This global notable is deceiving. Why are you deceiving anons?
>>11070251 (Qpost POTUS memes)
>>11070287 (anon responds to Qpost POTUS memes);
Hey Q , how are we doing so far? Almost 3 years in now.
>>11070362 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 Your (OSS's) response to Q's post of POTUS memes ( >>11070251 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 );
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 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.
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.
baker
Request that you remove OSS's deceiving global notable