Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.4K

A very good article was written by the Conservative Treehouse recently. In case anyone missed it, it is a must read. Understanding this will help shut down the few Doomsday bane; a miasmatic blight on this Sub.

Read the article and see how the Deep State (treason within) was able to shut down Trump declassifying information.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/06/28/an-open-letter-to-governor-ron-desantis-the-december-1st-collusion-between-ag-bill-barr-and-the-ap-provides-a-stark-warning/

A very good article was written by the Conservative Treehouse recently. In case anyone missed it, it is a must read. Understanding this will help shut down the few Doomsday bane; a miasmatic blight on this Sub. Read the article and see how the Deep State (treason within) was able to shut down Trump declassifying information. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/06/28/an-open-letter-to-governor-ron-desantis-the-december-1st-collusion-between-ag-bill-barr-and-the-ap-provides-a-stark-warning/

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (85).
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

It's not helpful to any debate when gainsaying is permitted.

How do you define "gainsay"? I've usually seen it used to mean "to contradict/deny" which is allowed because disagreement is allowed.

Explain to me how gainsaying and the constant attempt to divide and forlornness equates to good faith and constant criticism? It does not.

And I never said he was in good faith; I'm explicitly saying he feeds on having spats with people and feeding that troll won't do you any good. That's why in this particular case, it won't help because he already knows the rules and doesn't care. I'm working on a better solution than simply banning one account so he can feel justified and go off to make more.

I'm very close to blocking this individual.

I see in your other response you indicated you have. I'm sure that will make browsing and posting better for you.

[–] • 0 pt

"I've usually seen it use to mean "to contradict/deny" which is allowed because disagreement is allowed."

I'm using it the context of contradicting/denying to only contradict/deny. If you understood PsyOps tactics, it is one tactic in which makes a constructive polemic quickly becomes impossible. For example, I post that that the "sun has risen" when it is obvious it has. The PsyOper tactic is to gainsay. Their response is to contradict/deny it. It has no value whatsoever to the discussion. There's no intellectual debate in gainsaying to just simply gainsay. It is the very same pattern being waged here by the same few people having multiple profiles. There is even a similarity to their profile names. It doesn't matter how convincing the evidence is. There is no hope for a resolution or compromise. It is for this reason, it is a purposeful intent designed for destroying any constructive debate. Instead of people joining in and wanting to add information to the thread, something that I hope to learn from, they are instead turned off from the constant gainsaying. The PsyOp has thus been successful.

The pattern is always the same, in which ad hominems and insults are soon waged to attack me and others who post here. I can only speak for myself, but I always refrain from this type of behavior, but will however call it out as bad behavior. To identify the multi-profiled individuals, its easy to recognize them by their attempts to hijack the thread with the same reoccurring non-germane topic. I simply identify it and state it is not content related.

Thanks for your response though. The gadflies are tolerable and manageable. When they are repeat offenders, I simply swat and will block them.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I'm using it the context of contradicting/denying to only contradict/deny. If you understood PsyOps tactics, it is one tactic in which makes a constructive polemic quickly becomes impossible.

Which is already clearly against the rules I wrote because I do have an understanding.

Thanks for your response though

Is that what you honestly mean? Every time you ask for my assistance there is always this implication that you think I'm somehow against this sub simply because I do not do things the exact way you would:

it was my mistaken belief that you had actually provided rules to live by. There are good people here that are keeping this Sub afloat. If it is your intention to allow bots and PsyOpers to destroy the charter of this Sub, state it now.

You see fit to contact me to handle problems and then make insinuations. I thought we were past this, but if you still feel some kind of suspicion we can have a private discussion and you can explicitly state any issue you have with me.

[–] • 0 pt

Please do not mix responses. The "Sub afloat" is a response to another message, which was a concern, albeit it is honestly a constant reminder when gainsaying to only gainsay becomes prevalent and spoils the entire conversation. My "gadfly" remark also is referencing to constant patronizing gainsaying. There are members here who try to bring scintillating research and news for education purposes. I really appreciate these people and the comments there add a synthesis of concepts to it; a melding of ideas, as it were. We are here for research purposes for the hope of walking away with a better understanding than what the MSM provides. It's almost as if we are connecting the dots per se. Again, gain-saying to only gainsay undermines all of this.

"Thanks for your response" is my response to your specific post saying you provided clarification to my concern. It is not in any way meant to be "insinuations". The "Thanks for your response" also signaled I am indeed "past this". Before you originally commented, I already was 'weighing' blocking this individual because I saw his responses were not sincere and it was not going anywhere.

So let's be clear. Let's move on to better fishing spots.