@readstuff, I need to remove this submission per rule 4. This is a meta discussion, and as such, belongs on /v/pizzagatewhatever. Please resubmit it there. Thank you.
As for activism-related posts like this, a fresh discussion has been started over here by @sound_of_silence. You're encouraged to chime in, along with everyone in the community.
Wecan, I left this up because a)It had linked sources b)It is directly related to advancing the pizzagate investigation and is evidence based and c)It didn't seem like a Rule 4 violation, which I understood to refer to unsourced discussions such as rants, rambling venting, opinions, and complaints about how the sub is being moderated or infiltrated by shills. Meta to me means abstract discussion, not sourced tactical planning. I as a mod could use a specific description with examples of what is and is not "Meta". Also worth clarifying would be how much "meta" in a post that also includes linked evidence supporting the premise of the headline is allowed before the whole post becomes a Rule 4 violation. I have seen many posts removed because they contain opinion and speculation alongside the premise and supporting evidence. I have advised users to put their speculative, opinion-related material into a comment in the post so as to avoid triggering Rule 4. Pinging other mods, who may have additional questions like mine. Thanks. :-)
@gopluckyourself@Millennial_Falcon@Phobos_Mothership@Kwijibo@l4l1lul3l0
The post was not investigative content but a general announcement/suggestion to the community. Per rule 4, this kind of content belongs on /v/pizzagatewhatever. Adding a few Pizzagate-related links to a post doesn't magically make it comply with rule 4. To illustrate my point: having found something suspicious in your research but not knowing what to do with it, an investigative post along the lines of "I have found this source, this is how I believe it is relevant, please discuss" is a post that does comply with rule 4, and is allowed by submission rules. On the other hand, a post composed in a public service announcement fashion, directed at the community with the goal of improving certain processes or tendencies, or discussing community strategies, will not become a sourced general discussion by adding in a few links illustrating your point.
Let me put it this way: if your sources are the meat and gravy of your submission, it is sourced content; if they're the garnish, it is not.
We've always removed and redirected submissions that are non-factual in their focus.
Thank you. That's a sensible description of an unhelpful policy that may account in part for the fact that this investigation is treading water rather than breaking through to widespread attention. The principals must be made to explain themselves and the MSM and authorities must be made to do their jobs. Substantially all of our subscribership and readership is in what you call sourced Pizzagate, and little to none in what you call Meta and elsewhere. That's the opposite of what is needed now. Virtually all Pizzagate followers already know that these matters deserve serious attention from the larger community. You should be guiding discussion so sat increase the ability of our small community to move the broader public to bring that attention to bear. Instead, your rather academic subverse distinctions just limits and segregates our own communications and communicators and makes it very hard to direct focus and harness power where it is most needed and most likely to be productive.
I don't agree. Neither do ten thousand subscribers who, for some reason, chose to subscribe to the sourced, investigative subverse, but not to the everything-Pizzagate-related-goes /v/pizzagatewhatever.
I was lurking on 4Chan/pol/ as is my way following the threads there on pizzagate about four days ago. Someone posted some information about code words used by swingers (ie. people in the swinging lifestyle) as follows.
heat the pool = hold a swingers party
pool = swingers party
swim = orgy
sweater = condom
al fresco = with no risk of getting caught
The anon added "don't ask me how I know this stuff, but I know this stuff".
At least for me, this threw light on the probable meaning of that odd sentence "they will be in that pool for sure".
Firstly I wonder if someone on Voat knows anyone into swinging who could corroborate that these are the correctly translated code words.
Secondly it is odd no one (the composers of the emails nor the recipients of the emails) have broken their silence to clear up what sounds sinister to many.
Thirdly another 4Chan anon pointed out that Jon Leibowitz, one of the recipients of the email from Tamera Luzzato, is Jon Stewart, former host of the Daily Show. Consider that the Daily Show pushback against pizzagate has been disturbingly out of proportion and hostile since this scandal broke. Initially there was Stephen Corbert's odd, unfunny and IMO straight up menacing rant right into the camera, which was quite a strange tone for him. Then there was the on and off again project by the Daily Show to feature pizzagate probably in order to ridicule it. A month after they first cancelled, they offered a second time to interview David Seaman, and again got cold feet at the last moment. At a minimum it was unprofessional to dick this guy around wasting his time, but it looks very much like they were afraid, no matter how much they prepared, that they wouldn't be able to spin the story as "an alt right fever dream" or whatever the narrative was and panicked. Another consideration: Jon Stewart was once roommates with Anthony Weiner http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2009/05/anthony_weiner_vs_jon_stewart.html
I did not know any of this. It is explosive if accurate, and should be posted. Moreover, it suggests a powerful extension of the potential reach and uptake of the Just Tell Us campaign and your hashtag ideas, e.g. #JustTellUs, Jon Stewart, formerly of the Daily Show, what did Tamera Luzzatto mean when she invited you for "further entertainment" with her three little grandchildren (ages 7, 9 and 11 in her heated swimming pool?
Interesting. Gotta say in Jon Stewarts (potential) defence, when Breitbart was trying to out Podesta over covering up child trafficking in 2010 or thereabouts, Jon Stewart did a segment lampooning how podesta had turned what was supposed to be an enquiry into pedophilia into an attack on the credibility of the investigators. I cant recall the link etc but I emailed this info to David Seaman to use as ammo if the daily show short-thrifted him in the now cancelled interview
So unless Jon Stewart was compromised thereafter....he seemed on the level back then
I love it, but how many average Americans have any idea of either of those issues -- the pool/Podesta/Luzzatto issue or the "handkerchief" issue?
And what more would it take to explain them?
It's true, most of us who are aware of what seems to be going on would love to have Podesta explain these strange events.
Virtually none, but isn't that really the point? We need a way to break through and get the attention of many many more, so that the MSM and the authorities can be forced to explain why they do not force the principals to explain.
Yes, but, it has to be something that immediately hooks the reader -- and not cause them to just say "huh?"
LOVE the "Just tell us" opener -- it's great.
It's kind of like the reality of children repeating what has happened to them and it sounded so insane that no one believed them. At this point, more do believe the children but not enough as yet. Even when some of us repeat some of this stuff to other people, they look at you like you're nuts.
This is a great idea -- "Just tell us" -- but think you have to test the questions?
I go to Facebook and I go to the post that has the most comments and I start responding to random people so that way they get an alert and anybody on that thread gets an alert that there's a new post that's the best way to get attention and people say things like I have no idea or is this true and then I respond back to them again
I do this on the micro bases one person at a time I've become somewhat of a troll for the cause but it is working people are sharing what I post and commenting and that's what matters
Probably very expensive and probably they would try. Even a credible inquiry about a media buy will get serious attention. I had in mind a range of net exposures.
The cost for superbowl commercials is the absolute highest of the entire year. Also the time spots have already been booked. BUT could be something as far as we could print flyers or something and hand out outside sports bars ? or put on cars when people are at their friends' homes for superbowl parties?
I am hoping? expecting? Trump will look into this seeing Podesta was on government payroll .....at minimum.
The fact that no one has become the spokesperson for this scandal speaks volumes. Whether it's all being misread or be it true...no one is saying squat except that goofy interview on CNN.
Seems the concerns are focused around whether Russia hacked this. Who the fuck cares if a feral woodchuck got to these and released them. It's such a moot and obvious, distracting point.
It's insanity. No. I take that back. You know what's insanity? My fellow peers who are denying this. That's more shocking than this entire scandal.
Like this idea a lot but can't imagine the major networks airing an ad of a 3-year old taped to a table. Right there is the proof that it is immoral and grotesque behavior to do that to a child and then to post it on your business social media.
In case there are no listeners here from NPR, I used to listen every single day on my way to work for many years. The Pew Charitable Trusts were mentioned every single day as donors. I believe they had pretty much every major creepy Illuminati globalist on the list also, but Pew Charitable Trusts were one that stood out to me because it sounded like a weird name.
Great idea. Personally, I'd be more inclined to financially support ads aimed directly at Alefantes. "Just tell us why you posted this?", and then have a picture of the child taped to the desk or the baby hotard etc. Jimmy seems less protected by power and is more likely to crack than Podesta will ever be. Also, the public are more likely to have a reaction of empathy and shock to the children in these photos than they are to phrases in emails that are open to wide interpretation. Just a couple of thoughts but a very good idea from the OP.
The problem with only going after JA is that I'd bet a boatload of money that they'd love to make him take the fall for it all. They'd allow just enough to come out to get him caught, he'd probably "commit suicide" and then that's that, end of story. I'm sure they're in containment mode right now, and I bet JA is scared for his life. (If he's not he should be.)
Readstuff, crosspost this in v/pizzagatememes, and look around among the other posters there, ping them, and see if someone could whip these up for you.
wecanhelp ago
@readstuff, I need to remove this submission per rule 4. This is a meta discussion, and as such, belongs on /v/pizzagatewhatever. Please resubmit it there. Thank you.
As for activism-related posts like this, a fresh discussion has been started over here by @sound_of_silence. You're encouraged to chime in, along with everyone in the community.
Vindicator ago
Wecan, I left this up because a)It had linked sources b)It is directly related to advancing the pizzagate investigation and is evidence based and c)It didn't seem like a Rule 4 violation, which I understood to refer to unsourced discussions such as rants, rambling venting, opinions, and complaints about how the sub is being moderated or infiltrated by shills. Meta to me means abstract discussion, not sourced tactical planning. I as a mod could use a specific description with examples of what is and is not "Meta". Also worth clarifying would be how much "meta" in a post that also includes linked evidence supporting the premise of the headline is allowed before the whole post becomes a Rule 4 violation. I have seen many posts removed because they contain opinion and speculation alongside the premise and supporting evidence. I have advised users to put their speculative, opinion-related material into a comment in the post so as to avoid triggering Rule 4. Pinging other mods, who may have additional questions like mine. Thanks. :-) @gopluckyourself @Millennial_Falcon @Phobos_Mothership @Kwijibo @l4l1lul3l0
wecanhelp ago
The post was not investigative content but a general announcement/suggestion to the community. Per rule 4, this kind of content belongs on /v/pizzagatewhatever. Adding a few Pizzagate-related links to a post doesn't magically make it comply with rule 4. To illustrate my point: having found something suspicious in your research but not knowing what to do with it, an investigative post along the lines of "I have found this source, this is how I believe it is relevant, please discuss" is a post that does comply with rule 4, and is allowed by submission rules. On the other hand, a post composed in a public service announcement fashion, directed at the community with the goal of improving certain processes or tendencies, or discussing community strategies, will not become a sourced general discussion by adding in a few links illustrating your point.
Let me put it this way: if your sources are the meat and gravy of your submission, it is sourced content; if they're the garnish, it is not.
We've always removed and redirected submissions that are non-factual in their focus.
readstuff ago
Thank you. That's a sensible description of an unhelpful policy that may account in part for the fact that this investigation is treading water rather than breaking through to widespread attention. The principals must be made to explain themselves and the MSM and authorities must be made to do their jobs. Substantially all of our subscribership and readership is in what you call sourced Pizzagate, and little to none in what you call Meta and elsewhere. That's the opposite of what is needed now. Virtually all Pizzagate followers already know that these matters deserve serious attention from the larger community. You should be guiding discussion so sat increase the ability of our small community to move the broader public to bring that attention to bear. Instead, your rather academic subverse distinctions just limits and segregates our own communications and communicators and makes it very hard to direct focus and harness power where it is most needed and most likely to be productive.
wecanhelp ago
I don't agree. Neither do ten thousand subscribers who, for some reason, chose to subscribe to the sourced, investigative subverse, but not to the everything-Pizzagate-related-goes /v/pizzagatewhatever.
readstuff ago
Okay, but losing the comments already made is unhelpful.
wtf_is_happening ago
I was lurking on 4Chan/pol/ as is my way following the threads there on pizzagate about four days ago. Someone posted some information about code words used by swingers (ie. people in the swinging lifestyle) as follows.
heat the pool = hold a swingers party
pool = swingers party
swim = orgy
sweater = condom
al fresco = with no risk of getting caught
The anon added "don't ask me how I know this stuff, but I know this stuff".
At least for me, this threw light on the probable meaning of that odd sentence "they will be in that pool for sure".
Firstly I wonder if someone on Voat knows anyone into swinging who could corroborate that these are the correctly translated code words.
Secondly it is odd no one (the composers of the emails nor the recipients of the emails) have broken their silence to clear up what sounds sinister to many.
Thirdly another 4Chan anon pointed out that Jon Leibowitz, one of the recipients of the email from Tamera Luzzato, is Jon Stewart, former host of the Daily Show. Consider that the Daily Show pushback against pizzagate has been disturbingly out of proportion and hostile since this scandal broke. Initially there was Stephen Corbert's odd, unfunny and IMO straight up menacing rant right into the camera, which was quite a strange tone for him. Then there was the on and off again project by the Daily Show to feature pizzagate probably in order to ridicule it. A month after they first cancelled, they offered a second time to interview David Seaman, and again got cold feet at the last moment. At a minimum it was unprofessional to dick this guy around wasting his time, but it looks very much like they were afraid, no matter how much they prepared, that they wouldn't be able to spin the story as "an alt right fever dream" or whatever the narrative was and panicked. Another consideration: Jon Stewart was once roommates with Anthony Weiner http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2009/05/anthony_weiner_vs_jon_stewart.html
readstuff ago
I did not know any of this. It is explosive if accurate, and should be posted. Moreover, it suggests a powerful extension of the potential reach and uptake of the Just Tell Us campaign and your hashtag ideas, e.g. #JustTellUs, Jon Stewart, formerly of the Daily Show, what did Tamera Luzzatto mean when she invited you for "further entertainment" with her three little grandchildren (ages 7, 9 and 11 in her heated swimming pool?
MolochHunter ago
Interesting. Gotta say in Jon Stewarts (potential) defence, when Breitbart was trying to out Podesta over covering up child trafficking in 2010 or thereabouts, Jon Stewart did a segment lampooning how podesta had turned what was supposed to be an enquiry into pedophilia into an attack on the credibility of the investigators. I cant recall the link etc but I emailed this info to David Seaman to use as ammo if the daily show short-thrifted him in the now cancelled interview
So unless Jon Stewart was compromised thereafter....he seemed on the level back then
Votescam ago
I love it, but how many average Americans have any idea of either of those issues -- the pool/Podesta/Luzzatto issue or the "handkerchief" issue? And what more would it take to explain them?
It's true, most of us who are aware of what seems to be going on would love to have Podesta explain these strange events.
readstuff ago
Virtually none, but isn't that really the point? We need a way to break through and get the attention of many many more, so that the MSM and the authorities can be forced to explain why they do not force the principals to explain.
Votescam ago
Yes, but, it has to be something that immediately hooks the reader -- and not cause them to just say "huh?"
LOVE the "Just tell us" opener -- it's great.
It's kind of like the reality of children repeating what has happened to them and it sounded so insane that no one believed them. At this point, more do believe the children but not enough as yet. Even when some of us repeat some of this stuff to other people, they look at you like you're nuts.
This is a great idea -- "Just tell us" -- but think you have to test the questions?
Again -- it's a GREAT idea.
:)
Jakestr ago
Good one I already plastered the first just tell us all over media even New York Times before they could block me
readstuff ago
Where? And please let us know what responses you find.
Jakestr ago
I go to Facebook and I go to the post that has the most comments and I start responding to random people so that way they get an alert and anybody on that thread gets an alert that there's a new post that's the best way to get attention and people say things like I have no idea or is this true and then I respond back to them again
MolochHunter ago
lol their CEO woulda loved that
Jakestr ago
I do this on the micro bases one person at a time I've become somewhat of a troll for the cause but it is working people are sharing what I post and commenting and that's what matters
Z11Mama ago
Why can't we buy airtime for a primetime tv commercial? Would they prevent it from happening?
readstuff ago
Probably very expensive and probably they would try. Even a credible inquiry about a media buy will get serious attention. I had in mind a range of net exposures.
crystalclearme ago
The cost for superbowl commercials is the absolute highest of the entire year. Also the time spots have already been booked. BUT could be something as far as we could print flyers or something and hand out outside sports bars ? or put on cars when people are at their friends' homes for superbowl parties?
shoosh ago
It would be a good idea for a series of ytube or vid.me 1 minute commercials.
The note section underneath could link to a whole series of articles for more reference.
DawnofTruth ago
I am hoping? expecting? Trump will look into this seeing Podesta was on government payroll .....at minimum.
The fact that no one has become the spokesperson for this scandal speaks volumes. Whether it's all being misread or be it true...no one is saying squat except that goofy interview on CNN. Seems the concerns are focused around whether Russia hacked this. Who the fuck cares if a feral woodchuck got to these and released them. It's such a moot and obvious, distracting point. It's insanity. No. I take that back. You know what's insanity? My fellow peers who are denying this. That's more shocking than this entire scandal.
banenya ago
Like this idea a lot but can't imagine the major networks airing an ad of a 3-year old taped to a table. Right there is the proof that it is immoral and grotesque behavior to do that to a child and then to post it on your business social media.
cakeoflightylight ago
In case there are no listeners here from NPR, I used to listen every single day on my way to work for many years. The Pew Charitable Trusts were mentioned every single day as donors. I believe they had pretty much every major creepy Illuminati globalist on the list also, but Pew Charitable Trusts were one that stood out to me because it sounded like a weird name.
theosimon ago
Great idea. Personally, I'd be more inclined to financially support ads aimed directly at Alefantes. "Just tell us why you posted this?", and then have a picture of the child taped to the desk or the baby hotard etc. Jimmy seems less protected by power and is more likely to crack than Podesta will ever be. Also, the public are more likely to have a reaction of empathy and shock to the children in these photos than they are to phrases in emails that are open to wide interpretation. Just a couple of thoughts but a very good idea from the OP.
Dasistnichtgut ago
The problem with only going after JA is that I'd bet a boatload of money that they'd love to make him take the fall for it all. They'd allow just enough to come out to get him caught, he'd probably "commit suicide" and then that's that, end of story. I'm sure they're in containment mode right now, and I bet JA is scared for his life. (If he's not he should be.)
Wolftrail7272 ago
This is genius.
Vindicator ago
Readstuff, crosspost this in v/pizzagatememes, and look around among the other posters there, ping them, and see if someone could whip these up for you.
gopluckyourself ago
I actually like this.