To: TEXOKIE
So Twitter engaged in illegal activity, and now they are using Receivership in order to preserve the company under extraordinary circumstances.
Am I reading that right?
362 posted on
03/09/2018 3:53:52 PM PST by
SkyPilot
("I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6)
To: SkyPilot; TEXOKIE
No, the way that I am reading it (see my last post above) is that an ANON had misunderstood Q's post #903.
Q clarifies it in #905. (It had to do with ES having 24 hours to respond, and apparently he already did, publicly.)
The whole "receivership" thing was just a bad guess.
371 posted on
03/09/2018 3:57:42 PM PST by
zzeeman
("We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.")
To: SkyPilot
I read it as they were just threatened with receivership and given 24 days to respond which they did. Not that it has gone into receivership. To cryptic to decipher.
To: SkyPilot
I’ve only read this far (catching up, around post 300-400) but I’m going to go ahead and guess that the T servers contain extraordinary amounts of child po*n and they do nothing to prevent transmitting it.
One might presume that by inaction, (at)Jack is promoting it, viewing it...selling access to it?
485 posted on
03/09/2018 6:05:22 PM PST by
KitJ
(Shall not be infringed...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson