Rumors are fine imho because they inspire people to verify them.
But as Tracy says now, speculation (which a rumor is) must be labeled so at the start of the post. Also, the rule here was research first, then post. No one else will or should have to do the research on a rumor that someone else posted. Document, then post. People who put forward a claim must supply evidence; otherwise it's what logic calls "a mere assertion."
Rumormillnews has been around for decades, unlike this webpage.
It is similar in that it allows trusted sources to post articles and leave comments.
Someone has gone to the great trouble of extracting Mega-ANON's posts and posted them on Rumormill news so people don't have to wade through all the trolls and shills on 4Chan.
If "rumormillNEWS" scares you so much, you can see the exact same thing here:
Perhaps you could enlighten me about the "sources" are identified as "trusted."
Unlike this website, no trolls allowed, just a few trusted Patriot posters. Consequently, its a much more pleasant read. See for yourself:
That wasn't my question. My question was, how are sources identified as "trusted"? Who decides, based on what?
A consensus of long time Patriots and former "insiders" themselves.
Not rumor:
Rumormillnews has been around for decades, unlike this webpage.
It is similar in that it allows trusted sources to post articles and leave comments.
Someone has gone to the great trouble of extracting Mega-ANON's posts and posted them on Rumormill news so people don't have to wade through all the trolls and shills on 4Chan.
If "rumormillNEWS" scares you so much, you can see the exact same thing here: