FYI my post of the same video with 122 upvotes got deleted today by Mod: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1502398 due to violation of rule #2 and #4. I am hoping it was just a technicality on how it was framed. Another post with same video linking it to Dutroux (w/article) is still up: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1502466
As you can see, people are interested in the testimony. The content. Not the go around on the wording to frame it. It speaks for itself. I am glad no matter how many times you try to get it deleted people are still getting it back up.
Absolutely interested in the testimony. However I had to read through the whole damn thing to figure out what the connection was and then had to do further research to figure out anything of any actual relevance.
Edit: and I definitely disagree with the rule 4 thing you described the video accurately you just didn't follow 2 5 and 7
The video was 6 minutes long. Hardly a deep investigative investment in time. On each occasion the video gets directly posted as a link instead of buried in a discussion post it gets hits. The content is what matters. Let people figure it out for themselves. Why are you so interested in controlling this?
There is 1 word in the whole of the article that was linked in relation to this, dutroux, everything else is irrelevant for investigatory purposes. As I stated before this testimony is an appeal to emotion that can and should be used as a persuasive tool. If you would like to use it as such do so as we already discussed, however in the pizzagate subreddit if you do not frame it as such it means nothing.
view the rest of the comments →
shakethetree ago
FYI my post of the same video with 122 upvotes got deleted today by Mod: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1502398 due to violation of rule #2 and #4. I am hoping it was just a technicality on how it was framed. Another post with same video linking it to Dutroux (w/article) is still up: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1502466
gopluckyourself ago
It was and I'm pretty sure I made a very sufficient explanation on why I reported and why it got deleted.
shakethetree ago
As you can see, people are interested in the testimony. The content. Not the go around on the wording to frame it. It speaks for itself. I am glad no matter how many times you try to get it deleted people are still getting it back up.
gopluckyourself ago
Absolutely interested in the testimony. However I had to read through the whole damn thing to figure out what the connection was and then had to do further research to figure out anything of any actual relevance.
Edit: and I definitely disagree with the rule 4 thing you described the video accurately you just didn't follow 2 5 and 7
shakethetree ago
The video was 6 minutes long. Hardly a deep investigative investment in time. On each occasion the video gets directly posted as a link instead of buried in a discussion post it gets hits. The content is what matters. Let people figure it out for themselves. Why are you so interested in controlling this?
2impendingdoom ago
I'm getting the same shit on my threads, fabricated excuses to move or delete it.
gopluckyourself ago
There is 1 word in the whole of the article that was linked in relation to this, dutroux, everything else is irrelevant for investigatory purposes. As I stated before this testimony is an appeal to emotion that can and should be used as a persuasive tool. If you would like to use it as such do so as we already discussed, however in the pizzagate subreddit if you do not frame it as such it means nothing.