I have to contest your claim that the New York Times article is not objective based on the argument you make. The article claims only that there are false rumours about Hilary Clinton’s involvement – true or false?. To say that these are not by “credible” commentators, does not in any way demonstrate any lack of objectivity or even speak to it. It is clearly not “misinformation” – it is information.
You go on to claim as fact that this is a “deliberate attempt to “embroider the Pizzagate theory” – surely this is merely your opinion?
You also appear to be doing all the things in your post regarding lack of objectivity, that you accuse the NYT of doing. How sensationalising is it to say some guy has been “exposed” as an actor, when he has a public page stating such…..and what actor in his right mind would not advertise the fact he’s an actor anyway – how’s he supposed to get any work? What relevance does it even have to anything…..what is your actual allegation?
The whole post reads like any other “Conspiracy theory” - who are you accusing and what of and where on Earth is all the “evidence” you keep alluding to?
I have no idea either way whether there’s any paedophile ring, I’m just saying you haven’t provided any and that your reasoning and arguments are dodgy at best and lack the objectivity that you claim they have. I would have to say that based on everything you’ve said, the verisimilitude of your post to the gullible amongst us could be equally applied to yourself.
I won’t comment further as the rest of your post seems to go on in a very similar vein and seems to just get more absurd. Just a thought though……has anybody noticed how the logo for Ping Pong actually looks like 2 Ping Pong bats?......freaky man…..