Anonymous ID: e78ee6 June 26, 2022, 9:16 a.m. No.16527122   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>16527066

>Who are the grifters?

I'd like to know who they are labelling with that pejorative as well.

Because if it's any anon calling for solid OG style verification that it is indeed Q then the likelihood of it being F&G only goes up.

Contrary to what they may be intending to do by doing that.

Anonymous ID: e78ee6 June 26, 2022, 9:26 a.m. No.16527259   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>7281 >>7388

>>16527177

>de-legitimize Q

Do you consider everyone asking for Q to verify in the meticulous manner he did in the past to be doing just that?

Because, if so, you're the one coming off as a shill right now.

The entire Q history consists of anons wanting no doubt verification and Q also willing/wanting to no doubt provide it.

Anonymous ID: e78ee6 June 26, 2022, 9:42 a.m. No.16527441   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>7453

>>16527360

Of course he didn't do it every time because verification for that time frame had been established.

But โ€ฆ

He did it everytime he had to make a TC pwd change, there was an issue with the board, he needed to make a new private board, and when 8kun finally came up.

A 1.5+ year absence certainly qualifies as another occasion where it needs to be done.

And Q's attitude towards verification spread throughout the drop history indicate clearly that Q would agree.