Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

6 days ago you made this submission addressing SPECIFICALLY me and srayzie.

In this submission you made at least 27 claims against us, mostly against her, that you did not support in any way.

For anyone wondering, I made it super easy to find his claims, just click here then Ctrl + F "Claim. Evidence?".

Among these, and most importantly, were the claims that she doxxed someone. This fact was supposed to be the "why" of why you doxxed her to the literal violent convict that was fantasizing and posting about raping her boy in front of her for months.

What did you do when I responded here and here, pointing out that you provided support for almost none of your claims?

I'm not going to read any of that because I already agreed not to talk about it with @srayz who I am flagging this post for.

Your title was to ME (archive.fo). Specifically to both srayzie and ME. Did you forget that, or is it just inconvenient for you, now?

But then, after you're not reading my words, you say this:

Additionally, I called you out for making false allegations against @kevdude and this little bitchfest of yours is the result. You have discredited yourselves by making numerous demonstrably false accusations. You will never win back that credibility.

You won't read my words, but you'll make more accusations and claims you probably will not (or more likely, cannot) support?

Then you have the gall to write this:

Maybe you should have just let me post good research in Pizzagate. Ever think about that?

Maybe you shouldn't have doxxed an innocent woman to a violent convict that was threatening to rape her children. Ever think about that?

@pmyb2 you said you wanted an adult conversation on this, yes? Do you consider my responses to him, asking for him to support his 27+ claims, to be adult-like? What, exactly, is this? He addressed me, directly, but won't engage because...?

We both know why he won't engage. He can't support those claims. None of them. He just lied 27 times about a user that he already posted doxx info about here, and now he gets to ignore when someone challenges him on that? His post got 10 upvotes, while srayzie's, where she was only defending herself, got only 7, despite hers providing links to support her claims.

Is that Poal?

Oh, I read your TOS. I'm happy to get banned over the drama, but it would be quite the double-standard to do that and not ban TWOS who specifically, with his title, invited me here. I'm here now. Where he goes, I go. His weighing in on doxxing on the poalcast, was the digital analog of OJ's "If I did it" book. A mockery of his victim, where he gets to talk about his crime on talk shows and other places that really just don't care because the (((legal system))) didn't bury him.

You didn't talk about his absolutely morally bankrupt actions when doxxing users on another site? How lovely! How amazing of you all to just forget about that! Water under the bridge! Let's give this guy a chance!

Already dropped her doxx here, and then makes 27 claims in a submission addressing me and srayzie, attacking me and srayzie, that he has not supported, and as of his comment, refuses to support. All srayzie did was come in and present well-supported claims against TWOS, who gets to play around in his sanctuary city, free from any consequences of his actions, the motivations for which he cannot, or will not, prove.

In his comment, he says this:

So, I have to pose the question, rhetorically, to @srayz as to who is really the problem, here.

I have to pose that question to you, admin. Who is really the problem here?

6 days ago you made [this](https://poal.co/s/MeanwhileOnVoat/85706) submission addressing SPECIFICALLY me and srayzie. In this submission you made *at least* 27 claims against us, mostly against her, that you did not support in any way. For anyone wondering, I made it super easy to find his claims, just [click here](https://poal.co/s/MeanwhileOnVoat/85706) then Ctrl + F "Claim. Evidence?". Among these, and most importantly, were the claims that she doxxed someone. This fact was supposed to be the "why" of why you doxxed her to the *literal violent convict that was fantasizing and posting about raping her boy in front of her for months*. What did you do when I responded [here](https://poal.co/s/MeanwhileOnVoat/85706/4d587b83-0b37-4d61-9c37-05ca5130cf43) and [here](https://poal.co/s/MeanwhileOnVoat/85706/c11eb721-4aed-4804-8490-e1b7b489ecc7), pointing out that you provided support for almost none of your claims? >I'm not going to read any of that because I already agreed not to talk about it with @srayz who I am flagging this post for. Your title was [to ME](http://archive.fo/VbXm4). Specifically to both srayzie and ME. Did you forget that, or is it just inconvenient for you, now? But then, after you're not reading my words, you say this: >Additionally, I called you out for making false allegations against @kevdude and this little bitchfest of yours is the result. You have discredited yourselves by making numerous demonstrably false accusations. You will never win back that credibility. You won't read my words, but you'll make more accusations and claims you probably will not (or more likely, cannot) support? Then you have the gall to write this: >Maybe you should have just let me post good research in Pizzagate. Ever think about that? Maybe you shouldn't have doxxed an innocent woman to a violent convict that was threatening to rape her children. Ever think about that? -- @pmyb2 you said you wanted an adult conversation on this, yes? Do you consider my responses to him, asking for him to support his 27+ claims, to be adult-like? What, exactly, [is this](https://poal.co/s/MeanwhileOnVoat/85665/778e1e65-6a2e-44ec-a2d4-1965a944da53)? He addressed me, *directly*, but won't engage because...? We both know why he won't engage. He can't support those claims. None of them. He just lied 27 times about a user that he already posted doxx info about here, and now he gets to ignore when someone challenges him on that? His post got 10 upvotes, while srayzie's, where she was only defending herself, got only 7, despite hers providing links to support her claims. Is that Poal? Oh, I read your TOS. I'm happy to get banned over the drama, but it would be quite the double-standard to do that and not ban TWOS who specifically, with his title, invited me here. I'm here now. Where he goes, I go. His weighing in on doxxing on the poalcast, was the digital analog of OJ's "If I did it" book. A mockery of his victim, where he gets to talk about his crime on talk shows and other places that really just don't care because the (((legal system))) didn't bury him. You didn't talk about his absolutely morally bankrupt actions when doxxing users on another site? How lovely! How amazing of you all to just forget about that! Water under the bridge! Let's give this guy a chance! Already dropped her doxx here, and then makes 27 claims in a submission addressing me and srayzie, attacking me and srayzie, that he has not supported, and as of his comment, refuses to support. All srayzie did was come in and present well-supported claims against TWOS, who gets to play around in his sanctuary city, free from any consequences of his actions, the motivations for which he cannot, or will not, prove. In his comment, he says this: >So, I have to pose the question, rhetorically, to @srayz as to who is really the problem, here. I have to pose that question to you, admin. Who is really the problem here?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (67).
[–] • 0 pt

Throwing insults will get you nothing.

Insults? Who did I insult? The sheeple users? (Is that not warranted, given the difference between supported claims?) The site? Please point this out to me. Happpy to dial that back, whatever it is.

If you're talking about the last line, those are analogies that fit this situation.

And, too, do his baseless accusations get him nothing? Seems like he got plenty of support. Look at mine, despite my words being almost invariably supported, and calling this place a doxxer's sanctuary is currently being discussed.

Adult conversations working towards resolving a problem generally don't involve them.

I didn't think I was insulting anyone, but since it's only generally, we can proceed as if that's the case, since it is.

I do hope you have a wonderful day though.

Likewise.

[–] • 4 pts

"A pedophiles Israel" ..... not insult....... I got nothing.

[–] • 1 pt

"A pedophiles Israel" ..... not insult....... I got nothing.

Analogy. Jewish pedophiles flee to israel to prevent being held to goyim laws.

This place is like that for him. No consequences.

And if you're thinking I was talking about TWOS, well, that wouldn't exactly be an insult, given that he demonstrably, provably, 100% doxxed her kids to a violent convict that posted continually about raping them in front of her. I'm not sure calling him one is much of a leap at that point. Again, not that I was meaning that at all.

[–] • 4 pts (edited )

I'm pretty sure I've had to say this before but I'll say it once again, if I had to hold people accountable for what they did other places then many many people would be banned. Yourself included in that I'd measure a guess. That simply is not a realistic standard to try and enforce. This is not an issue I'm going to debate over and over. The standard you are asking for is simply not reasonable. So once again if you have an issue with the user I'd recommend trying to address the issue on voat where it happened. I believe doxing is against the rules there as well. So it would be reasonable for you to seek a ban there.

On the comparison. No this is not like that running to israel to avoid pedophilia charges is not the same because they can get away with it there. Here there are rules against doxing just like on voat the only difference is they are enforced here and not there. Voat and Poal have no extradition treaty and I'd not even begin to know how to form one. However I've gone out of my way to address this and spent far more time on it than the admin on that other site has apparently. Which should tell you I actually give a shit and if there were a problem here it would be dealt with promptly.

I understand you are upset and I understand you want something it is something I can't give you. If you want something done again go tell puttitout about it as it happened on his site. He is the one you need to contact about this. He did nothing about it and so I can only assume he endorsed it.

The Poal.co Free Speech Canary

Poal.co declares itself to be a Neutral Public Forum and claims protection under Section 230 immunity

Poal.co declares it is open to the general public for use

Poal.co commits to not removing content unless it is illegal or any form of child sexualization.

Poal.co commits to not banning users unless they post illegal content or if they compromise the site functionality (Spam, DDoS, etc.)

Poal.co delegates moderation of speech on the site to the users themselves via the Owners and Moderators of individual subs

The Owners and Moderators of individual subs may restrict speech but only at the risk of that individual sub loosing Neutral Public Forum status and the Owners and Moderators of that individual sub loosing Section 230 immunity. Poal.co itself maintains Neutral Public Forum status and maintains Section 230 immunity because anyone can create a new sub and talk about anything they want.

The Only Addendum I would like to add is that if a sub owner is determined to be an abusive mod, I may transfer that sub to another user(Abusive mod is defined by actively censoring relevant discussions or information)

Poal.co Owner, PMYB2.