Bakers:
-are there instructions on how to become one? Is it simply a matter of copying & pasting to a new thread, create new edition and increment title? I've been on a couple of times when it was slow, and Bakers were having some difficulty finding replacements. A set of instructions would be nice.
Board Volunteers:
–if you need some, will you announce it or do we just ask?
Thanks!
nvm re: Bakers–I saw the pastebin instructions.
Just wondering–is there some way that Q's posts in the general research threads could be auto-posted in other threads as well?
These new research sub-threads are much-needed, but people would be more likely to use them if they knew they weren't going to miss out when Q posts.
Incidentally, I'd created a thread called "Follow the money" the day before yesterday, and probably spent a good six hours filling it with links to resources that could be used to do exactly that, plus research that I was working on myself. There were only 5-6 posts (mainly by myself), but it was deleted less than 24 hours after I'd posted it. Today, there's a new post called "Follow the money," but with no links. Is there a reason why mine was deleted?
BO admitted that he was the one that made the word filter. Sure it was just a joke, all in good fun:
>>500387
>>503220
You're right, it wasn't deleted--just archived. Regardless, I'd started it on the 23rd, created a pastebin for template modeled after the qresearch general, filled it with links to resources, added research I was doing myself, then suddenly it gets archived and another post pops up with the same name, sans resource links.
The pastebin has links to the Treasury Department and relevant offices, a link to the ICIJ database (which contains the Paradise and Panama Paper leaks on offshore corporations, plus an interface showing their links), a link to the FBI's search for non-profit form 990s, and more.
I'd also begun breaking down Q's linked article with regards to who the Sandy Hook money went to, so we could identify who should be investigated. I was going to do the same for a Miami Herald article that listed similar details for this Majory Stoneman Douglas incident, when I saw my work had been tossed yesterday.
Just wanted to give you and the BVs compliments on your handling of the banning situation. At first I felt it was needed–it's crystal clear that shills have come in and started pushing narratives designed to distract & discredit. Personally, the BV that was temporarily relieved is my favorite precisely because he took care of those sorts quickly (as far as I could tell). Posting during his time was always fruitful, both in getting input and learning from other's research. I also felt (and still do feel) that certain types should be banned based on Q's recommendation of those that "should not be taking part in the discussion." One gets the impression that he knows about the narratives that are being advanced.
But there have been times that I have had my gripes and spoke out about them…and the speed with which I was attacked was mind-boggling. It's like "Lord of the Flies" in here sometimes; last night, for instance, I mentioned that it was time to move on from the frog because Revelation 16:13 makes for bad optics. Others mentioned that the frog is childish, but everyone who said so was instantly called a shill.
People should be able to air legitimate grievances without being silenced because oftentimes it's meant to point out glaring problems. For instance, if I were the opposition, I would immediately work to sever Christians from anything related to #qanon by pointing out the frog, and you can bet that they will as the heat rises.
So again, I commend you all for striking a good balance. It gives me faith that this board is making decisions that are much wiser than the ones I would have made, and that gives me comfort.
As we all know, Q recently stated that "we are being set up" (#1174). While I am pretty sure that by "we," Q meant his team…it might still be a good idea to take some sort of precautionary measures, small as they may be.
I think we should put forth a statement condemning vigilantism or acts of violence. Q has not called for it in any way, shape, or form…but putting forth a statement might be more of an obvious disclaimer.
I can think of any number of nightmare scenarios, but here's one: the TNT that was stolen in PA (I think) is used to do something terrible, and the person who does the deed is conveniently found to be an avid follower of this board. While that might backfire (drawing more attention to our work), it might be used as a way to justify searches in order to "track down Q." That would have a chilling effect.
Hopefully it doesn't come to that. Hopefully we have enough power in the higher ranks that they could appeal to reason and say there has been no call to anything here except patriotism, faith, spreading the truth, and digging…but a statement to that effect, worded effectively, might help.
Do you think you could somehow stress the importance of being brave on some of these anons? For the second time now, I'm stuck being the only one with a file that could have historic value, and nobody has the courage to download it.
The first instance was when I mirrored the liddlekidz sites–for all I knew, I could have been downloading kiddie porn…but of course, there was nothing of the sort. After I got the archives, I set up a torrent so that other anons could dig (and assured them everything was fine). To this day, there are three people seeding it–but at the time, everybody wanted to know what was inside.
Today, I managed to find a copy of the OSF leaks put out by dcleaks.com. It took almost five days of digging to finally find it; there are hundreds of fake torrents out there, and everything else (including the original website) have been taken offline. When I tried to share it (#1453 and #1454), the baker wouldn't even put it into the notables.
I fail to see how 2600+ files, leaked from George Soros's OSF, isn't important. I have files that detail how to get around lobbying laws, strategies for countries around the world…but because one baker decides it isn't important, I'm sitting here trying to broadcast that I have this info so that others will duplicate it, and I know that the people that killed Seth Rich are probably very interested.
I understand that some anons might be afraid of viruses, but I've had some of them tell me that they're afraid of download a .txt file. Really? Do people not understand the difference between data files and executables?
There is safety in numbers, except when you're surrounded by cowards. These are not the anons that go honking in the night so that other anons can triangulate the position of a flag. These are the anons that cry for milk but are afraid to get it because mom forgot to leave the night light on.