dChan
Anonymous ID: 45873f Dec. 26, 2020, 7:16 a.m. No.12182687   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2707 >>2911

>>12182616

Excellent question.

It's a question that's one of the most complex and difficult to answer, because of the 'Why?" infinite regress to explain why humans do anything specific.

You can maybe start with asking that of yourself, and then consider that your first estimate for why you're here might be either the same or the opposite reason I'm here, depending on the true reason you're here.

I'll probably know how to provide a better answer id you can first describe why you're here, and your best guess as to why you think I'm here.

Keep in mind that anything you say about my motivations will ultimately stem from your mind and your mind alone, so even if you claim to be talking about others, on this Anonymous board you're really talking about a facet of yourself.

I look forward to seeing your reply.

Anonymous ID: 45873f Dec. 26, 2020, 7:30 a.m. No.12182817   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2847 >>2925

>>12182707

Thanks for your reply,

Given that you are offering recognition of the existence of purpose in others merely by whether or not it interests you personally, i.e. others have purpose if it interests you, others have no purpose if it does not interest you, it is quite evident that your question and your follow up post are speaking to a facet of your own ego.

I did mention that in my initial reply to you.

Given that you recognize purpose in other Anons only to the extent it interests you personally, I can offer you the knowledge that your professed worldview, assuming you're being sincere, is that of a megalomaniacal solipsism that would require a mental disorder to block what would otherwise be a normal healthy self-corrective action of the mind.

I can confirm that I do have a purpose that is totally, completely, and entirely independent from whether or not it interests you personally.

You'll have to live with that fact, that your personal interests do not determine the existence or lack thereof of purpose in anyone else on the planet.

Now to be sure megalomaniacal solipsists tend to experience psychological trauma at the mere recognition of the existence of other people, and to that I will say it is a good thing you're occupied on a website posting comments as opposed to walking the streets where you'd be a threat to others.

Anonymous ID: 45873f Dec. 26, 2020, 7:40 a.m. No.12182908   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>12182855

You mean the shift in the hyphen?

That doesn't fundamentally change the motivation of the shills posting it, so any and all replies need not change either.

It's not my obligation to wait eagerly for every failed iterative step you idiots are conducting because what you're trying to do hasn't worked since late Nov 2020 when you started spamming the breads with the Q_Anon/Q-Anon banner.

It's not a 'win' for you if your failed iteration is so petty as to be ignored.

The fact you morons are tinkering is proof your whole strategy is a total failure.

If you weren't failing, you wouldn't need to tinker.

 

What was that part of Q4881that talked about how not all Anons are authentic? Helpful isn't it?

Anonymous ID: 45873f Dec. 26, 2020, 7:50 a.m. No.12182999   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3052

>>12182911

"Totally" dodging it would be to have not provided a any reply.

Given you linked to my reply, is you accepting that a reply exists.

As to whether I partially dodged it, I offer you the questioner's follow up comment here:

>>12182707

With that followup, which indicates that the Anon asking it was really speaking to his own ego, that attributes purpose in others only insofar as he finds interests in their posts, I will submit that there is no way I could have NOT 'dodged' the questioner's question, partially or fully, because as you can see the questioner was in fact speaking to his own psychology, not 'my' purpose here.

Therefore, what you might attribute to me as a dodge or not, is in fact referencing the questioner's mindset.

So take it up with that questioner, as it's his own ego he subsequently confirmed he was referencing all along when he asked me that question.

So it's not even up to me whether or not my replies are 'dodges' or otherwise vis a vis his 'question' that was ostensibly sent to me. It was a question of himself about himself and decided by himself.

I'm not in that megalomaniacal solipsistic headspace, so good luck.

Anonymous ID: 45873f Dec. 26, 2020, 7:55 a.m. No.12183063   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3097

>>12182991

You write that you call yourself a QAnon because you 'follow QAnon'.

 

There is 'Q'. 1

There are 'Anons'. 2

There is no 'Qanon'. 3

Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.

Anonymous ID: 45873f Dec. 26, 2020, 8:12 a.m. No.12183248   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3258

>>12183052

>Still dodging

Again, the questioner was referencing HIS psychology.

I am neither dodging nor not dodging because I am not that other Anon.

The question isn't for me, the purpose he referenced is his own mindset.

I notice a pattern in the attacks on this site.

There is a pattern that consists of hasty and incomplete information backed accusations against 'Anons' who portray Q positively, of 'failing' to satisfy the personal interests of Anons who portray Q negatively.

 

Remember, this particular exchange began with you replying to a post that contained a Q drop, and you have subsequently confirmed that the 'purpose' you ostensibly asked about me, was by your own definition in fact your own personal interests, where if it interests you then you perceive purpose, and if it doesn't interest you then you don't perceive purpose.

You typing on this board that your question is going unanswered is you just staying in the same state of self-reflection and deciding yes or no to whether any replies to you personally interests you. You have already confirmed your question can only be answered by you, so in reality whenever you type 'you're dodging', you're talking about yourself, you are 'dodging' your own question. It has nothing to do with me.