posted on Nov. 3, 2016, at 8:02 p.m.

That was almost 4 months before the radio piece I referred to.

There is not one syllable in that article that contradicts anything in the NPR piece. In fact, the new reporting claims that what is in that article (and which apparently is very old news) is that there is more to this story than meets the eye.

That doesn't mean that the radio piece is or is not correct, or that it was or was not financed by George Soros' minions in order to comfort Democratic losers. In fact, it is totally irrelevant to what we are talking about. That's probably why you didn't use it in your first Followup. I suppose it is possible that perhaps the Buzzfeed piece is more representative of the facts than the radio report. But we have absolutely no evidence for that, one way or the other. Nothing you have turned up leads me to believe the Cvetkovska piece is misleading or wrong. That may not necessarily mean its correct, either, but all we ever get from you is plots and conspiracy theories. Now do you see why we no longer take you seriously? It's not that we think you're mistaken but sincere, its because we are convinced you are deliberately making this shit up.

For example, your AHA! moment becomes, on closer inspection, to be just another piece of sly misdirection and confusion, designed around the smug conviction that those dumb liberals are too lazy and stupid to look things up for themselves. Well, they're not. They've just learned that looking up your stuff either leads to another lie, or leads nowhere at all. It is a waste of time. We want answers, we just know we're not getting any from you. We always know ahead of time exactly what you're going to say.

So the kids are only in it for the money, eh? Didn't that radio reporter say that too? Of course, if they're publishing lies for profit, I guess that makes it all right. That's free fucking enterprise, ain't it?