J.TrIDr3ESpPJEs ID: d87189 July 31, 2018, 4:38 p.m. No.2378362   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3952

>>2349100

Good point on the R threads. I had hinted those threads were comped.

 

>>2352214

When Q arrived I don't think you were this swamped with shills. I've been on forum rife with mil-int shills and I've never seen as many as those on Q boards. Even the shills who aren't on 8chan are yapping about Q (on forums that don't even discuss the topic).

 

They're doing both active subversion here AND pre-emptive 'damage control' here.

 

But I concede your point. It's always difficult to determine when to apply censorship (I won't couch it as 'moderation' because there's no such thing as 'censorship in moderation').

 

But will you be able to bare out the full brunt of the intel agencies+media+paid corporate/political shills? If you give them too much breathing room they will literally 'nuke' a forum by filling it up with trash (by having bots, constantly rotating IPs etc posting continuously).

 

Google offers a service that can solve the captcha you provide here. Not even Google's own captcha uses the letter-captcha and they don't advance their captcha until their own bots defeat it (why do you think it always involves 'roads'? Google's latest car AI project in a nutshell. Before then it was books with the words. How do you think they traniterated so many books?).

 

You've got all the signs of an incoming shill shitstorm. If I'm here (I go where-ever the currents take me), then there's a shill shitstorm that's about to break.

 

I always somehow end up on the frontlines just before it does.

 

I'm working on a tool but my resources are stretched at present, so if they do hit, censorship might be the only option you've got. Believe me, you've never gone head to head against a machine that can post hundreds of threads a minute.

 

Shills don't need to convince anyone of anything, merely destroy what you already have.

 

If you can't censor, then find a way to filter the posts so you only get quality. Q would have been buried years ago if it wasn't for the likes of qanon.pub where the posts are isolated out.

J.TrIDr3ESpPJEs ID: d87189 Aug. 1, 2018, 4:06 p.m. No.2399378   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9530

>>2387806

>Diff. Q post(same day) mentions: therapist=key, weak minds, use of symbolism to push strength and belonging to something powerful, controlled, duty

 

Although Q is hinting to something specific (which I will cover), I strongly advise considering broadening your search to consider other mentally ill shooters.

 

The best lead I ever saw into the bizarro shit was the Norway shooter, because he had been involved in some American political program (or had been trained by some politician, I don't recall the details). James Holmes was second best, because not only did he formerly work for DARPA, but I believe he actually told journalists (who then had their notebooks confiscated) that he had been conditioned or hypnotised.

 

The one Q mentions as an example is, in my opinion, a non-sequitur to the trend I've seen (the guy in question has a long running legitimate beef that eventually boiled over, and the media quickly buried it when they saw he was basically left-leaning).

 

Regardless, on TTDDTOT some time ago I posted information other people had dug up (but I couldn't testify to the reliability of it):

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/1556735.html#q2001706

 

Q likely knows something I don't, but I am admittedly not familiar with what the legal requirements (beyond a need to register) are. State Filings depends on what you're after.

 

It could be a case of searching LinkedIn (via searx.me) for things like 'Psychiatrist' and 'Twin Cities'. I wasn't able to get any traction on this as I'm about to roll out something to help counter the shills.

 

Also, did you notice how after I said a 'shill shitstorm' would break, it did? This time with the media singing from the same hymn sheet simultaneously.

 

Question:

 

How can the media profess to be more knowledgeable on a subject than the people who take part in it? And…

Why haven't they followed (except for FWIW) standard media practice of interviewing people from the cause?

 

Does this reek of the same attack pattern they used on PizzaGate back in 2016?

 

Who really controls the news?

 

Who are they trying to influence?

 

Role reversal. ; )