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

You then said:

We've been spammed with similar long, link-riddled posts from the earliest days of the sub compliments of David Brock, designed to lead researchers down dead end rabbit holes.

Indeed. I was explaining the reason why we have the submission rules that we do, and why you need to present a focused thesis without ten dozen links and a bunch of jpg's that people can't easily vet. Here's my actual comment, NOT taken out of context to try to make it look like I was referring to you personally:

Vindicator 1 points (+3|-2) 1.1 days ago

Yes, WoS, you can't just dump massive piles of links and pics of links into a submission and claim it's a great post. We've been spammed with similar long, link-riddled posts from the earliest days of the sub compliments of David Brock, designed to lead researchers down dead end rabbit holes. You need to put together a coherent piece that ties all of it's links together, explaining what each one is and how it connects. That's what the v/pizzagate ruleset is about. There are a million other subverses on Voat you can dump your hoard of data into.

I was explaining what submitting to v/pizzagate requires, just like I do to every user who tries to post massive rambling tomes. If you were a part of our community or had any respect for the users who created the ruleset, you wouldn't have taken it personally.

thewebofslime ago

So, you can see how when you say those things... then the attack starts, then the attacks stop when I call you out... that it seems suspcisious.

Meanwhile, despite never trying to deceive anyone for three years... you suggest that I am... a LARP and other stuff.

I even told you up front that I was going to try to have a very polite conversation about this because I have other people looking at it.

Your response was to insult, attack and never just say you didn't do it.

I am starting with the ISP's to report everything, them I am going to work my way up the chain.

Just like I said I was going to do.

Is anything I'm saying untrue? and what specifically am I saying that is untrue.

Everyone is watching. So think about what you are going to say. You are in a jam, right now, as far as I can tell. I keep asking if you're a good guy, but you keep responding the opposite. I am not in a jam, at all. I've done nothing wrong.