again, i think there are a lot of us here that fundamentally disagree with you about the falsity of pg's twitter links and your summation of the conversations about them. how many times now have you brought up "pete in iowa" like everyone in here was pushing some qanon-level conspiracy rather than just critically examining the relationship between pete's campaign, the lanyards, the dnc, and politically-connected start-ups? seriously, it was an entire month of this:
in which you completely abandon the pretension of good faith and just start replacing everyone's actual words at the time with this mount everest of a strawman that reduces everyone's nuance and discussion with your preferred fantasy of events because it happens to be easier to swat down.
when you do sh*t like that, or like when you duck an argument with some terrible, concern-trolling red herring about how "wait i thought the nyt wasn't trust-worthy??" all you're doing is setting fire to your own credibility. you can't play these kinds of games with other posters and expect to be treated like the arbiter for truth and fiction. turning other people's serious arguments into sarcastic jokes only really works when we're all making fun of wfw or gazoo because their is no expectation of mutual respect for either. doing it to poster's you just happen to have genuine disagreements with just lights fire to those relationships and comes across as eminently dislikeable.