@letsdothis1 (pizzagatemods)

submitted ago by Crensch

@kevdude @Vindicator @VictorSteinerDavion

Post in question

@Millennial_Falcon cited rule 3 for removal, so I'm going to operate as if that's the litmus test here.

All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate.

All the title does is list 4 things, one being pizzagate. It insinuates a link, but does not say for sure, or how, or through what new source or info.

Still, possibly acceptable on its own merits if we take the insinuation into account.

EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post

I rest my case.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

ESOTERICshade ago

Ok I'm sick of this subverse.

Join the club bro, tons of people have left because of this. More are leaving every week.

Crensch ago

Join the club bro, tons of people have left because of this.

"This" what?

ESOTERICshade ago

"This" what?

He is insinuating himself and his opinion into the research topics. Its all in the deleted thread. This was a brilliant thread, to say the least. It takes a brilliant mind to make all these types of connections. This is just one of hundreds he has deleted and the best researchers the sub ever had have left over it.

Matter of fact @swordfish69 and @letsdothis1 are the only two left I can think of right now. There used to be dozens.

Planned Parenthood works with pimps that sex traffic children. They run the trafficked children through Planned Parenthood and sell the fetal tissue products. The pizzagate community wants a light shone on it and Falcon thwarts it as "abortion politics."

He is the one making it political, not us. All we care about is the fact that sex trafficked children are being used to prop up the fetal tissue sales as a closed loop system. Groom child sex slaves, harvest their fetuses, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.....

Falcon says "yes but they make medical treatments for stem cells and help people with it too." Maybe so but we don't care what he thinks. We don't hear his philosophy, or his politics. We just want to be allowed to go where the facts lead us. Period.

That is just ONE of the brilliant associations that were connected to Marina Abromavic, Welcome Trust, Democrats, Podesta, and a whole host of complicated connections.

We don't feel that its his job to give us his opinion and philosophy about our findings. He does not have to like it. We don't like where it leads us either but we go there to shine a light on it.

You guys can defend him all day long and it won't solve anything at this point because the posting community has no faith left in him at all. It expired. To put it bluntly we want him gone.

This place is a shadow of its former self and in my opinion it is because he has driven off the best pizzagate minds and researchers in the business. We can argue about that all day, or not, but the fact is that the sub has suffered and will continue to do so. This aint' rocket science. Just my opinion but I want for this sub to cut its losses with this mod.

He has a history of banning people like me and i'm one of the few that will speak because I don't care if he bans me or not. I just want decent moderation and he is not it.

If it has come down to the point that we have to fight him over research this good because of his opinions then we are all just spinning in the mud. It does not have to be this hard, he makes it this hard.

I'm sick of this so bad I don't even check this sub and read it like I used to, like a lot of other people.

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2390929

@kevdude @vindicator @swordfish69 @think- @letsdothis1

Crensch ago

This was a brilliant thread,

No, it wasn't.

letsdothis1 ago

I've just seen my report card. I agree that sometimes I didn't make some connecting sentences with this post because I had so much information and was pressed for time. Some people did understand what I was getting at but those would be the ones who have been here a while and already have some background knowledge.

I don't really understand the need to delete without giving someone the opportunity to clarify certain bits when clearly the post contains much information, but as Esoteric says, it's your subverse.

If this platform was truly evolving over time we shouldn't have to constantly create posts for people who have zilch knowledge of our research here i.e. pander to the lowest common denominator. To be honest, I'm surprised this forum has lasted as long as it has here.

I see now you are suggesting a poll. Now where have I seen that before ? Hmm... now let me think....

Vindicator ago

If this platform was truly evolving over time we shouldn't have to constantly create posts for people who have zilch knowledge of our research here i.e. pander to the lowest common denominator.

The only problem with this point is that material that is overly dense and full of obscure references isn't helpful for people to share with their friends and family. We need both muscular research AND readability. Plus, we have a group of folks who are paid to spam the board with dense, obscurely referenced nutty material to spread disinfo and delegitimize real researchers. To remove those posts, we have to have the ruleset, which means everyone is subject to it.

Crensch ago

Well said, sir. Very well said.

Crensch ago

I see now you are suggesting a poll. Now where have I seen that before ? Hmm... now let me think....

This is the level of your posts.

If this platform was truly evolving over time we shouldn't have to constantly create posts for people who have zilch knowledge of our research here i.e. pander to the lowest common denominator.

Nah, but you should be able to point to something that weaves it all together when you go to present your findings to others.

Or are you just researching it for your own benefit?

Who are you going to convince with that? Yourselves? A court? A jury? The normies?

letsdothis1 ago

This is the level of your posts.

Irony?

but you should be able to point to something that weaves it all together when you go to present your findings to others.

My posts are not just a random collection of unrelated links. They already 'weave' together - though granted, I'm not always 100% successful and explaining every point and in that regard some posts are weaker than others.

Who am I trying to convince? Depends on the data...and who's listening.

Crensch ago

My posts are not just a random collection of unrelated links. They already 'weave' together - though granted, I'm not always 100% successful and explaining every point and in that regard some posts are weaker than others.

That's what they look like.

Who am I trying to convince? Depends on the data...and who's listening.

Voat has a fuckton of lurkers. Are you not trying to convince everyone?

This post is one of my lowest-voted posts. 1.6 years ago.

All I said was that there's no good reason to believe the Holocaust happened.

So I set out to present my findings about it to Voat. I made a claim, then linked information about it.

Have you seen the front page of Voat?

What have you done?

ESOTERICshade ago

All I said was that there's no good reason to believe the Holocaust happened.

So I set out to present my findings about it to Voat. I made a claim, then linked information about it.

You were also given the opportunity to do so right? Did the mod tell you that your lead in was not descriptive enough and deny you the opportunity to prove your premise?

Crensch ago

All right, I lied. I'm going to respond to this ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.

You were also given the opportunity to do so right?

I MADE THAT SUBVERSE MYSELF YOU RETARD.

Did the mod tell you that your lead in was not descriptive enough and deny you the opportunity to prove your premise?

MY WORK WAS SO GOOD THAT THE ENTIRE WEBSITE CHANGED THEIR GODDAMN MINDS.

Your work, however?

Kek.

ESOTERICshade ago

I MADE THAT SUBVERSE MYSELF YOU RETARD.

That was my point

Crensch ago

Then make your own subverse, retard.

letsdothis1 ago

That's what they look like.

Then I can't help you.

Crensch ago

I literally showed you what they look like. It has fuck-all to do with helping me.

You are wrong. Your post ran afoul of the rules. You are not helping me, I am helping you; but it could be that you are incapable of accepting that help, and you're projecting that limitation onto me.

letsdothis1 ago

I've already conceded that it wasn't one of my better posts in terms of explaining how one link led to another - supplying an explanation 'For Dummies' as it were.

Your post ran afoul of the rules.

Especially if one has OCD, right? Or a military background? But I digress.. I'll ensure that I backup my posts before delivering them to voat in future.

Crensch ago

Especially if one has OCD, right? Or a military background? But I digress.. I'll ensure that I backup my posts before delivering them to voat in future.

I won't divulge what I have or don't have, but I seem to be really, really good at dissecting posts, comments, narratives, and lives with ruthless efficiency and, generally, a large dose of mockery and disdain.

letsdothis1 ago

I won't divulge what I have or don't have

So that confirms what I'm thinking

but I seem to be really, really good at dissecting posts, comments, narratives, and lives with ruthless efficiency and, generally, a large dose of mockery and disdain.

Modest fellow, aren't you?

Crensch ago

So that confirms what I'm thinking

Probably not. I don't think you're quite as smart as you think you are.

Modest fellow, aren't you?

You haven't seen what I've done, apparently. Maybe you should trudge through my submissions and comments and find it all because I can't be bothered to explain each link and how it relates to PG and you must be lazy and I shouldn't have to appeal to the lowest-common-denominator.

I'm still not convinced my point has been taken on any of that yet.

letsdothis1 ago

Probably not. I don't think you're quite as smart as you think you are.

I'm simply observant.

Maybe you should trudge through my submissions and comments

Ooh, authoritarian too.

Crensch ago

I'm simply observant.

That, too, might be overestimated.

Ooh, authoritarian too.

Suggesting you do what you suggested others should do earlier? I thought you were observant?

letsdothis1 ago

I'm saying that you seem to have authoritarian tendencies.

I thought you were observant?

I generally am :-)

Crensch ago

I'm saying that you seem to have authoritarian tendencies.

I tend to not put up with bullshit.

I generally am :-)

Just not today? Or just not when self-reflecting?

letsdothis1 ago

I tend to not put up with bullshit.

Neither do I. But I express myself differently - maybe because I have a larger vocabulary.

Just not today?

You'd be surprised what I've observed and gleaned today :-)

Crensch ago

Neither do I. But I express myself differently - maybe because I have a larger vocabulary.

I sincerely doubt you have a larger vocabulary than I do.

You'd be surprised what I've observed and gleaned today :-)

I doubt that, too.

letsdothis1 ago

I sincerely doubt you have a larger vocabulary than I do.

Of course you do. Just keeping those big words for date night, right?

I doubt that, too

Well, I guess we'll never know.

Crensch ago

Of course you do. Just keeping those big words for date night, right?

What's hilarious here is that anyone reading this would think you're suggesting that you've used some of that vocabulary here here, while I have not.

If that's the case, your vocabulary is laughably small. If not, how, exactly, is this an insult?

Well, I guess we'll never know.

Acting cryptic doesn't make it any more believable.

letsdothis1 ago

anyone reading this would think you're suggesting that you've used some of that vocabulary here here, while I have not.

eh? how so?

Acting cryptic

I'm not acting. And, I was just stating the obvious.

Crensch ago

eh? how so?

Of course you do.

"Of COURSE you do" <--- sarcasm suggesting I do not have a large vocabulary.

"Just keeping those big words for date night, right?" <--- suggesting I'm not using that large vocabulary here, which would suggest that's your litmus test for it. Meaning that if you, too, have not used your vocabulary, then you failed your own litmus test, no? Then why bring it up, unless you had been?

Or do you just have a different standard for yourself than you do for others?

letsdothis1 ago

sarcasm suggesting I do not have a large vocabulary

what's the matter, can't you handle a bit of sarcasm? What do you expect with your 'bull in a china shop' approach? Or do you want to be treated like a girl?

Crensch ago

what's the matter, can't you handle a bit of sarcasm? What do you expect with your 'bull in a china shop' approach? Or do you want to be treated like a girl?

You seemed to need me to walk you through your own stupidity. It's hilarious that you won't address the fact that you just showed that either you're a hypocrite with different standards for yourself as others, or you think you've been using your "large" vocabulary this entire time.

letsdothis1 ago

My overtures in trying to have a balanced discussion here included:

  • First, let me just say that I appreciate that you guys are looking into this.

  • I've just seen my report card. I agree that sometimes I didn't make some connecting sentences with this post because I had so much information and was pressed for time. Some people did understand what I was getting at but those would be the ones who have been here a while and already have some background knowledge.

  • I've already conceded that it wasn't one of my better posts in terms of explaining how one link led to another - supplying an explanation 'For Dummies' as it were.

However, achieving a balanced conversation doesn't happen with you, does it?

You seemed to need me to walk you through your own stupidity. It's hilarious that you won't address the fact that you just showed that either you're a hypocrite with different standards for yourself as others, or you think you've been using your "large" vocabulary this entire time.

Why on earth do you think I give a rat's ass whether you think I'm a hypocrite or not? Or I'm seriously interested in whether my vocabulary is bigger than yours or not ? (I already know the answer to that anyway.)

What's painfully obvious is the cheap pop psychological tricks you're trying to use to manipulate. Either you haven't had enough lessons or you're not a very good student. Maybe you should consider going back for further training?

Crensch ago

Why on earth do you think I give a rat's ass whether you think I'm a hypocrite or not?

Oh, this is just embarrassing for you.

Or I'm seriously interested in whether my vocabulary is bigger than yours or not ? (I already know the answer to that anyway.)

Yeah, I bet you tell yourself what you want to hear.

What's painfully obvious is the cheap pop psychological tricks you're trying to use to manipulate.

What's obvious is that I can pick apart your life and you don't like it.

Either you haven't had enough lessons or you're not a very good student. Maybe you should consider going back for further training?

Says the person that can't follow very simple instructions.

letsdothis1 ago

What's obvious is that I can pick apart your life and you don't like it.

ROFL

Crensch ago

Keep laughing.

letsdothis1 ago

I already told you a couple of hours back that I read my report card. Remember?

I've just seen my report card. I agree that sometimes I didn't make some connecting sentences with this post because I had so much information and was pressed for time. Some people did understand what I was getting at but those would be the ones who have been here a while and already have some background knowledge.

However I don't really understand the need to delete without giving someone the opportunity to clarify certain bits when clearly the post contains much information, but as Esoteric says, it's your subverse.

I think you need to go have a lie down.

Crensch ago

I already told you a couple of hours back that I read my report card. Remember?

Yeah, you just seem to think that getting all Fs somehow isn't a scathing indictment of your mental faculties.

I think you need to go have a lie down.

I think you need to start reading some books.

letsdothis1 ago

What books would you recommend ?

Crensch ago

Probably some Dr. Seuss for your level. Move up to some Berenstain Bears eventually.

letsdothis1 ago

for your level

I knew you'd use that as the excuse to cover for your lack of knowledge. And don't you mean BerenstEin Bears?

Crensch ago

And don't you mean BerenstEin Bears?

Yeah, no. I thought you were observant?

letsdothis1 ago

I was referring to this...and no I'm not going to write a sentence explaining the link - it's self evident: The Berenst(E)ain Bears Conspiracy Theory That Has Convinced the Internet There Are Parallel Universes

Crensch ago

I'm familiar with the Mandela Effect.

ESOTERICshade ago

It your sub, what is left of it. Do with it as you will.

letsdothis1 ago

The David Icke forum for the Hampstead case in the UK was the test model for what is going on here Esoteric IMHO.

ESOTERICshade ago

The David Icke forum for the Hampstead case in the UK was the test model for what is going on here Esoteric IMHO.

They put the hammer down on that forum too? The only answer that has been put forth so far is "lets let the sub ride two weeks with no moderaton."

All that will do is prove that the forum will be chaos without some supervision. Then they can pretend to have been right all along after they come back in and "restore order" to the intentional chaos that is created.

If the answers to the problems can't get any better than turn this place into anarchy and chaos intentionally to prove a point then we might just be spinning our wheels here bro...

letsdothis1 ago

If the answers to the problems can't get any better than turn this place into anarchy and chaos intentionally to prove a point then we might just be spinning our wheels here bro...

You'd be surprised how many people pay attention to what goes on here. Even these little skirmishes help to open eyes. Just sayin...

Vindicator ago

Interesting comment. How many people, where? Whose eyes?