>>11118631 pb (q drop)

No, I was saying that we've labeled anons as anon before (much like fag: for example, we have "planefags" or "twitterfags", "normalfag", etc. just like we have "hollywoodanon" or "fbianon") just like some anons in the beginning labeled Q as "Qanon".

No one decides what all of us collectively refer to them as, Q. Remember, you came to us and coaxed us in to playing with you, not the other way around. Chan trends dictate, as they always have, that whatever sticks is cemented and things that are bland or faggot get thrown out.

Look at "qanon.pub", for instance. This is evidence that we ourselves called Q "Qanon" from the beginning, even if just in a limited capacity.

Regardless, I agree that we should just stick with Q because signing posts with "Q" has always been their thing.

The big annoyance is when people say "Qanons". Arguing over whether or not we say Qanon or Q seems senseless.

Boomers are going to say stupid shit and think stupid shit no matter what we say here. We should just continue to let it be an interchangeable term.

I can see how the way Q is pushing us to distinguish between the verbiage can be important though.

>>11129431

Oops those underlines were supposed to be blanks:

:blank:anon or :blank:fag

were examples of what I meant.

Boy the shills sure do care a lot about JFK Jr and whether or not he's actually alive…

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, though.

>>11120402 pb (q drop)

You've gotta tear the existing Temple down in order to rebuild it

>>11129453

It might matter if you ask if "Jesus" is a character beyond what was said in the bible.

There are plenty of stories that permeate throughout various cultures all through history and if you look closely enough, you'll find that plenty of them overlap significantly.

What if "Jesus" was portrayed (so long as the above is true) in various different formats, with a few tweaks to the backstory and certain dynamos that explain characteristics about him, but just enough was kept to allow those with eyes to see to view the pattern that potentially corroborates this theory?

What if, considering that the above could be true, the answer was still yes?

>>11129492

We cannot just look at the way that we refer to things.

See "qanon.pub" for example. That site debuted within just a few months, right? Somebody was calling Q "Qanon" all the way back then and this is no recent occurrence.

Besides, we've long called random anons "something"anon based on what subject they talk about (among other variables).

Q was referred to as "Qanon" by some because anons followed the same format of ascribing a name to a random anon, just this time it was in reference to an anon that signed posts with "Q".

Again, I'll relent that Q is very likely doing this for good reason, so I'm obviously willing to entertain them to see where this goes, but we can't just burn the books here, considering how long this categorization effort has been ongoing (HLIanon, for instance… FBIanon… and so much more).

>>11129570

Well put, anon.

>>11129576

Precisely.

Think Dave Dave (Michael Jackson), for instance.