ok newfags, here's an interesting example from bread #1584:
-Shill#1 comes in with a fresh attempt to still use the BackChannel twitter HoneyPot: any anon worth its while knows that thing was dead on arrival, and/or that Q did a rare thing and took time to point out it's garbage, but has logic ever stopped shills from shilling? Hellnaw:
> >>1264818 "What's the deal with this guy? He's had some pretty good stuff in the past. Anyone following this?"
Playing innocent, reposting a copypaste variation of same reposts, spammed for days and days here.
-First answer reminds "anon" to read crumbs and points to Q rightfully calling out BC as fake:
> >>1264839 RE-READ CRUMBS
Except, obviously that answer is ignored, because it would normally end the conversation.
Now this is where it gets interesting: Enter Shills #2 & #3, who both chime in with the same cheery fake-innocent "why sir, i do think there is something to this, indeed, good sir" kind of duplicitous consensus-building:
> >>1264966 I think he’s legit. Any anon/polfag who’s been paying attention knows that shit went down October 2016 with Wikileaks and assange.
Completely irrelevant to Backchannel, addresses neither any arguments or Q's calling out.
> >>1264978 Yes, along with others. Worth considering.
Still, notice it produces no arguments, and pretents as if Q's calling out just never happened.
They do this kind of thing aaaaall the time.
Learn to stop them and not to fall for their tricks.