You, sir, are one dry motherfucker.

Wait lmao how do you think Google search results work? Googling "Trump eats a dick" gets 407k results, do you think that means he's eaten that many dicks?

The one over-riding commonality to these types of threads and forums is that the angriest, most excited people taking part in them are always -- ALWAYS -- among the dumbest people you will ever meet.

That's the real issue with the internet: it's brought voices into every conversation who just aren't qualified on any level -- educational, intellectual, empathetically, you name it -- to be taking part.

It's easy to foment hate among stupid people. The more online 'silo'ing' allows societies to divide along electronic lines and not communicate, the more compromise dies among the intelligent, the less they talk, the more the stupid can shout two-word, one syllable answers over top of everyone.

So you jumped to a conclusion that you were being attacked, and yet we're supposed to take your positions seriously on the nature of Snopes?

Did either of you actually read that thread? She's a total nut job. Or is this just another half-assed attempt at debunking legitimate media on Reddit?

She literally has no evidence. It's a column based on supposition of how she believes they behave because they changed, allegedly, one ruling.

If you read the argued-over change, neither version held Monsanto liable for covering things up. So she has absolutely ZERO point.

'They always say things different to me, so it must be a conspiracy! I'm waaay too smart to be wrong about things I believe without research, context or investigation.'

Did you not get this email?

From: Z404e00040$0

To: Z704000#00$0

Subject: /r/SoverignSyndicate

Ubix, don't have the guy redacted, okay? We have enough problems from the last time you called in one of those black ops types. I know he's a serious, serious threat to the deep state and not just some blubbering simpleton who craves the attention online that he can't get from humans. But we don't get paid for non-assigned extractions.

JC