THANQ
>>22
>Thought it could be connected to Q's drop re: anons having privilege to have POTUS speak directly to us hereโฆ
Definitely.
May I humbly suggest on this board we keep an open mind to the prospect of streamlining the usual bread we're used to? I will be willing and able to collaborate in a dedicated thread throughout the week. Goal would be to have something highly accessible and functional, trim the fat per se, that consensus approves of, in order to better facilitate research.
>>115
All right! Glad to see I'm not alone with this sentiment.
/qresearch/
I actually like this name a lot. It's professional.
Please god no. And please God, no linkbreaking BS. And if there is, BO PLEASE just make all off-site links normal text by default like /pol/. So much simpler that way.
Too cluttered.
Here might be a good one.
Might be nice if Q could confirm our authentications. Afterall he used to confirm graphic. And this is much more complex work to put together.
I agree.
Here's to hoping BO is a free speech absolutist.
Ignore what you don't like.
I'm pretty hands-off and have zero experience but I've been posting in Q threads for 14 hours straight now. I have availability and what wisdom a 30yo lifelong cyborg can have. Generally interested in contributing in some way. Would be willing to try my hand at modding, as well.
YUS
Let's do this.
Tips for being a good /qresearch/er
>Be courteous: generally try to be polite, as appropriate. We are researchers in a collaborative online workspace.
>Be quiet: when some anons are trying hard to piece together intel, it can be very distracting and exhausting if there is a lot of 'noise' in the thread from numerous other anons engaging in separate or casual conversation.
Maybe there should be two threads - two general threads, one with fun only the other with no fun allowed. Then again maybe not. I don't know.
Sounds good for now. Then thread # per day / per total below that maybe.
Within the same image I mean, just in case that wasn't clear.