He forgave those who repented. Judas went to hell, and so those whonpaid him, and persecuted Christ.
St. Augustine of Hippo was right.
You're talking to satan.
He forgave the Romans who did not know what they were doing.
The jews knew what they were doing.
Spoiler alert: everyone who defends His killers.
St. Alphonsus Ligouri was right.
None of your business.
Like I said elsewhere, we're allowed free speech as long as we don't notice the nose. Derailing and discreditation is their modus operandi because it is effective hence just you and JG5 staying on topic.
Getting back to the topic at hand I think you're not pretty much on point apart from the motive to run such an operation.
Who would start a company in Delaware with a shady lawyer as the registered agent for a site with so few users like this with no business plan or solid monetization strategy for so long?
When scored started it gathered many users from a lot of places where free speech was being restricted. Then due to bad management, and overzealous jannies people started to leave until the point it's just a few of us and a bunch of bots.
Though the objective never changed. This is like you said a honeypot with the intent gathering data on us to integrate with other data pipes in big Intel data warehouses so Intel agencies and contractors can make their lists of undesirables which soon will be converted into target lists.
I don't think this has anything to do with political dichotomy. This is about NWO, worldwide control, and the destruction of every White person on this planet.
Scored is becoming irrelevant by the day as more and more people migrate to twitter (another psyop), and chat apps I.e. Telegram channels which have become a psyop too since France has arrested its CEO more than a year ago.
The only real alternative we would have in the future is a Web 1.0 image board hosted on the onion network.
Said the psychopath who dispenses threats like candy.
I will ask JG5 to remove your ban when he comes up. However it would be much better to discuss that over here.
Unilateral decisions. See the other reply.
Be more open to discussion. Write a post with the rules and all the criteria used to apply them. Then let people give their input. Setting a reply limit of three or four paragraphs would be prudent to exclude spammers looking to derail the discussion.
Even though you're not publicizing reports everything is public anyway.
Due to apparent lack of transparency conspiracies will become a conspiracy itself this becoming a meta conspiracies.
Sure. What differentiate this threw from these other threads you claim to be spam?
Meybe you forgot. But here's a suggestion I've made months ago.
https://scored.co/c/CommunitiesConflict/p/19Bsxo2WOt/
I'm sure most sane people here will appreciate a discussion on the matter which will only improve your standing with this community.
Conspiracies become so due to lack of transparency after all.
So let's create a post and show our cards. Otherwise c/conspiracies will become c/MetaConspiracies.
What can I do if the source of these replies are spammy? By your own definition this very thread is spam too.
Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
Maybe you should put up a post so people can discuss these changes.
Turns out it was a mistake. No harm done. Now how about It's all a big jewish psyop? It's been well established that jews have been pushing homozexualism in the west for decades. They even claim israel is the gayest country in the world.
Also, now I'm offended. My shit posting takes great effort.
The evidence speaks louder than any statement ever will. Though there's much, much more. Once the ball gets starts rolling more redpills will come.
Now why did you take down the post about central banking? That is the crux of all modern conspiracy theories.
Done. Your turn.
Submission statement: Given the stament of c/C is scored an israeli psyop?
Sorry, that trick does not work on me. Though I will do it if you first deal with the users dispensing death threats as per site rules.
You're confounding trolling with a regular post and using that to justify editorializing if content which is a nice way to say censorship.
At the very least a new rule should be made about editorializing so people can discuss that.
On a side note rules should be simple and not all encompassing so to eliminate ambiguous decisions.
PS: from now on autocorrect shall be known as autopajeetizer.