Crensch banned me for "Relevance" (pizzagatemods)

submitted ago by NOMOCHOMO

https://voat.co/v/whatever/3432945/20638202

Ask me to answer your questions again.

sigh. here goes nothing.

Okay @Crensch @Vindicator @Heygeorge @Erickaliberhall @kingkongwaswrong

why did Crensch ban me? Can I appeal?

NOMOCHOMO Rule Violation in v/pizzagate: 1: Relevance; Description: Causing problems with the removal of things that have not been proven to be pizzagate. Using divisive tactics against the mods. Arguing dishonestly, even after being warned that this was not a joke. Constant pattern of disruptive behavior and supporting users like esoteric Crensch 10.9 hours ago

https://files.catbox.moe/q5grgu.jpg

-Swamp Takedown -> 24 hours Grace Relevancy

I ask for clarification as to why a person Vin calls "swamp" is deemed "irrelevant" by Crazy-Mensch

I thought "swamp" indicated Pizza/Pedos....hence it being a flair in pizzagate...I've also lurked for years as ya'll know....why I was confused as to why "Ed Buck" a name I know I'd read submissions on b4 was getting removed.

TLDR: Why am I banned for "relevance"....for defending a relevant post (edit2: and it's not my post)....

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

NOMOCHOMO ago

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3535879

1) Brock's CTR is a coincidence -> explanation -> same exact wording and function.

https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=&exact_phrase=correct+the+record+&any_of=&exclude_words=&document_date_start=&document_date_end=&released_date_start=&released_date_end=&order_by=oldest_document_date#results

Wikileaks demonstrates "correct the record" was used by official State Department channels 760 times as early as the 1973 PlusD cables

@shewhomustbeobeyed

Crensch ago

Wikileaks demonstrates "correct the record" was used by official State Department channels 760 times as early as the 1973 PlusD cables

Good for you! I'm sure SWMBO is SO proud of you for finding that put.

NOMOCHOMO ago

so your claim of "uniqueness" ie: this phrasing "from" the CIA in 1984 and "was used to guide David Brock" = speculation

Qanon drop #3632 links to thisPNG image showing classified SECRET document bullet point #5. In it the exact words "correct the record" are stated

This is a plan to create something. With this CIA document, dated 8 June 1984, one wonders if this was used to guide Brock in creating his CTR, and possibly in previous iterations of similar projects.

Given the EXACT same wording, I'd say it's worth looking into; Brock and his CTR could be CIA.

^[bolded statements are declarative] + [italicized statements are speculative]

Rule 2: Empiricism: Avoid baseless speculation

since the term didn't originate from CIA in 1984, your speculation has no base.

I'd be commenting this on your post. But you banned me for a comment.

@heygeorge @shewhomustbeobeyed @vindicator

Crensch ago

Aww, puddin'.

Luckily my post follows ALL the rules perfectly.

NOMOCHOMO ago

that's for @vindicator to decide

It has come to my attention that my presence here has had a silencing effect on many of the users of this sub. Many of you refused to participate in rule changes out of fear of being banned by me.

-Crensch

https://voat.co/v/pizzagatemods/3464523/20892904

Crensch ago

Not a chance. My two posts are more pizzagate than you've ever been.

NOMOCHOMO ago

you can't spell pizzagate with Q.

both of your submissions are divination and speculation. Mine are researched and sourced.

Crensch ago

You post bullshit and then hope that you can post hoc Source it once you get called out.

Mine was fully sourced.

NOMOCHOMO ago

"Correct the Record" was established in 2015/2016

This document uses the same phrase in 1984.

therefore?

you have no argument.

Crensch ago

Are you trying to say you have specific evidence that correct the record was not named after the CIA terminology?

NOMOCHOMO ago

If the phrase predates 1984, and has been used by the State Dept since the 1970's, you haven't proven your TITULAR claim that it's "likely source document for David Brock's CTR"

Crensch ago

Are you trying to say that CTR isn't linked to the CIA?

NOMOCHOMO ago

I'm saying you must source your claims

otherwise they break the rules.

Crensch ago

I did.

I sourced them just fine. All of them.

NOMOCHOMO ago

your speculation is speculation until you

PROVE

David Brock was influenced by this CIA doc..

coincidence doesn't prove causation.

you make a causative claim.

Crensch ago

Are you saying it is unlikely?

NOMOCHOMO ago

I don't know. Until one of us can prove it, it is baseless speculation

Crensch ago

Do you realize you're asking of me what you wouldn't provide when I asked it of you when I was a mod?

Crensch ago

@vindicator

NOMOCHOMO ago

upvoat. I want him to see this too