Now, I asked you more than once for sauce on the "burner phones" used for Catturd and "using a spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia". I'm still waiting. You then falsely mischaracterized my writing and now you're shifting to yet another tactic.
As sure as the sun rises in the morning, it is indeed common knowledge that the police have this capability. By the appearance of the many people agreeing with me, it is common knowledge to them as well.
Now, I asked you more than once for sauce on the "burner phones" used for Catturd and "using a spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia". I'm still waiting. You then falsely mischaracterized my writing and now you're shifting to yet another tactic.
Funny how you're so upset about me "falsely mischaracterizing" (whatever that means) your writing while I never said that catturd's caller used those techniques. I was providing an example of a phone call that could not be "instantly traced" by a police department.
As sure as the sun rises in the morning, it is indeed common knowledge that the police have this capability. By the appearance of the many people agreeing with me, it is common knowledge to them as well.
So your standard of truth is just that if enough people believe it, it is so?
Now, you're a grammar Karen? So be it. It should have been 'falsely characterizing'. And the subject matter has always been about Catturd. Now, you're shifting again. It seems no one believes your rhetoric by disapproval rate.
Evidence?
I don't care. I follow the evidence.
Now, I asked you more than once for sauce on the "burner phones" used for Catturd and "using a spoofed number made over voip originating from a server in Russia". I'm still waiting. You then falsely mischaracterized my writing and now you're shifting to yet another tactic.
As sure as the sun rises in the morning, it is indeed common knowledge that the police have this capability. By the appearance of the many people agreeing with me, it is common knowledge to them as well.
Funny how you're so upset about me "falsely mischaracterizing" (whatever that means) your writing while I never said that catturd's caller used those techniques. I was providing an example of a phone call that could not be "instantly traced" by a police department.
So your standard of truth is just that if enough people believe it, it is so?
Now, you're a grammar Karen? So be it. It should have been 'falsely characterizing'. And the subject matter has always been about Catturd. Now, you're shifting again. It seems no one believes your rhetoric by disapproval rate.
Keep deflecting