Honestly, you guys have beaten me down. All you do is remove everything. You say you want it all posted to other places nobody visits and all of that, but all you're actually doing is deleting information that I will never repost and now I don't even bother posting new information because I know you'll just find an excuse to take it down. Many people feel this way, not just me, so you're extensively harming the amount of good information this subreddit is now receiving. All of these posts you guys are removing of mine are posts with positive points, meaning other people are finding them useful.
The post in question can't be just child abuse. It has to explain why it is related to Pizzagate. All you did was say that it's a must read. The onus is on you to prove yourself and your content.
I explained this. It's not just about child abuse. It literally explains "multidimensional sex rings", the demographics behind the perpetrators/victims, how to define them, etc. Did you actually look at the content? The reason I use the term "child sexual victimization" is because that is all-inclusive, and we don't know what types of abuse #PizzaGate includes at this point. It may include "traditional sex rings" as well as the multidimensional sex rings. As the book explains, pedophiles tend to pass victims off to other pedophiles, which may be occurring here. It seems to me you deleted a post that many people upvoted and commented without even looking to see what the post was about.
I didn't look at the content. I didn't expect it to be about Pizzagate.
The rules state that I don't have to verify that it is about or not about Pizzagate. You have to prove it and explain the specific connection. Just being about sex and pedophiles and trading children doesn't count. You can read the definition of PIzzagate for yourself.
The rules state that we don't have to look at the content. You have to explain the connection to Pizzagate as defined to the subverse's standards. It's your responsibility.
You are welcome to repost the link with a full explanation. It has to be specific about Pizzagate, though.
People do go to the other sites. Trust the community.
I haven't been keeping track of who you are. If you have content to post, then let me know what it is. I'll help you to post it properly, so that it won't get deleted.
So, if one wanted to censor another without having the perception of censorship, they would tell the other to send their quality post to where there are 250 subs instead of 10,000'ish subs. I'm not a pawn to build your other sub.
Also, we don't need to subscribe to the other sub, because we just follow the links. There are probably more readers there than you might expect. It's not censorship.
Saying that deleting my posts and telling me to move them to a sub not viewed often isn't censorship is like telling me that having to protest the government in the back alley isn't censorship.
I wouldn't claim that it's the most important thing, but it's important that we speak the same language, and correcting you is okay. I'm not putting you down. It just helps to prevent misunderstanding.
Wow! I need to read this. Why did this not gain traction in 1992?? If this report is as damming as it seems, I'm surprised "pizzagate" didn't blow up earlier.
I really do not like what is says about factors that could make a child lie... and this was in 92, imagine now, when you can add exposure to the internet, back then, he lists seeing pornography in the home, wanting or needing attention, etc. My instinct would be to believe the child.
"must read" is like the phrase "smoking gun" - tells me too much about the poster, not enough about the content. HOWEVER, in this case I'd be inclined to agree, though I'd hardly call LE tomes on profiling "must reading" - just for those who want to follow further down the path.
In
1983
and
1984,
when
I first
began
to
hear
stories
of
what
sounded
like
satanic
or
occult
activity
in
connection
with
allegations
of child
sex
rings
(allegations
that
have
since
come
to
be
re-
ferred
to
most
often
as
"ritual"
child
abuse),
I
tended
to
believe
them.
I
had
been
dealing
with
bizarre,
deviant
behavior
for
many
years
and
had
long
since
realized
that
almost
anything
is pos-
sible.
Just
when
you
think
that
you
have
heard
it
all,
along
comes
another
strange
case.
The
idea
tha
tthere
are
a few
cunning,
secretive
individuals
in
positions
of
power
somewhere
in
this
country
regularly
killing
a few
people
as
part
of
some
satanic
ritual
or
ceremony
and
getting
away
with
it
is certainly
within
the
realm
of
possibility.
But
the
number
of
alleged
cases
began
to
grow
and
grow.
We
now
have
hundreds
of victims
alleging
that
thousands
of offenders
are
abusing
and
even
murdering
tens
of
thousands
of
people
as
part
of
organized
satanic
cults,
and
there
is little
or
no
corroborative
evidence.
▼ Investigate1999
This is a violation of Rule #1. Please move it to /v/pizzagatewhatever . It should be fine over there.
▼ atheist4thecause
No. You deleted it so it's gone forever. Good job.
▼ Investigate1999
As mentioned in the other thread, you could copy and paste everything into the other forum.
▼ atheist4thecause
Honestly, you guys have beaten me down. All you do is remove everything. You say you want it all posted to other places nobody visits and all of that, but all you're actually doing is deleting information that I will never repost and now I don't even bother posting new information because I know you'll just find an excuse to take it down. Many people feel this way, not just me, so you're extensively harming the amount of good information this subreddit is now receiving. All of these posts you guys are removing of mine are posts with positive points, meaning other people are finding them useful.
▼ Investigate1999
Oh, wait. I see who you are now.
The post in question can't be just child abuse. It has to explain why it is related to Pizzagate. All you did was say that it's a must read. The onus is on you to prove yourself and your content.
▼ atheist4thecause
I explained this. It's not just about child abuse. It literally explains "multidimensional sex rings", the demographics behind the perpetrators/victims, how to define them, etc. Did you actually look at the content? The reason I use the term "child sexual victimization" is because that is all-inclusive, and we don't know what types of abuse #PizzaGate includes at this point. It may include "traditional sex rings" as well as the multidimensional sex rings. As the book explains, pedophiles tend to pass victims off to other pedophiles, which may be occurring here. It seems to me you deleted a post that many people upvoted and commented without even looking to see what the post was about.
▼ Investigate1999
I didn't look at the content. I didn't expect it to be about Pizzagate.
The rules state that I don't have to verify that it is about or not about Pizzagate. You have to prove it and explain the specific connection. Just being about sex and pedophiles and trading children doesn't count. You can read the definition of PIzzagate for yourself.
The other forums are for your topic.
Take it up with all of the other mods.
▼ atheist4thecause
Why in the world are you deleting posts without looking at the content?
▼ Investigate1999
The rules state that we don't have to look at the content. You have to explain the connection to Pizzagate as defined to the subverse's standards. It's your responsibility.
You are welcome to repost the link with a full explanation. It has to be specific about Pizzagate, though.
▼ Investigate1999
People do go to the other sites. Trust the community.
I haven't been keeping track of who you are. If you have content to post, then let me know what it is. I'll help you to post it properly, so that it won't get deleted.
▼ atheist4thecause
/r/pizzagatewhatever has 250 subs.
▼ Investigate1999
That's fine. I'm happy about that. Let's get more people to subscribe.
▼ atheist4thecause
So, if one wanted to censor another without having the perception of censorship, they would tell the other to send their quality post to where there are 250 subs instead of 10,000'ish subs. I'm not a pawn to build your other sub.
▼ Investigate1999
You might do that, but I don't do that.
I don't own the other sub.
Also, we don't need to subscribe to the other sub, because we just follow the links. There are probably more readers there than you might expect. It's not censorship.
▼ atheist4thecause
Saying that deleting my posts and telling me to move them to a sub not viewed often isn't censorship is like telling me that having to protest the government in the back alley isn't censorship.
▼ Investigate1999
This isn't protest. It's research.
▼ atheist4thecause
People don't go into that thread, so I refuse to waste my time.
▼ Investigate1999
It's not a thread. It's a forum.
▼ atheist4thecause
I'm glad we are getting down to the important aspects of the investigation here. I would argue the forum is Voat itself but w/e.
▼ Investigate1999
I wouldn't claim that it's the most important thing, but it's important that we speak the same language, and correcting you is okay. I'm not putting you down. It just helps to prevent misunderstanding.
Voat should be considered a site of forums.
▼ atheist4thecause
If we really want to nail down the language, Voat is the Forum and each subverse (such as v/PizzaGate ) is a sub-Forum. The posts are threads.
▼ ghost_marauder
This is probably the best book on the subject I read. Will probably repost with highlights tomorrow when there's more traffic.
▼ DefenderOfTruth
Wow! I need to read this. Why did this not gain traction in 1992?? If this report is as damming as it seems, I'm surprised "pizzagate" didn't blow up earlier.
▼ pmichel
I really do not like what is says about factors that could make a child lie... and this was in 92, imagine now, when you can add exposure to the internet, back then, he lists seeing pornography in the home, wanting or needing attention, etc. My instinct would be to believe the child.
▼ yabbadoody
"must read" is like the phrase "smoking gun" - tells me too much about the poster, not enough about the content. HOWEVER, in this case I'd be inclined to agree, though I'd hardly call LE tomes on profiling "must reading" - just for those who want to follow further down the path.
▼ fartyshorts
Worth mentioning that it's written by Kenneth V. Lanning, FBI. Published in 1992. Hosted on a government website.
Seems like a good redpill resource.
▼ fartyshorts
I also made some backups, just in case:
https://archive.is/tGnhL
http://www.megafileupload.com/8c9v/Child_Sex_Rings_-_A_Behavioral_Analysis.pdf
https://mega.nz/#!PxAkUYDL!iHq3jdZd9z29AoyFzFhOhxugRGF_1_CghKYEfuMl6IE
▼ ghost_marauder
I've only skimmed the index so far. But, good find if subject goes into detail.
▼ ghost_marauder
Fuck, this is going to be good.
▼ DiggingforTruth
Your response is priceless!