Anonymous ID: 8b89a5 June 6, 2018, 9:48 a.m. No.1650518   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0543 >>0554

>>1650478

Recap:

 

We know clowns never sleep, won't stop until they comp or destroy this board.

 

Given that, we have big way of knowing BO's status/safety. It would be very easy to kill him and just step into BO roleโ€ฆ We have no provisions or protocols in place to deal with this, and BV responses have been cagey and bizarre at best.

 

I'm calling it nowโ€“ this is an emergency

 

BAKER

Put in notables please.

Anonymous ID: 8b89a5 June 6, 2018, 10:14 a.m. No.1650739   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0756

>>1650720

Dird you think the clowns wouldn't try?

Do you think they would stop trying?

And yet you're somehow "resisting" discussion of proof of life and security protocols? Not sane.

And not believable, at all.

And makes me VERY concerned about BO's safety at this point.

Anonymous ID: 8b89a5 June 6, 2018, 10:19 a.m. No.1650786   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0790

>>1650756

 

This response makes no sense.

Unless BO is already replaced, and you're providing cover. There is no logical reason for any anon to fight against talking about security and BO's safety. Think about it.

 

Why would the clowns leave BO alone?

 

Why you afraid of the question?

Anonymous ID: 8b89a5 June 6, 2018, 10:22 a.m. No.1650814   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0833

>>1650790

If a hundred flamingly obvious bots want to prevent discussion of BO s safety, what does that tell you?

 

Meanwhile, the absolutely pathetic lack of creativity of the bots at least brings a smile in the meantime. ROFL . They just post the same crap over and overt, and they have no idea how obvious it make them..

Anonymous ID: 8b89a5 June 6, 2018, 10:40 a.m. No.1651028   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1054 >>1063

>>1650932

The problem AI has is that it can't "get outside" its own algorithmic responses to tell if the overall picture of its whole body of activity makes sense. E.g., If BO security comes up, and a hundred posts respond with last month's one line cliches, is that realistic? And if the couple semi-serious responses are nothing but resistance, without any evidence of sincere appreciation of the realities, then what does that tell you?

Anonymous ID: 8b89a5 June 6, 2018, 10:47 a.m. No.1651094   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>1651063

Do you think I'm lying when I tell you that your overreliance on hackneyed cliches and low-effort (= processing power) posts is a dead giveaway of your absolute fakeness? Are efforts to improve underway, or is the system hitting the wall?