>>17266
>I am reasonably confident about my assertions
> my assertions
The point is that there isn't (at least we don't have) actual evidence they eat children. The premise may be true, but what that anon was pointing out is that it's not backed by evidence (you) or I, or any anon can actually produce AFAIK.

Sticking to what is provable, for which evidence can be given isn't unwise. After all, accusing someone of eating children is a pretty huge claim. I doubt anyone here believes Pedowood is not Pedowood, there are enough cases where this has been proven true. Your experience is valuable - we don't have it, so help us out and give us something we can work with that are not just someone's assertions.

Not everyone who disagrees with (you) or your assertions or your method is a shill. Anons have varying opinions on many different topics and likewise vary in focus as well as presentation. Adults can disagree without name-calling, and we can work together to expose evil.

Help us out instead of snapping. Please.