A moderator of /v/Pizzagate accused me of being a David Brock shill, yesterday. I feel like I have been able to provide plenty of evidence to the contrary. AMA. (thewebofslime)

submitted ago by thewebofslime

But I can provide more.

Do you care to address the false accusation @Vindicator? Maybe explain your line of reasoning? If not, I would be willing to accept an apology for the insults and the false accusation.

I'm happy to have a conversation about it that would seek to alleviate anyone's concerns.

I operate completely transparent where my research is totally public and I post all rough drafts in many places so that everyone can see the logical evolution of my conclusions.

In fact, I even offered up a suggestion on how a small group of people could completely decimate David Brock's operation while driving up shill costs here: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3106114

This is far from the first time I have published such ideas and materials, but they never get traction because I do not employ artificial impressions.

I have also been a staunch critic of David Brock since long before Pizzagate. Again, my posting history, going years back, speaks for itself.

I am the best example of an "anti-shill" that I am aware of. I would, of course, be curious in other examples, because I would like to learn more.

The best way to catch liars is to set honesty traps. The funny thing about honesty traps is that honest people don't fall for them. What say you @Vindicator, do you stand by your accusation?

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Vindicator ago

/v/Pizzagate DOES NOT ALLOW LINK POSTS

What does that have to do with you spamming by linking more than 50% to your own content across multiple sites? I explained it clearly here:

You made up a completely false interpretation of the spam rules to target my content. That doesn't sit well with me.

I most certainly did not. Voat's very liberal anti-spam rule requires 5 of every 10 links you post to be NOT to content you control. More than 50% is considered spam. Before you edited this monstrosity of a submission, 45 of the 88 links in it were to your own material. That doesn't even count the links contained within those links.

You said my post was/included:

Useless self-aggrandizement.

massive, baffle-with-bullshit posts.

Nope. You were whining about having to follow the submission rules that require descriptions of each link, saying you didn't have enough room. So I pointed out this paragraph added nothing to the submission and could be deleted to free space:

Despite what I present here, know that this is a tiny fraction of the evidence. We don't need anymore to justify demanding action from government. Stop falling for the gas lighting. Save some kids. Their lives are in your hands.

Useless self-aggrandizement. Delete to make room for link descriptions.

And here, I explained WHY you have to work within a limited medium:

I only have so many characters to work with.

Yes. Voat does that by design -- so submitters have to work with a focused thesis and not swamp readers with massive, baffle-with-bullshit posts. That's how we do things, here.

I've told the same thing to hundreds of submitters. So far, you're the only one to claim this is evidence I'm part of a criminal conspiracy which would justify you doxing me. It's nothing but a trumped up excuse.

thewebofslime ago

That doesn't really address my primary concerns, and it contradicts your previous statements.

I'm not going to dox anyone. I never said that.

If I find something legitimate, I am merely going to report you to the authorities. That is why I was asking you if you were a good guy, but you keep spitting vitriol, dodging the issue and calling me a LARP when you know very well I am presenting legitimate information.

Vindicator ago

Not a single thing you just said is true. You should go back to Reddit where people are more gullible.