On the face, it looks compelling but I knew it'd turn out to be bullshit with a small amount of research
>qtards
>research
Your date is a misrepresentation which casts your credibility/intelligence in a negative light. The actual June 20 post is very vague and could be anything
crazydaysandnights.net/2017/06/today-blind-items-it-even-worse.html
And the 5 year old post is also
crazydaysandnights.net/2012/07/todays-blind-items-actress-who-loves.html
Exactly like Q posts. Vague shit that could be anything and re-interpreted after the fact to conform to the confirmation bias of the credulous.
Then there's this NYT article:
nytimes.com/2017/10/17/nyregion/nxivm-women-branded-albany.html
Note that that date is 8 days BEFORE that stupid gossip blog you linked to names any names. By which time, a read up on NXIVM could have revealed prominent people in it. And then you fit the vague shit you said before to the real shit that is out now and occasionally you'll hit the jackpot - as the guy appears to have done there. That's how these cons work, whether or not you understand what's happening.
Then, the guy re-posts his June 20 in October thing adding the names that have since been traced. The implication of course is that he knew he was referring to Mack back then. (But why not name her then? And for that matter, why not acknowledge the NYT has beaten you to the punch?)
Unfortunately, many people are stupid when it comes to news, and so would miss this subtle misrepresentation, assuming the tags apply to the original article (wrong). It's a blatantly dishonest trick on the part of the website that proves the disingenuous nature of the writer.
But then they know they won't con people like me. They're trying to con people like you.
There. I've explained it. If your psychological weaknesses mean that you choose to keep being led around by the nose by sophisticated modern psyops then that's on you.
Attached: Qtards_cannot_into_research.jpg (578x289, 36K)