Now, whether Jim "stole" anything is harder to quantify. If Arturo convinced him of a theory, and Jim repeats it, is that stealing?
What I can say is that Jim repeatedly promised him that it would be Arturo's story to tell when CNN was interested. And clearly that didn't happen.
Then again, it also never happened because CNN was never interested. By the time Jim was getting the attention he felt he deserved, he and Arturo had fallen out.
But the *spirit* of that initial promise was violated, so I can understand why Arturo would feel this way.
More than anything else, the chatlog just reminds me how destructive Jim has been.
A trail of threats and broken friendships in his wake.
So many people added to his "enemies list."
Christ, this chat is like a month after he first showed up, and he's already making it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
PSA: automated tweets like this have been showing up a bunch recently, promising a solution should your account get suspended.
Just going to test something for a second.
My account got locked. My account got suspended. My account got hacked. I'm locked out of my tweets. I appealed my suspension but I'm still locked out.
After jumping into the fight against Lin, Dan Bongino is now being accused of being in the 'black eye club.'
Most conspiracy believers think that a black eye is an indicator that someone is in the Cabal/Illuminati/Masons/etc but there are competing theories around *why*.
This comes up time and again, as a near constant in conspiracy circles, and has existed for years.
The two most common explanations are that this secret society punches you in the face during initiation and forces you to go out in public to demonstrate your loyalty, and that it's the result of some sort of surgery or injection that extends life and/or increases your power.
For me, the best part is that this guy's not even using the Q Clock correctly, the 01/23 he's circled as the Proof is 01/23/2019, not 01/23/2018, and Q did not make a Drop that day.
I can't say for certain in every case, but I know that spelling mistakes like these can be purposeful, and useful if structured like this.
They ultimately benefit the writer: diverting criticism from the subject at hand while not upsetting the target audience even a little.
1/
Not *everyone* will get distracted, of course, but the most popular responses will always be people harping on the spelling error.
Which means they're not engaging on the rest of the statement.
2/
Whenever the spelling error appears in the last sentence, I'm particularly suspicious because in argumentative structure, that last line is supposed to land hardest. It's the 'punchline' of the tweet. You know this subconsciously.