>>6065

You aren't the intended recipient of the information, then. If you're tired of hearing it, then it isn't for you, but as for the new board it is important to tell it early for newcomes, oldfags that dropped out along the way, like myself.

If truth in the past is tiring in general, well that sucks, but someone might wonder why the /projectdcomms/ got violated and not make the link to the tora video.

SDo you agree that they should get blamed for it at all? They are unrepentant, so so… Do you not see how 'it was because you were thinking wrong' is used to justify actions?

>>6068

You're the one explaining why your view on relevant content should supercede the absolute view on the relevant content.

>>6070

Calm your titties reeanon. There's no need to sperg out because you hate repetition of effective true propaganda. Engage that stunning intellect and cognitively ignore it, stupid faggot.

>>6072

Good morning!

>>6074

>I'm not against discussing it but stop discussing it fellow anons, it's old!

>>6076

I wonder what discussion of it might look like. Remember my first post referencing (((you)))? Oh look, here's a post discussing the merits of discussing it which you readily oppose. Golly it's like you were lying.

>>6119

Love it.

>>6121

Why would you think that?

>>6125

You might be able to get away with a hackintosh in a VM. You only need have the right operating API's, not the right hardware.

>>6132

>>6131

Why does your opinion of what we do matter more than 'ours'? If you want to fight smarter, do so. 'We' are not stopping you from doing that. 'We' welcome that. You should know by now that we are unsteerable. Character assassination of vague grouping of us is not a smarter way to battle this, IMHO.

>>6140

I see you attempting to coerce and steer. You think you're clever, but it's obvious to me. No amount of 'guys be reasonable, take the high road, don't weaponize this place' and other false assertions in order to cast aspersions on 'us' collectively is exactly what you're doing here. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals talks about making "the enemy" live up to their book of rules. So that would be what you're attempting to do, and as a fallback you framed the context to define collectively what you hope others think in refusing you we're doing the opposite. It's not the smartest plan you have, but if this is your showing of your better plan, I am not interested.

Be reasonable, anon. Knock that shit off.

>>6140

The idea is, in continuation of >>6141 that you're hoping to display a false dichotomy such that if refusing would leave 'us' in a quandary by nature of your framing of context. I refuse your viewpoints and refuse steering and refuse to get categorized by you as belonging here, or that here would be weaponized, or that unreasonability rules the roost, since your precious thoughts are not accepted at least by me.

>>6217

Worked for me. Thanks.