Is Organised Child Trafficking in America for Real?

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No it's not.

Yeah it does, either their translation software wasnt working correctly or the image was faked or someone was playing a joke because the mistyped phrase "covfefe" doesn't mean "I will stand up" in Arabic

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah it does, either their translation software wasnt working correctly or the image was faked or someone was playing a joke because the mistyped phrase "covfefe" doesn't mean "I will stand up" in Arabic

Because they changed it. I have more supporting documents if you want to start a thread about it.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Because they changed it. I have more supporting documents if you want to start a thread about it.

I hope one of those supporting documents is an arabic dictionary

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No

Ok. Then what are you proposing the conspiracy theory here is?
What exactly did snopes do and why did google help cover it up?
Why do you not believe dohnjoe's coworker?

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

nothing

Ok. So maybe you could save all this time and effort by posting the evidence you say you have. It's not that hard to copy and past relevant passages.

Instead you're going off on mad tangents calling into question the reliablity of one of the most reliable websites on the internet. (And by extension, the AP, one of the most trusted news sources.)
The only explanation as to why you'd do that instead of just copy pasting is that you can because your sources don't support what you say they support.

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

and no.

Ok then. I will clarify for you:
It's because your theory is equally silly and unsupported and you are using similar tactics and faulty logic and bizarre behavior.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Because they changed it. I have more supporting documents if you want to start a thread about it.

I don't think you understand this

Do you believe the word "covfefe" means something in Arabic? if so, what?

If not, then what is the conspiracy? and how does Snopes "have it wrong"?

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Then what are you proposing the conspiracy theory here is?
What exactly did snopes do and why did google help cover it up?
Why do you not believe dohnjoe's coworker?


Ok. So maybe you could save all this time and effort by posting the evidence you say you have. It's not that hard to copy and past relevant passages.

Instead you're going off on mad tangents calling into question the reliablity of one of the most reliable websites on the internet. (And by extension, the AP, one of the most trusted news sources.)
The only explanation as to why you'd do that instead of just copy pasting is that you can because your sources don't support what you say they support.


Ok then. I will clarify for you:
It's because your theory is equally silly and unsupported and you are using similar tactics and faulty logic and bizarre behavior.

It is very difficult copy and paste.
I didn't initially bring up Snopes.
There was never any link to the AP story referred to, just a Snopes one.

My theory that their is organised child trafficking is silly sez you.
OK.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

I hope one of those supporting documents is an arabic dictionary

Absofcukingloutely nothing to do with the issue.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

It is very difficult copy and paste.

Lol, it's not really. Ctrl+c, then ctrl+v. Or failing that, a screenshot. Boards allows for very easy image uploading.

This is a rather pathetic excuse.

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

v
I didn't initially bring up Snopes.
There was never any link to the AP story referred to, just a Snopes one.

Lol. The link contained information from AP. You would know that if you read it.
And you are the one who decreed that Snopes is invalid (in opposition to pretty much all other professionals) and then went on a tangent about how they are corrupt and involved in a conspiracy involving tricking Trump or something...
You could have just admitted to being wrong...

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

My theory that their is organised child trafficking is silly sez you.
OK.

Again, a misrepresentation. I'm not saying there isn't child trafficking or that the real issue of child trafficking is silly.
I am calling your particular conspiracy theory silly.
Please stop misrepresenting my posts to get on a high horse. It's not working.

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, it's not really. Ctrl+c, then ctrl+v. Or failing that, a screenshot. Boards allows for very easy image uploading.

This is a rather pathetic excuse.

Lol. The link contained information from AP. You would know that if you read it.
And you are the one who decreed that Snopes is invalid (in opposition to pretty much all other professionals) and then went on a tangent about how they are corrupt and involved in a conspiracy involving tricking Trump or something...
You could have just admitted to being wrong...

Again, a misrepresentation. I'm not saying there isn't child trafficking or that the real issue of child trafficking is silly.
I am calling your particular conspiracy theory silly.
Please stop misrepresenting my posts to get on a high horse. It's not working.

Well then the piece from the AP should have been posted along with a link to same I still have no idea if it relates to any of what I've posted.

I distrust secondary sources.

I am claiming that there is organised child trafficking involving high persons in Government positions you called that silly. No misrepresentation there.

I don't ride horses.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Well then the piece from the AP should have been posted along with a link to same I still have no idea if it relates to any of what I've posted.

You were told that the source was AP.
You were told that the link was contained in the Snopes site.
Why didn't you just look on the link?

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I distrust secondary sources.

Lol.
You mean like how you are a secondary source for the information you claim to have?

Snopes is a well regarded, trusted website with a long successful history in debunking false information. Yet you dismiss them out of hand for no reason at all.

You are some random person on the internet who is constantly dodging questions.
Why should we trust you? Why shouldn't we dismiss you as quickly and easily as you did with Snopes?

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I am claiming that there is organised child trafficking involving high persons in Government positions you called that silly. No misrepresentation there.

This is a lie. I never said that the idea of organised child trafficking involving high persons in Government positions.
Please quote where I said that or withdraw your claim. Thanks.

Also you are going off on a tangent again. I've explained to you how easy it would be to copy and paste the relevant passages or to screenshot them. You ignored that point entirely.
The only explanation is that you can't do that as no such passages exist.

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

You were told that the source was AP.
You were told that the link was contained in the Snopes site.
Why didn't you just look on the link?


Lol.
You mean like how you are a secondary source for the information you claim to have?

Snopes is a well regarded, trusted website with a long successful history in debunking false information. Yet you dismiss them out of hand for no reason at all.

You are some random person on the internet who is constantly dodging questions.
Why should we trust you? Why shouldn't we dismiss you as quickly and easily as you did with Snopes?



This is a lie. I never said that the idea of organised child trafficking involving high persons in Government positions.
Please quote where I said that or withdraw your claim. Thanks.

Also you are going off on a tangent again. I've explained to you how easy it would be to copy and paste the relevant passages or to screenshot them. You ignored that point entirely.
The only explanation is that you can't do that as no such passages exist.

Copy and pasting from that site is not possible without running OCR software etc. which require programs and skills that I have left far behind.
I am not going to explain any further.
Give it up.

I have nothing to withdraw, you said my claims were silly,
Give it up.

TaurenDruid

Screenshots are a thing.

A really quick and easy thing.

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I don't think you understand this

Do you believe the word "covfefe" means something in Arabic? if so, what?

If not, then what is the conspiracy? and how does Snopes "have it wrong"?

No I don't believe Covfefe means anything in Arabic.
Again that has nothing to do with it.

Google deliberately changed their translator meaning of the word to assist in impugning Trump.

Snopes obviously didn't uncover that fact.

If you want further details propose a thread for it I won't reply to this topic again here.

Spencerfreeman

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Screenshots are a thing.

A really quick and easy thing.

Get to it then Einstein.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Google deliberately changed their translator meaning of the word to assist in impugning Trump.

You mean the employees who run the translator, as a joke?

Or the CEO and execs ordered them to do so for nefarious political reasons?

How is Snopes "incorrect" if they are pointing out that Covfefe has no meaning in Arabic, what part of the Snopes article is wrong, can you point it out please?

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You mean the employees who run the translator, as a joke?

Or the CEO and execs ordered them to do so for nefarious political reasons?

How is Snopes "incorrect" if they are pointing out that Covfefe has no meaning in Arabic, what part of the Snopes article is wrong, can you point it out please?

You're not listening.

Dohnjoe

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You're not listening.

Go on then, explain..

Here's the Snopes article
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covfefe-arabic-antediluvian/

Which claims "Covfefe" means something, anything."

And concludes “Covfefe” is not a word, nor is it a Nazi, Israeli, or any other type of acronym. It has no meaning. The President clearly mistyped a tweet, which he later deleted."

If it has no meaning, then the article is correct.

Spencerfreeman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Go on then, explain..

Here's the Snopes article
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covfefe-arabic-antediluvian/

Which claims "Covfefe" means something, anything."

And concludes “Covfefe” is not a word, nor is it a Nazi, Israeli, or any other type of acronym. It has no meaning. The President clearly mistyped a tweet, which he later deleted."

If it has no meaning, then the article is correct.

I'm not listening.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Copy and pasting from that site is not possible without running OCR software etc. which require programs and skills that I have left far behind.
I am not going to explain any further.
Give it up.

Why not screen shot then?
The only explanation is that the quotes aren't there.

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I have nothing to withdraw, you said my claims were silly,
Give it up.

You do. I am not referring to the idea of child trafficking at all. You are trying to insinuate I am.

Your particular claims: ie, the CIA is involved in child trafficking, that people have been killing because of that, that snopes is actually a fraud....
That is what I am calling silly.
You are demonstrating just how silly they are the more you post without backing them up.

You have also missed a part of my reply to you. Please address it now:

You mean like how you are a secondary source for the information you claim to have?

Snopes is a well regarded, trusted website with a long successful history in debunking false information. Yet you dismiss them out of hand for no reason at all.

You are some random person on the internet who is constantly dodging questions.
Why should we trust you? Why shouldn't we dismiss you as quickly and easily as you did with Snopes?

Dohnjoe

King Mob wrote: »

Your particular claims: ie, the CIA is involved in child trafficking, that people have been killing because of that, that snopes is actually a fraud....
That is what I am calling silly.

Indeed. School shootings in the US are very serious. Fake school shooting conspiracies are very silly.

Appealing to the seriousness of a crime doesn't in any way support an unfounded conspiracy related to that crime

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

Why not screen shot then?
The only explanation is that the quotes aren't there.


You do. I am not referring to the idea of child trafficking at all. You are trying to insinuate I am.

Your particular claims: ie, the CIA is involved in child trafficking, that people have been killing because of that, that snopes is actually a fraud....
That is what I am calling silly.
You are demonstrating just how silly they are the more you post without backing them up.

You have also missed a part of my reply to you. Please address it now:

Due to the nature of some of the documents screenshots would be unreadable.
They are barely legible as it is.

The entire point of this thread is child trafficking as per title.
The rest is distraction.
I said that I don't believe Snopes, you're trying to impose words that i didn't use.
I have provided primary source documents to back that the CIA were involved in child trafficking.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Due to the nature of some of the documents screenshots would be unreadable.
They are barely legible as it is.

That's not believable I'm afraid.
It's another pathetic excuse to avoid backing up your claims.

If this is actually true, then perhaps you could type out the relevant parts and provide a screenshot so we know you're being accurate.

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The entire point of this thread is child trafficking as per title.
The rest is distraction.
I said that I don't believe Snopes, you're trying to impose words that i didn't use.

Lol the hypocrisy here is astounding...

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I have provided primary source documents to back that the CIA were involved in child trafficking.

Sorry, you are a secondary source. So using your standards, I must reject your own link out of hand. You provided no such thing.

If you have such evidence, please show it via direct quote or screenshot. Otherwise we're not going to believe you.
You've not provided any good reason why we should believe you and lots of reasons to add you to same group who believe school shootings are faked.

TaurenDruid

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I have provided primary source documents to back that the CIA were involved in child trafficking.

No, no you haven't. You've pointed to a document on the web, that's highly redacted, and you won't copy and paste from it, and you won't screenshot it (but somehow expect others to know what bits you would want screenshotted), and you won't quote it.

But you will fill in the redacted names yourself, without any evidence.

You're a timewaster is all.

Bye.

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

That's not believable I'm afraid.
It's another pathetic excuse to avoid backing up your claims.


Lol the hypocrisy here is astounding...


Sorry, you are a secondary source. So using your standards, I must reject your own link out of hand. You provided no such thing.

If you have such evidence, please show it via direct quote or screenshot. Otherwise we're not going to believe you.
You've not provided any good reason why we should believe you and lots of reasons to add you to same group who believe school shootings are faked.

OK then you do a screenshot of a selection of pages including hand written ones and post here it to back up your claim.


You can reject primary documents from the FBI website out of hand as a primary source. I know who looks silly.
I not going to spoon feed you.

Your refusal to read and therefore ignorance of the evidence does not support your argument in any way.
I'm not asking you to believe me.

Spencerfreeman

TaurenDruid wrote: »

No, no you haven't. You've pointed to a document on the web, that's highly redacted, and you won't copy and paste from it, and you won't screenshot it (but somehow expect others to know what bits you would want screenshotted), and you won't quote it.

But you will fill in the redacted names yourself, without any evidence.

You're a timewaster is all.

Bye.

Says the guy that said it was too long and too difficult a format to read. Right. Bye.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

OK then you do a screenshot of a selection of pages including hand written ones and post here it to back up your claim.

Why would I do that?
I don't believe that there's anything of significance there.
You believe that you've uncovered an international plot endangering kids.
Again, you could have provided this pages ago with ease, yet you didn't, hence the only rational conclusion is that they don't support your theory.
Why else haven't you posted them and been done with this argument?
It would be trivially easy to show us all up in a matter of seconds.
But you don't...

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You can reject primary documents from the FBI website out of hand as a primary source. I know who looks silly.
I not going to spoon feed you.

But you were given a primary source too, you rejected it out of hand because it came from a "secondary source" which you rejected based entirely on what you falsely believe is a single cock up.

Again, if we are applying your standards fairly, it means I can reject the FBI entirely out of hand cause of their cock ups.
[

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Your refusal to read and therefore ignorance of the evidence does not support your argument in any way.
I'm not asking you to believe me.

I know you're not. But I'm pointing out why we don't believe you and why your mad theory is being stuck with the other mad theories such as fake shootings. They look exactly the same.

I'm just trying to understand your thinking and why you are pushing a theory you know you can't defend.
I don't get your motivation in posting about this at all...

What did you expect to happen when you suggested you conspiracy theory?
What do you hope to accomplish with this information you've discovered?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Absofcukingloutely nothing to do with the issue.

Why wouldn’t an Arabic dictionary have to do with whether Covfefe meant something in Arabic?

You were perfectly fine with this tangent until you suddenly weren’t.

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Why wouldn’t an Arabic dictionary have to do with whether Covfefe meant something in Arabic?

You were perfectly fine with this tangent until you suddenly weren’t.

I've already addressed that point.

Because it is better in a thread of it's own.

If you bring it up again in this thread you will be ignored.

Spencerfreeman

King Mob wrote: »

Why would I do that?
I don't believe that there's anything of significance there.
You believe that you've uncovered an international plot endangering kids.
Again, you could have provided this pages ago with ease, yet you didn't, hence the only rational conclusion is that they don't support your theory.
Why else haven't you posted them and been done with this argument?
It would be trivially easy to show us all up in a matter of seconds.
But you don't...


But you were given a primary source too, you rejected it out of hand because it came from a "secondary source" which you rejected based entirely on what you falsely believe is a single cock up.

Again, if we are applying your standards fairly, it means I can reject the FBI entirely out of hand cause of their cock ups.
[

I know you're not. But I'm pointing out why we don't believe you and why your mad theory is being stuck with the other mad theories such as fake shootings. They look exactly the same.

I'm just trying to understand your thinking and why you are pushing a theory you know you can't defend.
I don't get your motivation in posting about this at all...

What did you expect to happen when you suggested you conspiracy theory?
What do you hope to accomplish with this information you've discovered?

Are you dizzy yet?
You're just going 'round and 'round.
I didn't suggest a conspiracy.
I asked "Is organised child trafficking in America for real".
I hoped that people would contribute in a positive and constructive fashion.
See, I do get it wrong.

King Mob

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Are you dizzy yet?
You're just going 'round and 'round.
I didn't suggest a conspiracy.
I asked "Is organised child trafficking in America for real".
I hoped that people would contribute in a positive and constructive fashion.
See, I do get it wrong.

And then you said for a fact that the CIA was involved and had people killed for it.
You have no evidence for that conspiracy theory.
Why did you claim this?

I made several other points in that post. Go back and address them please. I have addressed all of your points clearly and directly.