>>16545645

YOU PUT IT IN AN IP PACKET GOING TO AND FROM NODES. IT DOESN'T PERSIST UNTIL THE END, ELSEWISE THE DNS WOULD ALSO HAVE TO PASS BACK MAC ADDRESS DATA AS WELL, BUT YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THAT OBVIOUS TO COUNTER THE NOTION.

Jesus christ, obviously you've never considered what it means to suggest that Jim at the server as an end node would actually see. You really think he sees start node's mac address instead of next node? You're being so dumb. There's only room for one address in an IP packet. You explain how it works WITHOUT TELECOM LEVEL TAGGING, because Jim is not his own telecom. You can't even explain it theoretically, only by attacking others mindlessly.

>>16545748

When did you tell the new Q that tor works and don't you think if you HAD made a significantly weakening error such as using dev data in production which rotated all salts BUT the whitelisted one by old Q, why would the new Q choose the WEAKEST moment in your site's history to choose to return without doing the STRONGEST verification he has done previously? It just doesn't smell right, it smells like you got compromised by a bad actor who cannot verify. You either told someone and they took advantage, or you're saying Q was observing and chose that moment when things are going sideways. I don't think Real Q would do that, I think Fake Q would.

>>16545846

Good point

>>16545946

"Hi I want to replace my plane engines and flaps with CIA glowwies"

• You, not verifying Q.

Over the target and you're willing to replace vital components with fake parts. Good luck staying over the target then.

>>16545970

I said this earlier but it was meant for you to see.

When did you tell the new Q that tor works and don't you think if you HAD made a significantly weakening error such as using dev data in production which rotated all salts BUT the whitelisted one by old Q, why would the new Q choose the WEAKEST moment in your site's history to choose to return without doing the STRONGEST verification he has done previously? It just doesn't smell right, it smells like you got compromised by a bad actor who cannot verify. You either told someone and they took advantage, or you're saying Q was observing and chose that moment when things are going sideways. I don't think Real Q would do that, I think Fake Q would.

>>16546095

Bingo.

>>16546124

False dichotomy.

>>16546142

Gas lighting would front load the assumption of spreading falseness. The whole point of verifying is to ensure they're legit. ADMIN's legitness test is not enough as Q knew and set up his own in the fucking first place. The actual gaslight is coming from those who assume trust where there is none, and assume Jim is arbiter of knowledge, clearly he isn't. Dunno how to tell you that any clearer.

>>16546165

>>16546196

Because waiting in silence is acquiescence to allow things to continue where the less ignorant speak on whatever faulty logic they like. I firmly reject your point because you're not familiar with game theory. The sooner we force a proper reverification the sooner we can move on. UNLESS it IS evil fake and ghey, in which case being silent would be TO YOUR DETRIMENT. You need to deal with the fact that we're calling for Q to behave like Q as Q would jave expected. If you want silence, start first, otherwise fuck off.

>>16546221

>>16546199

SHILLS FOR SILENCE, see my post. >>16546222

If you want silence, start with yourself. I bet this is a tactic though. Q could easily delta-0.

>>16546262

You deny wanting silence from those who have a high standard for verification? Shill for silence AND insecurity. You factually want this board worse off, and you glow.

>>16546270

Think about the future, too. The longer this goes on, at SOME POINT you're gonna have to realize verification is long past not given temporarily, correct? And who would have been correct all along? TESTERS OF THE SPIRIT. Don't fucking fall for people who mindlessly aggro agitprop. LOGIC is how you escape.