Vindicator

Hey there @AphexTim . Thanks for posting this. Unfortunately, I have to remove it per Rule 6, because the community voted last year not to allow Share a Link submissions after someone direct-linked CP. Can you please repost this using the Discuss button, with the link and the screencap link and a brief description in the body of the submission? Much obliged.

AphexTim

Its all good, I dont usually read rules and hardly post. Do whatcha gotta do.

darkknight111

Pedosta is such a liar.

The NSA did electronic forensics on the incident. The rate of data transfer to is in line with a data transfer via a thumb drive. Too fast for hacking.

argosciv

To be fair though, DK, this is a "Share a link" post and unfortunately needs to be moderated as such.

Empire_of_the_mind

It's so dishonest to claim PG came from Russians.

Polic3Stat3

This guy is unreal. I enjoyed seeing so many hyphens appearing as he tried to explain away the lame conspiracy. You can literally read his guilt!

PGIsRetarrdeddAF

You can literally read his guilt!

One of the recognizable flawed pattern of conspiratorial thinking is reinterpreting everything as further proof of the conspiracy. So if someone disproves obvious pizzagate nonsense, that just means that he feels guilty.

Shadowlight

LOL!

How does a guy shooting a hard drive in a pizza place prove that Podesta is innocent from those pedo emails of his?

PGIsRetarrdeddAF

How does a guy shooting a hard drive

Another pizzagate invention.

i.imgur.com/IiECyY2.jpg

The bullet hit way above from where the hard drive is situated.

Take a fact:

A pc case was hit by a bullet in the top side.

Spin the story to:

A hard drive was shot.

Be gullible and don't fact check.

Also

How does a guy shooting a hard drive in a pizza place prove that Podesta is innocent from those pedo emails of his?

Is a straw man.

Shadowlight

I read the emails myself fuckfacs.

Pizza related napkin with a map on it?

Pizza in poor health and not expected to survive?

Dominos on Pasta or Pizza?

For your entertainment, kida 6, 7 and 11 will definitely be in that pool?

Yeah, go fuck yourself pedoprotector.

PGIsRetarrdeddAF

What does the hankerchief email prove exactly? Nonsense like this is just like an excuse to believe in pizzagate, it doesn't make sense nor does it prove the allegations behind pizzagate in any way.

Shadowlight

What is the probability it means something similar as the other weird emails about children for entertainment or pizza in "poor health" that is not expected to survive?

PGIssReetarrddedAF

Are you actually arguing over EXACT phrases???

Yes, you take the same handful of e-mails cherrypicked out of thense of thousands especially for this, that don't even use the same supposed codewords,

you insert and modify words and invent new straw man version of quotes so that it can help you take them out of context.

Pizza in poor health and not expected to survive

What is this? This does not exist.

Please give me this wikileaks e-mail.

You can fact check it:

wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

For your entertainment, kida 6, 7 and 11 will definitely be in that pool

This quote does not exist either.

Shadowlight

Here, I will give the same reply I did to your other retarded email....THE EMAILS EXIST, AS SHOWN BELOW.

Are you actually arguing over EXACT phrases???

Desperation much?

Here is an exact quote.

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be

Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and

almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in

that pool for sure. "

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/46736

PGIssReetarrddedAF

THE EMAILS EXIST, AS SHOWN BELOW

Excuse me, this does not exist:

Pizza in poor health and not expected to survive

wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=Pizza+in+poor+health&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult

Here is an exact quote.

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be

Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and

almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in

that pool for sure. "

You are cherry picking a quote from an e-mail where in the context of inviting people at a visit to a farm, a woman "Tamera Luzzatto" mentioned her grandchildren or somehow related "Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto"

going the opposite of common sense and taking it out of the context of how boring parents talk about their kids, and interpreting in a deranged way where that woman is offering those children for a gang bang.

There is nothing pedophilic in that e-mail and the only eason to interpret it in such a sinister way is just so that you can make pizzagate work.

Shadowlight

Nothing pedophillic but it HAD TO BE SAID, the ages of those children and it HAD TO BE SAID that they would definitely be in that pool????

Hmmmmmm

PGIssReetarrddedAF

Yeah I think that instead of that woman using some grandma talk that sounded weird which is exactly why that e-mail was cherry picked, it's much more probable that women offered her grandchildren for sex and the children's mother and father were totally ok with it.

Come on dude...if you're reading that e-mail trough the suspicion of pizzagate looking to find anything that can be interpreted as pedophilic, you're obviously gonna interpret it that way. But looking at it unbiased, you have no reason to do that.

The handkerchief e-mail example is more baffling. Are you suppose to imply that instead of simply something like this:

i.imgur.com/PaoJ8nY.jpg

Podesta left some handkerchief stained by semen after abusing children and some realtor offered to mail it back to him, to which he replied by: "It's mine, but not worth worrying about"?

All these examples are the product of pizzagaters cherry picking and looking at things trough the biased pizzagate lenses, and interpreting everything in a way that fits that narrative, no matter how absurd those interpretations are.

Wikileaks published over 20,000 pages of emails. If the Podesta e-mails contained code words that an elite child sex ring used to communicate, you would expect to find dozens of examples of the same code words and establish a pattern.

Yet you pizzagaters always refer back to the same handful of cherry picked e-mails that don't even use the same supposed code words. One talking about a handkerchief, one about the game of dominoes, one about hot dogs and so on.

Shadowlight

And why would they be emailing podesta offering their children for sex?

You could go through ALL of my tens of thousands of emails and find nothing to "cherry pick", to use your words.

So do you have emails that offer up children like that?

Or talk of dominoes on pizza? or dominoes on pasta?

Or pizza related napkins with maps on them?

PGIssReetarrddedAF

You could go through ALL of my tens of thousands of emails and find nothing to "cherry pick", to use your words.

Unless you don't use your e-mail to comunicate with people, I highly doubt that. Those people used their e-mail to comunicate to one another. If I went trough your last 10,000 messages, I'm sure I'd be able to cherry pick lots of quotes that I could then take out of context.

Or talk of dominoes on pizza? or dominoes on pasta?

Or pizza related napkins with maps on them?

Those 2 e-mail examples do not talk about dominoes on pizza or pasta, nor about pizza related napkins with maps on them. You're inventing shit again so that it is easier for you to take it out of context.

And are based on the same taking cherry picked shit out of context strategy.

Did you even read my response to the handkerchief e-mail?

The handkerchief e-mail example is more baffling. Are you suppose to imply that instead of simply something like this:

i.imgur.com/PaoJ8nY.jpg

Podesta left some handkerchief stained by semen after abusing children and some realtor offered to mail it back to him, to which he replied by: "It's mine, but not worth worrying about"?

There's nothing stopping you from interpreting those few cherry picked e-mails in the most absurd possible way you'd like. The problem is that this is pure speculation that you have no way of proving, and it's basically useles.

Also, Wikileaks published over 20,000 pages of emails. If the Podesta e-mails contained code words that an elite child sex ring used to communicate, you would expect to find dozens of examples of the same code words and establish a pattern.

Yet you pizzagaters always refer back to the same handful of cherry picked e-mails that don't even use the same supposed code words. One talking about a handkerchief, one about the game of dominoes, one about hot dogs and so on.

Shadowlight

  1. I quoted the exact email wording and YOU ADMITTED it sounded like they were selling sex from their childten.

  2. There is nothing "out of context" about that questionable email.

  3. No, there is nothing to "cherry pick" from my emails beacuse normal people do mot have weird ass emails like that.

Dance all you like, the reason those emails caught attention is BECAUSE THEY ARE SO HIGHLY UNUSUAL.

PGIssReetarrddedAF

I quoted the exact email wording and YOU ADMITTED it sounded like they were selling sex from their childten.

Are you even reading my replies? I said that:

Or talk of dominoes on pizza? or dominoes on pasta?

Or pizza related napkins with maps on them?

Those 2 e-mail examples do not talk about dominoes on pizza or pasta, nor about pizza related napkins with maps on them. You're inventing shit again so that it is easier for you to take it out of context.

I wasn't referring to the Tamera Luzzato e-mail there, nor have I admitted that they sound like they were selling sex from their children, I specifically said that only by looking at it expecting to find something pedophilic, would you interpret it that way.

So replying to this saying that you quoted the exact Tamera Luzzato e-mail doesn't make sense.

There is nothing "out of context" about that questionable email.

No there isn't. The only thing out of context is the deranged and illogical imagination of pizzagaters.

Also, the reason why you are only quoting the Tamera Luzzato e-mail, and constantly use it as a reply to claims talking about the other e-mails, is probably because those other few cherry picked e-mail examples are even more obviously taken out of context and make even less sense.

No, there is nothing to "cherry pick" from my emails

If I went trought the last 10,000 messages from your corespondence I'm sure I'd be able to find tons of quotes to cherry pick and take out of context.

Also, AGAIN:

Wikileaks published over 20,000 pages of emails. If the Podesta e-mails contained code words that an elite child sex ring used to communicate, you would expect to find dozens of examples of the same code words and establish a pattern.

Yet you pizzagaters always refer back to the same handful of cherry picked e-mails that don't even use the same supposed code words. One talking about a handkerchief, one about the game of dominoes, one about hot dogs and so on.

The cherry picked e-mail argument, in order for it to work was accompanied by lies about "FBI discovered pedophile code words" being found there, where pasta = little boy, map = semen etc.

Dance all you like

LOL Distort facts and take "cherry picked" quotes out of context and interpret them in bizzare irational ways all you like, that won't get you anywhere. That's pure speculation that you have no way of proving and it's basically useless anywhere outside your conspiracy theory circle.

I encourage you to take your deranged interpretations of those few cherry picked e-mails to law authorities, see how that goes for you.

Shadowlight

I am not going to let you dance to the other pedo emails as a way to avoid the first pedo email.

Your fake news disinfo tricks will not work on me.

It is absolutely not normal to bring kids for "entertainment" and to explicitly list their individual ages.

That is not a normal email. Not at all. Nothing "cherry picked" about it.

PGIssReetarrddedAF

First of all, that wasn't even the first e-mail in question, the first e-mail example that you posted was the handkerchief one which you, not me, conveniently danced around when pressed about it and switched to the very last example from the example list you gave:

I read the emails myself fuckfacs.

Pizza related napkin with a map on it?

Pizza in poor health and not expected to survive?

Dominos on Pasta or Pizza?

For your entertainment, kida 6, 7 and 11 will definitely be in that pool?

How laughable.

Shadowlight

I didn't dance around it. I point out it is weird as fuck.

Then I added more examples because you claimed they didn't exist.

Then you claimed cherry picking.

NOW you want to dance back and forth between them as a way to avoid the logical statements I made.

The guy has weird as fuck emails, including people pimping children to him.

You EVEN ADMITTING THE PIMPING HERE.

"it's much more probable that she was offering her grandchildren for sex and the children's mother and father were totally ok with it."

PGIssReetarrddedAF

I don't understand, I'm showing you how you're distorting and taking cherry picked things out of context, and as a reply you cherry pick one of my quotes and take it completely out of context? To mean literally the opposite of what it meant?

Are you ok?

Shadowlight

No, you aren't showing or proving anything. You are doing everything you can to deflect.

Emails like that about pimping children are NOT NORMAL. That is a FACT!

PGIssReetarrddedAF

You even admitted it as I quoted above.

I don't understand what is the point of acting as if you are insane and repeating the same demonstrably false thing over and over.

I already pointed out multiple times that this isn't true, and showed how you are taking my quote completely out of context and making it to mean exactly the opposite of what It meant.

Proof:

voat.co/v/pizzagate/3809233/23752305

voat.co/v/pizzagate/3809233/23752604

Are you going to continue disregarding this and keep repeating that false claim? Are you literraly insane?

I mean if you're willing to take my own comment completely out of context and you're not capable of understanding this after I showed it to you multiple times, how are you going to understand anything else?

What are you capable of understanding?

At this point, I don't think you're even reading my replies, you're just throwing the same easily debunakble nonsense at me and completely ignoring me debunking it over and over again.

Ironically, it is YOU who admited that there isn't anything pedophilic in the Tamerra Luzzato e-mail.

Proof:

Nothing pedophillic but...

voat.co/v/pizzagate/3809233/23738672

Completely disregarding logic and reality makes you look like a fucking retard, so please stop doing it. Besides that you're emberassing yourself, what you're doing is not fair to your interlocutor.

Shadowlight

You are just raging now.

Fact: Podesta had very strange emails with weird wording that literally ZERO normal people would have.

The first one I am focusing on is the odd one about children being there for his entertainment. It even cites the ages of the children and ACCENTUATES that they WILL DEFINITELY BE IN THAT POOL.

And you think that is normal???

PGIssReetarrddedAF

You are just raging now.

LOL Did you understand that I haven't admitted what you claimed that I did, and that you took my comment completely out of context? And continued to do so multiple times after I exposed what you were doing?

that literally ZERO normal people would have.

This is just your opinion that you have no way of actually proving.

about children being there for his entertainment

That e-mail wasn't even sent directly to Podesta, but to a whole bunch of people(including Mary Podesta, his wife) in the context of inviting them at a visit to a farm.

Constantly distorting facts at every step.

As I previously said, as you previously addmited, and as it is demonstrably true, there isn't anything pedophilic in that e-mail. Fact.

Claiming that e-mail is about pimping children is(besides going the oposite of common sense) pure speculation that you have no way of actually proving. Fact.

Your deranged speculation =/ evidence, and you will find this out if you'll ever decide to take it in front of law authorities. Fact.

Shadowlight

Because it is totally normal to say things like.....

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in that pool for sure."

Why wouldn't you accentuate the ages of children who will be entertainment?

Why wouldn't you declare they will be in that pool for sure, as if that too is important?

That's totally normal, right?

PGIsRettarrdedAF

I don't care about what you think is normal or not. Nor you thinking something isn't normal makes it illegal.

So you believing something is normal or not = completely irrelevant.

There isn't anything pedophilic in that message. Fact.

You have zero evidence supporting your deranged speculation in which that woman offerd her grandchildren to be raped by a bunch of people including Podesta's wife.

That e-mail is not valid evidence of child abuse, and cannot be used as such. Fact.

Case closed. All that's left for you to do is to deny it, while reality doesn't give a shit that you're wrong.

Shadowlight

Wait,

You think accentuating the age of kids while stressing they WILL BE IN THAT POOL as "entertainment" is NOT pedophillic????

PGIsRettarrdedAF

they WILL BE IN THAT POOL as "entertainment"

Distorting facts again. You just can help yourself can you?

is NOT pedophillic????

Nothing which that woman said about her grandchildren is pedophilic.

Shadowlight

No distortion, you are in denial.

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

Why was it important to stress the young ages of the children and that they will be in that pool????

That is normal to you?

PGIsRettarrdedAF

No distortion

Yes distortion, this isn't part of the e-mail:

WILL BE IN THAT POOL as "entertainment"

And it's a strawman.

Why was it important to stress the young ages of the children and that they will be in that pool????

I cannot pretend to know what was going on trough that woman's mind. That would be pure speculation.

That is normal to you?

I don't care about what you think is normal or not. Nor you thinking something isn't normal makes it illegal.

So you believing something is normal or not = completely irrelevant.

There isn't anything pedophilic in that message. Fact.

You have zero evidence supporting your deranged speculation in which that woman offerd her grandchildren to be raped by a bunch of people including Podesta's wife.

That e-mail is not valid evidence of child abuse, and cannot be used as such. Fact.

Case closed. All that's left for you to do is to deny it, while reality doesn't give a shit that you're wrong.

Shadowlight

THIS IS THE EMAIL BELOW.

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

I have now posted this email a SECOND TIME IN A ROW but you avoid it......I wonder why.

Do YOU think it is normal to accentuate that young children will be in the pool "FOR SURE"? Why is thay important?

PGIsRettarrdedAF

Do YOU think it is normal

What are we debating here? What's normal or not in your opinion or in mine, or if that e-mail is evidence of child abuse, which is demonstrably not.

Shadowlight

Why is it so important to note those children will "be in that pool FOR SURE"?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIsRettarrdedAF

I have now posted this email a SECOND TIME IN A ROW but you avoid it......I wonder why.

You're acting insane again. Or you can't read I don't know what's the problem.

the parts that you are afraid of

ROFL

Do YOU think it is normal to accentuate that young children will be in the pool "FOR SURE"? Why is thay important?

HELLLOOOOOO, FOR THE THIRD TIME,

I don't care about what you think is normal or not. Nor you thinking something isn't normal makes it illegal.

So you believing something is normal or not = completely irrelevant.

There isn't anything pedophilic in that message. Fact.

You have zero evidence supporting your deranged speculation in which that woman offerd her grandchildren to be raped by a bunch of people including Podesta's wife.

That e-mail is not valid evidence of child abuse, and cannot be used as such. Fact.

Case closed. All that's left for you to do is to deny it, while reality doesn't give a shit that you're wrong.

Shadowlight

Why was it important to accentuate they would "be in that pool for sure"?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIsRettarrdedAF

Why was it important to accentuate they would "be in that pool for sure"?

LOl why do you keep asking this stupid question as if I could somehow go back in time, read the mind of Tamera Luzzato, and tell you why she said what she said, in the way that she did?

Shadowlight

If it was a normal statement then it would be easy to determine why it was important.

PGIsRettarrdedAF

So from that e-mail being clear evidence of pedophilia, the discussion changed to that statement being normal or not. I'm not interested in what you consider to be normal or not.

That e-mail is not evidence for child abuse, and cannot be used as such, not matter how much you would want it to be.

Shadowlight

It is not normal, which is why you struggle to come up with an explanation for it.

Hmmmm, I wonder why it was soooooo impoetant those little children (who are meamt for entertainment) would FOR SURE be in that pool.

What could POSSIBLY be the reason?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIsRettarrdedAF

It is not normal

I don't care about what you think is normal or not, as I've previously stated multiple times.

which is why you struggle to come up with an explanation for it

When have I struggled to come up with an explanation? Inventing shit again. LOL

HMMM...I wonder why do you keep asking the same nonsensical questions as if they somehow ad legitimacy to your position in any way shape or form.

Shadowlight

So why would it be so important those "entertaining" children would FOR SURE be in the pool?

Can you think of a reason?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIssReetarddedAF

You can make as many mental gimnastiks as you want, that won't change the fact that:

There isn't anything pedophilic in that e-mail.

That e-mail is not evidence of child abuse and cannot be used as such.

Shadowlight

So.....you can't think of a reason? I am just asking questions, why does that bother you so much?

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

So why would it be so important those "entertaining" children would FOR SURE be in the pool?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIssReetarddedAF

As I previously stated I ovbiously cannot read minds and find out motivations behind prase choices.

Why do you keep asking these nonsensical questions as if they add legitimacy to your claim in any way shape or form?

Shadowlight

So.....you can't think of a reason?

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

So why would it be so important those "entertaining" children would FOR SURE be in the pool?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIssReetarddedAF

LOL so I guess mentioning AGAIN for the I don't know which time that I cannot read minds and figure out motivations behind word choices is completely irrelevant here since you simply don't care and you're just having a monologue.

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

WTF does this have to do with anything? Are you going off the rails again?

Shadowlight

Why afraid of the question?

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIssReetarddedAF

I am just asking questions

Yea you're keep asking the same dumb questions that I answered over and over again as if that's suppose to prove that e-mail is pedophilic somehow.

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

This question has nothing to do with reality.

Shadowlight

Why won't you answer the question?

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIssReetarddedAF

Why won't you answer the question?

Because that question has nothing to do with reality. No man asked for anyone's young children to swim in a pool for him as entertainment.

Shadowlight

Humor me.

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIssReetarddedAF

Why afraid of the question?

Dude I'm not afraid of the question I answered it over and over again.

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

From which part of your imagination have you pulled this shit from? WTF does this question have to do with anything?

Shadowlight

You never answered this question.

Why afraid of it?

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIssReetarddedAF

Anyway this conversation has gone of the rails a long time ago. Technically it was off the rails since the very begging.

I suggest you take that one e-mail cherry picked out of tens of thousands to any police station or any institute that combats child trafficking and start explaining to them about your deranged interpretations of it. See how well that would go for you.

Of course you're not going to do that cause it's way easier to be irrational on a conspiracy theory forum, than actually putting your nonsense to the test and risk getting emberassed over it.

Shadowlight

I see, so rather than answer the simple question, you dance away from it.

Why so afraid?

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIssReetarddedAF

I see, so rather than answer the simple question, you dance away from it.

I literally answered it and also explained that it has nothing to do with reality multiple times:

"It depends, do I know that man, is he a friend that I trust? If he's a total stranger obviously not.

HOWEVER, none of this matters because no man has asked for anyone's young children to swim in a pool for him as entertainment."

voat.co/v/pizzagate/3809233/23757418

Give us the "depends" scenarios that change your answer.

I literraly just did that:

"It depends,----> do I know that man, is he a friend that I trust? If he's a total stranger obviously not.<----"

Why so afraid?

I also addressed this and explained that just because I don't answer a dumb question, it doesn't mean that I am afraid of it.

voat.co/v/pizzagate/3809233/23757441

I'm sorry but dealing with this kind of irrationality is tiresome. Bottom line:

You won't be able to use that e-mail as evidence of child abuse, no matter how much you'll claim that it is.

Shadowlight

You have not answered the question, you only said "it depends".

Tell us the different answers you would give depending on your said scenarios.

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIssReetarddedAF

Why afraid of it?

Just because I don't answer a dumb question doesn't mean that I'm afraid of it. Stop making so many assumptions and taking them as fact.

Shadowlight

You are afraid of it.

Why won't you answer the question?

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIssReetarddedAF

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

It depends, do I know that man, is he a friend that I trust? If he's a total stranger obviously not.

HOWEVER, none of this matters because no man has asked for anyone's young children to swim in a pool for him as entertainment.

Shadowlight

Then tell us your answer. Give us the "depends" scenarios that change your answer.

Would you be comfortable with a man asking to have your young children swim in a pool as entertainment for him?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIsRettarrdedAF

If it was a normal statement then it would be easy to determine why it was important.

Absolute dogshit. WTF are you talking about?

Shadowlight

Was it confusing?

Why woulf it be so important to list the age of the kids and that it was SO IMPORTAMT they would be in that pool FOR SURE?

Certainly if this was a common everyday discussion you could think of a million reasons that this IMPORTANT point is communicated?

"We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and THEY WILL BE IN THAT POOL FOR SURE."

PGIsRettarrdedAF

Again more stupid questions that don't change the fact that:

"That e-mail is not evidence for child abuse, and cannot be used as such, not matter how much you would want it to be."

Shadowlight

So why would it be so important those "entertaining" children would FOR SURE be in the pool?

Can you think of a reason?

PGIssReetarrddedAF

You EVEN ADMITTING THE PIMPING HERE.

"it's much more probable that she was offering her grandchildren for sex and the children's mother and father were totally ok with it."

You are cherry picking my quote and taking it out of context again, even tough I previously addressed this and explained what you are doing.

You are simply ignoring logic and reality here.

Shadowlight

YOU are ignoring logic and reality.

It is NOT NORMAL to have emails like that. AT ALL.

There is no "cherry picking". No normal person would have emails like that.

It is obvious she was pimping children to Podesta. You even admitted it as I quoted above.

PGIssReetarrddedAF

I am not going to let you dance to the other pedo emails as a way to avoid the first pedo email.

LOL As if I didn't addressed it and debunked it multiple times :))

Your fake news disinfo tricks will not work on me.

You mean reason and facts won't work on you.

And YES YOU DID ADMIT IT SOUNDED LIKE THEY WERE SELLING SEX. Just a few replies ago above in this thread...your words quoted below....

"it's much more probable that she was offering her grandchildren for sex and the children's mother and father were totally ok with it."

LOL now your doing the exact same thing to me. Cherry picking a quote and taking it completely out of context =)) Jesus you pizzagaters are thick.

"Yeah I think that instead of that woman using some grandma talk that sounded weird which is exactly why that e-mail was cherry picked, it's much more probable that she was offering her grandchildren for sex and the children's mother and father were totally ok with it."

This is an ironic statement implying that obviously the second scenario is way more improbable.

Shadowlight

You have not debunked anything.

You just keep screaming and crying "cherry picked".

The guy has weird as fuck emails including people pimping children to him.

PGIssReetarrddedAF

You have not debunked anything.

Yes I absolutely did, as seen here where I showed that "pizza in poor health and not expected to survive" doesn't exist and pointed out that there isn't anything pedophilic in the Tamerra Luzzatto e-mail, and you are simply speculating a deranged scenario which you have no way of proving.

voat.co/v/pizzagate/3809233/23738285

Or in all my other comments.

You ignoring it does not change that.

Shadowlight

And I am once again going to help you stay focused on one email before we go to the others.

Someone was obviously pimping children to Podesta.

It is NOT NORMAL to have emails like that, AT ALL.

There is no "cherry picking". No normal person would have emails like that.

It is obvious she was pimping children to Podesta. You even admitted it as I quoted above.

PGIsRetarrdeddAF

Now you're simply replacing words in a few cherry picked emails, and speculating deranged interpretations.

Shadowlight

Those are his actual words. Nice try though.

PGIssReetarrddedAF

Those are his actual words. Nice try though.

What words? none of these quotes:

Those are his actual words. Nice try though.

What words? none of these quotes:

Pizza related napkin with a map on it?

Pizza in poor health and not expected to survive?

Dominos on Pasta or Pizza?

For your entertainment, kida 6, 7 and 11 will definitely be in that pool?

Are wctually real>

You can fact check them:

wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

Shadowlight

Are you actually arguing over EXACT phrases???

Desperation much?

MrDarkWater

The day after pizzagate broke, Obama invented the term fake news

darkknight111

@argosciv you know what pics to torment this shill with.

argosciv

I do, but I think I'll save that for a rainy day.

MrDarkWater

Welcome to voat, (((friend)))

AphexTim

The pedo e-mails claim is another pizzagate invention.

https://files.catbox.moe/aiqd66.png

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/55433

PGIsRetarrdeddAF

Did you at least get that the "shooting a hard drive thing" is an invention?

PGIsRetarrdeddAF

What does that e-mail cherry picked out of tens of thousands supose to prove? what is Podesta guilty of here?