Here, let's do an experiment. Not because I'm calling you out but because I want to understand what you're so determined to explain to me and where it doesn't sync up with what I'm talking about.
wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3188
same people in the "scalia" email. even has a word that can mean different things: 'bedwetters"
Bedwetters most commonly refers to babies and toddlers pissing themselves at night. So they might be trying to convince kids not to kill themselves. This email is from feb 2nd, and that week brazil linked the zika virus to birth defects in 17 children born earlier that year: archive.is/4h6xL
"We won" could mean that Zika is a government conspiracy and its finally starting to infect children in lesser countries like brazil. But they dont want parents killing those kids because they want the world to see how bad zika is, so they had to talk them out of killing the kids.
Does this barely make sense? Well, so does scalia. Push it all you want, see how far it gets, see if anyone listens.
Now if I tell you that Hillary barely won Iowa on Feb 2nd and "bedwetters" also means people who are nervous about supporting a politician, do you even care about this email anymore? or is it a total waste of time because the first interpretation was pretty weak to begin with. There's not much difference with the scalia theory.
You say "all theories welcome" but you can't really mean that, because there's no threshold: you would just free associate words from whichever wikileak email has the most aggressive language, or start printing posters about hillary's secret alien alliance and call it "strategy" But it's not strategy when it's just noise
There are limited resources, limited attention spans, limited anons. I can understand the value of pushing all possibilities and theories, and in a perfect scenario I can even appreciate the "truth will come out if we all decide for ourselves". You're right, that would happen. But it's not that simple.
It looks less and less likely that the scalia theory has any merit. If individuals are supposed to "seek out" the truth for themselves, they're probably going to do it in relation to the most memorable stories they've heard about. Say scalia is one of them, uranium is another, and donna brazile is a third.
MSM is just starting to report on the last two, and it's not clinton-favorable. Let's say the individual watches MSNBC though and has only heard about these three but never given any MSM clinton negative info. So they go to the internet and start looking. They're going to find things about uranium and brazile on dailycaller, infowars, twitter, everywhere. Scalia will take some digging, and they're not going to have an easy time. Most normalfags have never once been to wikileaks, and I'll tell you this, most normalfags are fucking afraid to. They've heard Assange is a rapist and that wikileaks is a russian spy organization and that the site is full of viruses. They've been told wikileaks outright forges fake emails and puts them up. The odds are seriously stacked against anyone who isn't already keen on this stuff.
I want people to dig and hit something that changes their mind. Will Scalia be that thing? It doesn't look like it. More people keep turning up and pointing evidence against the theory. Saying "push all the theories and let people decide" only works if people have the know-how, the time, and the initiative to seek out answers while wading through oceans of bullshit. Anons are the kind of people who have that time. We've given scalia theory over a day now.
I don't think it's gatekeeping to say it looks like we're not going to get anywhere with it, and there are thousands of emails that we could be reading through with untapped potential. It's the same reason that even though I can find connections between Zika and babies and that second email, it's stupid to pursue that line of thought when a very reasonable explanation makes much more sense and the original story is increasingly unlikely.
