524
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
524 points (99.6% liked)
The Epstein Files
731 readers
1550 users here now
We keep track of the release of the files, but also to explore what’s already available, and why – with enough exposure – this could bring the man down, and who knows even his regime or the empire.
Our Rules
(Subject to Change)
- Be kind: keep it civil and amicable. The enemy is not in this community but in Palaces, The White House and penthouses.
- Trigger Warnings: required. Mark posts which may be triggering to read or see for victims of sexual abuse with "[TW]" in front of your post title. If you're posting an image or video with explicit thumbnail, you will have to set the entire post as NSFW AND include the TW.
- Cite sources: preferably direct link to the article/pdf and or an archive link in case there is a paywalled. In the article find a relevant few paragraphs and quote them in your post.
Our Justice System
- First offence: warning + 2 day ban
- Second offence: 7 day ban
- Third offence: permanent ban from community
- Creating multiple accounts to interact with this community: permanent ban for all accounts in community + report to your instance admin.
This community is run by volunteers so please don't test the justice system, as with all justice systems it is critically underfunded.
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you clearly do not know the meaning of the word haughty. i demonstrate:
yes, i understand the original claim that a regular expression was used to "auto censor Don T resulting in blacked out 'don't' words." im quite sure you will recall from having actually read the comment, but that claim is the thing i was pointing out as needing substantiation in the first place. per my previous comment,
you: "YoU aTtAcK tHe AtTiTuDe NoT tHe SuBsTaNcE"
literally me:
and what aubstance am i supposed to attack? your bad attitude is the only thing approaching substance to respond to. expanding on the technical details of the claim, insisting on your claimed explanation's plausibility (which i have repeatedly acknowledged), speculating on the specific spelling of the redacted word (i may have strained a muscle in my eye rolling it at this vapid piece of sophistry) are not demonstrations of a larger pattern. you are the one saying this regex redaction is definitely censoring "don t". if thats true, there are literally millions of chances to show other instances of the word being redacted. do the work lazybones, its called a burden of proof for a reason. for my part, i suspect that since this is the first and only time im hearing about this, and because ive read his wholeass name dozens of times in there, youre gonna be looking for a while.
i dont give a cold turd what you feel about me oor whether you think im a victim or how badly youd like to punish me: i particularly dont feel good for you. go get an instance if you want the thrill of cheap power. mod spots are to be had for the asking on .world.
now i dun tried to be polite with you and you ain takin the hint, so since youve decided to be so frank with me (not to say forthright) im sure you wont mind if i return your kindness to you: frankly, get the fuck out of my inbox, buddy.
You did it again, pal. You should see a doctor about that. Like, one o' them head doctors what do the fancy talk.
Anyway, sorry that you feel this way about things and that you like those wife-beaters or whatever, maybe they won't beat your wife if you get some good knee pads! It hasn't worked for anyone else, but you have a certain way with observable reality, and God will bless your little heart!
Have the day you believe in, friendo.