You made a claim that has no evidence and then walked it back to something entirely different, and your "proof" was just a waste of time

Tweet/retweet isn't that huge of a different, the intent/"joke" still stands, and again, I just merely mentioned it.

And it wasn't meant to be proof, more so his reasoning for retweeting it.

@Deleted User any proper tweet, logs, etc would work. It shouldn't be hard. Jim, Ralph et al procure those all the time. If you're going to make a claim and not back it up, you're just doing dumb ops shit

>the intent/"joke" still stands
This is sjw reasoning
>I know your intent. You weren't *really* joking

Well, it does, because I'm not giving it any different meaning other than what it was. Him retweeting someone's *pro-deplatform andy* isn't all that different if he tweeted it himself.

Even his reasoning was "Because it's funny"

>nobody retweets anything they're not 100% for

Me referencing the retweet was to simply show Sargon does some "trolling" yet can't handle it when thrown back.

Goalposts are shifting again

No they're not, look at my original comment

I never cared about the fact Sargon retweeted some pro-deplatform shit, but if he's going to call that trolling then all the dead kid jokes are trolling.

Your original comment where you implied jokes you don't like aren't jokes and falsely claimed that Sargon tweeted WSJ?

or the one where you say retweeting something you think is stupid/funny is the equivalent of sincerely sending out that tweet?

Or the one where you hilariously claim Sargon is morally grandstanding

You don't think that if the WSJ never made that article then Ralph would still be on YouTube?

You think the WSJ made that article because a 100 account shitlord twitter retweeted it?

Also I thought this was about trolling, not assigning blame

And he has moral grandstanded on doxxing yet doesn't care when it's people that have made fun of him.

Where did he say he didn't care about doxxing? Are we talking about Jim's fake dox?

Dude, Ralph has hit the top 10 trending streams for a month straight, they've had to have noticed, and if they really didn't like it, they would've taken it down a long time ago.

>actually implying that WSJ only had an issue with TRR because of a 100 follower retweet

It's was absolutely because someone mentioned to the WSJ, they wanted a new hit peice for clicks, and boom, Ralph is of YouTube.

I never said Sargon had anything to do with Ralph getting taken down.

Jim's doxx and coach red pill

Youve heavily implied it, frequently

No, I only mentioned andy

He's explained CRPs situation and shat on Kraut when the initial story came out

Everyone pretty much immediately cut ties with Kraut

Then why did he still talk about it, *and* not tell anybody beforehand that is was kraut.

What? I mean when there was "proof" it was kraut

He only shit on kraut after it started to look really bad, he knew what was happening in his discord before the leaks started to come out.

>jumping to a year+ old incident because you're failing to hold ground

You mentioned what doxx? I told you what doxx.

Now here we are

>he knew what was happening
He had heard some information, from what I had gathered

This isn't all me, buddy.

There's recordings where he's talking to kraut in the discord, he even mentions that he shouldn't bring zeph into this.

Sure, where he's telling him not to do [thing]
Then Kraut does [thing] and Sargon disavows
Except Kraut did not actually do [thing] in the end, though there is an new potential [thing] he actually did

All right man, if you don't want to look into it yourself yet be very opinionated on it, go ahead.

I'm not going to keep explaining shit.