Crensch banned me for "Relevance" (pizzagatemods)

submitted 5.6 years 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)....

211 comments

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years 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

link

Crensch 5.4 years 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.

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years 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

link

Crensch 5.4 years ago

Aww, puddin'.

Luckily my post follows ALL the rules perfectly.

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years 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

link

Crensch 5.4 years ago

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

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years ago

you can't spell pizzagate with Q.

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

link

Crensch 5.4 years ago

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

Mine was fully sourced.

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years ago

"Correct the Record" was established in 2015/2016

This document uses the same phrase in 1984.

therefore?

you have no argument.

link

Crensch 5.4 years ago

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

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years 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"

link

Crensch 5.4 years ago

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

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years ago

I'm saying you must source your claims

otherwise they break the rules.

link

Crensch 5.4 years ago

I did.

I sourced them just fine. All of them.

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years 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.

link

Crensch 5.4 years ago

Are you saying it is unlikely?

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years ago

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

link

Crensch 5.4 years 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?

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years 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

link

Crensch 5.4 years 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.

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years 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.

link

Crensch 5.4 years ago

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

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years 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

link

Crensch 5.4 years 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!

link

NOMOCHOMO 5.4 years 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

link

Crensch 5.4 years 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.

link

ESOTERICshade 5.4 years 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."