>>11085517

Global Announcements

>>11070251, >>11070326, >>11070362, >>11070453, >>11070489, >>11070542 INTERESTING CHAIN OF EVENTS FOR AN ANON'S FIRST EVER DIRECT Q RESPONSE.

• Gauge for yourself, Anons

BAKER

>>11083197

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 );

>>11070534

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.

>>11070542

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

>>11085629

Feelings and innuendo are not proof of anything. Please provide proof that my contention the global notable is deceiving is projection. The global notable is clearly deceiving, as I've shown here >>11085590

How is the post showing the deceit projection anon?

>>11085674

That statement;

• Gauge for yourself, Anons

in no way, justifies the deceitful global notable anon. But I have gauged for myself, by looking at the actual conversation, links to which I've provided here; >>11085590

My gauge tells me, the global notable should be removed immediately, it is deceitful.

>>11085693

I refer to you as anon in my list, anon. Where OSS is being referred to, I use OSS, not anon.

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

vs

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

>>11085763

Censoring is posting deceiving global notables that imply something that didn't happen. You censor truth by implying Q is down with divisionfagging. I am simply trying to ask for a correction to the error.

>>11085834

Q tagged A different post of OSS's, an unrelated topic to the statement about standing down. What else do you need? Innuendo is NOT information that proves what the global notable implies.

>>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 );

>>11070534

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.

>>11070542

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.