[John O]

So if asking a question for proof about an unsubstantiated claim is posting FUD, then what is posting the unsubstantiated claim in the first place?

Again please note I have nothing against Q and several of his posts sound legit. However, we’ve been down this very same road before (”quidam” and “Deep in the Hurtgen forest”) so I see nothing wrong with anyone asking for evidence.

Just because someone says something that we want to be true is no reason to trust them.

But all that is kind of irrelevant to my initial point. Everyone is a n00b and calling someone a name to open the discussion doesn’t achieve any purpose other than ruin your own credibility. Attack the issues, not the person (Until of course someone is proven to be a troll, then call the kitties and have at it)

[grey_whiskers]

You are completely and unutterably *wrong*.

So if asking a question for proof about an unsubstantiated claim is posting FUD, then what is posting the unsubstantiated claim in the first place?

Typical leftist troll move. You ask an "innocent rhetorical question" designed to get lurkers and the uninformed to ask, "Yeah, what's wrong with that?" ...except that your question automatically pre-judges the issue in the favor of the other troll.

"Unsubstantiated" can have two meanings.

The first is, there is no public evidence universally agreed upon, that backs up a contention.

The second is, there isn't even any private evidence, the entire thing is fabricated.

Trolls act in a way so as to conflate the two. (You can see similar behaviour in news articles, where conservatives are concerned. The articles almost always contain paraphrases and interpretation, followed by 'claims Mr. X, a Republican blah blah)'. This is standard and proper journalistic style. But by contrast to the direct quotes in their own words of Democrats, followed by the title of their official position, it creates the impression in the reader, that the Republican is a partisan shill blowing smoke, whereas the Democrat is solely acting in their official capacity only, and SOLELY on the basis of facts.)

Just because someone says something that we want to be true is no reason to trust them.

Are you *SERIOUSLY* implying that FReepers want there to be credible assassination plans? Are you Nucking Futz?

But all that is kind of irrelevant to my initial point. Everyone is a n00b and calling someone a name to open the discussion doesn’t achieve any purpose other than ruin your own credibility. Attack the issues, not the person (Until of course someone is proven to be a troll, then call the kitties and have at it)

(As if trolls aren't able to troll by mis-framing the discussion of an issue.)

Because obviously, those people who joined in the last year, and immediately set about casting doubt on posts of interest to FReepers concerning the overturning of the Deep State, can *ONLY* be doing so from the very highest "but MUH PRINCIPLES" motives, and as such are beyond even the possibility of question.

Here, Hillary has some swampland in Arkansas she wants to sell you; via convenient monthly payments. But if you're late with one payment, the entire contract converts retroactively to a rental.

[grey_whiskers]

"The memo from Grassley and Graham, which is now public for the first time, provides new insight into Steele’s circle of contacts during that time. While heavily redacted, the memo states Steele said he received information that came from "a foreign sub-source who 'is in touch with (redacted), a contact of (redacted), a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to (redacted).”

And yet they almost took out the President, through official channels, with that.

*crickets* from the troll brigade.