Why the fuck do we bother doing any digging - major notables go unfuckingnoticed and shit manages to repeatedly get into notables…
No fucking wonder the 'good' autists have seemingly abandoned this board.
I only linked it to you 3 fucking times last bread...
>>1563637 Wikileaks on the anti-Q train(WTF?) and Dawson critically ill: >>1563694
I would think Wikileaks coming out as anti-Q and the supporting 'evidence' it provides is from the twatter of someone who is last known as critically ill, with 'very' flimsy evidence provided, would be notable, no?
go fuck yourself. You're clearly not providing a dick at a saugage fest worth of value with commentary such as that.
and baker - forgive my aggrevation…
It's happning all too frequently of late though. Solid info and tips go completely forgotten through the shit-show that this board has become. You just happened to bear the brunt of hitting a tipping point I guess
ahem, not arguing that.
But 'obviously' without any supporting evidence is 'obviously garbage'. More importantly to this, is the depth and breadth of the counter-narrative scope.
See, 'that' response is useful. Jackholes responding like shills however, get the shill treatment. First para. of my original post will sum up why I wasn't aware - as well as you'll notice, a request to let me know if it's old info already…
But a quick review of that set of posts doesn't cover squat, just links the twitter. So I'd argue at the least, the Suzie Dawson being unlikely to have been the actual writer of that 'debunk' would have been noteworthy
But what the hell do I know, I've taken more and more steps back from the boards here precisely because of half-baked 'research' as of late, such as that.
fuck notables, if the info is already been posted.
Have courtesy to respond as much (which you apparently did) and there's no problem, but coming back and being a back of dicks on a cart of nuts? pff. bai
I had 2 kids in tournements this weekend that had me traveling around 1600 sq. miles of city on top of a family member passing away Saturday afternoon - I didn't have the time to keep up, so in my original post I noted as much. Nobody stated it'd already been posted (and I didn't see anything mentioned in the current bread notables at the time) so how would I know to even suggest?
Instead I immediately got the 'muh-joos' treatment.
With all the shit posting, I guess it's pretty easy to let good info slide - and not bother to responding, but then, why the hell are most here (other than apparently to post shitty ass-pics of women they'll never get with) if not to read worthwhile info and provide missing pieces of said info?
I've almost certainly been around longer than you have… newfag
I've seen this posted several times now - what is the original source of this? I mean, where was it originally 'leaked' to?
Enticing but feels an awful lot like confirmation bias larp
I did 'some' quick dig on it and didn't come up with much, other than it was originally posted to 'before it's news' which doesn't help credibility at all…
here are 2 links outlining it.
https://www.thepostemail.com/2016/10/24/exclusive-who-generated-the-clinton-salvage-program-document/
https://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/i-have-my-doubts-about-the-in-famous-benenson-salvage-program-report-that-recommends-false-flag-alien-invasion-to-save-clinton-campaign/
Also a reddit post on it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/58mrud/anonymous_leaks_benenson_strategy_group_study_for/?st=jhpv9ie6&sh=bf3aa8bd
What strikes me as the most likely is the top response on the reddit posting..
"This strikes me as disinfo tailored to discredit those who speak out about the document. It's meant to make the opposition look crazy.
Someone put a lot of effort into the content and layout and though. This was professionally done."
Also, 'doubt 3' from the wordpress blog post:
"Doubt 3: The report itself seems to read very pro-Trump. One header even states, “Trump Voters are Virtually Unstoppable”."
Could be legit but doesn't seem likely.