>Go fuck yourself, cunt
So much anger
freaking the fuck out
>anime baker clown
What makes you say that? They have been baking for hours, I haven't seen any pedo shit.
Cause all the shills are on comms trying to figure out how to talk their way out of Q calling them out yesterday.
Cause all the shills are on comms trying to figure out how to talk their way out of Q calling them out yesterday.>>11084101
>baker
>
>Request that you remove OSS's deceiving global notable
>>11070251 ← Q post
>>11070326 ←- reply to Q post
>>11070362 ←-Q post
>>11070453 ←-reply to that Q post with cap
>>11070489 ←- Q reply to cap
Q responded to the bakers posting of the bing search results after the baker asked the question. Can you show us any other time in the last 3 years that Q responded to a screencap of Q's own post? I'm trying to figure out the truth not what you want the truth to be, if Q has never done this before seems like a confirmation to me.
>>11070251 ← Q post
>>11070326 ←- reply to Q post
>>11070362 ←-Q post
>>11070453 ←-reply to that Q post with cap
>>11070489 ←- Q reply to cap
Q responded to the bakers posting of the bing search results after the baker asked the question. Can you show us any other time in the last 3 years that Q responded to a screencap of Q's own post? I'm trying to figure out the truth not what you want the truth to be.
>>11070251 ←- Q post
>>11070326 ←- Baker Question
>>11070362 ←- Q post
>>11070453 ←- reply to that Q post with cap
>>11070489 ←- Q reply to cap
>>11070542 ←- Baker reply
WHY WON'T ANY OF YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION IF YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY?
Q responded to the bakers posting of the Bing search results after the baker asked the question. Can you show us any other time in the last 3 years that Q responded to a screencap of Q's own post? I'm trying to figure out the truth not what you want the truth to be. Also, how can it be deceitful if the global notable tells anons to gauge for themselves?
I'm undecided, convince me by showing me any other time in over 4500 Q drops Q team has done this.
>everyone is OSS
Q responded to the bakers posting of the Bing search results after the baker asked the question. Can you show us any other time in the last 3 years that Q responded to a screencap of Q's own post? I'm trying to figure out the truth not what you want the truth to be. Also, how can it be deceitful if the global notable tells anons to gauge for themselves?
I'm undecided, convince me by showing me any other time in over 4500 Q drops Q team has done this.
Q responded to the bakers posting of the Bing search results after the baker asked the question. Can you show us any other time in the last 3 years that Q responded to a screencap of Q's own post? I'm trying to figure out the truth not what you want the truth to be. Also, how can it be deceitful if the global notable tells anons to gauge for themselves?
I'm undecided, convince me by showing me any other time in over 4500 Q drops Q team has done this.
>Q team never done what? You are not making sense. Q tagged a post of yours related the subject matter at hand. A search list of MSM Qanon hit pieces. A post of yours, not a response to the post you claim. The global notable is deceitful, in that it serves an agenda to discredit and wrongfully accuse bakers of fuckery and NOW you say Q is down for divisionfagging? The global notable is deceitful in that it leads anons not aware, to believe, that Q did in fact respond to your statement in agreement with the division you are causing. But Q didn't, he just tagged a relevant posting of yours to the conversation of 'Qanon' being all over the news and how 'Qanon' lives rent free in these DS fuckers head. The Q tag, had nothing to do with your statement, unless innuendo and feelings are sauce.
>
>baker
>
>Remove global notable, it is deceitful
>>11070251 ←- Q post
>>11070326 ←- Baker Question
>>11070362 ←- Q post
>>11070453 ←- reply to that Q post with cap
>>11070489 ←- Q reply to cap
>>11070542 ←- Baker reply
WHY WON'T ANY OF YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION IF YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY?
Q responded to the bakers posting of the Bing search results after the baker asked the question. Can you show us any other time in the last 3 years that Q responded to a screencap of Q's own post? I'm trying to figure out the truth not what you want the truth to be. Also, how can it be deceitful if the global notable tells anons to gauge for themselves?
I'm undecided, convince me by showing me any other time in over 4500 Q drops Q team has done this.
>>11070251 ←- Q post
>>11070326 ←- Baker Question
>>11070362 ←- Q post
>>11070453 ←- reply to that Q post with cap
>>11070489 ←- Q reply to cap
>>11070542 ←- Baker reply
WHY WON'T ANY OF YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION IF YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY?
Q responded to the bakers posting of the Bing search results after the baker asked the question. Can you show us any other time in the last 3 years that Q responded to a screencap of Q's own post? I'm trying to figure out the truth not what you want the truth to be. Also, how can it be deceitful if the global notable tells anons to gauge for themselves?
I'm undecided, convince me by showing me any other time in over 4500 Q drops Q team has done this.
>>11070251 ←- Q post
>>11070326 ←- Baker Question
>>11070362 ←- Q post
>>11070453 ←- reply to that Q post with cap
>>11070489 ←- Q reply to cap
>>11070542 ←- Baker reply
WHY WON'T ANY OF YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION IF YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY?
Q responded to the bakers posting of the Bing search results after the baker asked the question. Can you show us any other time in the last 3 years that Q responded to a screencap of Q's own post? I'm trying to figure out the truth not what you want the truth to be. Also, how can it be deceitful if the global notable tells anons to gauge for themselves?
I'm undecided, convince me by showing me any other time in over 4500 Q drops Q team has done this.
>it is going to take a non clown/comms baker to fix this stupid shit it appears.
Quite the opposite.
>So to be clear..you don't mind that lies are posted as the first thing ones sees, when viewing ? Looks like the baker who posted that IS deceptive, Did you examine those posts?
>>11070251 ←- Q post
>>11070326 ←- Baker Question
>>11070362 ←- Q post
>>11070453 ←- reply to that Q post with cap
>>11070489 ←- Q reply to cap
>>11070542 ←- Baker reply
WHY WON'T ANY OF YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION IF YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY?
Q responded to the bakers posting of the Bing search results after the baker asked the question. Can you show us any other time in the last 3 years that Q responded to a screencap of Q's own post? I'm trying to figure out the truth not what you want the truth to be. Also, how can it be deceitful if the global notable tells anons to gauge for themselves?
I'm undecided, convince me by showing me any other time in over 4500 Q drops Q team has done this.
I'm undecided, convince me by showing me any other time in over 4500 Q drops Q team has done this.
I'm not the baker
So your answer to the question is Q has never done this before and therefore should be considered an answer yes that OSS is right in exposing the comms baker as subversive faggots. Cool, thank you.
seconded
>>11070251 ←- Q post
>>11070326 ←- Baker Question
>>11070362 ←- Q post
>>11070453 ←- reply to that Q post with cap
>>11070489 ←- Q reply to cap
>>11070542 ←- Baker reply
WHY WON'T ANY OF YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION IF YOU FEEL SO STRONGLY?
Q responded to the bakers posting of the Bing search results after the baker asked the question. Can you show us any other time in the last 3 years that Q responded to a screencap of Q's own post? I'm trying to figure out the truth not what you want the truth to be. Also, how can it be deceitful if the global notable tells anons to gauge for themselves?
I'm undecided, convince me by showing me an
> you antisemite