#wikianonbs

[wikianonbs]

You made a congratulations post on the engagement. That’s fine. You changed your mind. Overnight you went from, -don’t push cumberbabies, even though we want them- to wishing he was with Lupita- to saying he was compliant with the sham.

There is nothing wrong with holding people to a higher standard. There is nothing wrong with walking through a museum and admiring the paintings. Some people are entitled to only see pretty pictures and not the anguish of Van Gough’s madness. Some people see both.

Your words here have not been edited or altered except for removing some people’s information. The people you doxxed. The people you attempted to control and failed.

I am going to develop a gift of foresight here. The person now known as wikianon will be revealed to be at least one of, not only a nannie blog, but the most derogatory of the them. The anti-skeptics, the ones who keep giving away personal information about skeptics. I’d make a guess at the name but if it was right I might get called a witch. And I’m certainly not from Hungary.

[wikianonbs]

Reblogging this separately because it may have escaped attention. This is wikianonbc/sh’s original account. She started or at least feed into the attacks against skeptics before she became one. Just Saying….

[wikianonbs]

Hello Wiki! Back I see. I have some of your posts here as well. Did you include all of these?

[wikianonbs]

Not sure what order these are in or what context they apply to but these were the few screen shots that were available. After all wasn’t there talk about one of wiki’s sources being made up.

[wikianonbs]

What about the five or so more skeptics who were doxxed @wikianonbc? Some at your own hands? Not @sophiehuntergossipblog ? Not Astral? Not Aeltri? Who else have you forgotten? Were you just picking and choosing? These were off the top of my head. Tagging SoGo because she was the most targeted and I can’t see why she would be forgotten. And video queen is still around. Maybe she doesn’t want you to know where she is. Did you consider that?

And I did see the post were you were asked about your position. A reasonable question considering your changing views on certain topics. How do you know it was a skeptic? If it was anon, that is.

I presume the post that follows is the one you are referring to.

The “lies” that wiki claims to have originated have been around since before she was a skeptic. She also was not a skeptic until after the engagement, at least not publicly. She claims to have never have attacked other skeptics. Again, not true. One need only search her archives as she gladly invites almost daily. Or search this blog. It contains as many of her old reblogs as could be recovered. She made an effort to delete them in an attempt to remove the self-same evidence she asks for. It also contains blogs that prove her wrong on numerous accounts. I will not comment on motivation or personal reasons of any involved parties. But the majority of these blogs were deleted at wiki’s request.

[wikianonbs]

So when wiki is contacted, truth. Others? Bullshit

Something stinks and it’s not the email wiki