So, you're offended by someone that tweeted something to someone else? You, as a total stranger and brand new account, are jumping in my thread throwing out ad hominems, while simultaneously telling me I'm not being taken seriously?
Read my previous posts on the Podesta emails. Those are the cores of this investigation. Until a journalist or LEO actually asks Podesta, or the Sandlers what a 'pizza related handkerchief map' is, the global investigation will continue and be limited to the abundance of circumstantial and contextual/historical evidence that exists.
"So, you're offended by someone that tweeted something to someone else?"
No, actually, but that's quite a hypocritical and rich remark coming from someone who is offended by someone that emailed something to someone else and completely negates whatever point you were making in any case.
"You, as a total stranger and brand new account"
Yes.....how dare I?.....lol. As to the ad-hominem claim, I did clarify that I meant all those posting this "pizzagate" conspiracy stuff - not particularly you personally - here's what I said:
"Maybe find some evidence and find a grown up to argue your case (all those posting about "pizzagate) - this is just childish." I think it's fair comment. If you read what I actually said, it's clearly intended to convey that the case being presented is not being taken seriously because of the way it is being presented. It is this type of behaviour, childish remarks etc that puts people off - not things like the NYT article. As I said, if there's any substance to the claims, then you (all of you) are doing any abused children a major dis-service. If you were to state your case clearly and succinctly and provide actual evidence and present it maturely, without all the "add-ons" and going down rabbit -holes you MAY get more serious people more attentive.....is all I'm saying.
"Until a journalist or LEO actually asks Podesta, or the Sandlers what a 'pizza related handkerchief map' is, the global investigation will continue and be limited to the abundance of circumstantial and contextual/historical evidence that exists."
OK then, so this is the issue, no law enforcement/Judge/Court whatever is going to convict anyone of such serious offences based on circumstantial evidence only - however abundant.
If your case rests entirely in the hope that a journalist/LEO asks Podesta what a "pizza related handkerchief map is" and that he's going to say "ritual abuse of children" or something, then it's not going to happen is it? He's going to say "It's a handkerchief with a map of local pizza restaurants" or similar isn't he......and where does that get you?
What you need is actual evidence, not hearsay, not videos, not conspiracy theories - evidence.
Does any exist anywhere?