Anonymous ID: 806949 March 16, 2019, 9:18 p.m. No.5730391   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>5730320, >>5730344

I am generally opposed to "call for dig" notables. It's too loose, in the realm of activism IMO. We're researchers who deal in facts. It's one thing for a post which contains novel content to spur a dig for moar, but ideas in and of themselves which are calls to dig, meme, or "spread the word" aren't notable. If they spur new info in-bread which is notable, great. Otherwise, it's just spit-balling theories. If every spit-ball theory were notable, we'd cease to be what we are – a research group.

Anonymous ID: 806949 March 16, 2019, 9:29 p.m. No.5730539   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0777

>>5730477

>I am wise enough to know when to lose someone I 'feel' is disingenuous.

I've learned feels can be hacked.

Ground yourself in facts.

Can you verify what is said on your own? Independent of a secondary source? Without having to trust someone's telling you the truth about it or not?

Those are the touchstones that help you discern who's aligned with truth and who isn't.

There's a place for trust, but in today's world of psyops and disinfo, it needs to run the trust-but-verify gauntlet.