Not true. For those who do this against popular 'bad guys', we generally already know the backstory and details. But if you are going to make serious claims against a 'Good Guy,' you can't do so without proper documentation.
Exactly what I mean. If you make a claim against the “bad guys” it generally is accepted without much question. Proof is only asked for if it goes against the narrative.
You missed part of my point. Claims against 'the bad guys' is NOT generally accepted without question, but only after the proof of their activities has been brought to the board previously, often many, many times and which can be found by searching specific terms on this very board.
In addition, many of us archive files, data and photos of scofflaws and their crimes and already have confirmed (by past articles, etc.) with access to our own links or transcriptions of their activities.
Exactly what I mean. If you make a claim against the “bad guys” it generally is accepted without much question. Proof is only asked for if it goes against the narrative.
You missed part of my point. Claims against 'the bad guys' is NOT generally accepted without question, but only after the proof of their activities has been brought to the board previously, often many, many times and which can be found by searching specific terms on this very board.
In addition, many of us archive files, data and photos of scofflaws and their crimes and already have confirmed (by past articles, etc.) with access to our own links or transcriptions of their activities.
All due respect, that’s generally not what I’ve seen
Many wild claims about the “bad guys” I’ve seen get comments primarily talking about how it’s “probably” true or “makes sense” enough to believe it.
See: frazzledrip, Michelle Obama being a man, Biden being a clone, etc