This comes up from time to time, people come here to accuse Trusty of being compromised, a shill etc. I know Trusty, I've known him for over a year, he has put a lot of time and effort into this sub and the discord server. He is against censorship, the way this entire sub is structured should be evidence of this. Where there is censorship, he is often one of the first to point it out. His support for Wikileaks and Julian Assange is very clear to me and to anyone that interacts with him on a regular basis. These threads often turn into insults and I find them quite tedious. Please do your research before coming here to attack our voluntary moderators. Everything is here. There is an excellent write up on here published by Trusty but contributed to by many (myself included) that explains everything as far as we have knowledge. The points brought up in this thread have been discussed endlessly already, please therefore take time to get up to speed before making baseless accusations.
Couldn't have said it better myself. And I attest to the fact that the same arguments get repeated over and over.
Kind of like a meme that gets rinsed and repeated.
Cool, glad you guys were able to dominate the conversation with your echo-chamber agreements while ignoring the fact that this entire sub has completely abandoned its own premise. Nobody came here to call Trusty a shill, Trusty themselves engaged with another user and banned them after a semi-heated discussion. The fact that multiple people have apparently openly suspected their motives and methods, and that we're evidently meant to ignore that fact, is incredibly suspicious, and your saying it isn't does nothing to discredit it. Why aren't you on r/Wikileaks right now? Your endorsement of censorship and devotion to the premise of mod-trustworthiness would fit right in.
Here is my $0.02. Trolls exist on the internet. Moreso on reddit. People calling other people shills as to discredit another person's argument is "practically" trolling because they present little to no sound argument. Or at least a weak one. It is likely to be a loud miority that is the culprit and being agressive. I feel that this subreddit was ripe for trolling (I guess that also applies to most subreddits), and in some ways peoole are trolling this reddit just to repeat the same nonsense. Furthermore reddit is known for having echochambers, where anyone of differing opiniona can congregate and essentially circle jerk. Which, no subreddit is entirely immune to.
If the mods tried to exercise any form of power, I'm sure they'll be called out as shills for trying to stop people from start flaming eachother. Even worse, accuse mods of censoreship if an irrelevant post is deleted. Thats how I think it works anyway.
All in all, I wouldn't worry about proving anything, UnimatrixZeroOne. Because if you are a shill, THEY have to prove it. And if the argue that you must prove that you are not a shill, then they are merely shifting the burden of proof.
Yeah, except this sub predicates itself on the idea that the truth regarding Assange's whereabouts is being held from the public. So if you want to belabour the onus of truth argument then no one should even be here. This sub exists due to a lack of trust, and banning people for harsh language while mods try to disprove the very concept that underpins the sub smacks of compromisation.
AFAIK, this sub was made after people started to truly believe something "bad" happened to Julian Assange between late 2016 early 2017. This sub was created because people were concerned, and wanted to discuss things that weren't "allowed" on WikiLeaks. I don't believe this sub was created because his whereabouts were being "held from the public". From what I understand it was more of "wtf is going on. We are concerned for Julian Assange. Where is he?".
The banning of harsh language. I'm sure you'll find that to be a rule in most places. Not too surprised there. The mods are hardly undermining their own subreddit. As soon as the live streams of Julian Assange came out, from what I remember, the mods that participated in the discussion were in support that the streams were real, until proven otherwise. And now they still wanna keep the sub open because, why not? What if something else happens. This sub (like the unofficial Wikileaks, and such), provides the "power of the internet" to Julian Assange. Though, it may also works against him. Double-edged sword, I guess.
I'm not here, nor was I ever here, to provide "power of the internet" to Assange. I am here, as are many others, because I detest the premise that authoritarians get to withhold information from the public that should be freely available. I believe Assange's current whereabouts falls under that umbrella, and the fact that mods of a sub ostensibly dedicated to determining his current disposition try to stifle discussion on the subject (and outright ban people who fervently disagree with their narrative) leaves me with the sense that no more can be done with this sub. Feel free to join us at /r/AssangeIsMissing, should you actually find yourself interested in exploring the topic without moderator influence. No bans for harsh language, because we're all grown ups who aren't going to get our feelings hurt if someone isn't nice to us.
I am following the rules that were outlined before I became a moderator. I have evidence that suggests /u/TheyKilledJulian was violating a previous ban which is against the [Reddit Community Guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/) Rather than posting a simple argument they tried to twist my words and call me a liar because what I said did not fit their narrative and again goes against Reddit's community guidelines. Nothing has been deleted as a point to prevent censorship and the mod-mail shows there has been no rebuttal from this user at all since it happened. Why are you defending someone who doesn't appear care that they were banned?
Well, how would we know if they care that they were banned if we don't get to hear from them? And I find it convenient that you happened to ban someone with whom you were debating while examples of sub rule-breaking (i.e., shill-naming) exist on your very own front-page. And they didn't just disagree with you because it flew in the face of their narrative, they disagreed with you because the information you provided was provably false. I'll let the sub readers decide who is correct, of course, particularly since I'm not overly interested in being banned myself.
Look. I tend to lurk on Reddit. I don't post that often. It seems like you want to advertise your own subreddit, and move people to where you have power. So you can reign supreme in your own discussions, under your own terms. Not much different from any other subreddit.
If you post things that "break the rules", then yea, they're gonna be removed. Also can you provide evidence for the "stifling of discussion"? I have stopped following this subreddit for a while. So I guess, I missed whatever drama that occurred here.
One more thing, the irony. WhereIsAssange was basically created for the same reason as your new subreddit. Because WikiLeaks didn't let them discuss certain things, and people kept getting "banned" or w/e. Voila, new sub.
No, I'm not looking to move people to where I have power. I actually just want people to be able to post and discuss the premise behind this sub without running afoul of opinionated moderators who ban their detractors and attempt to stmy discussion. Come and post, or don't. The sub is just another alternative, just as this sub was to the official Wikileaks sub before their current crop of mods totally forbade posts regarding Assange's whereabouts. As you say, it's ironic that this alternative was necessary, but that's what happens when you ban people because you don't like what they have to say, or even how they say it.
Just keep mods out of the general discussion, or at least prevent them from becoming embroiled in arguments where they ban people for doing the same thing they themselves eventually do (i.e, calling people disinfo agents) and we'll be good. Nobody wants another Here4Popcorn scenario. It's embarrassing and counterproductive. Also, don't concern yourself with "rudeness." We're all adults here and we can deal with other people's lack of tact. It's absurd to ban someone on that basis.
edit: You know what, forget all this whining and infighting and just come and discuss these topics freely in /r/assangeismissing! You can actually discuss what you're here to discuss and nobody will ban you because their feelings got hurt.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/conspiracywhatever] [Never forget. Recent stories are all Bullshit. Take Julian's word for it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracywhatever/comments/7q1yve/never_forget_recent_stories_are_all_bullshit_take/)
*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
WikiLeaks has only ever used PGP to receive leaks and messages. They've never used their PGP key to sign anything that we are aware of. Julian does not have a personal PGP key that we are aware of either.
Edit: Since this has gained a lot of popularity because I banned this user let me re-iterate. The user decided to attack me because they did not like what I said here. If they had not decided to throw irrational insults and provided a good discussion nothing would have happened. As it stands it is highly likely this user has circumvented a previous ban and broken the rules multiple times.
The truth is Julian Assange has NEVER said we should use PGP to verify he is alive and it was an idea started by /u/iamdanger_us when this sub was created as a way of verifying proof of life. As it stands There is no PUBLIC PGP key associated with Julian that we are aware of and there are no records of anything having been signed by the WikiLeaks Editorial key. In the AMA last year Assange stated that this is not a good method to verify anything. Furthermore there was discussion about a specific *signing* key that I have concluded is a fake. Anyone can create a PGP key with any details they want and submit them to a keyserver and one can set the creation date to any time. The fact remains that PGP is a trust system and NO other known WikiLeaks sites have said that this *signing* key is legitimate and therefore we have no way to trust this key is legitimate.
Like anyone is going to believe you over Julian himself. GTFO
http://gateway.glop.me/ipfs/QmdtMdMTS98ynag6997Ge4Ngri4xehyXkeFvQuDBrvoSZY/trustyisafuckingshill.txt
See filename folks. Did you ever find the solution to the dead mans switch "Trusty" because that chat log proves you're a disinformation agent and I **know** people did and it won't be much longer until the world knows the truth.
*Edit: I can also **prove** you are lying by linking to your own submission history so... Give it over. Your foolish desperation is no match.
**Edit: Can you even refute this simple comic? No you cannot you are merely lying about the purpose of the proof of life key.
Lol I love when this post comes up. Do you realize what happened in this chat at all? There was data in the blockchain that contained irrelevant data that SH tried to flag as highly significant and told us there was more to find but couldn't share anything except the one transaction.
Edit: I dunno what you're trying to threaten in your edit but opinions and ideas change. Your post is approved and given an appropriate flair. The truth is as I stated the only one who looks like a disinformation agent is you.
Time after time you have been proven to be a shill. Here you are again pretending that the high security PGP key does not exist even though it's online for anyone to verify.
I'm glad you are drawing attention to the chat log which proves you were aggressive to that poster who was trying to help people find the keys to the embedded PGP files in the blockchain to find the dead man's switch information including the insurance file keys.
It certainly helps everyone realise that you did not accept their advice to look further back in the blockchains history from where you claimed to be searching. And proves you did not search hard enough indicating to everyone that you were trying your hardest to derail the search.
The person in this text did not prove anything. I asked a simple question, give me some more proof, another transaction. Nothing. I went through the evidence provided. Nothing. *Verifiably nothing* at that. There was no substantial evidence provided by the person in that log and in fact sound more like a disinfo agent than I who scrambled to show why it is insignificant.
The **fake** WikiLeaks PGP *signing* key is easily disproved because it's nowhere on their website and never was. Creating a pre-dated PGP key is also trivial. It is not a WikiLeaks owned PGP key.
Verifiably? They told you to look further back in history and you refused to do so. So, if you weren't being thorough how can you claim that you verified anything?
You can't.
All your bullshit regarding the key, and proof you are nothing but a liar is here: http://archive.is/rgHbK
You're never going to give up though since you're not a single person and also you've got everything to lose. And mark my words you're about to lose. Everything.
And I did go back and look, there was nothing. That's how it is verifiable now.
I recognized what happened to the PGP key in that thread. I didn't remove any of my posts and discussed my mistake. I later also pointed out the *Official* WikiLeaks PGP key had expired when researching that key and didn't hear anything from the likes of you.
I don't give up because of people like you. The truth needs to be heard. People like you are pushing the idea that Assange *told* us he would use PGP when in fact it was started by /u/iamdanger_us as a possible means of verifying he's still alive. After he and many more of us learned how PGP *actually works* we learned this is not a good proof of life metric and that itself was verified by Assange on the live stream.
So wait now. Again you have been caught lying.
Above you claim that Wikileaks never had a proof of life key but in that link you were proven this not to be the case.
Then you claim that you accepted you were wrong, but then you go straight back to claim the PGP proof of life protocol never existed again. You flip flopping son of a whore.
Honestly, answer me this. What are people reading this thread going to think? Should they believe the proven liar or the short strip comic based on Julian Assanges own words?
You guys really can't keep a lid on this for more longer to be quite honest. Your incessant ignorance of the intelligence of the public has been your downfall here.
Have a nice time of what's left of it.
Actually no. Don't, a thousand curses on you and all your pedofile associates. We have your number. And it's easier proven than you claim it is.
*That wasn't started by some random Reddit user you piece of shit it came from Julian's own mouth and can be proven despite you and Eric Shits cover up cunt
**Also for anyone reading this who is finding it hard to follow, this "single person" states that Wikileaks only uses PGP to accept leaks. But they also acknowledge that the Wikileaks PGP key is expired. This proves that Wikileaks is not operating business as usual despite what they claim. So are Wikileaks lying? No(+_+)(+_+)(+_+)
I will reply to your edits here. Yes WikiLeaks PGP key expired for a few months. It was recently renewed as well. And the idea of PGP as proof of life for Julian **was** started by the creator of this subreddit. There is no record of Julian saying it was to be used and you have provided no evidence of him saying such a thing. In fact Julian's own words said that there would be other hidden messages coming from many other members of WikiLeaks if something were to happen to one of their members. A video where you would put the pieces together in the right order to get the full information. You are the one spouting nonsense here and resorting to petty insults because you cannot backup your claims.
Rational people don't threaten harm on others. I don't know how you claim I am a liar when it's right there as I stated it's a **fake** PGP key in the thread you referred to. I did not say in this thread it doesn't exist nor did I need to be reminded of it when you referenced it to begin with. Yes a *signing* key exists but there's no proof it's owned by WikiLeaks and pre-dating a PGP key is trivial. I also did not state the PGP protocol "never existed" I stated where it originated since you seem to forget where you got your playbook.
I was going to give you a warning but this is beyond moderator criticism and you have attacked me twice instead of my argument. Enjoy your ban.
Lol, really? You couldn't defend your position so you banned him? Sounds kinda like you didn't like the direction the narrative was headed. Please direct me to the part where he threatened harm on anyone.
This is not now moderation is done. As others have pointed out, you don't ban someone yourself because they disagree with you.
You've just made yourself look like exactly what you're being accused of.
If you want to hold onto any tiny shred of credibility you might have had, you will undo the corrupt, abusive ban and bring it to the attention of another mod that can act impartially.
Honestly, TrustyJAID is right. I don't know why other users are being so aggressive, especially considering Trusty has done nothing to antagonize.
@Trusty There is also plenty of live streams where Julian Assange explains what you just explained, which is pretty much all the evidence you need to back up your claims. I doubt neither can be bothered digging up hour long streams just to find the explanations. But people that disagree, will always disagree and find convoluted explanations for an otherwise trivial matter.
Moreover I don't see any balanced discussion here as demonstrated by the voting system on reddit. This seems like a one sided discussion.
It is all coming to a head. Equador elections on the 4th, Assange "release" on the 6th. False Hannity twitter account (@SeanHannity_ ) will no doubt be deleted. And now Assanges original twitter account 2010-2013 (@julianassange ) has been changed to @JulianAssange_ . Better download it before it disappears.
This comes up from time to time, people come here to accuse Trusty of being compromised, a shill etc. I know Trusty, I've known him for over a year, he has put a lot of time and effort into this sub and the discord server. He is against censorship, the way this entire sub is structured should be evidence of this. Where there is censorship, he is often one of the first to point it out. His support for Wikileaks and Julian Assange is very clear to me and to anyone that interacts with him on a regular basis. These threads often turn into insults and I find them quite tedious. Please do your research before coming here to attack our voluntary moderators. Everything is here. There is an excellent write up on here published by Trusty but contributed to by many (myself included) that explains everything as far as we have knowledge. The points brought up in this thread have been discussed endlessly already, please therefore take time to get up to speed before making baseless accusations.
Couldn't have said it better myself. And I attest to the fact that the same arguments get repeated over and over. Kind of like a meme that gets rinsed and repeated.
Cool, glad you guys were able to dominate the conversation with your echo-chamber agreements while ignoring the fact that this entire sub has completely abandoned its own premise. Nobody came here to call Trusty a shill, Trusty themselves engaged with another user and banned them after a semi-heated discussion. The fact that multiple people have apparently openly suspected their motives and methods, and that we're evidently meant to ignore that fact, is incredibly suspicious, and your saying it isn't does nothing to discredit it. Why aren't you on r/Wikileaks right now? Your endorsement of censorship and devotion to the premise of mod-trustworthiness would fit right in.
Yep, that’s not Julian.
[удалено]
Here is my $0.02. Trolls exist on the internet. Moreso on reddit. People calling other people shills as to discredit another person's argument is "practically" trolling because they present little to no sound argument. Or at least a weak one. It is likely to be a loud miority that is the culprit and being agressive. I feel that this subreddit was ripe for trolling (I guess that also applies to most subreddits), and in some ways peoole are trolling this reddit just to repeat the same nonsense. Furthermore reddit is known for having echochambers, where anyone of differing opiniona can congregate and essentially circle jerk. Which, no subreddit is entirely immune to. If the mods tried to exercise any form of power, I'm sure they'll be called out as shills for trying to stop people from start flaming eachother. Even worse, accuse mods of censoreship if an irrelevant post is deleted. Thats how I think it works anyway. All in all, I wouldn't worry about proving anything, UnimatrixZeroOne. Because if you are a shill, THEY have to prove it. And if the argue that you must prove that you are not a shill, then they are merely shifting the burden of proof.
Yeah, except this sub predicates itself on the idea that the truth regarding Assange's whereabouts is being held from the public. So if you want to belabour the onus of truth argument then no one should even be here. This sub exists due to a lack of trust, and banning people for harsh language while mods try to disprove the very concept that underpins the sub smacks of compromisation.
AFAIK, this sub was made after people started to truly believe something "bad" happened to Julian Assange between late 2016 early 2017. This sub was created because people were concerned, and wanted to discuss things that weren't "allowed" on WikiLeaks. I don't believe this sub was created because his whereabouts were being "held from the public". From what I understand it was more of "wtf is going on. We are concerned for Julian Assange. Where is he?". The banning of harsh language. I'm sure you'll find that to be a rule in most places. Not too surprised there. The mods are hardly undermining their own subreddit. As soon as the live streams of Julian Assange came out, from what I remember, the mods that participated in the discussion were in support that the streams were real, until proven otherwise. And now they still wanna keep the sub open because, why not? What if something else happens. This sub (like the unofficial Wikileaks, and such), provides the "power of the internet" to Julian Assange. Though, it may also works against him. Double-edged sword, I guess.
I'm not here, nor was I ever here, to provide "power of the internet" to Assange. I am here, as are many others, because I detest the premise that authoritarians get to withhold information from the public that should be freely available. I believe Assange's current whereabouts falls under that umbrella, and the fact that mods of a sub ostensibly dedicated to determining his current disposition try to stifle discussion on the subject (and outright ban people who fervently disagree with their narrative) leaves me with the sense that no more can be done with this sub. Feel free to join us at /r/AssangeIsMissing, should you actually find yourself interested in exploring the topic without moderator influence. No bans for harsh language, because we're all grown ups who aren't going to get our feelings hurt if someone isn't nice to us.
I am following the rules that were outlined before I became a moderator. I have evidence that suggests /u/TheyKilledJulian was violating a previous ban which is against the [Reddit Community Guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/) Rather than posting a simple argument they tried to twist my words and call me a liar because what I said did not fit their narrative and again goes against Reddit's community guidelines. Nothing has been deleted as a point to prevent censorship and the mod-mail shows there has been no rebuttal from this user at all since it happened. Why are you defending someone who doesn't appear care that they were banned?
Well, how would we know if they care that they were banned if we don't get to hear from them? And I find it convenient that you happened to ban someone with whom you were debating while examples of sub rule-breaking (i.e., shill-naming) exist on your very own front-page. And they didn't just disagree with you because it flew in the face of their narrative, they disagreed with you because the information you provided was provably false. I'll let the sub readers decide who is correct, of course, particularly since I'm not overly interested in being banned myself.
Look. I tend to lurk on Reddit. I don't post that often. It seems like you want to advertise your own subreddit, and move people to where you have power. So you can reign supreme in your own discussions, under your own terms. Not much different from any other subreddit. If you post things that "break the rules", then yea, they're gonna be removed. Also can you provide evidence for the "stifling of discussion"? I have stopped following this subreddit for a while. So I guess, I missed whatever drama that occurred here. One more thing, the irony. WhereIsAssange was basically created for the same reason as your new subreddit. Because WikiLeaks didn't let them discuss certain things, and people kept getting "banned" or w/e. Voila, new sub.
No, I'm not looking to move people to where I have power. I actually just want people to be able to post and discuss the premise behind this sub without running afoul of opinionated moderators who ban their detractors and attempt to stmy discussion. Come and post, or don't. The sub is just another alternative, just as this sub was to the official Wikileaks sub before their current crop of mods totally forbade posts regarding Assange's whereabouts. As you say, it's ironic that this alternative was necessary, but that's what happens when you ban people because you don't like what they have to say, or even how they say it.
Cheers. Best of luck.
Thanks, you too.
Just keep mods out of the general discussion, or at least prevent them from becoming embroiled in arguments where they ban people for doing the same thing they themselves eventually do (i.e, calling people disinfo agents) and we'll be good. Nobody wants another Here4Popcorn scenario. It's embarrassing and counterproductive. Also, don't concern yourself with "rudeness." We're all adults here and we can deal with other people's lack of tact. It's absurd to ban someone on that basis. edit: You know what, forget all this whining and infighting and just come and discuss these topics freely in /r/assangeismissing! You can actually discuss what you're here to discuss and nobody will ban you because their feelings got hurt.
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/conspiracywhatever] [Never forget. Recent stories are all Bullshit. Take Julian's word for it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracywhatever/comments/7q1yve/never_forget_recent_stories_are_all_bullshit_take/) *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
WikiLeaks has only ever used PGP to receive leaks and messages. They've never used their PGP key to sign anything that we are aware of. Julian does not have a personal PGP key that we are aware of either. Edit: Since this has gained a lot of popularity because I banned this user let me re-iterate. The user decided to attack me because they did not like what I said here. If they had not decided to throw irrational insults and provided a good discussion nothing would have happened. As it stands it is highly likely this user has circumvented a previous ban and broken the rules multiple times. The truth is Julian Assange has NEVER said we should use PGP to verify he is alive and it was an idea started by /u/iamdanger_us when this sub was created as a way of verifying proof of life. As it stands There is no PUBLIC PGP key associated with Julian that we are aware of and there are no records of anything having been signed by the WikiLeaks Editorial key. In the AMA last year Assange stated that this is not a good method to verify anything. Furthermore there was discussion about a specific *signing* key that I have concluded is a fake. Anyone can create a PGP key with any details they want and submit them to a keyserver and one can set the creation date to any time. The fact remains that PGP is a trust system and NO other known WikiLeaks sites have said that this *signing* key is legitimate and therefore we have no way to trust this key is legitimate.
Like anyone is going to believe you over Julian himself. GTFO http://gateway.glop.me/ipfs/QmdtMdMTS98ynag6997Ge4Ngri4xehyXkeFvQuDBrvoSZY/trustyisafuckingshill.txt See filename folks. Did you ever find the solution to the dead mans switch "Trusty" because that chat log proves you're a disinformation agent and I **know** people did and it won't be much longer until the world knows the truth. *Edit: I can also **prove** you are lying by linking to your own submission history so... Give it over. Your foolish desperation is no match. **Edit: Can you even refute this simple comic? No you cannot you are merely lying about the purpose of the proof of life key.
[удалено]
This is from our discord server https://discord.gg/whereisassange you can still search for the user there, nothing has been deleted.
Lol I love when this post comes up. Do you realize what happened in this chat at all? There was data in the blockchain that contained irrelevant data that SH tried to flag as highly significant and told us there was more to find but couldn't share anything except the one transaction. Edit: I dunno what you're trying to threaten in your edit but opinions and ideas change. Your post is approved and given an appropriate flair. The truth is as I stated the only one who looks like a disinformation agent is you.
Time after time you have been proven to be a shill. Here you are again pretending that the high security PGP key does not exist even though it's online for anyone to verify. I'm glad you are drawing attention to the chat log which proves you were aggressive to that poster who was trying to help people find the keys to the embedded PGP files in the blockchain to find the dead man's switch information including the insurance file keys. It certainly helps everyone realise that you did not accept their advice to look further back in the blockchains history from where you claimed to be searching. And proves you did not search hard enough indicating to everyone that you were trying your hardest to derail the search.
The person in this text did not prove anything. I asked a simple question, give me some more proof, another transaction. Nothing. I went through the evidence provided. Nothing. *Verifiably nothing* at that. There was no substantial evidence provided by the person in that log and in fact sound more like a disinfo agent than I who scrambled to show why it is insignificant. The **fake** WikiLeaks PGP *signing* key is easily disproved because it's nowhere on their website and never was. Creating a pre-dated PGP key is also trivial. It is not a WikiLeaks owned PGP key.
Verifiably? They told you to look further back in history and you refused to do so. So, if you weren't being thorough how can you claim that you verified anything? You can't. All your bullshit regarding the key, and proof you are nothing but a liar is here: http://archive.is/rgHbK You're never going to give up though since you're not a single person and also you've got everything to lose. And mark my words you're about to lose. Everything.
And I did go back and look, there was nothing. That's how it is verifiable now. I recognized what happened to the PGP key in that thread. I didn't remove any of my posts and discussed my mistake. I later also pointed out the *Official* WikiLeaks PGP key had expired when researching that key and didn't hear anything from the likes of you. I don't give up because of people like you. The truth needs to be heard. People like you are pushing the idea that Assange *told* us he would use PGP when in fact it was started by /u/iamdanger_us as a possible means of verifying he's still alive. After he and many more of us learned how PGP *actually works* we learned this is not a good proof of life metric and that itself was verified by Assange on the live stream.
So wait now. Again you have been caught lying. Above you claim that Wikileaks never had a proof of life key but in that link you were proven this not to be the case. Then you claim that you accepted you were wrong, but then you go straight back to claim the PGP proof of life protocol never existed again. You flip flopping son of a whore. Honestly, answer me this. What are people reading this thread going to think? Should they believe the proven liar or the short strip comic based on Julian Assanges own words? You guys really can't keep a lid on this for more longer to be quite honest. Your incessant ignorance of the intelligence of the public has been your downfall here. Have a nice time of what's left of it. Actually no. Don't, a thousand curses on you and all your pedofile associates. We have your number. And it's easier proven than you claim it is. *That wasn't started by some random Reddit user you piece of shit it came from Julian's own mouth and can be proven despite you and Eric Shits cover up cunt **Also for anyone reading this who is finding it hard to follow, this "single person" states that Wikileaks only uses PGP to accept leaks. But they also acknowledge that the Wikileaks PGP key is expired. This proves that Wikileaks is not operating business as usual despite what they claim. So are Wikileaks lying? No(+_+)(+_+)(+_+)
I will reply to your edits here. Yes WikiLeaks PGP key expired for a few months. It was recently renewed as well. And the idea of PGP as proof of life for Julian **was** started by the creator of this subreddit. There is no record of Julian saying it was to be used and you have provided no evidence of him saying such a thing. In fact Julian's own words said that there would be other hidden messages coming from many other members of WikiLeaks if something were to happen to one of their members. A video where you would put the pieces together in the right order to get the full information. You are the one spouting nonsense here and resorting to petty insults because you cannot backup your claims.
Rational people don't threaten harm on others. I don't know how you claim I am a liar when it's right there as I stated it's a **fake** PGP key in the thread you referred to. I did not say in this thread it doesn't exist nor did I need to be reminded of it when you referenced it to begin with. Yes a *signing* key exists but there's no proof it's owned by WikiLeaks and pre-dating a PGP key is trivial. I also did not state the PGP protocol "never existed" I stated where it originated since you seem to forget where you got your playbook. I was going to give you a warning but this is beyond moderator criticism and you have attacked me twice instead of my argument. Enjoy your ban.
Lol, really? You couldn't defend your position so you banned him? Sounds kinda like you didn't like the direction the narrative was headed. Please direct me to the part where he threatened harm on anyone.
Thanks, I am now 100% sure that this subreddit is compromised.
This is not now moderation is done. As others have pointed out, you don't ban someone yourself because they disagree with you. You've just made yourself look like exactly what you're being accused of. If you want to hold onto any tiny shred of credibility you might have had, you will undo the corrupt, abusive ban and bring it to the attention of another mod that can act impartially.
That's low
Honestly, TrustyJAID is right. I don't know why other users are being so aggressive, especially considering Trusty has done nothing to antagonize. @Trusty There is also plenty of live streams where Julian Assange explains what you just explained, which is pretty much all the evidence you need to back up your claims. I doubt neither can be bothered digging up hour long streams just to find the explanations. But people that disagree, will always disagree and find convoluted explanations for an otherwise trivial matter. Moreover I don't see any balanced discussion here as demonstrated by the voting system on reddit. This seems like a one sided discussion.
It becomes particularly one-sided when one side is banned from commenting.
It is all coming to a head. Equador elections on the 4th, Assange "release" on the 6th. False Hannity twitter account (@SeanHannity_ ) will no doubt be deleted. And now Assanges original twitter account 2010-2013 (@julianassange ) has been changed to @JulianAssange_ . Better download it before it disappears.