I am posting in anonymous just in case some folks might admit something they wouldn't want publicly know. 

My question- how do some members of Cathinfo find the time to post so often and, in some cases, very long posts?

How many hours do you spend on this website? What about other websites? 

I just post in between my other duties.  

When my posts are longer, its because I rewarded myself with like 30 minutes to an hour of time on CathInfo.

At least in theory that is what I try to do, if a conversation gets too heated and I feel like I have to explain myself more, then I end up spending too much time here.

I just post in between my other duties. 

When my posts are longer, its because I rewarded myself with like 30 minutes to an hour of time on CathInfo.

At least in theory that is what I try to do, if a conversation gets too heated and I feel like I have to explain myself more, then I end up spending too much time here.

THIS ^^^.  It's not hard.  Once an hour on average, I'll skim the various threads to see if anything new was posted, focusing on threads I'm intersted in (maybe 10% on average).  Then I'll open it up, see the post, and then may or may not respond.

Despite the fact that I'm the most prolific poster on CathInfo, I only post an average of 8.2 post per day, many of which are short ones.  I type very quickly (people at work have made comments about how my keyboard sounds like a machine gun, where I can almost keep up with the speed of thought.  AND, I think about these types of issues and questions a lot, so that on a subject I'm familiar with, and likely have posted dozens of times already about, it just flows out of my brain and in through my keyboard.  I'd have to say that the total time I spend on average per day is, oh, 45 minutes, with about 10-15 sessions of skimming threads for 2-3 minutes at a time on average, and then about 8 times per day I'll chose to engage, sometimes taking 30 seconds, sometimes a minute.  I would probably guess that my average post, if you factor in the long ones, takes maybe 4-5 minutes.

It's not all that hard.  Where things are hard is trying to produce polished material.  I have about a dozen "articles" I started on my Substack page, but the need to make them more polished and more well-written, etc. ... well, I've not published a single one of them since I started about 6 months ago, because I don't feel they're finished.  With posts on CI, I rattle them off without any consideration for style, and often for tone, and that gets people sometimes misreading my tone as being "hostile" where it's mostly just matter-of-fact, boom boom boom, without any consideration for style or tone or anything else, just straight from my brain onto the screen.

I just post in between my other duties. 

When my posts are longer, its because I rewarded myself with like 30 minutes to an hour of time on CathInfo.

At least in theory that is what I try to do, if a conversation gets too heated and I feel like I have to explain myself more, then I end up spending too much time here.

I meant to not be anonymous, but someone posted at the same time and I forgot to check the box again.

How many hours do you spend on this website? What about other websites?

That's another question too.  I spend very little time on any other sites or forums, whereas some of the other members are active on other ones.  Very early on, I was on catholic.com and got banned 3 or 4 times (for saying nothing particularly incendiary), but since then I've only been on CI.  I'll spend a few minutes here and there on X looking for stuff from the handful of people I follow, but am not very active there.  Between the two, I'd say a total of one hour per day on average.

I sit behind a computer 8 hours a day with little or nothing to do.  I work for a small internet company in Louisville, Iglou, and we sell ATT internet service, and deal with other computer stuff.  All the people in the office are conservative, so I can say whatever in the hell I want (completely off topic).   I check Cathinfo periodically throughout the day as I read Catholic books, etc.  I get absorbed in my Substack page, but tend to be a perfectionist when I write, but it is what it is.  Currently working on an article on the Sandy Hook Scam of ten years ago, among other things. 

The above post (Reply #11) was written by me.  I despise the anonymous forum and especially see no reason for its use for this topic.

I'm curious, will you be interviewing the funeral directors who assisted the families in Newton, Connecticut?  It would seem suspicious if you didn't explore ALL of the information available.  One hundred sixty funeral directors across Connecticut traveled to Newton to help.  I've even done some of the leg work for you. 

https://connectingdirectors.com/43215-one-year-later-how-the-connecticut-funeral-directors-association-and-its-members-faced-the-challenges-in-newtown
Emilie Parker was buried next to her grandfather in Ogden, Utah.  Her local care was handled by the Jowdy-Kane Funeral Home in Danbury, Connecticut and in Utah by the Myers Mortuary in Ogden, Utah.  They would be good to contact.

You want to be a normie so bad, don't you. You wish you had never tasted the red pill. Here's the problem, buddy. If just a couple parts of the Sandy Hook narrative disprove it, then the whole thing is disproven. However many inconclusive or neutral bits of evidence there are. With most official stories, many bits of evidence could go either way. For example it's impossible to prove a negative. Many parts of an official lie/story do work or make sense. It's the parts that don't work, that can't work, that disprove the entire story.

A bunch of funeral directors traveling to a location don't prove anything. I would consider that evidence inconclusive at best. Of course they're going to put in some degree of effort to pull off any fαℓѕє fℓαg or scam. What's your next bit of proof, that it was all covered on the mainstream news?