i revised the pizza.jpg child trafficking to innocuous. Further digging indicates I should ignore the comments on the_donald and look at the dates, which has the email shortly after (3 days) they got off the plane from north korea. the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgbXLWZtv0Y shows the little girl in the middle as the daughter of one of them. So, this email looks like a high five for the team, with a possible hidden innuendo with regards the pizza, that only they would get.
i read through it from top to bottom, it looks like a 95 year old in "Love" with obama wants to meet him. the "meet" word wasn't in quotes. The email was from mary podesta forwarded to john podesta. there was no response that I could find. I'd categorize it as innocuous. what do you think I've missed?
cool, thanks for the links. looks tasty. chefs for hillary eh?
I've actually made walnut sauce before, and walnut pancakes too, very nice.
the thing i don't get is how boggled they are with how over the top good this walnut pasta is. It comes across as earth shattering.
But that's not what bothers me. It's the "Haha Jim has no idea what he's talking about." That turns my understanding of this walnut sauce upside down. Jim's statement is plainly worded, and consistent with the news about the event, and yet he has no idea what he's talking about. I have no idea what Eryn is talking about, but we have to understand that "walnut sauce" probably is best understood in another context.
Sure, the other reading of Eryn's statement is that the walnut sauce is even better than that. Or that she's saying that and sucking up to podesta. Or that the walnut sauce was a bust. None of that fits well with the "Haha" inside joke thing. That strongly suggests walnut sauce is not what we think it is.
But, who knows, maybe they're just a bunch of wild and crazy pasta pinochle people wanting wanton walnut sauce.
Wow, I'm surprised you went through all those. I think it should be kept in mind that this is almost a comprehensive list of all the emails I've seen cited as suspicious and most importantly that the podesta emails are in the 10s of thousands.
I think that the "kids are the entertainment" one should at least be a lot lower if not completely removed. I wrote a comment about it:
Maybe you haven't really come across it but saying "the kids are the entertainment" or something like that is actually a common phrase. I was so sure of that I pulled these links from doing a word-for-word search for these search terms: "the kids will be the entertainment" and "the kids are the entertainment".
If you Ctrl-F "entertainment" for each of those links you will find it used in almost the exact same way the podesta email uses it. The pizzagate interpretation still could be right but I think the fact that it really is a common phrase makes it very unlikely.
Edit: Also the Dominos emails are all by the same person, Herb Sandler, who has a daughter Susan. I commented about the "dominos" emails using an email sent by Susan:
How would you interpret this email ? Is it a coincidence that dominoes is a game that comes in sets ? Would you refer to bdsm as a 'game' and that you would like to 'get a set'? Also there is no evidence for 'dominoes' being a code word for anything sexual or pedophilia related before pizzagate. Also this email was sent by a Susan from the Sandler center and a quick Google search shows that herb Sandler has a daughter Susan. So isn't the most likely explanation that they all played dominoes one night and they all just share that interest.
okeedokee. Drew is talking about his candidacy for house speaker, which the wapo has offered to live stream. like walter jones, he has never had an affair. all tongue in cheek of course.
Altho - the irony of the remark is greater if the backdrop is a pedo party. it could be random silliness, but the remark pops up better if the backdrop of the event was something that walter jones would never be at, so that Drew passes the Walter Jones test on a technicality. But, it could be random silliness.
Probabilities. the humour is better if there's something non-Walter Jonesish going on and Drew passes on a technicality. I'd prefer it was speed dating or some crazy adult romp. Drew seems to have a sense of humour, so I'll go with that probability.
As to what the non-Walter Jonesish thing is that's going on ... is not indicated. Hopefully it has nothing to do with the Luzzatto kids being on the menu. in a manner of speaking.
The fallout from Kevin McCarthy’s surprise withdrawal from the speaker’s race has hit home for North Carolina Rep. Renee Ellmers, the subject of unsubstantiated rumors of an extramarital affair with McCarthy that were fueled, in a large part, by Rep. Walter Jones, a fellow Tar Heel State Republican.
I think it should be kept in mind that this is almost a comprehensive list of all the emails I've seen cited as suspicious and most importantly that the podesta emails are in the 10s of thousands.
Which would basically mean that people were crawling through these tens of thousands of emails looking the manufacture scandal. If you actually read email by email you get a very different picture.
sure, like 14 and the fish, which is more credible as a reference to the 14th paragraph of some treaty dealing with oceanic life. Which is what the email it comes with says.
Or the brietbart tweet, which in the context is about podesta working to free some child trafficker caught in haiti, and probably isn't about his direct activities with dominos, walnut sauce, cheese, pasta, moloch, etc.
podesta's email account was used for all his activities. You'd expect to see that most of them have nothing to do with his darker urges. I do see some attempts to manufacture scandal. I also see concerted attempts to force our view away. At the heart of it all I see something vile, something horrible I wish would go away. ojala que el espiritu de jimmy savile se quede muy afuera de mi pais. May the spirit of Jimmy Savile never touch this land. Me temo. Me temo.
thanks, thought provoking. looking over the links ... by number
"entertainment" is a typo. the kids will be entertained for hours
"entertainment" is a typo, The kids will be entertained with face paint
skipping youtube link ...
my kids are the entertainment for us - different context, not the same IMHO.
With this party the kids ARE the entertainment! - different context. this is a kid party, with adults watching, i would have to assume.
my kids are the entertainment - like the other one. different context. this is family oriented.
My kids are the entertainment - again.
the kids are the entertainment - christmas recital with lots of kids and parents mingling. a family context.
sorry, didn't follow the youtube link.
I have to disagree, this is not how the podesta email used it. In this case, the kids were there specially (brought by uber), were the only kids (no other kids mentioned), their ages were listed explicitly, for an adult party where somebody was going to announce candidacy for some senate position, and the kids were there for the entertainment of the adults, in the pool. Given the temperature, it's unlikely they'd be wandering around. no facepaint, games, no other kids, no families except for the pseudo grandmother.
Good point about "the kids are the entertainment", but I think the context is all important. When "the kids are the entertainment", it's a jolly family show with parents present, and the kids are the entertainment for their own parents. In this podesta email, the kids were uber'd in for an "affair" with a bunch of adults frolicking in a heated pool. I think Jimmy Saville would be right at home.
Add to this all the adults the email went out to, and none of them thought it was weird having kids for entertainment, but one person did respond with "I've never had an affair, so I pass the Walter Jones test." which has got to be a sexual reference.
I thought Susan was the wife. no, it's pretty clear she's the daughter. Somebody else has tied the handkerchief email to the dominos emails. the handkerchief was left behind after a game of dominos it would seem. it just gets creepier. Sandler is connected to the dominos, but so are a lot of others. dominos certainly appears to be code for something, along with the pizza-related map.
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1481145 - info about dominos, and the connection to the handkerchief. this person did a deeper search than i did, and found domino emails related by time, subject matter, and people involved.
It took me probably about 5 minutes to compile that list and like I said I found those links through a word-for-word search because I was so sure that the phrase is common. I'm very confident I could find even more links but I think through all those there I've shown that to talk about kids as "the entertainment" is actually very common. You've brushed off a lot of those links I think without really thinking much.
different context. this is family oriented
How do you know the other party isn't family oriented. I would say that that is jumping to conclusions with no evidence.
the kids were there specially (brought by uber),
I'm really surprised you would say this. Here's the quote from the email:
Bonnie will be Uber Service
This is not how uber works, you don't know the name of your uber driver days ahead of time. Also is it a coincidence that in the 15 or so people included in that email conversation that there is a Bonnie Levin-work cc'd. A criticism I've heard over and over of pizzagate people is that they have no sense of humor or normal casual speech. Although I'm sure you do, for some reason you interpret everything literally in this case.
the only kids (no other kids mentioned)
There's no proof that there were no other kids at the party just because no others are mentioned.
an adult party
I think you are seeing the email through a particular lens instead of being impartial and that really comes across in your word choices. Your note for the link is particularly egregious:
Luzzatto kids in pool for adult enjoyment
-
where somebody was going to announce candidacy for some senate position
You're not talking about this line are you?:
Thanks for remembering me, as I was planning to use the farm as the backdrop to announce my candidacy for speaker of the house.
Is there any other evidence that someone was announcing their candidacy at this party? Because this is clearly a joke. If you look up the man who sent it the only thing I come across is a man who was an aide for a senator. This person would obviously have to be a congressman first before speaker and they would be well known. Also, if he was announcing his candidacy for any position wouldn't that mean it was a big public event? Would that person nonchallantly mention it in an email before they've even announced? I wish people here would be critical about their own positions before asserting them as fact. In my comment you can see that I even suggest that there is a possibility that the pizzagate people could be right about the interpretation of the email, I try and see all sides. Some of these things fall down with the most simple questions.
no facepaint, games, no other kids, no families
How do you know this?
When "the kids are the entertainment", it's a jolly family show with parents present, and the kids are the entertainment for their own parents.
That is not how the phrase is used in those links I sent. In one of them it's used sarcastically like "they're a hand full" and in a few of them it is used in the sense that kids are just fun to watch and be around. The youtube link comes to mind for that.
I just wish people on here would use occams razor. Think of the most mundane, simple explanation first and that will most likely be the truth. What in your mind are the kids there to do? She mentions the kids in an offhand way. She first mentions the heated pool and swimming as the most notable and then the kids as an extra detail. If this really were apart of some debaucherous sex ring wouldn't there be more detail? about maybe security and more detail about what's expected? what are the rules, what exactly will be happening here? But I don't know maybe this is a common thing for them. But if it were common wouldn't we see it mentioned more often in the emails? There are a decades worth of emails and only this one comment about kids being in the pool as 'entertainment'. If they were all really expected to implicitly understand what that means why don't we see it anywhere else? Maybe they usually arrange these things through texts? or different emails?
There are so many questions and gaps that would need to be addressed before you reached your conclusion. The simplest explanation (and so the most likely) is definitely the mundane detail that there will be kids playing in a pool.
the only time i see kids as entertainment is in family context, and it's pretty clear. usually face paint and bouncy castles are mentioned. To me none of your links match the context. Most if not all of your links are advertisements for some family friendly activity, not a private party. In this podesta email we have specific kids for entertainment, their names and ages are listed, their situation is specified (in the pool for sure).
The only reply that isn't just an rrsp, is one from someone looking forward to the "affair". presumably with the luzzatto kids.
Uber - ok, a bit better. Is this Bonnie Levin any relation to the Luzzatto kids? Doesn't look like it. So, still a designated driver, of no particular relation to the kids.
Family friendly parties alway talk about what the kids will be doing. and it's not entertaining the adults, that's for sure. This private party is of a different sort entirely. if there are other kids there I'm sure they'll be better off not seen and not heard. Anyways, I don't think it's critical that no other kids be there. The key thing is the luzzatto kids, and what they are there for.
I'm sorry that you think that my byline "Luzzatto kids in pool for adult enjoyment" is more egregious than what's being done to the Luzzatto kids.
As for speaker of the house, I don't think he was serious either, but it sets context for the party. Poor Drew was left off the last invite, so he was glad he got in this time, and made light of it.
"no facepaint, games" ... what? It's like we're reading different emails. There might be facepaint and games, but not the kid friendly kind, more the eyes wide shut kind. Certainly, none of that was mentioned, but you can't assume by it's absence of mention in the email that it's a given that the simple presence of the luzzatto kids means there will be kid friendly facepaint and games.
it's "so you'll have some further entertainment." not "the kids are the entertainment" or "my kids are the entertainment for us". The latter two are about kids having fun, and that this creates happiness for all who watch. The first one I get an entirely different sense from, like the kids are toys that the invitees will be playing with. The invitees are in charge of the fun, not the kids. That's the sense I get.
I think in this case, occams razor leads to the unacceptable conclusion, not the easy one you're pointing to.
Mentioned are, the pool and swimming in the pool, what's going to be in the pool (the kids for sure), the temperature (where woolies I guess), and some patio table. The kids appear to be a star attraction, I wouldn't say it was an offhand way. She's far to specific, like she was listing the menu, except she doesn't list the menu, only where the "dine al fresco" will be served.
This is not a conclusion. There is no video. We are stumbling in the dark and gathering out the outlines from what we can touch. This email looks wrong to me. The kids should not be in the pool for adult enjoyment. Why does nobody else on the email thread see this as other than an opportunity for themselves? Why are these kids being trotted out like this, not only at the pool, but also online with that evie's crib, "Evelyn is growing up, soon she will be the Queen of the entire US of A, right now, for a limited time only, you can spend some time with her online, raw and uncut. Take advantage of this now, as in the future she will have the power of life and death over you." Now, i think the probability is that spending time refers to going to that blog and looking it up and down, not something seedy. But, blog author Mr T appears to be not direct family, but a cousin of some sort. The claim that it's some sort of window shopping thing is not ruled out.
If I have a conclusion here, it is this. The null hypothesis we must try to disprove is that the pedosta emails indicate actionable pedophilia. My conclusion is that the null hypothesis is NOT ruled out. It has not been disproven, and we must as moral beings continue to investigate. What I'm saying about this email, and certain other podesta emails is not something that will convict in anything but the public eye. I do believe it is sufficient to warrant investigation. The police should be on this like a wet t-shirt. so to speak.
The next steps would be
take it to the real world.
find victims willing to testify. find witnesses. The police should do this, or willing professionals. If volunteers do this, there must be great care.
find hard concrete evidence. We have a lot of names, and even phone numbers. Surely somebody on the periphery can be contacted in a non-intrusive gentle way and their input sought. Again, the police should do this. At the least, willing professionals.
the evidence i've seen is circumstantial, not probative. So far, the cover-up is by far the biggest thing convincing me something is in this. Rubber has to hit the road, and this time we need to get all the way to the end. No more franklin coverup, no more conspiracy of silence.
I'd love to know what's in that anthony weiner laptop folder called "life insurance".
The kids should not be in the pool for adult enjoyment.
Why not? I get that you've worded it specifically to make it sound creepy but being in the pool with kids is a time when adults and kids play together and interact. Also, kids are just plain fun and entertaining (ctrl-f "entertain"):
I'm not sure how many examples would convince you that the combination of saying the kids will be "further entertainment" and then listing their ages actually doesn't point towards pedophilia or even imply anything out of the ordinary.
I raised a lot of questions at the end of my last comment and I just want you to think about the fact that this is the only instance of someone using this kind of phrasing in this way. If John Podesta really was going to these things regularly where it was understood what it was meant by "so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in that pool for sure." why don't we see it anywhere else in the decades worth of emails? Or do you believe that anyone looking at this email would understand it to mean that the children are there for some kind of pedophile child abuse?
Uber - ok, a bit better. Is this Bonnie Levin any relation to the Luzzatto kids? Doesn't look like it. So, still a designated driver, of no particular relation to the kids.
Your comments are full of assumptions and biases. I think I might make a second comment highlighting all the instances of biased assumptions. This one is very obvious because you still find the absolute worst way to interpret this.
The null hypothesis we must try to disprove is that the pedosta emails indicate actionable pedophilia.
The claim is asserted and must be proved, backed by evidence. A null hypothesis is a negative not a positive.
it's "so you'll have some further entertainment." not "the kids are the entertainment" or "my kids are the entertainment for us". The latter two are about kids having fun, and that this creates happiness for all who watch. The first one I get an entirely different sense from, like the kids are toys that the invitees will be playing with. The invitees are in charge of the fun, not the kids. That's the sense I get.
I can't argue with that. No one can. If that's what you feel then ok.
i'm not sure why you think i don't find kids entertaining. I do. I believe the issue here is the nature of the entertainment.
listing ages in the very long section you linked does not at all seem predatory. the listing of ages in the podesta email is on the predatory side.
I understand your point of view. I agree it is a possibility. We disagree on the balance of the probabilities. You seem to think my way of thinking has zero probability. I disagree.
As to why it only occurs once. Maybe he deleted the others? Maybe he ... has more than one email account.
Your comments are full of assumptions and biases. I think I might make a second comment highlighting all the instances of biased assumptions. This one is very obvious because you still find the absolute worst way to interpret this.
I'd prefer not to deal with ad hominem stuff. what exactly do you think I'm saying? that Bonnie Levin devoured the kids in the car? The absolute worst way? What are you talking about?
Honestly, what comes to mind here is not what happened but what didn't happen. Where are the parents? Other family, except for the step grandmother? As a parent, this raises a flag to me. these young children should have been accompanied by a parent, but weren't. I think that's odd. Not sacrificing to moloch odd, but just odd.
The claim is asserted and must be proved, backed by evidence. A null hypothesis is a negative not a positive.
The null hypothesis (H 0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify. The 'null' often refers to the common view of something, while the alternative hypothesis is what the researcher really thinks is the cause of a phenomenon.
there are two claims being made.
there is no pedophile stuff going on.
there is pedophile stuff going on.
Logically, since both are claims, by your statement either must be proven and backed by evidence. But this is not a court of law. This is a test of probabilities.
You are attempting to prove that nothing pedophile is going on by insisting that there in an innocuous interpretation or explanation for all the weird phrasings. I don't disagree, necessarily, but it seems to me that you have not ruled out an alternate interpretation.
Now, with the null hypothesis approach, we're supposed to disprove something, not prove it.
If we take your null hypothesis as, I'm guessing, that there is no pedophile stuff going on. the common view of things.
then your alternative hypothesis is the converse, I would guess, which is that there is pedophilia going on. this would be the cause of the phenomenon.
Unfortunately, with this null and alternative, proving the null does not rule out the alternate hypothesis. It simply confirms that both scenarios are possible.
If instead,
null - that pedophile is there. this is the common view of things.
alternate - that pedophile is not there. this is what I'd like to be true.
again, proving the alternate, that the pedophile is not there, does not rule out the null, that the pedophile is there.
instead, try to disprove that pedophile is there, to a 95% probability. If we can rule out the null hypothesis then the alternate must solely be true. If we cannot rule out the null hypothesis then both scenarios must be considered. i labelled the emails innocuous where in my opinion the probability of a feasible reasonable pedophile or creepy interpretation was very low. The more likely the creepy interpretation, the more stars i gave it.
I can't argue with that. No one can. If that's what you feel then ok.
lols! is that all it takes? I'm just not a person who thinks kids are there for my further entertainment.
let's not forget that we're identifying areas for investigation. sifting through these emails isn't anything that'll stand up in a court of law. Each email should be evaluated by this measure, and areas for further investigation identified. The emails are not the end of the investigation, only the beginning. What we're doing here is stamping out false leads, and identifying promising investigations.
My main point would be that you are approaching this thing with a heavy bias towards a particular explanation. The explanation is something that is way outside of normal everyday behavior. [Edit: the fact that it is far outside of everyday expectations means it needs that much more evidence to support it]
You've backed off your initial claim a lot but let me highlight all of the things you couldn't have known/were jumping to conclusions from your first interpretation of the email:
I have to disagree, this is not how the podesta email used it. In this case, the kids were there specially (brought by uber), were the only kids (no other kids mentioned), their ages were listed explicitly, for an adult party where somebody was going to announce candidacy for some senate position, and the kids were there for the entertainment of the adults, in the pool. Given the temperature, it's unlikely they'd be wandering around. no facepaint, games, no other kids, no families except for the pseudo grandmother.
All of those things you assumed with no evidence, and why? Because those things would fit the conclusion you're looking for. You're specifically looking for the interpretation which fits the claim instead of looking at it with no bias.
This is particularly evident in our exchange about uber. You said: "the kids were there specially (brought by uber)" and I replied:
This is not how uber works, you don't know the name of your uber driver days ahead of time. Also is it a coincidence that in the 15 or so people included in that email conversation that there is a Bonnie Levin-work cc'd.
*notice how I don't assume that that Bonnie is who's being referenced or that my interpretation is fact at all, because I couldn't know those things. I'm just looking for the simplest most likely explanation.
You then reply to this saying:
Uber - ok, a bit better. Is this Bonnie Levin any relation to the Luzzatto kids? Doesn't look like it. So, still a designated driver, of no particular relation to the kids.
You accept that as the conclusion and then hone in on the interpretation that would support the conclusion you're looking for. Why do that? You will always be able to come up with an interpretation of the facts that will fit a claim. But it is irresponsible and unreasonable to jump to the pedophile claim.
Here is what I think would be reasonable claims about the email exchange (these are assumptions based on what would be the most simple and common explanations given the circumstances):
I looked up Tamera Luzzatto and she looks fairly old for these to be her children so I think they are probably her grandkids. I think that the Bonnie referenced in the email is that same one cc'd in the email. I think that Bonnie is probably a close friend of the mother of the children and of Tamera, she could be a relative but I think that's less likely. I think that she must be close to Tamera because Tamera trusts her grandkids with her. I think when she lists their names and ages she's doing it in a way like all grandmothers like to talk about their kids but also to tell other people who've never met them what the age ranges are so they know what to expect. Since if you just said kids a teenager is a completely different expectation than if they were toddler or in between. Kids those ages (11,9,7) are very rambunctious and playful so following that up with how they will be 'entertainment' in reference to them being in the pool makes sense (I provided many examples of family members/others referencing kids as 'entertainment'). Teenagers and toddlers behave a lot differently from kids those ages, so the specificity makes sense.
I think that there probably will be other kids at that party since with a group of adults like that some are bound to have children and it is difficult for parents to get a night away with a lot of hassle. But they would almost certainly be welcome since there are other kids there already. That there are other kids there I'm least sure about but it seems plausible given the circumstances (*if this were a normal party).
I think that since Tamera seems to be the one arranging things that she will be there. So basically the kids are being transported from their parents house to their grandparents to spend some time with their grandmother and her friends. Because Tamera lists her grandkids names and ages I'm guessing there are some people who have never met them. But I also think that some of the people have met her grandkids and know them well. Bonnie for one as I mentioned earlier. *That some of the people know the kids though I'm less sure about, there's no real good reason to believe that for besides bonnie.
The rest of the email exchange I've gone over what I think the most likely explanation is which is that they're joking about a topical news story.
And that's it. Do you think that this explanation sounds reasonable? But not just reasonable but is actually the simplest explanation given those series of details? If you were to come across similar situations with those details what would be the most common explanation? What is at the top of the bell curve?
Wouldn't you agree that pedophilia in general for kids at a party is way out of the norm? Statistically speaking that it is a rare occurrence from everyday expectations?
But you make a case for it. You say that her use of describing the kids as entertainment is "like the kids are toys that the invitees will be playing with". And you say that her listing the ages of the kids seems to be "on the predatory side". You also say that the parents not being there and only the step-grandmother(?) being there is very unusual. This is actually without any evidence, you don't know what relatives to the kids will be there. You also don't know what the kids relationship to the people there is generally.
But here is evidence against the claim of pedophilia and a pedophilia ring wrt this email:
You say that the kids will be there for the adults entertainment over and over, but her word choice I don't think supports that. She mentions the kids and then says "so you’ll have some further entertainment". Her word choices don't imply that the kids are there for anyone, at least she doesn't explicitly say that.
The claim also relies on the people receiving the email to implicitly understand what her phrasing means (that the kids are there for pedophilic child abuse purposes). But as I've said before there are no other instances of this kind of thing happening in the emails. This would require that this has happened many times before so that she would know that everyone understood what she meant. As I mentioned before this could mean that this is not their usual form of communication about this but that would mean that the email itself is an outler in their normal behavior. When we are looking for the simplest explanation this doesn't help to have to assume a whole foundation of context that we don't have, and also that this email is unusual in that context.
Building off my last point I want to remind you that she has listed the kids names and ages, this means almost certainly that there are people going to the party that don't know the kids. So I think this poses a HUGE problem to the claim since we need to include some bizarre assumptions. What would the circumstances have to be for her to mention that her grandkids are coming to the party to be some kind of pedophilic entertainment but to never explicitly say that to the people who have never even met them. The people would almost certainly have to be told at some point what that means, but we have to assume that that happens somewhere else outside of the emails.
The word choice she is using implies that actually the pool is the main event here. She lists it first and talks about swimming and then says the kids are 'further entertainment', seemingly referencing back to the pool.
The pizzagate emails as a whole would have to be outliers. There are only about 20 something emails in the list and there are 10s of thousands of emails in the leak. This also implies a greater context that is necessary but that we also don't have.
I could go on and on about the bias that you explicitly make and that are implicit all throughout your word choices. You say that the kids are "trotted out" and are listed "like a menu"; you call it an "adult party" over and over and say that kids are there "for adult enjoyment". You also bend over backwards to try and make the 'entertainment' examples I provided not fit to this one. You say:"the only time i see kids as entertainment is in family context, and it's pretty clear. usually face paint and bouncy castles are mentioned. [Edit:"it's "so you'll have some further entertainment." not "the kids are the entertainment" or "my kids are the entertainment for us"."] You say that these are not examples of a private party, but we couldn't have an example of that on the public internet.
Just be careful, clear your mind of biases. You are clearly looking for an explanation and trying to make it fit. The weight of the claim especially deserves a lot more respect than that.
Dominoes on pasta or pizza is still completely unexplainable unless it's code for something. The etymology of the words "Domino" and "Dominoes" is the same as "Dominate", i.e. master/lord. Also, before all of these emails, Dominoes pizza created this ad:
I commented about how the dominos thing actually isn't unusual:
An analogy I heard was something like: "Do you think I would do better playing football on water or gatorade?" Like she's joking saying do you think my dominoes game will be better if I've just eaten pizza or pasta? This is the natural interpretation I've seen most people come to and I would be willing to bet if you did a random survey of people almost no one would be confused by it.
And
Remember these are older people they joke in corny ways sometimes. Although I got the gender wrong it's not a she its actually Herbert Sandler from the Sandler foundation. He's 85 years old so you have to imagine what kinds of things your grandfather might say not you ( depending how old you are). Also this would be why they're playing dominoes, have you ever volunteered at a nursing home?
And yes thanks for that edit. I looked it up and I think that is a real stretch. But Dominos didn't reject it after a public outcry, they didn't even create it. It was created by an ad agency and they rejected it before it was ever seen by the public.
deadly_nightshade ago
i revised the pizza.jpg child trafficking to innocuous. Further digging indicates I should ignore the comments on the_donald and look at the dates, which has the email shortly after (3 days) they got off the plane from north korea. the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgbXLWZtv0Y shows the little girl in the middle as the daughter of one of them. So, this email looks like a high five for the team, with a possible hidden innuendo with regards the pizza, that only they would get.
deadly_nightshade ago
I thought it was a name. Possibly misspelled Thelma.
I must have missed that in school. Is this it what you're referring to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema
Even that doesn't help me understand. Perhaps you can tell me what you think is going on, in plain english?
MeeestaTraumaLlama ago
Isn't that Crowley's cult? How is it not innocuous?
deadly_nightshade ago
i read through it from top to bottom, it looks like a 95 year old in "Love" with obama wants to meet him. the "meet" word wasn't in quotes. The email was from mary podesta forwarded to john podesta. there was no response that I could find. I'd categorize it as innocuous. what do you think I've missed?
AreWeSure ago
Walnut Sauce aka Salsa di Noci is the second most famous pasta sauce from near Genoa where Podesta's grandfather is from. The most famous is basil pesto which also uses nuts: pinenuts. http://allrecipes.com/recipe/223028/salsa-di-noci/ http://www.divinacucina.com/2015/06/walnut-sauce-salsa-di-noci/ https://lizearlewellbeing.com/salsa-di-noci-walnut-sauce-pasta/
Also this one https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d8/1c/13/d81c13a4715ae6ae6270b9bb3f0acee1.jpg
deadly_nightshade ago
cool, thanks for the links. looks tasty. chefs for hillary eh?
I've actually made walnut sauce before, and walnut pancakes too, very nice.
the thing i don't get is how boggled they are with how over the top good this walnut pasta is. It comes across as earth shattering.
But that's not what bothers me. It's the "Haha Jim has no idea what he's talking about." That turns my understanding of this walnut sauce upside down. Jim's statement is plainly worded, and consistent with the news about the event, and yet he has no idea what he's talking about. I have no idea what Eryn is talking about, but we have to understand that "walnut sauce" probably is best understood in another context.
Sure, the other reading of Eryn's statement is that the walnut sauce is even better than that. Or that she's saying that and sucking up to podesta. Or that the walnut sauce was a bust. None of that fits well with the "Haha" inside joke thing. That strongly suggests walnut sauce is not what we think it is.
But, who knows, maybe they're just a bunch of wild and crazy pasta pinochle people wanting wanton walnut sauce.
bopper ago
Wow thanks much, just bookmarked this page.
antiracistNew ago
What's the word on stegonography?
JUNOAK ago
Wow, I'm surprised you went through all those. I think it should be kept in mind that this is almost a comprehensive list of all the emails I've seen cited as suspicious and most importantly that the podesta emails are in the 10s of thousands.
I think that the "kids are the entertainment" one should at least be a lot lower if not completely removed. I wrote a comment about it:
Edit: Also the Dominos emails are all by the same person, Herb Sandler, who has a daughter Susan. I commented about the "dominos" emails using an email sent by Susan:
ThePuppetShow ago
What's you spin on the reply?
JUNOAK ago
Before I tell you could you come up with the simplest, most mundane explanation for that comment? What would it be and how likely would you say it is?
deadly_nightshade ago
okeedokee. Drew is talking about his candidacy for house speaker, which the wapo has offered to live stream. like walter jones, he has never had an affair. all tongue in cheek of course.
Altho - the irony of the remark is greater if the backdrop is a pedo party. it could be random silliness, but the remark pops up better if the backdrop of the event was something that walter jones would never be at, so that Drew passes the Walter Jones test on a technicality. But, it could be random silliness.
Probabilities. the humour is better if there's something non-Walter Jonesish going on and Drew passes on a technicality. I'd prefer it was speed dating or some crazy adult romp. Drew seems to have a sense of humour, so I'll go with that probability.
As to what the non-Walter Jonesish thing is that's going on ... is not indicated. Hopefully it has nothing to do with the Luzzatto kids being on the menu. in a manner of speaking.
JUNOAK ago
Ok, thanks for the reply although I would like to hear from the person I was replying to as well.
I'm a little disappointed you didn't do a little research before-hand. A simple google search turns up this article which was written around the same time.
deadly_nightshade ago
sorry, didn't mean to butt in. I thought it was an open challenge.
But, I think i'm doing pretty good for somebody who's never heard of these people before. i'm not american.
AreWeSure ago
Which would basically mean that people were crawling through these tens of thousands of emails looking the manufacture scandal. If you actually read email by email you get a very different picture.
deadly_nightshade ago
sure, like 14 and the fish, which is more credible as a reference to the 14th paragraph of some treaty dealing with oceanic life. Which is what the email it comes with says.
Or the brietbart tweet, which in the context is about podesta working to free some child trafficker caught in haiti, and probably isn't about his direct activities with dominos, walnut sauce, cheese, pasta, moloch, etc.
podesta's email account was used for all his activities. You'd expect to see that most of them have nothing to do with his darker urges. I do see some attempts to manufacture scandal. I also see concerted attempts to force our view away. At the heart of it all I see something vile, something horrible I wish would go away. ojala que el espiritu de jimmy savile se quede muy afuera de mi pais. May the spirit of Jimmy Savile never touch this land. Me temo. Me temo.
deadly_nightshade ago
thanks, thought provoking. looking over the links ... by number
"entertainment" is a typo. the kids will be entertained for hours
"entertainment" is a typo, The kids will be entertained with face paint
skipping youtube link ...
my kids are the entertainment for us - different context, not the same IMHO.
With this party the kids ARE the entertainment! - different context. this is a kid party, with adults watching, i would have to assume.
my kids are the entertainment - like the other one. different context. this is family oriented.
My kids are the entertainment - again.
the kids are the entertainment - christmas recital with lots of kids and parents mingling. a family context.
sorry, didn't follow the youtube link.
I have to disagree, this is not how the podesta email used it. In this case, the kids were there specially (brought by uber), were the only kids (no other kids mentioned), their ages were listed explicitly, for an adult party where somebody was going to announce candidacy for some senate position, and the kids were there for the entertainment of the adults, in the pool. Given the temperature, it's unlikely they'd be wandering around. no facepaint, games, no other kids, no families except for the pseudo grandmother.
Good point about "the kids are the entertainment", but I think the context is all important. When "the kids are the entertainment", it's a jolly family show with parents present, and the kids are the entertainment for their own parents. In this podesta email, the kids were uber'd in for an "affair" with a bunch of adults frolicking in a heated pool. I think Jimmy Saville would be right at home.
Add to this all the adults the email went out to, and none of them thought it was weird having kids for entertainment, but one person did respond with "I've never had an affair, so I pass the Walter Jones test." which has got to be a sexual reference.
I thought Susan was the wife. no, it's pretty clear she's the daughter. Somebody else has tied the handkerchief email to the dominos emails. the handkerchief was left behind after a game of dominos it would seem. it just gets creepier. Sandler is connected to the dominos, but so are a lot of others. dominos certainly appears to be code for something, along with the pizza-related map.
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1481145 - info about dominos, and the connection to the handkerchief. this person did a deeper search than i did, and found domino emails related by time, subject matter, and people involved.
JUNOAK ago
It took me probably about 5 minutes to compile that list and like I said I found those links through a word-for-word search because I was so sure that the phrase is common. I'm very confident I could find even more links but I think through all those there I've shown that to talk about kids as "the entertainment" is actually very common. You've brushed off a lot of those links I think without really thinking much.
How do you know the other party isn't family oriented. I would say that that is jumping to conclusions with no evidence.
I'm really surprised you would say this. Here's the quote from the email:
This is not how uber works, you don't know the name of your uber driver days ahead of time. Also is it a coincidence that in the 15 or so people included in that email conversation that there is a Bonnie Levin-work cc'd. A criticism I've heard over and over of pizzagate people is that they have no sense of humor or normal casual speech. Although I'm sure you do, for some reason you interpret everything literally in this case.
There's no proof that there were no other kids at the party just because no others are mentioned.
I think you are seeing the email through a particular lens instead of being impartial and that really comes across in your word choices. Your note for the link is particularly egregious:
-
You're not talking about this line are you?:
Is there any other evidence that someone was announcing their candidacy at this party? Because this is clearly a joke. If you look up the man who sent it the only thing I come across is a man who was an aide for a senator. This person would obviously have to be a congressman first before speaker and they would be well known. Also, if he was announcing his candidacy for any position wouldn't that mean it was a big public event? Would that person nonchallantly mention it in an email before they've even announced? I wish people here would be critical about their own positions before asserting them as fact. In my comment you can see that I even suggest that there is a possibility that the pizzagate people could be right about the interpretation of the email, I try and see all sides. Some of these things fall down with the most simple questions.
How do you know this?
That is not how the phrase is used in those links I sent. In one of them it's used sarcastically like "they're a hand full" and in a few of them it is used in the sense that kids are just fun to watch and be around. The youtube link comes to mind for that.
I just wish people on here would use occams razor. Think of the most mundane, simple explanation first and that will most likely be the truth. What in your mind are the kids there to do? She mentions the kids in an offhand way. She first mentions the heated pool and swimming as the most notable and then the kids as an extra detail. If this really were apart of some debaucherous sex ring wouldn't there be more detail? about maybe security and more detail about what's expected? what are the rules, what exactly will be happening here? But I don't know maybe this is a common thing for them. But if it were common wouldn't we see it mentioned more often in the emails? There are a decades worth of emails and only this one comment about kids being in the pool as 'entertainment'. If they were all really expected to implicitly understand what that means why don't we see it anywhere else? Maybe they usually arrange these things through texts? or different emails?
There are so many questions and gaps that would need to be addressed before you reached your conclusion. The simplest explanation (and so the most likely) is definitely the mundane detail that there will be kids playing in a pool.
deadly_nightshade ago
the only time i see kids as entertainment is in family context, and it's pretty clear. usually face paint and bouncy castles are mentioned. To me none of your links match the context. Most if not all of your links are advertisements for some family friendly activity, not a private party. In this podesta email we have specific kids for entertainment, their names and ages are listed, their situation is specified (in the pool for sure).
The only reply that isn't just an rrsp, is one from someone looking forward to the "affair". presumably with the luzzatto kids.
Uber - ok, a bit better. Is this Bonnie Levin any relation to the Luzzatto kids? Doesn't look like it. So, still a designated driver, of no particular relation to the kids.
Family friendly parties alway talk about what the kids will be doing. and it's not entertaining the adults, that's for sure. This private party is of a different sort entirely. if there are other kids there I'm sure they'll be better off not seen and not heard. Anyways, I don't think it's critical that no other kids be there. The key thing is the luzzatto kids, and what they are there for.
I'm sorry that you think that my byline "Luzzatto kids in pool for adult enjoyment" is more egregious than what's being done to the Luzzatto kids.
As for speaker of the house, I don't think he was serious either, but it sets context for the party. Poor Drew was left off the last invite, so he was glad he got in this time, and made light of it.
"no facepaint, games" ... what? It's like we're reading different emails. There might be facepaint and games, but not the kid friendly kind, more the eyes wide shut kind. Certainly, none of that was mentioned, but you can't assume by it's absence of mention in the email that it's a given that the simple presence of the luzzatto kids means there will be kid friendly facepaint and games.
it's "so you'll have some further entertainment." not "the kids are the entertainment" or "my kids are the entertainment for us". The latter two are about kids having fun, and that this creates happiness for all who watch. The first one I get an entirely different sense from, like the kids are toys that the invitees will be playing with. The invitees are in charge of the fun, not the kids. That's the sense I get.
I think in this case, occams razor leads to the unacceptable conclusion, not the easy one you're pointing to.
Mentioned are, the pool and swimming in the pool, what's going to be in the pool (the kids for sure), the temperature (where woolies I guess), and some patio table. The kids appear to be a star attraction, I wouldn't say it was an offhand way. She's far to specific, like she was listing the menu, except she doesn't list the menu, only where the "dine al fresco" will be served.
This is not a conclusion. There is no video. We are stumbling in the dark and gathering out the outlines from what we can touch. This email looks wrong to me. The kids should not be in the pool for adult enjoyment. Why does nobody else on the email thread see this as other than an opportunity for themselves? Why are these kids being trotted out like this, not only at the pool, but also online with that evie's crib, "Evelyn is growing up, soon she will be the Queen of the entire US of A, right now, for a limited time only, you can spend some time with her online, raw and uncut. Take advantage of this now, as in the future she will have the power of life and death over you." Now, i think the probability is that spending time refers to going to that blog and looking it up and down, not something seedy. But, blog author Mr T appears to be not direct family, but a cousin of some sort. The claim that it's some sort of window shopping thing is not ruled out.
If I have a conclusion here, it is this. The null hypothesis we must try to disprove is that the pedosta emails indicate actionable pedophilia. My conclusion is that the null hypothesis is NOT ruled out. It has not been disproven, and we must as moral beings continue to investigate. What I'm saying about this email, and certain other podesta emails is not something that will convict in anything but the public eye. I do believe it is sufficient to warrant investigation. The police should be on this like a wet t-shirt. so to speak.
The next steps would be
take it to the real world.
find victims willing to testify. find witnesses. The police should do this, or willing professionals. If volunteers do this, there must be great care.
find hard concrete evidence. We have a lot of names, and even phone numbers. Surely somebody on the periphery can be contacted in a non-intrusive gentle way and their input sought. Again, the police should do this. At the least, willing professionals.
the evidence i've seen is circumstantial, not probative. So far, the cover-up is by far the biggest thing convincing me something is in this. Rubber has to hit the road, and this time we need to get all the way to the end. No more franklin coverup, no more conspiracy of silence.
I'd love to know what's in that anthony weiner laptop folder called "life insurance".
FriesischShipping ago
Save it for the trial.
FriesischShipping ago
Please stop wasting your time with this concern troll.
JUNOAK ago
Why not? I get that you've worded it specifically to make it sound creepy but being in the pool with kids is a time when adults and kids play together and interact. Also, kids are just plain fun and entertaining (ctrl-f "entertain"):
https://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/kids-are-the-perfect-form-of-entertainment?utm_term=.ibye2GNxb#.lpx3bv5eO
http://www.familyconnectionsc.org/we-need-each-other/
http://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog-entries/madnomads/4/1435835783/tpod.html
http://thedreamytraveler.blogspot.com/2012_09_01_archive.html
https://kukuloo.wordpress.com/
https://books.google.com/books?id=48dtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=%22entertained+by+the+kids%22+pool&source=bl&ots=uPEiQ2W-DP&sig=Gi0KqPXJVMw8sEk1BH-XPlo5JS4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr7anBxKfRAhVE9GMKHcmxCgEQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=%22entertained%20by%20the%20kids%22%20pool&f=false
http://littlenomo.tumblr.com/ <- in this one she lists the childrens ages
I'm not sure how many examples would convince you that the combination of saying the kids will be "further entertainment" and then listing their ages actually doesn't point towards pedophilia or even imply anything out of the ordinary.
I raised a lot of questions at the end of my last comment and I just want you to think about the fact that this is the only instance of someone using this kind of phrasing in this way. If John Podesta really was going to these things regularly where it was understood what it was meant by "so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in that pool for sure." why don't we see it anywhere else in the decades worth of emails? Or do you believe that anyone looking at this email would understand it to mean that the children are there for some kind of pedophile child abuse?
Your comments are full of assumptions and biases. I think I might make a second comment highlighting all the instances of biased assumptions. This one is very obvious because you still find the absolute worst way to interpret this.
The claim is asserted and must be proved, backed by evidence. A null hypothesis is a negative not a positive.
I can't argue with that. No one can. If that's what you feel then ok.
deadly_nightshade ago
i'm not sure why you think i don't find kids entertaining. I do. I believe the issue here is the nature of the entertainment.
listing ages in the very long section you linked does not at all seem predatory. the listing of ages in the podesta email is on the predatory side.
I understand your point of view. I agree it is a possibility. We disagree on the balance of the probabilities. You seem to think my way of thinking has zero probability. I disagree.
As to why it only occurs once. Maybe he deleted the others? Maybe he ... has more than one email account.
I'd prefer not to deal with ad hominem stuff. what exactly do you think I'm saying? that Bonnie Levin devoured the kids in the car? The absolute worst way? What are you talking about?
Honestly, what comes to mind here is not what happened but what didn't happen. Where are the parents? Other family, except for the step grandmother? As a parent, this raises a flag to me. these young children should have been accompanied by a parent, but weren't. I think that's odd. Not sacrificing to moloch odd, but just odd.
there are two claims being made.
there is no pedophile stuff going on.
there is pedophile stuff going on.
Logically, since both are claims, by your statement either must be proven and backed by evidence. But this is not a court of law. This is a test of probabilities.
You are attempting to prove that nothing pedophile is going on by insisting that there in an innocuous interpretation or explanation for all the weird phrasings. I don't disagree, necessarily, but it seems to me that you have not ruled out an alternate interpretation.
Now, with the null hypothesis approach, we're supposed to disprove something, not prove it.
If we take your null hypothesis as, I'm guessing, that there is no pedophile stuff going on. the common view of things. then your alternative hypothesis is the converse, I would guess, which is that there is pedophilia going on. this would be the cause of the phenomenon.
Unfortunately, with this null and alternative, proving the null does not rule out the alternate hypothesis. It simply confirms that both scenarios are possible.
If instead,
null - that pedophile is there. this is the common view of things.
alternate - that pedophile is not there. this is what I'd like to be true.
again, proving the alternate, that the pedophile is not there, does not rule out the null, that the pedophile is there.
instead, try to disprove that pedophile is there, to a 95% probability. If we can rule out the null hypothesis then the alternate must solely be true. If we cannot rule out the null hypothesis then both scenarios must be considered. i labelled the emails innocuous where in my opinion the probability of a feasible reasonable pedophile or creepy interpretation was very low. The more likely the creepy interpretation, the more stars i gave it.
lols! is that all it takes? I'm just not a person who thinks kids are there for my further entertainment.
let's not forget that we're identifying areas for investigation. sifting through these emails isn't anything that'll stand up in a court of law. Each email should be evaluated by this measure, and areas for further investigation identified. The emails are not the end of the investigation, only the beginning. What we're doing here is stamping out false leads, and identifying promising investigations.
JUNOAK ago
My main point would be that you are approaching this thing with a heavy bias towards a particular explanation. The explanation is something that is way outside of normal everyday behavior. [Edit: the fact that it is far outside of everyday expectations means it needs that much more evidence to support it]
You've backed off your initial claim a lot but let me highlight all of the things you couldn't have known/were jumping to conclusions from your first interpretation of the email:
All of those things you assumed with no evidence, and why? Because those things would fit the conclusion you're looking for. You're specifically looking for the interpretation which fits the claim instead of looking at it with no bias.
This is particularly evident in our exchange about uber. You said: "the kids were there specially (brought by uber)" and I replied:
*notice how I don't assume that that Bonnie is who's being referenced or that my interpretation is fact at all, because I couldn't know those things. I'm just looking for the simplest most likely explanation.
You then reply to this saying:
You accept that as the conclusion and then hone in on the interpretation that would support the conclusion you're looking for. Why do that? You will always be able to come up with an interpretation of the facts that will fit a claim. But it is irresponsible and unreasonable to jump to the pedophile claim.
Here is what I think would be reasonable claims about the email exchange (these are assumptions based on what would be the most simple and common explanations given the circumstances):
I looked up Tamera Luzzatto and she looks fairly old for these to be her children so I think they are probably her grandkids. I think that the Bonnie referenced in the email is that same one cc'd in the email. I think that Bonnie is probably a close friend of the mother of the children and of Tamera, she could be a relative but I think that's less likely. I think that she must be close to Tamera because Tamera trusts her grandkids with her. I think when she lists their names and ages she's doing it in a way like all grandmothers like to talk about their kids but also to tell other people who've never met them what the age ranges are so they know what to expect. Since if you just said kids a teenager is a completely different expectation than if they were toddler or in between. Kids those ages (11,9,7) are very rambunctious and playful so following that up with how they will be 'entertainment' in reference to them being in the pool makes sense (I provided many examples of family members/others referencing kids as 'entertainment'). Teenagers and toddlers behave a lot differently from kids those ages, so the specificity makes sense.
I think that there probably will be other kids at that party since with a group of adults like that some are bound to have children and it is difficult for parents to get a night away with a lot of hassle. But they would almost certainly be welcome since there are other kids there already. That there are other kids there I'm least sure about but it seems plausible given the circumstances (*if this were a normal party).
I think that since Tamera seems to be the one arranging things that she will be there. So basically the kids are being transported from their parents house to their grandparents to spend some time with their grandmother and her friends. Because Tamera lists her grandkids names and ages I'm guessing there are some people who have never met them. But I also think that some of the people have met her grandkids and know them well. Bonnie for one as I mentioned earlier. *That some of the people know the kids though I'm less sure about, there's no real good reason to believe that for besides bonnie.
The rest of the email exchange I've gone over what I think the most likely explanation is which is that they're joking about a topical news story.
And that's it. Do you think that this explanation sounds reasonable? But not just reasonable but is actually the simplest explanation given those series of details? If you were to come across similar situations with those details what would be the most common explanation? What is at the top of the bell curve?
Wouldn't you agree that pedophilia in general for kids at a party is way out of the norm? Statistically speaking that it is a rare occurrence from everyday expectations?
But you make a case for it. You say that her use of describing the kids as entertainment is "like the kids are toys that the invitees will be playing with". And you say that her listing the ages of the kids seems to be "on the predatory side". You also say that the parents not being there and only the step-grandmother(?) being there is very unusual. This is actually without any evidence, you don't know what relatives to the kids will be there. You also don't know what the kids relationship to the people there is generally.
But here is evidence against the claim of pedophilia and a pedophilia ring wrt this email:
You say that the kids will be there for the adults entertainment over and over, but her word choice I don't think supports that. She mentions the kids and then says "so you’ll have some further entertainment". Her word choices don't imply that the kids are there for anyone, at least she doesn't explicitly say that.
The claim also relies on the people receiving the email to implicitly understand what her phrasing means (that the kids are there for pedophilic child abuse purposes). But as I've said before there are no other instances of this kind of thing happening in the emails. This would require that this has happened many times before so that she would know that everyone understood what she meant. As I mentioned before this could mean that this is not their usual form of communication about this but that would mean that the email itself is an outler in their normal behavior. When we are looking for the simplest explanation this doesn't help to have to assume a whole foundation of context that we don't have, and also that this email is unusual in that context.
Building off my last point I want to remind you that she has listed the kids names and ages, this means almost certainly that there are people going to the party that don't know the kids. So I think this poses a HUGE problem to the claim since we need to include some bizarre assumptions. What would the circumstances have to be for her to mention that her grandkids are coming to the party to be some kind of pedophilic entertainment but to never explicitly say that to the people who have never even met them. The people would almost certainly have to be told at some point what that means, but we have to assume that that happens somewhere else outside of the emails.
The word choice she is using implies that actually the pool is the main event here. She lists it first and talks about swimming and then says the kids are 'further entertainment', seemingly referencing back to the pool.
The pizzagate emails as a whole would have to be outliers. There are only about 20 something emails in the list and there are 10s of thousands of emails in the leak. This also implies a greater context that is necessary but that we also don't have.
I could go on and on about the bias that you explicitly make and that are implicit all throughout your word choices. You say that the kids are "trotted out" and are listed "like a menu"; you call it an "adult party" over and over and say that kids are there "for adult enjoyment". You also bend over backwards to try and make the 'entertainment' examples I provided not fit to this one. You say:"the only time i see kids as entertainment is in family context, and it's pretty clear. usually face paint and bouncy castles are mentioned. [Edit:"it's "so you'll have some further entertainment." not "the kids are the entertainment" or "my kids are the entertainment for us"."] You say that these are not examples of a private party, but we couldn't have an example of that on the public internet.
Just be careful, clear your mind of biases. You are clearly looking for an explanation and trying to make it fit. The weight of the claim especially deserves a lot more respect than that.
fartyshorts ago
Dominoes on pasta or pizza is still completely unexplainable unless it's code for something. The etymology of the words "Domino" and "Dominoes" is the same as "Dominate", i.e. master/lord. Also, before all of these emails, Dominoes pizza created this ad:
https://i.sli.mg/HDsoRx.jpg
EDIT: I should note that Dominoes rejected the ad, but only after the public outcry...
JUNOAK ago
I commented about how the dominos thing actually isn't unusual:
And
And yes thanks for that edit. I looked it up and I think that is a real stretch. But Dominos didn't reject it after a public outcry, they didn't even create it. It was created by an ad agency and they rejected it before it was ever seen by the public.
lawfag123 ago
Great job. Thanks for doing that!