Here's my statement on RRN.

It sounds ridiculous to read it, but I get to see something most anons do not. That is, who the people that shit themselves over RRN are. A couple of them are normal anons, never fuck with anyone, just dig and post. The other side, and the side that attacks RRN most vehemently, are the same personalities that do EVERYTHING they can to disrupt, and subvert this board. I read the story and think, this is way too good to be true, and then I see the attacks, and it seems completely off-balance over "parody". And then I think, no one ever attacks "parody" sites like The onion like this. And then I think back to which other "News Sources" were atttacked. Specifically, one that spoke about color revolutions months before Q did.

Just about anything can go into the notables, and literally no one gives a fuck. But add something about the Jews, about RRN, or that other news site.. can't remember the name currently.. and these people freak.

Take from that what you will.

>>15231811

Define:Sabotage.

>>15231803

>>15231821

>nobody gives a rats ass what you think

>>15231818

>So… you?

>>15231831

Holy shit, vatican shill, where ya been man! These new shills are no where near as retarded as you, or as much fun.

>>15231869

If anons can't see the coding in delta omicron by this point, I'm very disappointed.

>>15231895

>>15231899

>rips of truth

>

>OSS shits all over the bakers

>

>Now Catalog not updating

>

>Gatekeeper bakers in to hide the important shit

>

>Over target!

Poor newsbot, can't dilute the notables anymore. Competely useless.

>>15231803

>Here's my statement on RRN.

>>15231818

>So… you?

>>15231821

>nobody gives a rats ass what you think

>>15231929

>Because it's pushed as real (to make anons look stupid over zero sauce fan fiction), not as parody.

I have never seen anyone push it as real. I have seen it and specifically called parody, to which the same people attacked it and screamed it shouldn't be in notables. Yet, they have no problem with sites like The Onion. Why draw the distinction?

>>15231641

>Imagine Morpheus bragging about getting the booster.

>

>Unimaginable, right?

>

>Now think about Trump.

Maybe, instead of relating an unrelated subject to jewish pop culture, you should ask yourself how does Trump actions help himself, and if you believe in him, us strategically in the long run?

Literally, why would anyone care this much?

>>15232027

>Anon has, plenty of times. They use the part of the diclaimer about 'lawyers advice', and usually add no one can prove it isn't true…(when no sauce is provided).

Which is a logical reason to have that on their website. You are demanding they (RRN) provide impossible truths, while saying future anons should not be able to read it and decide for themselves. Are you the arbitor of truth?

>>15232050

>Not what I said - I said those pushing it as real now.

The Bakers decide what goes into notables until anons abject. Baker refuse, "anons" consensus crack, information left out because.. Bakers/anons decide other anons need to be protected.

1. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

>>15232056

>abject.

Object

>>15232033

>It's pushed as real all the time here, and when you point out it's satire, they claim it's just to throw you off or for legal reasons. It's shilled HARD here.

>>15232042

>Which is a logical reason to have that on their website. You are demanding they (RRN) provide impossible truths, while saying future anons should not be able to read it and decide for themselves. Are you the arbitor of truth?

>>15232052

>You defending RRN?

No, I'm defending future anons ability to decide for themselves, to which you seem INCREDIBLY motivated to be against.

>>15232070

>And the one anon who constantly brought it up - using colored text - got shit on like crazy.

>

>Turns out, ColorAnon was right all along.

>

>Have a classic Hunter Nightshift meme…

That was me.

>>15232071

>Are you? How many times have you banned someone because you don't like what they post?

1. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

>>15232070

>>15232084

>That was me.

Literally the reason I became a BV was Q backing me on this and against Doc.

>>15232091

>I'm not seeing any proof being presented other than what anons would like to be true. That's my point. I'm not particularly bothered about RRN being documented here, just that position that it IS REAL NOW. Feel free to point out any obvious proofs I've missed from the RRN articles. What anon wouldn't WANT it to be true?

I'm not saying it should be marked as real now, and you are again charging what I have said. It should be archived like everything else for future consumption related to what Q has told us, and whether true or not, it is certainly related to Q research topics.

>>15232109

>make the case that CNN or MSNBC i

The biggest difference is certain people shit themselves over RRN, but they try to cram as much MSNBC/CNN/Fox into it as possible. The weirdest part is they are the same people.

>>15232114

>RRN isn't sauced like that.

MSNBC FOX CNN.. OK?

RRN… Not ok?

Both are full of shit, but one is not allowed?

>>15232142

>You're both idiots.

>

>RRN = FAKE NEWS.

>

>Source: RRN

>>15232042

>Which is a logical reason to have that on their website. You are demanding they (RRN) provide impossible truths, while saying future anons should not be able to read it and decide for themselves. Are you the arbitor of truth?

>>15232150

>>15232151

IMO we should be archiving anything Q related. We have no idea what is true and what is not.

>>15232148

>This latest bruhaha was about Doge putting it in the Notables in a ha ha eat shit Anons kinda way last night.

>

>Knowing it would cause triggering and literally shaking to occur.

I wasn't here for that, and wasn't aware. What has piqued my interest are those who attack the information.

>>15231803

>Here's my statement on RRN.

>A couple of them are normal anons, never fuck with anyone, just dig and post. (you)

>The other side, and the side that attacks RRN most vehemently, are the same personalities that do EVERYTHING they can to disrupt, and subvert this board. (not you)

>>15232184

>Even the stuff you ban people for?

1. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

>>15232180

>It's fake news by their own admission.

So is alex jones, and the onion, but no one freaks out when they go into the notables.

No one has given a solid discredited to this

>Which is a logical reason to have that on their website. You are demanding they (RRN) provide impossible truths, while saying future anons should not be able to read it and decide for themselves. Are you the arbitor of truth?

Even though it makes complete logical sense.

>>15232197

>If anons want to archive a fake news site, sure, it's their hard drives…

Who are you to decide what is true. Are you Q??

Again, what harm does it bring? And is the response of those against equal to the harm adding a parody news site to the notables would cause?

>>15232220

>And I have no idea why the usual suspects pile on RRN other than it's just another slide tool to them.

Fair point, but:

If our enemies slide a particular new outlet

Well simultaneously pushing their out postive outlets.

Why should we allow them to dictate what is important or not?

What is true or not?

I think it should be there for future anons to digest, whether it leads to a laugh or an oh shit moment. The information has value to Q research, and that is the only measurement that matters to me.

>>15232233

>new

News

>>15232233

>Well simultaneously

While

>>15232232

>Because we stand up for Truth.

Prove what you know is Truth. Prove that is the Real Joe Bidan. Convince me absolutely that everthing Q said was false and we aren't watching actors in a movie. If you can prove that I will agree RRN should be deleted everytime it is posted.

>>15232242

>Why should you get to dictate that either? How much do you remove?

I haven't dictated anything, I am creating a conversation. Another Strawman. You are not good at this.

>>15232241

>Prove what you know is Truth. Prove that is the Real Joe Bidan. Convince me absolutely that everthing Q said was false and we aren't watching actors in a movie. If you can prove that I will agree RRN should be deleted everytime it is posted.

Prove to me we AREN"T watching MOSSAD assets removed in real time.

>>15232253

>By the way I'm not saying RRN should be deleted, just not shilled as Truth and we shouldn't be attacked for pointing out it's bullshit.

You aren't just attacking it, you are doing everything you can to make sure no one else reads it. That's the distinction you continue to ignore.

>>15232257

>Do you or do you not remove posts or ban people who say things you don't like?

Continue down that strawman angle.

>>15232264

>As a board volunteer you aren't supposed to have any more power than other anons when it comes to how this place operates.

>

>It appears that you use appeal to authority, and over use your credentials to get what you want around here.

>

>Would be great if you could just be anon instead of power/famefag, unless there is a genuine reason to throw your weight around, like threats of violence, cp, or spam

Oh look, another strawman argument telling me I'm not allowed to have an opinion.

>>15232269

>You're accusing others of trying to be arbiters of Truth, while you try to be arbiter of Truth. That's not a strawman, you're just a hypocrite.

Show me some truth I have deleted instead of making unfounded accusations. I'll wait.

>>15232274

>Seems like bashing everything BUT RRN is okay and no reason to freak out, but criticize RRN? Oh lordy look what happens!

More strawman.

Somehow (We archive shit related to Q) = (Anyone that doesn't like RRN is a victim of BV)

>>15232282

>Yeah

>

>BV sounds like a shill.

>

>What gives?

(We should allow others to decide for themselves) = (BV Sounds like a Shill)

Keep going.

>>15232289

>You can have an opinion, but your opinion doesn't supersede anyone elses.

>Now since you wont answer about banning or removing people who post what you don't like, why don't you tell us why you posted your "statement on RRN" as BV?

Because as BV that is my opinion. And my opinion is different becasue of what I get to see.

More strawman, bad pilpul, highly invested.