You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] Vindicator [S, M] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Well, this article is a roundup enumerating the highlights of a 9-part series Shimatsu did over 2016, mostly based on research here in v/pizzagate. While he doesn't hyperlink to the sources of all the info he presents, he does cite them.

I am certainly willing to flair Shimatsu as possible disinfo if he is in fact pushing any. That's precisely why I raised the question when I linked the article. No one has made a case for that so far. That's why we discuss submission content as a community. Flairs can be added or changed at any time -- and we frequently do so as new material is added to a post through crowdsourced investigation.

0
1

[–] garlicbulb 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

So this post breaks the rules on links but you bend them to suit as he cites them. The other article cites a book too but you flaired that as possible disinfo. One article you give the presumption of innocence the other you presume possibly guilty. I would not flair either or if you feel you have to flair both. However a fairer flair would be somethign liek "more researched needed" and explain into x and x and miss out perjorative "possible disinfo" flairs