What are your thoughts on this?

[ozso]

We've gone from this:

'The whole song gave me chills. Nothing about it was cute or funny. I don't care if it was satire or not. A lot of those men were predators. Lord have mercy.'

To this:

'SOME of them were known predators'.

And when it was explained that the claim was a lie, you're now simply complaining about the song. Why not pick a position and stick with it so we know what you mean in each post. Are you suggesting that all of them are predators, some of them are or none, but hey - you don't see anything satirical in the song.

Which is it?

I remember one of the articles you posted confirmed four of them had records.

 

[Bradskii]

You mean the article from Pink News and the article from Daily Mail? Neither of those sources are reliable.

Articles and news reports are irrelevant. I gave you the link to the Californian list of child offenders and you can compare that to those that were claimed to be child rapists in the video you posted as I did. You can see there is no connection apart from similar names. I'm not doing your work again for you. You can find the link either at the start of the thread or search for it yourself. Although as you have not shown the slightest inclination to do it so far, even when it's handed to you on a plate, I can't see you making any attempt to do it this time.

 

[Bradskii]

You mean the article from Pink News and the article from Daily Mail? Neither of those sources are reliable.

So articles that say they aren't child molesters are not reliable.

I remember one of the articles you posted confirmed four of them had records.

Ah, but articles that say they are molesters are reliable.

Could there be a better example of your bias? Go and do the work yourself!

 

[ozso]

So articles that say they aren't child molesters are not reliable.

Ah, but articles that say they are molesters are reliable.

Could there be a better example of your bias? Go and do the work yourself!

Neither the Pink News nor the Daily Mail articles you posted didn't offer any evidence one way or the other. Another did. But I don't know where within 1243 posts it's located. You said it was proven untrue. I'm asking where.

 

[Bradskii]

Neither the Pink News nor the Daily Mail articles you posted didn't offer any evidence one way or the other. Another did. But I don't know where within 1243 posts it's located. You said it was proven untrue. I'm asking where.

I told you what you needed to do. Search the California registered sex offenders list. Go find it yourself. Do what you should have done before you started the thread.

 

[ozso]

Articles and news reports are irrelevant. I gave you the link to the Californian list of child offenders and you can compare that to those that were claimed to be child rapists in the video you posted as I did. You can see there is no connection apart from similar names. I'm not doing your work again for you. You can find the link either at the start of the thread or search for it yourself. Although as you have not shown the slightest inclination to do it so far, even when it's handed to you on a plate, I can't see you making any attempt to do it this time.

Post #927

"While the matches could be coincidental — some offenders may just happen to have the same name as members of the choir — The Western Journal unearthed at least four credible matches: David Wallace, Lawrence Earl Friedberg, Luis Cuadra and Keith Pepper."

Gay Men’s Choir That Sang ‘We’re Coming for Your Children’ Rushes to Cover After Pedophilia Accusations

Several members of this choir are believed to be convicted sex offenders.

www.newswars.com

That's from your own source you posted as evidence.

 

[ozso]

I told you what you needed to do. Search the California registered sex offenders list. Go find it yourself. Do what you should have done before you started the thread.

You said it was proven untrue. I'm asking where. Did your own research take aliases into account?

 

[Bradskii]

That's from your own source you posted as evidence.

That wasn't evidence. I quoted the article so it could be seen who was being accused. And I told you how I found out that the accusation was false. And I also told you to do the same. In any number of posts around the one you just mentioned. I told you to do the work yourself. And I've told you how to do it. I'm not going to do it again for you. It's something you should have done before starting this thread.

 

[Bradskii]

You said it was proven untrue. I'm asking where. Did your own research take aliases into account?

You really don't want to do it, do you. The evidence is there but you don't want to look.

 

[ozso]

You really don't want to do it, do you. The evidence is there but you don't want to look.

I asked for a direct answer to a direct question. Apparently the answer is it can't be shown were it was proven untrue.

 

[Bradskii]

I asked for a direct answer to a direct question. Apparently the answer is it can't be shown were it was proven untrue.

Go and do the work yourself.

 

[ozso]

That wasn't evidence. I quoted the article so it could be seen who was being accused. And I told you how I found out that the accusation was false. And I also told you to do the same. In any number of posts around the one you just mentioned. I told you to do the work yourself. And I've told you how to do it. I'm not going to do it again for you. It's something you should have done before starting this thread.

Sure it's evidence. The source named names. Neither the YouTube source I posted or the source you posted has been sued for slander. And neither the video nor the article has been retracted.

Telling people to go fish is not providing evidence for your claim.

 

[ozso]

Go and do the work yourself.

Prove your claim.

 

[Bradskii]

Prove your claim.

I did. And you were told how I did it. And you've been told how to do it. Now you can go and do what you should have done right at the start.

 

[ozso]

I did. And you were told how I did it. And you've been told how to do it. Now you can go and do what you should have done right at the start.

You mean post #57? You said the first guy wasn't the same guy. Even though the image from the chorus video and the picture on the roster are a match. That's why I asked if you took aliases into account.

 

[Bradskii]

You mean post #57? You said the first guy wasn't the same guy. Even though the image from the chorus video and the picture on the roster are a match. That's why I asked if you took aliases into account.

Now you have the link. Go and do each of them yourself.

 

[ozso]

Now you have the link. Go and do each of them yourself.

You have failed to substantiate your claim. And the evidence you provided actually refuted your claim. Case closed.

 

[ican'tthinkofausername]

I think your response is understandable. Not every BLM march turned into a riot either. But that does not mean it doesn't happen and isn't prevelent in places. It's like saying I've been to the East Coast many times and never been caught in a hurricane. As if you think it's not a serious event that is happening.

Yeah but when people talk about pride it's only ever those who are homophobic and have never interacted with the community who have an issue

 

[ozso]

Yeah but when people talk about pride it's only ever those who are homophobic and have never interacted with the community who have an issue

What's been drilled into people's heads, is that if someone isn't in full support of LGBT, there's something wrong with them. Interacting with the community is anecdotal and subjective. I go by what LGBTQQIP2SAA+ publishes and their actions as a whole.

 

[Bradskii]

You have failed to substantiate your claim. And the evidence you provided actually refuted your claim. Case closed.

If you refuse to examine the evidence yourself then that's on you.

You were told about it over 1200 posts ago. You ignored it. It was explained how to check it. You ignored it. You were given links so that you could do it yourself. You ignored it. You still deny that it's a hoax yet you refuse to spend a few minutes time in investigating it whatsoever. It is blindingly obviously that you are not the slightest bit interested in knowing what the truth of the matter is.

Your opinions will be judged on that. Correction: have already been judged on that.