>>16475093 (pb)
So you support deleting posts from boards?
Why is the B post a problem? It's not even pretending to be a Q post.
Q posts were also not edited.
If Q comes back and uses that board, Q can easily delete it. So what's the problem?
I would let Q decide, it's Q's board after all.
I'm not.
I'm actually neutral.
And my point is - it's Q's board. It's not my decision to make, neither is it Jims, neither is it yours.
If I were a GV, I still wouldn't delete it, because that ALSO would be board fuckery.
False.
Q hasn't posted for quite a while.
Q may or may not delete it when Q comes back.
That's all.
>but these Q drops
That's your interpretation. It's Q's board. I rather keep board fuckery on Q's board instead of fucking with it.
Why are you so obsessed with deletion, while at the same time going crazy about deletions in here? That does not make sense. Are you just in it for drama and to waste everyone's time?
>No, you're not
I am.
It's Q's board. Not mine, not yours. End of story.
You are wasting my time.
False.
Last Q post: 8th of December 2020
B post: 29th of May 2021
But let's go with your narrative and Q actually logged in since then and decided. Q didn't delete it, and thus wants to keep it.
So you want to delete posts from Q's board, because you assume that Q wants it gone.
Why not simply wait for Q to return and decide him or herself or itself.
You want to fuck with Q's board to solve something you assume Q wants to be handled like you want it to.
It seems you think very highly of yourself. I don't.
Did you post it and want the evidence of that gone?
Ok.
First basics:
Define 'clean'.
Defne clean.
What's the difference between these two?
>to lock in trips
That surely worked, didn't it.
Does the B post use a trip? No.
Does it use "Q" as user? No.
Can't be confused with a Q drop and as such not a danger to anyone.
And I don't see the part where Q says to delete any foreign post from the 'clean' board in case someone posts in there.
Can you point me to that?
>'clean' private board
Why 'clean' and not clean?
What's the difference?
Details matter.
The point as given by Q was to lock in trips. That was not compromised at all.
On here you can allow further trips. On there you can't.
>do something before Q has to do something about it
Q's board, not mine, nor Jim's.
So you say: fuck with the board a second time, I know for sure Q wants it handled like that?
Of course, I think no one argues for more board fuckery. Jim actually got rid of that GV. That absolutely makes sense. Abuse of power etc.
So why did Q write 'clean' and not clean?
If you can't answer that (I can't), then everything following that are assumptions.
>removing evidence from a scene of a crime is not fuckery, but correcting a mistake
>mistake
The B post was surely not a "mistake", it was done intentionally.
>and
Define "&"
Define ">"
>like keeping a 'clean' private board
Why do you write 'clean' and not clean?
Now you write clean, instead of 'clean'.
Why change it?
New meaning?
Accident?
Mistake?
>a rouge global volunteer violating Q's private board by posting on it was surely a mistake
Define mistake
So you think the GV posted in there by accident or erroneously?
To me it looks as if that post was done intentionally. The GV wanted to post in there.
In any case, removing evidence of that is not acceptable either. Do you know that Q knows about the "B" post? Maybe Q doesn't. If someone deletes it, Q will still think his private board was kept in tippy top condition and the B post never happened.
>Snow-White
>an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.
So you don't think the GV wanted to post in there intentionally?
He just wrote that post and wanted to post it somewhere else?
>Q knew about the post as it happened
If that's the case, Q could have easily deleted it, but didn't. Intentionally.
So not a mistake, but done with full intent (in case those IP hashes can be trusted).
>misguided
You can redefine any crime to fit that.
Fauci's lies about covid + masks were probably also misguided in a sense.
If these IP hashes can be trusted, it may have been a plain LARP, and thus intentionally. For personal gain.
I'm still not okay with deleting it. Q can delete it. That's it.
If that was the case, I would see even less reason to delete it. In that case it would have been criminally relevant, and would be a major problem for the one that did it.
And this could even be a very good reason wanting it to get deleted.
Fishing is fun?
>The proper move by Jim back then was to remove the post
If this was really a way to get Q out of cover, then that post would be criminally relevant.
Deleting it would be tampering with evidence in regards of a military operation.
May even be Jim's stance.
Jim is (ex?)-military after all.
No victim here bleeding to death, but nice try.
>and it's all because of that B post
>>16475122 (fake)
That posted tried it already the thread before.
>>16474901 (also fake, but different pic!)