I agree with this. The circumstantial evidence doesn't look good, but that's not enough. That the rich and powerful were cultivated by Epstein is obvious, but were they corrupted by him too? Or just flattered? I am sure that it won't just be the authorities looking. The press will be all over it, looking in every dark corner and offering substantial sums for "exclusives". If the evidence is there someone will break it out. If evidence of anyone seeking to suppress evidence was found then that would be just as big a story as this is, so would they risk it?

I don't know, any more than anyone else here does so until I do, I reserve judgement.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

We don't hear anyone call this a free society anymore do we. Those activists are bad people and it's relevant to warn others at just the extent some of them will go to damage people.

Having joined Hol back in 2009 I certainly should have been far more careful with my info....more fool me I suppose, but I was a default normie conservative back then....small 'c' even.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jan 2022 11.33am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

RationalWiki is just another leftist/establishment hijacked project, like its parent Wikipedia.

The idea that there are 'alt right' talking points is a complete nonsense. There is nothing that they talk about that the default right itself wasn't freely discussing thirty even twenty years ago. It's a deliberate attempt to colour something as extreme and censor people via fear of association.

These are not objective non agendaed takes and anyone who tells you that is either ignorant or deliberately dishonest.

The co-founder of Wikipedia explains the problem here....Wikipedia use to be a site I funded back in the day.....because its core principle of providing mass information to anyone for free was revolutionary and humanitarian. But it was hijacked.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jan 2022 11.54am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

That directly contradicts its mission statement, which makes no political statements of any kind.

Having lived for 77 years I see the type of right wing opinion being opening promoted these days as significantly more extreme than at any previous time. The idea that it is more moderate today seems ridiculous to me. As people tend to become more conservative as they age I would have expected to have become more sympathetic, rather than less, to right wing attitudes.

Nor do I see any kind of deliberate attempt to "colour" anything as extreme. When something IS extreme, colour isn't needed.

I have no idea why anyone thinks Wiki has been hijacked. So far as I am aware anyone can still edit entries. It seems to be that there are some who just don't like contradictory opinions to their own appearing.

Sanger was hardly a "co-founder" of Wiki! He exchanged some early emails with Jimmy Wales, who actually drove the project, but they quickly fell out on over its direction, and he left, to become a regular critic.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Apparently mission statements should be taken at face value.

I don't think its fair to demote Sanger's role in the original form of Wikipedia.....the form that I enthusiastically supported.

On Wikipedia's own page it states, 'Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001, by Jimmy Wales[6] and Larry Sanger; Sanger coined its name as a blending of "wiki" and "encyclopedia".'

On Sanger's page it states, 'Sanger served as Wikipedia's community leader in Wikipedia's early stages but became increasingly disillusioned with the project and left it in 2002'.

It's a statement of fact that Sanger was a co-founder of Wikipedia.

While I think the original intent of Wikipedia was a noble one and that some good people are still there, I think Sanger's criticisms of it now that it is largely a politically establishment mouthpiece that is no longer neutral, which is a divergence from its original conception, is just a statement of reality.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Jan 2022 2.24pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

What it actually says is "During 2000, Jimmy Wales (founder of Nupedia and co-founder of Bomis), and Larry Sanger, whom Wales had employed to work on the encyclopedia project, discussed ways of supplementing Nupedia with a more open, complementary project. Multiple sources suggested that a wiki might allow public members to contribute material, and Nupedia's first wiki went online on January 10, 2001.

There was considerable resistance on the part of Nupedia's editors and reviewers to the idea of associating Nupedia with a website in the Wiki format, so Sanger gave the new project the name "Wikipedia" and it was launched on its own domain, wikipedia.com, on January 15".

So Sanger was an employee, given due credit for coming up with the name, but who quickly departed.

When anyone, whatever their political persuasion might be, can edit Wiki, the idea that it has a "leftish" bias, or is an "establishment mouthpiece", is plainly preposterous.

That has the aroma of a disaffected employee who is sore that he quit too soon, and has missed out on considerable wealth.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.