TY Baker!!!
>At this point in the game anyone who ignores the mountain of evidence is an operator or caught in the narrative. And that's setting aside what I've already written above.
>Operator
K, this is what I'm getting at. The point of the movement is to get anons to think for themselves, sure. I agree with you, the movement, and the philosophy behind it. My post was playing devil's advocate. Interestingly, you proved my point that you are going to take Q's word for it, there's no discussion to have other than:
A. Anons aren't allowed to question veracity, or Q for that matter.
B. Anons that do get called operatives.
C. After we get to that point of the movie, where does it go?
If you've been around a spell, you'll know I'm here most every day, and on team Q. If you have taken the Q message to the streets and tried to make converts, you'll find out who the hard skeptics are in your life. There will be those that wont buy it until it comes from POTUS' mouth. That's just the way it is.
>That's a reverse psychology ploy.
No, it's called "Putting yourself in someone else's shoes". Think like those you want to witness to, or show the truth to.
>SHOW ME where I said that. Screenshot it. faggot.
So, I stated:
>Anons believe Q, word for word.
You said:
>False
Then you called me an operative. Wait, where did you get that idea from?
>Those who challenge have an agenda or are simply still asleep.
>The NARRATIVE has them.
>Q
So, yeah. I guess because I asked a question, I'm an operative. I literally was asking the question on behalf of those that are hard skeptics, though. People that won't believe it until Hannity asks the Q, or POTUS just comes out and says it in a public address. At no point have I challenged anything here. Just simply asked a question about a percentage of the population, and how this moves forward after MSM implosion and Qresearch goes from 8ch.net to publicresearch.gov.
Do you understand now?
>fuck you and your projection.
Literally, not an argument.
If you'd like, you can scroll through previous breads where I asked Q about hard skeptics. Not everyone is going to take the time to go through all the crumbs like we have. A mountain of circumstantial evidence is still just circumstantial evidence.
I literally spelled it out for you. I asked a question, you called me an operative. You did this because Q told you that people that question either have an agenda, or are controlled by the narrative.
Look, it was a hypothetical question, asked of Q and the anon community at large, that all this is "great" but proving it to hard skeptics isn't going to work without a public statement, outright, but POTUS.
There is literally no denying this. Even after he does, sure, 4-6% of the population are just going to need a rubber room.