That goes without saying. IT'S OBVIOUS!! As it is in Savile's case, as all other high-profile pedophile ring cases around the world!! Mods seem to be trying to contain the investigation... Why??
I understand your concern, but I'm thinking that there can be problems with interpreting the rules, including rule 1, which says "ALL submissions should be directly related to Pizzagate. It is the responsibility of the poster to demonstrate this relevance..." The thought is, I'm sure, to not let the pizzagate investigation lose its focus or to introduce confusing information. Someone who comes across this headline without knowing much about pizzagate, for instance, could think that Michael Skupin is somehow tied directly to people like the Podestas or James Alefantis, when that isn't so. So it would have been good for that point to have gone directly in the title and/or thread, like in parenthesis mentioning that he isn't tied to pizzagate but his case is still relevant in many ways. So I think it is more a matter of proper form than anything else. That can seem like a trifling point, but I have to agree that not causing confusion and keeping things relevant to pizzagate - in terms of explaining what the connections are thought to be - are important. I don't have time today but would like to re-submit this article or another if I find one with more information on this case in the mean time. You are welcome to, too, but I would advise to discuss some of things that make the case relevant and note that Skupin isn't a pizzagate suspect, things I neglected to do.
That can all be thrashed out in the ensuing conversation,
@Psalm100
. You may have an inkling it's related, someone else may have another piece of the puzzle, that connects it one step closer to the Clinton Foundation. It is absolutely RIDICULOUS to require investigators to prove relevance. Especially in a community site set up for the community to decide - BY VOTE - on what is relevant. The nazimods clearly don't want that to happen, or at least want to contain (i.e. censor) the investigation.
I understand. But I think it's likely that given the role of moderating, those doing it are a bit more sensitive about keeping things from going out of control and not giving people who dismiss pizzagate any legitimate reason to do so. For people with some knowledge of pizzagate, how this story fits is fairly obvious. But for others, it isn't. And with so much to this investigation, it is helpful and even necessary for the connections to be clearly laid out. It may seem to be something unnecessary, like nitpicking on grammar, and that can raise people's suspicions, but I just see this as being about the need to be simple and clear, so that even someone who knows little to nothing about pizzagate and clicks on the page will have an accurate sense of how this case does and doesn't fit into pizzagate.
That's a weird one. I only know him from Survivor so I can't speak to his authenticity or not. He says "Keep in mind, my conviction was based on temporary internet files created by my computer, the internet. The computer forensics expert for the state admitted that this was on every computer in America and you don’t even know it’s there. I got scared and took a plea, paid a bulk of restitution by selling my remaining possessions."
How does that happen - temporary internet files on every computer in America that contain child pornography and one doesn't know it's there? Legit question...I'm really curious if that could be true.
▼ wisdomtooth
Why was this thread removed?
▼ Psalm100
I think it's relevant to pizzagate but I didn't discuss anything in order to connect it, so that was it. Rule 1 was cited.
▼ wisdomtooth
OF COURSE it is relevant! You even selected the relevant quote from the article!! Mods have gone completely off the rails into SS censorship mode!!
▼ Psalm100
I should have noted that while he isn't someone known to be in the pizzagate circle, his case sheds light on it in different ways.
▼ wisdomtooth
That goes without saying. IT'S OBVIOUS!! As it is in Savile's case, as all other high-profile pedophile ring cases around the world!! Mods seem to be trying to contain the investigation... Why??
▼ Psalm100
I understand your concern, but I'm thinking that there can be problems with interpreting the rules, including rule 1, which says "ALL submissions should be directly related to Pizzagate. It is the responsibility of the poster to demonstrate this relevance..." The thought is, I'm sure, to not let the pizzagate investigation lose its focus or to introduce confusing information. Someone who comes across this headline without knowing much about pizzagate, for instance, could think that Michael Skupin is somehow tied directly to people like the Podestas or James Alefantis, when that isn't so. So it would have been good for that point to have gone directly in the title and/or thread, like in parenthesis mentioning that he isn't tied to pizzagate but his case is still relevant in many ways. So I think it is more a matter of proper form than anything else. That can seem like a trifling point, but I have to agree that not causing confusion and keeping things relevant to pizzagate - in terms of explaining what the connections are thought to be - are important. I don't have time today but would like to re-submit this article or another if I find one with more information on this case in the mean time. You are welcome to, too, but I would advise to discuss some of things that make the case relevant and note that Skupin isn't a pizzagate suspect, things I neglected to do.
▼ wisdomtooth
That can all be thrashed out in the ensuing conversation, @Psalm100 . You may have an inkling it's related, someone else may have another piece of the puzzle, that connects it one step closer to the Clinton Foundation. It is absolutely RIDICULOUS to require investigators to prove relevance. Especially in a community site set up for the community to decide - BY VOTE - on what is relevant. The nazimods clearly don't want that to happen, or at least want to contain (i.e. censor) the investigation.
▼ Psalm100
I understand. But I think it's likely that given the role of moderating, those doing it are a bit more sensitive about keeping things from going out of control and not giving people who dismiss pizzagate any legitimate reason to do so. For people with some knowledge of pizzagate, how this story fits is fairly obvious. But for others, it isn't. And with so much to this investigation, it is helpful and even necessary for the connections to be clearly laid out. It may seem to be something unnecessary, like nitpicking on grammar, and that can raise people's suspicions, but I just see this as being about the need to be simple and clear, so that even someone who knows little to nothing about pizzagate and clicks on the page will have an accurate sense of how this case does and doesn't fit into pizzagate.
▼ wisdomtooth
You can repost it here , if you want to.
▼ wisdomtooth
They clearly want to control the investigation. To what end I wonder.
▼ Ronnilynn31
That's a weird one. I only know him from Survivor so I can't speak to his authenticity or not. He says "Keep in mind, my conviction was based on temporary internet files created by my computer, the internet. The computer forensics expert for the state admitted that this was on every computer in America and you don’t even know it’s there. I got scared and took a plea, paid a bulk of restitution by selling my remaining possessions."
How does that happen - temporary internet files on every computer in America that contain child pornography and one doesn't know it's there? Legit question...I'm really curious if that could be true.
▼ Boud8814
He is small potatoes, being thrown under the bus, probably innocent. We need to go after the big fries, no leads here.