>>11083976

>>11084001

>>11083813 (PB)

baker

Are you refusing to remove the deceiving global notable? It has been clearly pointed out that Q responded to A post of OSS's, but not the statement about whether to stand down or continue dividing anons, and was clearly unrelated to OSS's statement. Global notable is clearly proven to be deceiving and should be removed immediately.

>>11083197 (PB)

This global notable is deceiving. Why are you deceiving anons?

>>11083606 (PB)

>>11070251 (PB) (Qpost POTUS memes)

>>11070287 (PB) (anon responds to Qpost POTUS memes);

Hey Q , how are we doing so far? Almost 3 years in now.

>>11070362 (PB) Q responds to anon;

[Past 7 Days]

https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=qanon&qft=interval%3d%228%22&form=PTFTNR

House resolution passed condemning 'Qanon'

House intel committee meeting tomorrow re: 'Qanon'

Gauge for yourself, Anon.

Q

>>11070326 (PB) Your (OSS's) response to Q's post of POTUS memes ( >>11070251 (PB) Q's post of memes)

Q, I stand at the ready, if you want me to stand down and let the /comms/ bakers bake all you have to do is say the word and I will never bring it up again. I just want to know if what I am doing is right or wrong.

A tor anon responds to you ( >>11070326 (PB) );

>>11070534 (PB)

It's bigger than the bakers, some choices are necessary to ensure a greater public awakening. They'll get theirs, but not on your timeline.

>>11070453 (PB) your (OSS's) msm hit piece search list

Q tags your post of a search list of msm Qanon hit pieces 5 minutes later, without any text or response; ( >>11070489 Q rt post of your search list of msm Qanon hit pieces)

That's at least 2 anons Q responded to, who responded to their POTUS memes post. Your post Q tagged was unrelated to the comment that you would stand down. It was related to msm Qanon hit pieces.

You respond to Q's rt of your list of msm hit pieces.

>>11070542 (PB)

o7, understood.

If Q agreed with you, that dividing was ok or a good thing, why not tag the statement? You are deceiving anons with this global notable.

>>11083689 (PB)

'''ALL (PB'S)

>>11083197

>>11070251, >>11070326, >>11070362, >>11070453, >>11070489, >>11070542 INTERESTING CHAIN OF EVENTS FOR MY FIRST EVER DIRECT Q RESPONSE. -

Gauge for yourself, Anons:

>>11070251 ← Q post

>>11070326 ←- reply to Q post

>>11070362 ←-Q reply to post >>11070287 (not >>11070326)

>>11070453 ←-reply to that Q post with cap

>>11070489 ←- Q reply to cap

>>11070542 ←- reply to Q post

how'my doin so fah?

nobody replied to >>11070326 but a TOR post, probably yours

since you have the huberus to make mockery of Global notables in your quest to give regular notables such clout as to say bakers are subversive because of it

how about you make this a global notable response

baker

Request that you remove OSS's deceiving global notable

>>11084140

The truth isn't innuendo or implied. The truth is clear, unless your ego has you believing Q agreed that what your doing is dividing the board/anons because he left a secret, low-key agreement? Q proof? Needs moar sauce than just your feefees or your innuendo. Q implied he agreed? That's undeniably debatable

Baker

Please remove deceiving global notable immediately, for implying Q is down with divsionfagging. It is based on feelings and innuendo not fact.

>>11084292

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

>>11084282

How does that address the issue raised anon?

>>11084292

I answered your question. What do you mean?

>Can you show us any other time in the last 3 years that Q responded to a screencap of Q's own post?

That doesn't provide sauce for the global notable. That is some issue altogether you are contending and not even sure how it relates to my request to have deceiving notable removed. This question you want answered, is not proof of your contention in the global notable that Q is down with divisionfagging. And I don't know the answer to your question you want answered in response to my request to have the deceiving global notable removed. Does that answer your question? Now answer mine, which is where is the sauce that Q is down with divisionfagging?