last night the shills were in force.

I got attacked by dueling shills.

In the first case it was someone defending James Corney.

It was a 'how dare you'

and 'how do you know he's not a hero'

argument.

so the next thing I did was admit that I don't have proff and am rather sure that he's not on our side, but am not posative.

and then to extend an olive branch I posted some images, memes, of Mt. Rushmore that were images from comey.

At that point a 'how dare you' shill entered into the fray. That shill demanded evidence that Comey was heroic at all based upoin my implication that 'if there were evidence' and 'he were on our side under cover' . . .

the shill demanded my evidence.

my response: I was hoping the other anon would have the evidence.

this is the point: the shills don't read through your posts and see if you are 'on the team' so to speak. They don't care. Once they have someone in a interaction their role is attack and humiliate and dehumanize.

There is no reasoning with them, they are most likely just AI or nested case statements written in a coding language.

Are they still here in force?

did anyone figure out what the reason or story is behind the strange spelling of Comey as Corney?

the font was even different in that use of the r, and when you find an 'rn' elsewhere in the document, it looks different than when the 'rn' shows up in Comey's name. Pictures relate.

in these pictures I opened up an PDF browser and searched for instances of 'rn' and found one that showed it's use in 'corney' and also in other words. Those instances are highlighted.

>>7471853

where is the evidence of that?

>>7471885

search for 'rn' and see what highlight.

search for 'm' and see what highlights.

they used a different font for the 'r' in the 'compand path', as you call it, of Comey's name.

see:

>>7471828

see:

>>7466735 (pb) (from Jim Stone . calm, where credit is due.)

and my post about it:

>>7467229 (pb)

>>7471917

this anon is attacking the other anon, as a false 'shame' mentor.

He asked, or had someone else ask, a multiple choice question, providing two bad answers.

the person who dared to answer gets put under attack.

this person has no concern for the person to whom he converses.

what he is doing is a form of gaslighting.

Also what he is doing is putting himself up as a 'moral judge' and 'condemer'

nothing the other anon would do will stop this shill until the end of the bread.

>>7471932

see:

>>7471928

and :

>>7471828

there is nothing to say to someone like the anon who is attacking you. What they do is called 'badgering' or 'gaslighting'

shills did this to me yesterday about if or if not Corney is a 'hero'

it was a team of them or one guy with two sock puppet id's (which is more likely)

>>7471957

>>7471965

I think the question must be asked about this misspelling by a congressman or a senator to the people who wrote these articles, to the FBI people who produced the document, and to Mr. Comey/Corney himself , all of this under oath.

>>7471920

it was a willful substitution.

for some reason people keep trying to make it seem as though it were something else.

see: >>7471948

anon who continue to say it is a mistake may be trying to gaslight us on this issue.

It was a willful substition. There is an ongoing suppression effort about this by shills.

read the bread before posting!

>>7472037

isn't it in the spirit of 'no doxing allowed'?

when does someone being dragged out cross the line and become news?

the other part: if you are sure that they are officers on duty, and you show the footage that doxes them, then what does that say about your level of compassion?

So even if there isn't an 'agreement', the right thing is to now show the faces of those who might be . . . on duty, so to speak, and need to be 'under cover'.

Only if the footage showed wrong doing. And even then the faces would be . . . pixelatted or other wise obscurred by 'methods'.

but the question must be asked if there is a grid that surveys all images and does that pixelization automatically without the consent of those who took the images?

I've thought a lot about this but not speculated publicly.

the question: at which point in the image chain does the AI that does the block/replace reside?

>>7472048

'not show the faces' is what it should say

'now' is a misspelling.

not showing their faces is compassionate to those who must remain private.

>>7472078

>https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1620.pdf

the document has the same kind of strange font subtitution for the 'r' in the misspelled name 'Corney' as it does in the one that was dropped yesterday by the IG!

>>7472086

the fact of the font replacement of the 'r' only for it's use in the misspelling, which occurs in more than one FBI pdf document, shows that this is a willful effort by someone.

why and who we do not know.

A congressman or senator needs to ask about this to people under oath who might know why this strange font substitution shows up only for the use of 'r' in a misspelled name.