>>116935

TOR

>>116937

>encouraged to go after a poster who seemed to be close to a breakthrough by leading them on so they go off target

Wut? So when someone is close to a connection do you pepper in disinfo or something? How would encouraging someone throw them off?

>>116962

Yeah it was just not articulated precisely, but that's what I assumed. But how does this tactic relate to what dude said in >>116937 ? He's responding to anons saying he should be disregarded.

Supposed ex-shill: We distract you when you're close to something, but since I'm fired here's important stuff xyz…

Anons: Disregard xyz, not trustworthy.

Supposed ex-shill (addressing doubting anons): Remember what I said before about distracting you. Enjoy.

Doesn't even compute, but I'm tired as shit.

>>116992

New shill tactic: LARP as disgruntled ex shill leaking inside data, but it's really horseshit. I think that fag over on 4 a week or two ago may have been legit, but this, ayy. I'm not thinking about it anymore. Could be wrong but I'm going back to Q.

>>117006

I say we move on then unless he posts some unambiguous bona fides. What's the latest on ATL (that's not in OP, if anything)?

>>117016

I agree with you, but think that anons who want to look into the stuff he posted should feel free. Those who don't, should do their own thing. But we might consider tabling discussion of his credibility as that for sure accomplishes nothing.

>>117031

I can't say I really do, but I will have a look. Thanks mayne.

>>117040

It's like CNN's 93% negative coverage - that means 7% is neutral or positive. It's how they feign objectivity. I also think it's how some journos convince themselves they're objective as well.