Sounds cool. Mods should make a post informing users not to bombard the AMA poster with crap about verifying his identity or to harass him, and threaten bans for those who abuse him.

December 4, will also be the fiftieth anniversary of Mario Savio's speech, the most famous part: (1964 After Demonstrations at the Republican Convention that nominated Goldwater.)

"...There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part!

And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels…upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop!

And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!..."

After the Richard_Gage scam, how can we be sure that Twitter account is real?

I would have thought that visual proof would be part of the new verification process.

This is an understandable concern, and we will ask for a picture to be posted during the AMA;

But it should be noted that this tweet also went out from the official WhoWhatWhy account-https://twitter.com/whowhatwhy/status/539448894396968961

Perhaps you could also suggest that Russ Baker post a short statement directly to WhoWhatWhy.com.

Seconded.

I agree with you. No use taking chances after the debacle with the Gage imposter and what reason is there for him to not post it to the site?

Meh as long as we know thats his twitter account n he posts verification that should be enough. Asking for more could be an inconvenience.

You might want to talk to the mods about making a sticky post addressing this. There are a lot of people DEMANDING that the current AMA poster go through a bunch of hoops to prove his identity.

There was an AMA where one mod allowed an AMA to happen without any proof of the user's actual identity.

How did that turn out?

Which AMA candidate will never give an AMA on this site? Richard Gage

Mission accomplished for some.

So? Orangutan's comment addresses this.

I have seen nothing that states Richard Gage refused to do an AMA here BECAUSE he was impersonated.

Which AMA candidate will never give an AMA on this site? Richard Gage

http://www.np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2ntz1y/heres_an_idea_lets_ask_richard_gage_of_architects/cmi3iim

Reread my comment. Then read the link. Please don't misconstrue my statement in order to attack me.

It shows you aren't an honest contributor.

Ya u were spewing bs just like I said.

Did you really just say that on /r/conspiracy? After they were already mislead?

Yup.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2nymvf/russ_baker_awardwinning_investigative_reporter/cmiphxy

I still think the ultimate form of verification is a link on their official site to the AMA though, or a note letting people know when and where it iwll be.

I geuss twitter works the same way though as long as the account is verified.

Yeah that would probably be nice, I can just see some people not wanting to put a notice on their site. Like if it's the type of announcement they'd only put on Twitter, not on their main site. As long as the verification is accomplished, I think that's what's important.

How can we trust twitter though?

The mods here trust it. Isn't that enough for you?! JESUS. /s

[deleted]

How this type of due diligence wasn't done for the Richard Gage AMA is inexcusable and hard to believe in my opinion.

The funny part though, and I know you'll understand me when I say this to you, is that you helped fake Richard Gage answer over 20% of the questions in his fake AMA (without ever calling fake Richard out).

You of all people couldn't tell fake Richard wasn't answering the questions like real Richard Gage? Red flags were going up everywhere!

In retrospect I find that harder to believe than the fact that axolotl_peyotl sold us a non-verified AMA.

Something stinks.

What constitutes an offense where a mod should be banned? What could possibly top a fake AMA with Richard god damn Gage as a bannable offense? Maybe getting confirmation from actual Richard Gage that he will not come to this sub for an AMA?

Edit: Just so you don't think I'm here to stir shit all the time, I had an idea about AMA's in the future.

It's called the buddy system. One mod can't promote and hold an AMA on their "hunch" from now on.

Verification of the AMA candidate must be between two mods, at all times.

Simple fix for a nefarious mod's actions.

I admit I trusted the mods at the time during the Gage AMA and that was a mistake.

My point is you, Orangutan, of all the people in this vast universe, should have smelled the rat from the get-go. You dwarf me in your knowledge of 911, yet somehow only nam007, I, and maybe one more individual were saying "what the actual fuck" during the AMA.

Not that I followed though with anything, as I was banned shortly thereafter.

You were more like fake Richard's crutch/beard.

You answering roughly 20% of the questions that fake Richard ignored/dodged.

Something stinks. I'm not sure what though. I just know there's another mod here that set this thing up and god dammit. It's like there's a plot to fuck with 911 truth within REDDIT.COM.

It's an obvious conspiracy, and sorry you're initiation has to go down like this.

E:Why are you pushing another 19? It's a ridiculous circle-jerk.

We learn more about you as you choose which questions to address and ignore. Don't get exclusive with the Kevin Ryan question. It's really an afterthought...

This should be required reading before his AMA. If you have not taken the time to read this article, which is a kind of condensed telling of portions of his book, then you should.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/09/16/part-1-mr-george-bush-of-the-central-intelligence-agency/

GHW Bush & JFK Hit

Welcome to /r/conspiracy moderation /u/orangutan. First question, re:

Join us on December 4th for an /r/conspiracy[1] AMA with Russ Baker of WhoWhatWhy.com[2] . Baker has written for top publications around the world, including The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Nation, Esquire, Vanity Fair, The Washington Post, Salon, The Village Voice, The (UK) Sunday Times, and Der Spiegel (Germany). He has also served as a contributing editor to the Columbia Journalism Review. Baker received a 2005 Deadline Club award for his exclusive reporting on George W. Bush’s military record.

Why does this read like a PWB CIA résumé?

Second question:

Why would a selfiie change anything?

p.s. Show us something we haven't seen, yet.

EDIT: /

Not everyone has gone through hours of research on topics that would be covered in this AMA. New subcribers might have not researched any of the topics that Mr. Baker covers, so it makes sense to present the information to a new audience. If the verification requirements are met, things will be just fine.

Why does this read like a PWB résumé?

So that the community can remain skeptical, as it always has been.

Why would a selfiie change anything?

My guess,is you are refering to this. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

This is an understandable concern, and we will ask for a picture to be posted during the AMA;

...it makes sense to present the information to a new audience.

No argument there.

So that the community can remain skeptical, as it always has been.

So, no shoe will drop.

Re:

This is an understandable concern, and we will ask for a picture to be posted during the AMA;

A real selfie of Russ Baker? I dare believe it.

no shoe will drop

Heh. You are a funny guy.

I'll dare much more.

I'll dare much more.

Good luck with that because a believer's gonna need it.

Same to you good sir. Peace.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Here's a few questions for Mr. Baker:

Have you got any news for us old skool conspiracy buffs who are already too familiar with the twisted history of the Bush clan? In other words, anything that would stick to a statutory skillet, and not just in my our collective guts?

Also, here's a few questions relative to the 'proof needed" to conduct quality AMAs:

Does this 'proof' come with any guarantee? Further, if it proved pseudo, what would you do next?

If you had his book you'd know that he's no friend of the CIA.

Ok, you got me. How is he still alive then?

Lol, it would be a pretty sad world if every person who published a book that was adversarial to the CIA was immediately killed. Also if they did so, they would call a lot of attention to the killed authors.

I'm confused, do you think that anyone who hasn't been killed by the CIA isn't legit? So, the only real conspiracy theorists are Webb and Casolaro? This is facetious, btw, and you're an idiot.

So, the only real conspiracy theorists are Webb and Casolaro?

I see your point, and agree with it, but many more than just these two have been murdered for attempting to expose "the octopus".

I'm confused, do you think that anyone who hasn't been killed by the CIA isn't legit? Btw, You're an idiot.

Yep, you're confused alright if you believe that anyone who questions your authority is an idiot, and think that your word alone is sufficient proof to back any of your claims. I gave you a chance to state your case as to Mr. Baker's credibility, but apparentlly you're only interested in undermining your own. Otherwise, if you don't believe that the CIA has lots of journalists (left, right and center) on their payroll, nor realize that they're in the business of manufacturing fake missives for mass consumption, then yeah, the cause of your confusion is gullibility. Not to worry, though. You've come to the right place. We can help you with that here.

if you don't believe that the CIA has lots of journalists (left, right and center) on their payroll, nor realize that they're in the business of manufacturing fake missives for mass consumption, then yeah, the cause of your confusion is gullibility

LOL, you're still an idiot. I'm well aware of the CIA's hold on the media. I just think that you're an idiot cause you think that any journalist not controlled by the CIA should be dead. Seriously, you must not know a lot about this world if you think that. Come back when you've done some more reading in the conspiracy literature.

you're an idiot cause you think that any journalist not controlled by the CIA should be dead

No, I simply wondered at his ability to survive the ugly Texas truth and dirty CIA tricks. Now you've blown 2 chances to back up your boast that his credentials are impeccable.

Come back when you've done some more reading in the conspiracy literature.

WOW...an actual comment without 'LoL' or 'idiot' inside. Now that's some good literature!

Yeah this smells of a massive pile bullshit. I think this new mod has a pretty spotty past too.

I'd love to be able to sway him on the sham that is global warming / climate change / global cooling.

By their fruits ye shall know them

Uff, nothing really hard hitting here

• Climate change BS peddling
• Saudi's are a diversion from the real culprits (m8ssad)

First thing new mod does is peddle these softies...how about someone with real meat like Ryan Dawson instead?

Who do you think the democrats will roll out as the next savior?

Fake Richard Gage's entire AMA can be found here, with fake Richard Gage's answers still on display. See, look:

http://www.np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2nxea7/why_can_i_still_see_fake_richard_gages_comments/

Dear new mod Orangutan, could you please right the wrong by deleting fake Richard Gage's comments?

It's absolutely maddening to see those comments stand. I don't care that the AMA was 'removed,' as it can still be viewed by a link. If you or another mod would kindly clean up the other 'mod's' 'mistake,' it would be greatly appreciated.

Not that the mod in question would actually be held accountable for their own actions.

Accountability is not a feeling. It's an action.

Accountability holds a strong meaning to those who never experience it.

Who was held accountable for the failure to verify?

Who was held accountable for upholding fake Richard Gage's asinine remarks?

No one. There's a fox in the henhouse.

could you please right the wrong by deleting fake Richard Gage's comments?

It's absolutely maddening to see those comments stand. I don't care that the AMA was 'removed,' as it can still be viewed by a link.

I have removed all of the comments by the impostor on that AMA. Please let me know if there were any that I missed.

Thank you kindly stranger.

E: You missed roughly 10 fake Richard Gage entries. Thanks again for your extended time in cleaning up someone else's 'victimhood.'

I think this should be an invite only AMA. Reduce the shills and trolls.

How would that work for a user like you with a 13 day old account? You most likely wouldn't make the cut if an idea like that were implemented. I don't like the idea personally.

I'm a 5 + year user. This is a new account.

That's fine I'm just saying: what if your old one was banned (maybe it is)? Do we just take your word for it and allow your new one to post? It just leaves too much room for interpretation and gives the mods too much control over the flow of information which isn't a good thing on a forum like this in my opinion.

Does not matter about my old about. Its about allowing a AMA guest to feel comforable to discuss and not get misguided by users that try to make a guest look bad or crazy. Its about respect and what they came to do.

If users are going to be childish, they should not be allowed to participate.

You're right and I'm by no means saying that AMA guests should be attacked - I'll do my best to ensure that Mr. Baker feels comfortable and is free from trolls. Having said that, this is the internet, and this is a conspiracy forum. Anonymous trolls and shills are part of the game and anyone who's been involved in this "scene" for longer than a few months is well aware of this by now. We have to have thick skin and not let idiotic comments get to us, and that goes for our AMA guests as well (in my opinion).

I think limiting the AMA to guest invites only would severely restrict the number of questions asked and the overall dialogue in the thread and I think that this would do a lot more harm to the AMA format than a few juvenile trolls could. How would we make the determination anyway? Some of the trolls have older accounts than legit users - where does one draw the line?

I think limiting the AMA to guest invites only would severely restrict the number of questions asked and the overall dialogue in the thread and I think that this would do a lot more harm to the AMA format than a few juvenile trolls could.

This is true but limiting the access would make for a better AMA. The option option is to post users questions to the AMA guest as the Mods can filter / monitor the questions.

I just don't want to see the guest get pissed off and leave like the last one did. That was sad to see! There needs to be moderation when the guest come on. Leaving it wide open allows strange people to hijack the AMA.

PM AssuredlyAThrowAway about me. He is up to speed.

I have no doubt about you or your intentions based on what you've said here and previous comments of yours I've seen.

What I would say though is that having something like this in place will automatically limit not just the number but the depth of the questions that are asked. What I mean is that people will deliberately self-censor their questions or "tone them down" so as not to offend the guest or get their comments deleted. This will happen even for legit users who have good questions. Who would ask the tough questions with a rule like this in place? Very few people, we would get nothing but soft balls - or at least significantly softer balls in general.

I just don't like the idea of 5 people (maybe a few more) deciding the content that 250,000+ subscribers are exposed to. That isn't what this sub is about.

The solution, in my opinion, is for we mods to just be vigilant during the AMA and remove posts that are abusive and/or are reported to us and also to possibly let the users know to be respectful of the guest and that we will delete comments that aren't.

But asking a tough question, or asking for identity verification (within reason of course), is not disrespectful or abusive by default.

Thanks!

I think its a tough balance when it comes to doing the AMA especially when it comes to conspiracies knowing well that this sub is being closely watched.

Have you seen the Vice AMA with Kenny and Spenny? I though it was well done and moderated in this fashion. I also think doing a video or audio AMA has a bit more power over a text only AMA.

I'm all about keeping this sub strong and worthwhile for the people that visit it. I think the sub needs to take things to the next level with small audio podcast or video podcasts. The sub has some amazing insightful Mods.

[deleted]

There it is...a big black dick!

You may want to think twice Russ Baker.

Yeah that would probably be nice, I can just see some people not wanting to put a notice on their site. Like if it's the type of announcement they'd only put on Twitter, not on their main site. As long as the verification is accomplished, I think that's what's important.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

That's fine I'm just saying: what if your old one was banned (maybe it is)? Do we just take your word for it and allow your new one to post? It just leaves too much room for interpretation and gives the mods too much control over the flow of information which isn't a good thing on a forum like this in my opinion.

Here's a few questions for Mr. Baker:

Have you got any news for us old skool conspiracy buffs who are already too familiar with the twisted history of the Bush clan? In other words, anything that would stick to a statutory skillet, and not just in my our collective guts?

Also, here's a few questions relative to the 'proof needed" to conduct quality AMAs:

Does this 'proof' come with any guarantee? Further, if it proved pseudo, what would you do next?