@hojuruku: Once again, I have to insist that you honor our submission rules. Every major claim must be sourced. Another way of putting that is research posts must not make any claims that aren't supported by linked evidence. You write:
bigbrothersbigsisters.com.au dating site for gay men and little boys
gave a character reference for one of their own homosexual board members done for sodomizing little Thai boys and child porn
who was a gay crown prosecutor
who helped remove the gay panic defense that allows children who kill gay men trying to rape them avoid jail for lawful self-defense.
This law is needed when we have gay judges saying it's all the child's fault
That's five unsourced claims in just paragraph three. There are many more in this post as well. If you don't want to present carefully sourced research, that's fine -- but it has to go in v/pizzagatewhatever, not here. I'm going to give this the edit flair to see if you can clean this up today. Maybe others can help you identify and find links for the other unsourced claims peppered throughout this post.
Going forward, please stop ignoring Rule 2! This is the sixth submission you've made since @kevdude unbanned you a week ago that ignored our submission guidelines:
Point 1) Google "big brothers big sisters" pedophile. You get a long list of homosexual pedophiles. THEY MADE A POLICY THEY ONLY WANT GAY MENTORS FOR KIDS IN 2002 and WND and others covered it.
Point 2) Read the link for the sentancing of Dr Patrick Power Crown prosecutor I QUOTED IN THE OP
Point 3) See point 2 and the link that has is name in it above the quote
Point 4) See point 2 patrick power - see link to him on committee that first asked to make the gay panic defence a "gay rights issue" then see the case of the law being succesfully used in legal studies if you google "gay panic defence australia'. There are cases of children getting of murder because they were resisting a gay child rape attempt
Point 5) the link in the OP to the judge ruling the child had the crush on the gay dad. Courier mail link
All claims substantiated in the OP. Try again mate. No hard feelings. You'll keep me honest. You know if you were sincerely not understanding I'd be really greatful because my goal is to be more effective communicator.
Point 1) Google "big brothers big sisters" pedophile. You get a long list of homosexual pedophiles.
You didn't link to the Google search results or state that was the basis of your claim.
THEY MADE A POLICY THEY ONLY WANT GAY MENTORS FOR KIDS IN 2002 and WND and others covered it. I can't link to them due to keyword censorship so I put it in this comment https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2497273/12472932 that has a link to a pastebin already provided before you brought me up on this
Evidence link has to be in the post, either right next to the claim, or as an embedded url made by highlighting the words of the claim itself so it's clear what link supports what claim. Especially in complex multi-claim threads like this.
2 IT WOULDN'T FIT IN THE OP. 10,000 Characters. Before you said I didn't prove it - I HAD ALREADY PUT THE SOURCE IN A COMMENT TO ANOTHER USER THAT WAS BEING BLOCKED FROM UPLOADING DUE TO BAD DOMANIS. Can you tell me what bad domains is in the pastebin link? What keyword is blocked. I can't figure it out - and I think it's a keyword I used not a domain.
So if that's it great you can remove the 24 hour hold.
YOU DON'T NEED TO LINK TO GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS.
Anyone can go to google.com and type in "big brothers big sisters" pedophile as I told you to
dude they are not acting in good faith, especially @vindicator. THEY. ARE. KIKESHILLS.
one of their biggest tactics is demanding sources for either common knowledge or unnecessary background facts u might choose to include about a person/place. e.g. "vindicators mom, who sucked my dick behind a burger king in 1994, was a trustee at..." "POST THE RECEIPT FROM YOUR 1994 MEAL AT BURGER KING PLEASE"
usually if u just delete what they specifically cited they cant plausibly come back demanding more, at which point they will likely forum-slide it
view the rest of the comments →
Vindicator ago
@hojuruku: Once again, I have to insist that you honor our submission rules. Every major claim must be sourced. Another way of putting that is research posts must not make any claims that aren't supported by linked evidence. You write:
That's five unsourced claims in just paragraph three. There are many more in this post as well. If you don't want to present carefully sourced research, that's fine -- but it has to go in v/pizzagatewhatever, not here. I'm going to give this the edit flair to see if you can clean this up today. Maybe others can help you identify and find links for the other unsourced claims peppered throughout this post.
Going forward, please stop ignoring Rule 2! This is the sixth submission you've made since @kevdude unbanned you a week ago that ignored our submission guidelines:
hojuruku ago
Point 1) Google "big brothers big sisters" pedophile. You get a long list of homosexual pedophiles. THEY MADE A POLICY THEY ONLY WANT GAY MENTORS FOR KIDS IN 2002 and WND and others covered it.
Point 2) Read the link for the sentancing of Dr Patrick Power Crown prosecutor I QUOTED IN THE OP
Point 3) See point 2 and the link that has is name in it above the quote
Point 4) See point 2 patrick power - see link to him on committee that first asked to make the gay panic defence a "gay rights issue" then see the case of the law being succesfully used in legal studies if you google "gay panic defence australia'. There are cases of children getting of murder because they were resisting a gay child rape attempt
Point 5) the link in the OP to the judge ruling the child had the crush on the gay dad. Courier mail link
All claims substantiated in the OP. Try again mate. No hard feelings. You'll keep me honest. You know if you were sincerely not understanding I'd be really greatful because my goal is to be more effective communicator.
Vindicator ago
You didn't link to the Google search results or state that was the basis of your claim.
Evidence link has to be in the post, either right next to the claim, or as an embedded url made by highlighting the words of the claim itself so it's clear what link supports what claim. Especially in complex multi-claim threads like this.
hojuruku ago
YOU DON'T NEED TO LINK TO GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS.
Anyone can go to google.com and type in "big brothers big sisters" pedophile as I told you to. False argument Here's the link anyway for those who can't time 5 words. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Big+Brothers+Big+Sisters%22+pedophilia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=h5vPWt7GEtaFrAHzjKCwCw Wow some big brother cookie stuff in there too trace me enjoy.
2 IT WOULDN'T FIT IN THE OP. 10,000 Characters. Before you said I didn't prove it - I HAD ALREADY PUT THE SOURCE IN A COMMENT TO ANOTHER USER THAT WAS BEING BLOCKED FROM UPLOADING DUE TO BAD DOMANIS. Can you tell me what bad domains is in the pastebin link? What keyword is blocked. I can't figure it out - and I think it's a keyword I used not a domain.
So if that's it great you can remove the 24 hour hold.
SchlongKeyhote ago
dude they are not acting in good faith, especially @vindicator. THEY. ARE. KIKESHILLS.
one of their biggest tactics is demanding sources for either common knowledge or unnecessary background facts u might choose to include about a person/place. e.g. "vindicators mom, who sucked my dick behind a burger king in 1994, was a trustee at..." "POST THE RECEIPT FROM YOUR 1994 MEAL AT BURGER KING PLEASE"
usually if u just delete what they specifically cited they cant plausibly come back demanding more, at which point they will likely forum-slide it