion and he must prove his innocence. Marxism 101.

He hasn't been banned from Voat. What are you talking about? Nor from v/ProtectVoat.

I will not change my opinion until shown otherwise. That is it.

link

wokeasfook 5.2 years ago

Where did I say anything about being banned from voat. Wtf is wrong with you. You are openly saying he must prove his innocence against your 'opinion'. You are saying he is guilty unless he proves his innocence.

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

Where did I say anything about being banned from voat. Wtf is wrong with you.

You accused me of being a lefty and a marxist because I will not change mi mind on him until shown otherwise. If that were the case I would have engaged on power moderation and censorship of his posts and comments in here and yet I haven't.

On the other hand, he has done it.

You are openly saying he must prove his innocence against your 'opinion'. You are saying he is guilty unless he proves his innocence.

I am openly saying that if he doesn't like me to express my opinion on his actions then yes he must show me otherwise. Until then I will keep believing that he did coordinate that doxx crew. Now can I prove it with concrete evidence? No I can't which is why I can only attest for probable cause/motive and the evidence of him interacting with those users, pinging them and also defending one of them from the flair I put in that user's post.

Yes his actions make me think like that and he hasn't shown me otherwise. So my opinion remains.

But he will not be unjustly banned nor silenced. He is more than welcome to keep whistling away.

link

wokeasfook 5.2 years ago

I've heard all I need from you. Your insurance on making accusations with nothing to back it up is literally how Stalin. Murder millions.

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

Sure, stalin and all those (((jews in the letter))) allowed their detractors to roam free in the USSR... but hey you are expressing your opinion and as a statement and you are free to do so.

Enjoy your weekend.

link

wokeasfook 5.2 years ago

Except my opinion isn't accusing anyone of anything that person doesn't agree with. I.e. guilty until proven innocent. Like Judge Kavanaugh, the Covington Boys, etc.

Ye you too.

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

Except my opinion isn't accusing anyone of anything that person doesn't agree with.

actually you are - you are accusing me of being on the same level as Staling for asking for him to change my mind on what I have seen him do.

Like Judge Kavanaugh, the Covington Boys, etc.

All of those I supported, you are giving a false equivalency and not only that you are asking for proofs that can only be gotten from invading the pms and private communications from him with the users in question. Proofs you know are impossible for me to get. He has the power to proof me wrong, yet he hasn't... why is that?

link

wokeasfook 5.2 years ago

That's some serious mental gymnastics.

Why don't you afford Crensch the same respect if you supported them. It is in no way a false equivalency.

In this scenario Crensch is Bret and you are both the accuser and the media and the left judging him guilty without evidence.

Provide proof or my fact stands. I'm accusing you of something you admit openly. Over and over again.

link

sguevar 5.2 years ago

That's some serious mental gymnastics.

Not really. You are equating me with authoritarians when I haven't enforced any authoritarian behavior on Crensch at all. I have expressed my opinion on him as an statement because I strongly believe in his influence on that group. But I haven't persecuted him nor censored him nor banned him.

He has however done all those three things against v/ProtectVoat, me, kevdude and anyone that has questioned him on his stance on this matter.

Why don't you afford Crensch the same respect if you supported them. It is in no way a false equivalency.

It is, I have afford him enough respect to dialogue with him, to try to reach a consensus and to stand against him when his actions hurt the integrity of the platform. I have granted him enough respect by not banning him from v/ProtectVoat nor accused him of doxxing with the admin team because I can't provide hard proof of my stated opinion. So he can roam free here, whistling away all that he wants.

In this scenario Crensch is Bret and you are both the accuser and the media and the left judging him guilty without evidence.

And let me describe to you why it is a false equivalency: The scenario you put in here was for an open investigation done on the supreme court judge at the moment of his confirmation. In which background checks were done, his communications were taken, records studied and so on and so forth. A due process was followed to do so even when the democrats tried to blow it all wide open. His integrity wasn't hurt through the process and it was proven that those allegations against him were false. But the one accusing as well as the one defending him had access to all of that information because of he law.

On my scenario, I can only proof probable cause/motive, the pings that he has shared with those same users and the defense he gave to an user's post doxxing one of his detractors with information that was never posted nor linked before here on Voat by said detractors.

The only way I can prove my stated opinion to be a fact is that a gain access to his pms and private communications outside of Voat. Because no one that would coordinate such a despicable effort would do so openly and publicly on Voat. I have no Authority to demand that access and I am not interested in doing so.

What you are demanding for is a tactic used by trolls and shills (not saying you are one of those) that demand impossible proofs in order to prove a statement and if those proofs can't be shown then the messenger of said statement has no credibility, or in this case also a liar, as you both are accusing me of being with both of your opinions. But that is just a diversion from the real issue here: Only one person can prove me wrong here and is him. But he won't. He will divert to the fact that I can only come by with circumstantial evidence to accuse him.

Sadly that is the way many perpetrators are free from punishment on the legal system. Is a reality I know exist.

Provide proof or my fact stands. I'm accusing you of something you admit openly. Over and over again.

Ask him to proof me wrong. It shouldn't be hard on him. I base my stated opinion on what he has shown with his actions. And will keep it unless I am shown otherwise.

He wont't do it. He will divert.