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?

NOMOCHOMO ago

Your selective memory is false. You remember whatever narrative you try to spin

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3432234/20731083

I believe throughout all of this at some point there was a change in the info that made the submission acceptable, but I honestly can't recall.

Given the drama around it, I was probably more inclined to let something slide if indeed it did.

(P.S. You banned me for Rule 1: Relevance not Rule 2 Empiricism: Speculation)

did you really forget or are multiple users running your account?

@shewhomustbeobeyed @heygeorge @vindicator

Crensch ago

What I chose to put down as what I banned you for is immaterial. I was asking you for the same thing you're asking me for.

NOMOCHOMO ago

What I chose to put down as what I banned you for is immaterial.

....not if you wanted to be credible, just and forthright. Why obscure the truth?

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3432234/20632494

Answer my questions clearly and succinctly and Link him to pedophilia or shut up, go away, and never respond to me again.

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3432234/20632671

Your continued presence on this subverse is now linked to whether or not you can directly link Ed Buck to pedophilia.

Directly. Not hearsay. Not anecdotal evidence...you have 24 hrs.

You didn't ask me for anything. you held a gun to my head.

Crensch ago

So you don't deny that you're asking me for the same thing I asked you for?

NOMOCHOMO ago

I categorically deny both claims.

I met your demands. I provided previous submissions to establish Relevancy. The post in question was deflaired.

You still haven't proven empirically proven your titular claim "Likely Source Documentfor brock's CTR"

Your claim is substantiated only by your own baseless speculation

Crensch ago

I met your demands. I provided previous submissions to establish Relevancy. The post in question was deflaired.

There was no relevancy to be had in those two posts.

It was a name sandwiched in with other info in submissions that did not in any way prove Buck to be a pedophile.

You didn't hold up shit until you got banned and figured out I wasn't going to back down. Now there's no mod that interprets the rules like I did, so looks like you're shit out of luck.

Happy days!

NOMOCHOMO ago

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3432234/20631962

I provided a third original pizzagate submission

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2054740

Clinton supporter Ed Bunt [sic] embroiled in another suspicious death of a young male prostitute at his home

it includes a Buck Clinton and CIA connection, thus establishing relevancy...by your own gay standards

1) Correct the Record - Relevant [cia reference]

2) CTR - Relevant [clinton pr org]

3) Brock - Relevant [clinton acolyte]

4) CIA - Relevant

So you banned me after I established relevancy

Crensch ago

Your first link, @Vindicator responded:

My bad, Nomo. We've removed most submissions about Buck, because they don't make a case for his PG connection and his victims were all adults. I forgot all about that when I was looking at this this morning, because I was so happy to see the nefarius piece of shit in the back of a squad car. @Crensch is right. As written, this doesn't meet our submission rules.

Your second link is simply "young male prostitute" and says nothing of the age, meaning NOT PROVEN PEDOPHILIA.

^it includes a Buck Clinton and CIA connection, thus establishing relevancy...by your own gay standards

No. These standards are YOUR standards, and those of your buddy SWMBO who fought tooth and nail to let your brand of horseshit into the sub.

So you banned me after I established relevancy.

Sorry. The changes in policy are not retroactive. I'm no hypocrite, but you certainly are. Things changed once I banned you, but you made sure you stayed banned because you're either an idiot, or a paid D&C shill.

ESOTERICshade ago

Your second link is simply "young male prostitute" and says nothing of the age, meaning NOT PROVEN PEDOPHILIA.

Which means your recent Qanon advertisement you posted to v/pizzagate should have been flaired and deleted. You should change your username to "hypocrite."

Crensch ago

You really should get with the program.

The users rejected my interpretation of the rules. So, thanks to you and your ilk, I can post the stuff and be just fine.

Enjoy the pizzagate you helped create.

ESOTERICshade ago

The users rejected my

Seems to be happening to you a lot lately. Maybe its your petty behavior.

Crensch ago

This has been a long time coming. I know I'm going to enjoy the show, are you?

ESOTERICshade ago

I know I'm going to enjoy the show, are you?

Most of us are sitting back sayinnnn dammmmnnnnn..... is this meth binge ever gonna end?

https://voat.co/u/crensch/comments

Crensch ago

Sounds like you should ask your brother.

NOMOCHOMO ago

"NOT PROVEN PEDOPHILIA."

ok if that's the standard. your post is irrelevant.

CTR, David Brock, nor Q are "PROVEN PEDOPHILIA". they are all 1 degree of proof away

shewhomustbeobeyed ago

When does celebrity association cross the threshold of "relevancy" for the pizzagate investigation?

When the word 'celebrity' can be associated with their name.

Is flying on Epstein's plane a reason to be considered "relevant" to the pizzagate investigation

Yes.

Is donating to Clinton Global Initiative?

Yes.

Is working at Comet Pizza reason to be included?

Has been in the past.

What about an Instagram follower of Comet Pizza?

Has been before.

maybe a few innocent people donated to the clintons.

no innocent person has ever donated to clintons.

would Mods think 2 unique points of Relevance would increase the post standards and reduce moderation workload?

Two points for inclusion of suspects, or two points to establish relevance? Or both?

NOMOCHOMO ago

Two points for inclusion of suspects, or two points to establish relevance of evidence? Or both?

^This discussion should be stickied. Not a disgraced Moderator's violent masturbations.

We should be attacking our ideas and arguments. Honing our message. So we can save more kids..... Instead Mod behavior instigates paranoid infighting, and promotes a Zero trust atmosphere.

Stop worrying about "the community" and giving "colonoscopies to elites" and waiting for Trump.

We got a lot more done when we focused on media exposure, not political machinations.

shewhomustbeobeyed ago

I'm afraid I might have encouraged his masturbatory fantasies yesterday. I never have been around enough women to get the 'sugar and spice and everything nice' part figured out.

Crensch ago

"NOT PROVEN PEDOPHILIA."

ok if that's the standard. your post is irrelevant.

Except the response to your banning confirmed that posts like mine are exactly relevant. So, thank you, for opening the door for me to post good content that Q people were convinced wouldn't be allowed. You and SWMBO are quite the team!

CTR, David Brock, nor Q are "PROVEN PEDOPHILIA". they are all 1 degree of proof away.

I feel like this should be voted on by the sub. It gets to the heart of a lot of Moderation issues

It already was, old boy! While you remain banned for numerous other cognitive failures, your legacy stands true, showing that my posts are exactly PG material.

When does celebrity association cross the threshold of "relevancy" for the pizzagate investigation?

Ie: Is flying on Epstein's plane a reason to be considered "relevant" to the pizzagate investigation Is donating to Clinton Global Initiative?

I whould post some Q stuff on Epstein and Clinton!

how do we delineate between warranted and unwarranted? How many unique coincidences crosses the threshold of "Relevant"?

You're fighting a fight that was already won, but sadly, you couldn't conduct yourself properly and now find yourself utterly irrelevant.

Maybe a few innocent people flew on eggdicks plane. maybe a few innocent people donated to the clintons.

You know what? You're right! Let's add those that haven't yet been confirmed to be pedophiles that are within 1 degree of any known pedophile! There's TONS of those! Let's just inundate this sub with 1-degree losers that had the misfortune of rubbing elbows with childfuckers!

would Mods think 2 unique points of Relevance would increase the post standards and reduce moderation workloads?

I don't think mods would give two shits about your opinions, honestly. But I'm enjoying myself immensely.

NOMOCHOMO ago

the response to your banning confirmed that posts like mine are exactly relevant.

..you stepped down..because everybody was afraid to vote....because you ban indiscriminately.....while claiming the rules are "immaterial"

enjoy pizzagate?

you sick freak.

Crensch ago

..you stepped down..because everybody was afraid to vote....because you ban indiscriminately.....while claiming the rules are "immaterial"

I stepped down because I found out legit users were scared of me. Sounds like I'm a pretty decent guy! What does that make you?

enjoy pizzagate?

Immensely now. I feel like I could post all kinds of things here now!

you sick freak.

argosciv ago

I remember the last time someone tried to discourage voting by subverse users, by making claims that yourself and/or @Vindicator would ban/target people who didn't vote the way you wanted... pretty damn sure ES got busted voting multiple times and/or manufacturing consensus for the aforementioned narrative using his alts, no?

Why yes, yes he did.

What a coincidence that ES also pushed to redefine the "elite" element, like NOMO above.

@EricKaliberhall @MolochHunter

NOMOCHOMO ago

I wonder what say him to ES committing voter fraud

well you could ping me instead of asking rhetorically.

But you don't actually care. You seek to smear by association

argosciv ago

Only half accurate. You're right, I could ping you – if I was worried about a timely response. You were going to see it anyway and I'm quite content to wait for a response or get none at all (I also wasn't going to get a notification anyway, that I'm even seeing your comment is due to a simple check-in of my own recent comments).

I do actually care enough to genuinely wonder, though, and would be keen to see a fresh, solid rebuke of ES by you; including an explicit and concise condemnation of his fraudulent campaign against v/pizzagate moderators past and present (for which he did and continues to try to solicit support from unsuspecting v/pizzagate users) and his attempt to also use your complaints as a platform for said fraudulent campaign.

That'd at least be a start. If your concerns are legit, it should further concern the ever living fuck out of you when a proven-to-be-subversive user tries to hijack or leech off of your supposedly genuine position.

NOMOCHOMO ago

DO YOU DISAVOW ?????? DO YOU REBUKE_______????????

Broken Clocks. man.

I disagree with his tactics, behavior, and fakery.

Only thing I agree with him is the ideological premise that Q (as an anonymous person/group) has no place in an empirical investigation of Pizzagate.

(I believe it's a diversionary psy-op to corral users into a unified research pattern instead of blazing their own trails, and unearthing evidence)

I also rebuke you for being a self admitted gay wizard blood-drinker. Creepy.

shewhomustbeobeyed ago

(I also wasn't going to get a notification anyway, that I'm even seeing your comment is due to a simple check-in of my own recent comments).

Unbelievable, this little cuck is so insecure, he hangs on every word someone who might criticize him says, and then tries to make believe like he's unconcerned. Kek.

would be keen to see a fresh, solid rebuke of ES by you; including an explicit and concise condemnation of his fraudulent campaign against v/pizzagate moderators past and present (for which he did and continues to try to solicit support from unsuspecting v/pizzagate users)

Who the fuck does this little twerp think he is. He's a SATANIST. He doesn't disavow his Babylonian Religion, but now he thinks he has a right to demand that you disavow ES, repeatedly.

and his attempt to also use your complaints as a platform for said fraudulent campaign.

So this is your fault? I don't think he logiks 2 well.

That'd at least be a start. If your concerns are legit, it should further concern the ever living fuck out of you when a proven-to-be-subversive user tries to hijack or leech off of your supposedly genuine position.

You know what would be a good start. A rope. The problem in dealing with fagos has always been his steadfast insistence that everybody feel his pain and put themselves in his shoes, gotta understand how he's suffered, while inflicting pain on those around him and swimming in his own wet-brained delusions of grandeur.

shewhomustbeobeyed ago

Now fagos and crunchy are targeting the women on PG, for their Mistress. Have you ever noticed that only effeminate males feel the need to seek out and attack women? Alpha boys would never even think the thought, let alone act on it.

Vindicator would never do it, he's a gentleman. I've never seen you do it, either.

Don't ever, it's very unappealing.

NOMOCHOMO ago

Alpha boys would never even think the thought, let alone act on it.

I've never seen you do it, either.

I only bully bullies.

shewhomustbeobeyed ago

Bullying bullies ought to be an olympics event. Fighting back against a bitch like me, isn't bullying. I call it self-preservation.