Looking back on that, there wasn't a lot of valid response to vindicator's comment about it changing. I'm trying to formulate a new sticky right now. I want it to be MINE so that it's ME that is pinged every time.
Gonna make it, give 'em 2 days to respond, make the changes needed, and not allow the discussion of it again for 6 months.
I don't see a direct relevance to pizzagate. I scanned through it, and even tried to go through a second time to find the direct link. The equivalent of "something fucky" doesn't establish a direct relevance to pizzagate as defined in the sidebar.
In this case, you've got a member of the elite -- the mayor of Seattle -- having to resign over multiple underage sexual abuse allegations which were covered up by the justice system at the time -- who pushes back against the Progressive trashing of the city via homeless camps and then suddenly his past becomes relevant and he's out (i.e. as if PG blackmail engaged). I don't know how you could have a better example of directly related to PG! I see three direct connections, any ONE of which makes it legit:
The mayor of a major city is resigning for sexually abusing kids
The kids complained at the time, but the justice system covered it up
Suddenly, that "justice" system has revoked the mayor's Get Out of Jail Free pass for some reason -- potentially a prime example of the major theory of Pizzagate: that pedos are put in positions of power so they can be blackmailed
The OP documented everything he could find related to this situation and presented it to voaters with a "something stinks, but I don't know what" headline, and it gets deleted because he couldn't put all the pieces together himself or figure out how Voat formatting works. Tons of work down the toilet, from his point of view (most users don't realize how easy it is to repost things from Removed Submissions, or where to find it).
Plus, it really feeds the shill narrative that we're just a honeypot here.
It would be one thing if it had a few legit points and then a bunch of swiss-cheese argumentation pushing some retarded narrative with unrelated bits of unsourced information. We get tons of those disinfo posts. But this seemed to me like a serious attempt to round up all the available information on a PG related topic to try to get to the bottom of it with many eyeballs. Isn't that the whole point of this subverse?
It's a nice thought that people should post their works-in-progress on pgwhatever for collaboration, and then post a polished piece on the main board after the work has been done, but that's not how things actually function. No one subscribes to that sub so people don't see what's posted there unless they are pinged in specifically by the OP. Posts don't get more than a few eyeballs in that sub.
Expecting "works in progress" to be posted there first just kills the momentum -- especially when Voat is supposed to be an uncensored venue. It's just not intuitive for people. Instead of expecting v/pizzagate to be the internet's glossy, four-color, hardbound official Pizzagate encyclopedia, we would really be better off with a special, curated, separate sub for best-of-the-best PG research, and let the hashing out happen on the main sub with all the subscribers who want to get involved, IMHO.
Nothing is "down the drain," though. ALL OP has to do is copy/paste the post as a new post and explain what he means by "something stinks," or alternatively, just get rid of the clickbait all-caps claims in the title that he didn't even try to explain in the post. The large block quotes also need explanation (as to their relevance). Otherwise, it just smacks of being a giant slide/distraction post. On that note, the username "Omega777" reminds me of Jem777, one of Amalek's groupies (more likely one of his alts, actually). Not going to accuse the user/account, here. Just a bit of yellow flag.
You know it, I know it, but if a user is burned out by gathering all of the research on this god-awful subject, getting it typed into Voat and hyperlinked without accidentally hitting the back button, only to see it deleted for editorial reasons, HE may not know it. Especially infrequent posters. If the user is an abuse survivor or close to one, or a frustrated member of law enforcement unable to bust elite perps, removing a post on a legit topic with real links made to a 'free speech' forum for rewriting may be a huge morale blow.
I think we would do well to ask ourselves what the purpose of this sub is. Is it to curate the best PG content, where clear, concise, hard-hitting research posts that demonstrate Pizzagate is not Fake News is the top priority? Is it to provide a place where investigators can collaborate and encourage each other without fear of censorship? Is it to expose and debunk the false narratives pushed by Amalek and other pedo-loving shills? We need to be clear what order these priorities fall in and make sure our rules and administration of them doesn't have the unintended consequence of derailing any of them. This investigation should be gratifying for people, or they will stop trying.
This was my explanation when I removed the post: "please tell us what you mean when you say it doesn't add up. you went to so much effort to list all those links and paste all that text. please give us the upshot in the title or in an explanation at the top of your post. thx."
I don't see how that is discouraging, telling him to repost with a bit of explanation. He was free to discuss with me, but chose not to. I also pinged him in my comment yesterday in this thread, and no response as of yet. If he will put in all that "effort" to pull a bunch of links off google and paste a bunch of text with no explanation and a clickbait title, then you'd think he would put in the slight effort to add a bit of explanation and repost, but my money is betting he won't, at least not for a while, because it's probably Amalek, so there probably is no explanation, and he probably won't log into that account for a while and see this thread again. The users that actually are here to contribute do not get discouraged easily, and are willing to work with mods.
I was unfortunately absent for many days recently, and never heard (or maybe i did and it just didn't register) what happened to the most recent sticky. Did we decide that this subverse needed an overhaul?
No decision has been made. The sticky had been up for a week and a user complained in a post that the normal sticky should be put back up, and I agreed so I put it back up.
I think that was general conclusion -- users would like to revisit what is and isn't Rule 1 compliant, as well as how and why mods may ban users. I need to print the thread out and read the whole thing top to bottom and tally up the votes/comments, but that was my overall impression.
I saw this post as a round-up or mega-thread so that people could try to put the pieces together.
Without expansion discussion by the OP it does not meet the threshold required by the rules.
Where in the rules is "expansion discussion" required? If that were true, no Share A Link post would ever be allowed. Nor would megathreads that consolidate multiple research posts into a single thread.
EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post
This post is basically a linkdump with no exposition.
I understand what you're driving at and I agree completely that a round up post would be great, I welcome it.
This post is not that.
This post is only linking to other posts already in the verse with no additional content or discussion added by the OP.
Nor would megathreads that consolidate multiple research posts into a single thread.
Megathreads usually involve the poster adding opinion or analysis in the main body of the post, creating a beginning point for people to discuss and comprehend the concepts behind the megathread.
All it would take to make this post pass the rules would be for it to have some shallow narrative about all the events linked and how they crease a greater mosaic we can all look at and think on.
This post is basically a linkdump with no exposition.
That isn't true, VSD. He gave every single link a one-line summary in what appeared to me to be a clear attempt to fulfill that requirement in the rules. There is nothing in the rules requiring "exposition" or "additional content" of linked material. We ask people to connect the dots if they make an argument -- but he's not pushing an argument or theory, he is wondering what theory might explain all the strange pieces of the mayor's story and trying to get collaborative help putting that together. Removing the post shut down the collaboration. It was on-topic, represented quite a bit of hard work (which MF acknowledged) and could have been left up without violating the rules in any major way. We could easily have asked him to edit it, rather than removing it. Instead, we have just given the shills more ammunition for their "Voat is compromised, you have no hope" attacks.
Not trying to be a dick, here. I would really like things to work better for everyone.
This post is basically a linkdump with no exposition.
That isn't true, VSD
I disagree and will continue to do so and repeat quoting a segment of rule 3:
EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post
.
There is nothing in the rules requiring "exposition" or "additional content" of linked material
This I interpret to be a different way of saying exposition - meaning a expansion of the concept within the link to clarify and summarise.
If this interpretation is not correct the rule needs clarification or removal.
he is wondering what theory might explain all the strange pieces of the mayor's story and trying to get collaborative help putting that together.
Which is why it's better content for whatever
We could easily have asked him to edit it,
Which is what I've been asking for all along
we have just given the shills more ammunition for their "Voat is compromised, you have no hope" attacks
Unfortunately no matter our actions this claim will always be leveled, even perfect conduct will inspire new levels of shilling.
Keep in mind my objective as a mod is not to curtail the editorial content of the sub - that is for [M] level mods who are (meant to be) more active.
My objective and goal is to ensure the moderation team is not corrupted by shills and the very people we're meant to be investigating.
If you feel strongly that this post (or future ones like it) should not be deleted you are well within your authority as a mod to repost the content yourself with an explanation and ping the original poster and to the mod that deleted it.
The ensuing discussion of the post's merits can exist within the public view of the community.
The whole post fails rule 3 and the title fails rule 3.
Clarity is not just some subjective thing, this post is objectively not clear.
And for a discussion post, OP discusses very little.
The majority of the post is a link wall with no discussion about the links.
The post is about that Mayor
No, the post is a link to another thread about the mayor.
If this was a reasonably formatted timeline with a speculative conclusion that crafts an overarching narrative that would be great - this topic is hard enough to follow and timelines would be a big help in sorting patterns from the noise.
If you feel so strongly that this post should exist in the main thread, apply the effort to address my criticisms and suggestions and make it a worthy post (or help OP work on it)
They are more a function of your subjective opinion which has no place in moderation.
.
3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate. EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post (except when markup is used to embed links in the specific text they support).
Very far from subjective. This post does not meet this standard.
This is something that the votes should have decided.
Sure, I have no issues with that - for posts that hold to the rules which this one doesn't.
Below is the reply I sent to @Vindicator who asked the same question:
The all caps shouty title is enough to ask for an edit to the title.
Much of the content looks like copy paste. Even with a concerted effort it's hard to understand what the poster is on about.
If posters aren't willing to at least format things marginally better and add a simple summary at the top to help readers understand the premise we shouldn't be forced to lower standards to the point that spam garbage becomes acceptable.
This post does look like a solid bit of speculative info that's worth of discussion - but in the form it is currently presented it's better posted to whatever, and then through community discussion OP could easily gain a handle on what would make sense for a main post.
The poster asking for help in the post itself should be an indicator this is more suitable to a whatever post in order to crowd source some editing and expansive writing.
While good at a shallow evaluation, this is the kind of content that turns away people looking for core, solid information that then can apply in their lives to contribute to solving the problem.
I would have deleted the post and asked for heavy editing myself.
@Omega777: Great consolidation of material on this topic. It looks like TPTB wanted the ridiculous tent cities that have sprung up all over Seattle to remain in place, and when the mayor tried to clean it up, they cashed in their blackmail chips to shut him down. I hope you repost this.
BTW: It's easy to copypaste the content -- with formatting -- from a Removed Submission. Go to it (bottom of sidebar), choose Source or Edit and copy the text from the source window rather than the body of the post.
that's some mighty fine research there, sir. perhaps we should continue looking at other long sitting mayors who happen to be gay, ie. South Bend, Indiana mayor and rumored 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate Pete Buttgieg (butt gag?)
youngest mayor in America (>100,000 population)
Harvard grad
Rhodes scholar
as a HS senior, was honored by Caroline Kennedy in a ceremony at the JFK presidential library for an award winning essay on 'the integrity and political courage' of Bernie Sanders
CORRELATION OF INTEREST - Curious Case about rape charges brought against Seattle Mayor Ed Murray by a then 15-year old "HOMELESS" boy - https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2106418
QUESTIONS:
1) Was this 15 year old homeless boy a resident of the "Jungle"?
2) Is this what Ed Murray was trying to hide with threats noted above?
3) How many other little boys in the "Jungle" did Ed Murray rape?
4) Was Ed Murray alone in his involvement? (me no think so)
5) Did he have accomplices? (me thinks yes)
6) Was he hiding trafficked children in the "Jungle"?
7) Where are the "400 homeless" of the "Jungle" now?
8) How many among the "400" were children?
SECOND TO LAST QUESTION ANSWERED IN THE ARTICLE ABOVE:
"Murray released his Jungle-clearing plan on May 17, arguing that the area is too dangerous to remain open. A city assessment reported high levels of violence there, including sexual assault, and Murray’s office says there have been 92 calls for emergency response in the Jungle since the start of the year. The plan called for all of the Jungle’s estimated 200 to 400 homeless residents to be cleared from the area under I-5 in about two weeks, and for the UNION GOSPEL MISSION to offer shelter and services in the meantime."
DIGGING FURTHER:
THE "JUNGLE"
WIKIPEDIA: The Jungle (Seattle) - The Jungle, officially the East Duwamish Greenbelt,[1] is a greenbelt on the western slope of Beacon Hill in Seattle that is known for its homeless encampments and crime. The Jungle consists of more than 160 acres (65 ha) underneath and along an elevated section of Interstate 5 between South Dearborn Street and Lucile Street; a January 2016 assessment counted 201 tents and estimated more than 400 homeless people lived in the encampment prior to a shooting on January 26, 2016.
During his State of the City address Tuesday, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray acknowledged a serious public safety issue that was first exposed by KIRO 7 -- teen runaways being bought and sold for sex at homeless encampments, including The Jungle.
In early February, KIRO 7’s Amy Clancy discovered ongoing Seattle police investigations into encampment trafficking while combing through documents in King County Superior Court.
Forty-seven-year old Nghia Nguyen, who is known on the streets as "Asian Mike," has since been charged with raping a 16-year-old runaway from New Jersey. Nguyen is suspected of selling the girl throughout the two homeless encampments known as The Jungle. His alleged victim told people there were over six other juvenile girls in The Jungle. One of them, a 14-year-old runaway, told Seattle Police Department detectives “she was raped and sexually exploited by several persons at the homeless encampments” near Airport Way South and across from the Goodwill Store on South Dearborn Street.
Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole told KIRO 7 that predators take advantage of young runaways, such as those living at The Jungle.
i. SEATTLE — It was their mom’s birthday, and the three vagrant teenage brothers were intent on collecting a $500 drug debt she was owed, an informant would later tell police. So, prosecutors say, they marched up a hill into a wooded homeless encampment called “The Jungle” and started shooting.
ii. Among the victims were two women who screamed or begged for their lives, witnesses said. Among those left unharmed was a man by a campfire who told the boys he was just trying to warm his feet.
iii. The brothers — 13, 16 and 17 — were charged Thursday with first-degree murder and assault in the attack, which left two people dead and three wounded. The oldest two will face those charges in adult court.
iv. Their arrests on Monday came almost a week after the Jan. 26 shooting, which authorities and court documents suggest was the latest chapter in their troubled young lives.
v. It wasn’t immediately clear how recently they’d been in school. Their parents have had a turbulent relationship full of jail stints, drug use and restraining orders. Their dad, described by police as a drug dealer and gang member, has been in prison since last spring, and they’d been living with their mom in tents by Safeco Field, where the Mariners play. When they went to collect the debt, they were already being investigated for possible connections to robberies and another fatal shooting in October, police say. “They were wards of the state, but they had run from every placement DSHS had arranged for them,” King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg said, referring to the Department of Social and Health Services.
vi. The Associated Press is not naming the brothers because they are juveniles.
jangles ago
YES and he continuing with these antics... Not that I support or condone any of the content at hand.
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2135808
Crensch ago
Will do.
Crensch ago
Looking back on that, there wasn't a lot of valid response to vindicator's comment about it changing. I'm trying to formulate a new sticky right now. I want it to be MINE so that it's ME that is pinged every time.
Gonna make it, give 'em 2 days to respond, make the changes needed, and not allow the discussion of it again for 6 months.
Crensch ago
And in rule 1 for the entire post:
Here's where I am currently, @kevdude @VictorSteinerDavion @Vindicator @Millennial_Falcon -
I don't see a direct relevance to pizzagate. I scanned through it, and even tried to go through a second time to find the direct link. The equivalent of "something fucky" doesn't establish a direct relevance to pizzagate as defined in the sidebar.
Did I miss something?
Vindicator ago
In this case, you've got a member of the elite -- the mayor of Seattle -- having to resign over multiple underage sexual abuse allegations which were covered up by the justice system at the time -- who pushes back against the Progressive trashing of the city via homeless camps and then suddenly his past becomes relevant and he's out (i.e. as if PG blackmail engaged). I don't know how you could have a better example of directly related to PG! I see three direct connections, any ONE of which makes it legit:
The OP documented everything he could find related to this situation and presented it to voaters with a "something stinks, but I don't know what" headline, and it gets deleted because he couldn't put all the pieces together himself or figure out how Voat formatting works. Tons of work down the toilet, from his point of view (most users don't realize how easy it is to repost things from Removed Submissions, or where to find it).
Plus, it really feeds the shill narrative that we're just a honeypot here.
It would be one thing if it had a few legit points and then a bunch of swiss-cheese argumentation pushing some retarded narrative with unrelated bits of unsourced information. We get tons of those disinfo posts. But this seemed to me like a serious attempt to round up all the available information on a PG related topic to try to get to the bottom of it with many eyeballs. Isn't that the whole point of this subverse?
It's a nice thought that people should post their works-in-progress on pgwhatever for collaboration, and then post a polished piece on the main board after the work has been done, but that's not how things actually function. No one subscribes to that sub so people don't see what's posted there unless they are pinged in specifically by the OP. Posts don't get more than a few eyeballs in that sub.
Expecting "works in progress" to be posted there first just kills the momentum -- especially when Voat is supposed to be an uncensored venue. It's just not intuitive for people. Instead of expecting v/pizzagate to be the internet's glossy, four-color, hardbound official Pizzagate encyclopedia, we would really be better off with a special, curated, separate sub for best-of-the-best PG research, and let the hashing out happen on the main sub with all the subscribers who want to get involved, IMHO.
@VictorSteinerDavion @Kevdude
Millennial_Falcon ago
Nothing is "down the drain," though. ALL OP has to do is copy/paste the post as a new post and explain what he means by "something stinks," or alternatively, just get rid of the clickbait all-caps claims in the title that he didn't even try to explain in the post. The large block quotes also need explanation (as to their relevance). Otherwise, it just smacks of being a giant slide/distraction post. On that note, the username "Omega777" reminds me of Jem777, one of Amalek's groupies (more likely one of his alts, actually). Not going to accuse the user/account, here. Just a bit of yellow flag.
@Omega777 @kevdude @Crensch @VictorSteinerDavion
Vindicator ago
You know it, I know it, but if a user is burned out by gathering all of the research on this god-awful subject, getting it typed into Voat and hyperlinked without accidentally hitting the back button, only to see it deleted for editorial reasons, HE may not know it. Especially infrequent posters. If the user is an abuse survivor or close to one, or a frustrated member of law enforcement unable to bust elite perps, removing a post on a legit topic with real links made to a 'free speech' forum for rewriting may be a huge morale blow.
I think we would do well to ask ourselves what the purpose of this sub is. Is it to curate the best PG content, where clear, concise, hard-hitting research posts that demonstrate Pizzagate is not Fake News is the top priority? Is it to provide a place where investigators can collaborate and encourage each other without fear of censorship? Is it to expose and debunk the false narratives pushed by Amalek and other pedo-loving shills? We need to be clear what order these priorities fall in and make sure our rules and administration of them doesn't have the unintended consequence of derailing any of them. This investigation should be gratifying for people, or they will stop trying.
@Crensch @VictorSteinerDavion @sensitive @kevdude @Honeybee_
Millennial_Falcon ago
This was my explanation when I removed the post: "please tell us what you mean when you say it doesn't add up. you went to so much effort to list all those links and paste all that text. please give us the upshot in the title or in an explanation at the top of your post. thx."
I don't see how that is discouraging, telling him to repost with a bit of explanation. He was free to discuss with me, but chose not to. I also pinged him in my comment yesterday in this thread, and no response as of yet. If he will put in all that "effort" to pull a bunch of links off google and paste a bunch of text with no explanation and a clickbait title, then you'd think he would put in the slight effort to add a bit of explanation and repost, but my money is betting he won't, at least not for a while, because it's probably Amalek, so there probably is no explanation, and he probably won't log into that account for a while and see this thread again. The users that actually are here to contribute do not get discouraged easily, and are willing to work with mods.
@Crensch @VictorSteinerDavion @sensitive @kevdude @Honeybee_
VictorSteinerDavion ago
So we should retask our mission to be anything goes, including wild ramblings because they are 'works in progress"?
Vindicator ago
No. I did not suggest we should. This post was not "wild rambling".
Crensch ago
I was unfortunately absent for many days recently, and never heard (or maybe i did and it just didn't register) what happened to the most recent sticky. Did we decide that this subverse needed an overhaul?
@kevdude @VictorSteinerDavion @Millennial_Falcon
Millennial_Falcon ago
No decision has been made. The sticky had been up for a week and a user complained in a post that the normal sticky should be put back up, and I agreed so I put it back up.
@kevdude @Vindicator @VictorSteinerDavion
Vindicator ago
I think that was general conclusion -- users would like to revisit what is and isn't Rule 1 compliant, as well as how and why mods may ban users. I need to print the thread out and read the whole thing top to bottom and tally up the votes/comments, but that was my overall impression.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
Referring to my comment below
This post itself is not about those things, this post is about links to other posts about those things.
Without expansion discussion by the OP it does not meet the threshold required by the rules.
Vindicator ago
I saw this post as a round-up or mega-thread so that people could try to put the pieces together.
Where in the rules is "expansion discussion" required? If that were true, no Share A Link post would ever be allowed. Nor would megathreads that consolidate multiple research posts into a single thread.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
This post is basically a linkdump with no exposition.
I understand what you're driving at and I agree completely that a round up post would be great, I welcome it.
This post is not that.
This post is only linking to other posts already in the verse with no additional content or discussion added by the OP.
Megathreads usually involve the poster adding opinion or analysis in the main body of the post, creating a beginning point for people to discuss and comprehend the concepts behind the megathread.
All it would take to make this post pass the rules would be for it to have some shallow narrative about all the events linked and how they crease a greater mosaic we can all look at and think on.
Vindicator ago
That isn't true, VSD. He gave every single link a one-line summary in what appeared to me to be a clear attempt to fulfill that requirement in the rules. There is nothing in the rules requiring "exposition" or "additional content" of linked material. We ask people to connect the dots if they make an argument -- but he's not pushing an argument or theory, he is wondering what theory might explain all the strange pieces of the mayor's story and trying to get collaborative help putting that together. Removing the post shut down the collaboration. It was on-topic, represented quite a bit of hard work (which MF acknowledged) and could have been left up without violating the rules in any major way. We could easily have asked him to edit it, rather than removing it. Instead, we have just given the shills more ammunition for their "Voat is compromised, you have no hope" attacks.
Not trying to be a dick, here. I would really like things to work better for everyone.
@Millennial_Falcon @Crensch @kevdude
VictorSteinerDavion ago
I disagree and will continue to do so and repeat quoting a segment of rule 3:
This I interpret to be a different way of saying exposition - meaning a expansion of the concept within the link to clarify and summarise.
If this interpretation is not correct the rule needs clarification or removal.
Which is why it's better content for whatever
Which is what I've been asking for all along
Unfortunately no matter our actions this claim will always be leveled, even perfect conduct will inspire new levels of shilling.
Keep in mind my objective as a mod is not to curtail the editorial content of the sub - that is for [M] level mods who are (meant to be) more active.
My objective and goal is to ensure the moderation team is not corrupted by shills and the very people we're meant to be investigating.
If you feel strongly that this post (or future ones like it) should not be deleted you are well within your authority as a mod to repost the content yourself with an explanation and ping the original poster and to the mod that deleted it.
The ensuing discussion of the post's merits can exist within the public view of the community.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
The whole post fails rule 3 and the title fails rule 3.
Clarity is not just some subjective thing, this post is objectively not clear.
And for a discussion post, OP discusses very little.
The majority of the post is a link wall with no discussion about the links.
No, the post is a link to another thread about the mayor.
If this was a reasonably formatted timeline with a speculative conclusion that crafts an overarching narrative that would be great - this topic is hard enough to follow and timelines would be a big help in sorting patterns from the noise.
If you feel so strongly that this post should exist in the main thread, apply the effort to address my criticisms and suggestions and make it a worthy post (or help OP work on it)
VictorSteinerDavion ago
.
Very far from subjective. This post does not meet this standard.
Sure, I have no issues with that - for posts that hold to the rules which this one doesn't.
What about this post gives it a pass on rule 3?
VictorSteinerDavion ago
Why?
Below is the reply I sent to @Vindicator who asked the same question:
The all caps shouty title is enough to ask for an edit to the title.
Much of the content looks like copy paste. Even with a concerted effort it's hard to understand what the poster is on about.
If posters aren't willing to at least format things marginally better and add a simple summary at the top to help readers understand the premise we shouldn't be forced to lower standards to the point that spam garbage becomes acceptable.
This post does look like a solid bit of speculative info that's worth of discussion - but in the form it is currently presented it's better posted to whatever, and then through community discussion OP could easily gain a handle on what would make sense for a main post. The poster asking for help in the post itself should be an indicator this is more suitable to a whatever post in order to crowd source some editing and expansive writing.
While good at a shallow evaluation, this is the kind of content that turns away people looking for core, solid information that then can apply in their lives to contribute to solving the problem.
I would have deleted the post and asked for heavy editing myself.
Vindicator ago
@Omega777: Great consolidation of material on this topic. It looks like TPTB wanted the ridiculous tent cities that have sprung up all over Seattle to remain in place, and when the mayor tried to clean it up, they cashed in their blackmail chips to shut him down. I hope you repost this.
BTW: It's easy to copypaste the content -- with formatting -- from a Removed Submission. Go to it (bottom of sidebar), choose Source or Edit and copy the text from the source window rather than the body of the post.
Kekistani ago
Amazing work... I don't fully understand it.
ben_matlock ago
that's some mighty fine research there, sir. perhaps we should continue looking at other long sitting mayors who happen to be gay, ie. South Bend, Indiana mayor and rumored 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate Pete Buttgieg (butt gag?)
youngest mayor in America (>100,000 population)
Harvard grad
Rhodes scholar
as a HS senior, was honored by Caroline Kennedy in a ceremony at the JFK presidential library for an award winning essay on 'the integrity and political courage' of Bernie Sanders
Mainstream media darling
Omega777 ago
CORRELATION OF INTEREST - Curious Case about rape charges brought against Seattle Mayor Ed Murray by a then 15-year old "HOMELESS" boy - https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2106418
DIGGING FURTHER:
THE "JUNGLE"
Mayor Murray: City 'not doing enough' for teens trafficked in Jungle - Feb 21, 2017
NOTABLE INFORMATION:
NEWS Vagrant teen brothers charged in homeless camp mass shooting - February 4, 2016 | 8:10pm
NOTABLE INFORMATION:
DA' FUCK???? THIS SHIT DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
Kekistani ago
You make me want to compose posts better.