>>508731639
>That's closer, now,
That's word-for-word quotation, you spastic
>but you've lied about the contents of the alleged attacker's posts
No the fuck I haven't, you absolute cuntbag, you just forgot what he'd actually said on the Sharty and then backed down on being corrected
All right, I'll put it to you like this; if the hack was part of some wider, more nefarious thing,
a) why would they publicly reveal themselves?
b) if they were to reveal themselves, why just dox jannies?
>didn't have a long history of revealing overt foreknowledge of events
This is Nostradamus-tier prophecy, where its accuracy is entirely on the reader's ability to stretch it and apply it post-hoc