You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Vindicator ago

@hojuruku, thank you for rewriting this thread in a serious attempt to comply with our submission rules. This is a huge improvement. It's not quite to the point where I am comfortable removing the flair, but because you've been willing to work on it, it seems fair for us not to take it down just yet. Here is what I'm still stumbling over:

  1. Please just chuck the first four paragraphs documenting your prior attempts to submit the story. That's all still Rule 4 crap that belongs in v/pizzagatemods. It clutters up what you are trying to say. If you need to vent about it still at this point, please do it in the appropriate subverse.
  2. You've done a really excellent job embedding the supporting links into your very densely-packed material -- well done. It's a great improvement! However, I am still not seeing a link supporting the premise of your title: that BBBS was operating as a man-boy dating site. That is a pretty serious charge that requires evidence...in the form of screencaps of their chatroom, or a quote from a kid "groomed" there with a link to where it was reported, or evidence presented in the criminal cases. If this is your opinion of how the site was used, that's fine but you need to say so rather than making a definitive statement of fact.
  3. If what you are saying is that McCool used BBBS chat to take advantage of kids and BBBS did not provide sufficient safeguards to protect kids, then say that, and give some linked evidence of their negligence (even if that's just McCool or someone else talking about the lack of oversight). It's not fair or accurate to brand an entire charity because one sick fuck took advantage of the organization to hurt kids (if that's what happened). (Also, that approach also really undermines your credibility as an activist/researcher, as well, so it's not in the best interest of your piece. You want to change minds, right?)
  4. In any case, we need linked support for the "man/boy dating" claim to be able to leave this up. I looked at several of the links from the BBBS pedo search you suggested, and did not see anything that supported your headline claim. You need something directly supporting it. If there is no evidence, then you need to create a different headline.
  5. I was a bit confused about the different people you've mentioned: McCool, Hall, Power and Bowersox. It became very difficult to follow. At first I thought you were saying they were the same person, and then I thought you were saying there were numerous different pedos connected to BBBS as part of your argument that BBBS is being run as a man/boy hookup service. Who's who and why they are in your thread needs to be very clear, so that it's possible to understand what you are asserting and assess the linked support you provide for it. (ProTip: If you have a piece of research you haven't yet gotten the evidence for, drop that down into the comment section as a "P.S. I am still investigating my suspician that...." Comments are free range).
  6. Consider using a less loaded rhetorical style that hits people with facts that make them think what you think they should think, rather than opinions that tell them what you think they should think. No one likes to be told what they should think. Opinions are like assholes, right? Everyone has one. The only people who listen to them are people who agree with you. What's the point of writing for people who agree with you? If you want to change minds, set up a domino chain of facts that lead to an inevitable conclusion. For example, if you want to convince people that Jews or gays are behind the normalization of pedophilia in Australia, it's much more effective to slip in the fact this is a relevant factor -- especially if you can use their own words like you did here -- than if you engage in a bunch of namecalling. It also gives you fewer things you have to source.

Okay...that was a lot. I hope you're willing to edit this a bit more so that we can leave this up.

@think- @Blacksmith21 @kevdude @Crensch Let's give hojuruku another day to work on this. He's put quite a bit of effort into embedded formatting, which he'll lose access to if we remove it. Hojuruku, I've also saved a copy of your source code here in the event other mods don't see this comment of mine.

auralsects ago

For example, if you want to convince people that Jews or gays are behind the normalization of pedophilia in Australia

Whoa is that a serious invitation? And you promise to leave it Up? Despite apparently having named @srayzie an explicit Jew-defender mod? Last chance to rescind that offer you filthy kike.

@VINDICATOR HAS JUST GIVEN GREEN LIGHT TO POSTS ABOUT ORGANIZED JEWRY PROMOTING PEDOPHILIA. LET IT BE KNOWN.

srayzie ago

Poor Donkey 😂🤣🤣☺️😂 Don’t be jelly.
I’m a woman that can not only vote, but mod as well. 🤓

auralsects ago

I just looked to see if after 1.3 yrs u had managed to contribute a single byte of research and I noticed your second highest voted comment is saying Q "revealed" something -- but in fact it was me half a year prior. LOL AND U HAVE MADE THRICE THE SUBMISSIONS ON PG ON Q, idk why they bothered with this psyop when a ball of yarn would have distracted you post menstrual cunts just as easily.

srayzie ago

GAY