>>16594337

asked again lb and will ask again.

have not been on the board for some time and now see that Q dropped again - at least supposedly.

what I see is drops with a tripcode being baked as Q drops.

'''now, as an anon who has been here for a long time and not only saw how much effort Q spent back then into making sure anons see it´s legit but also saw all the shilly moves of BO/BV that (to a certain point) Q even dropped on,

I am asking anons/bakers/BVs/BO:'''

why did you bake some posts as Q drops?

how did Q prove it´s actually Q and legit?

I know that back then Q put so much effort into proving legitimacy, with Trump tweet deltas, and knowledge on major habbenings and such, so I am just asking myself, how did Q prove to be Q?

lb actually no ansers, so reposting.

>>16594448

here, for reference, just some of the tons of actual proves from Q back then.

would be happy if anons (or preferred bakers, BO/BV, those are the ones baking it as "legit Q") could answer how exactly Q proved to bc Q.

>>16594459

this is a Q research board and Q has not been dropping for 2 years.

now suddently there are drops being baked as "Q drops", I am just wandering how anons can be sure it´s Q and I am curious as to what made bakers/BO/BV bake it as "yup, totally legit Q drops".

you might remember that Q not only did all those proves (e.g. deltas with Trump tweets, or the tippy top thing, or many Q misspelings in an official document, or US mil airplane callsingns being named "Q" and "Anon") but also continuously mentioned that prove like this was crucially important, that anons would have to think for themselves and to use logic.

you might also remember the couple of times Q said that the tripcode had been compromised.

you might remember the times Q let BO/BVs know that their actions (very shilly) were not appreciated much.

so I guess it´s a legit question to ask: how can you be sure it´s Q? what proof, if any, was there? why did BO give a tripcode?

>>16594463

well, imho, if there are no proofs, it should be ignored completely.

ask yourself, why would Q just drop in after 2 years and expect anons to take some random posts (who for whatever reason BO assigned a tripcode to) as legit Q drops, when Q has spend so much effort into proving legitimacy in the past?

just doesn´t make any sense.

actual question is, what made BO assign a tripcode to some poster on a board for anons that said "hello again, no proof this time, but totally trust me, I am Q!"?

>>16594465

you do realize that Q dropped with a tripcode in the past to not have to give proof every single time, bc being anon on a board of anons and all?

you do realize that the tripcode is given by BO/BVs?

you do realize BO/BVs and many bakers acted shilly in the past?

you do realize BO giving a tripcode to "supposed Q" with no proof whatsoever it´s actually Q seems a little odd and it seems completely shilly if anons don´t even know what made BO give a tripcode?

>>16594465

>>16594507

oh, and you do realize that it´s been two years after Q dropped last time and tripcode is very likely not the same, but was now assigned by BO?

>>16594467

why do you reply to my post without replying at all?

you don´t have to give me the wikipedia version of Q, I have been here quite some time.

you could however let me know why it´s ok for you if BO gives a tripcode to "supposed Q" when there are no proofs whatsoever.

>>16594474

when Q started posting there was no tripcode. Q had to prove to be legit by many things.

later Q got a tripcode, so a password saved "name", like th one of BO or BVs. this was done so Q did now have to prove for every single post that it´s actually Q.

over the course of the time Q posted, this tripcode (given by the board admin of 8kun or prev boards) was compromised a couple of times, Q said so, and gave proof for why it´s actual Q saying so.

so when Q did not post for two years, it would be a logical thing to do if starting to post again to give proof that it´s actually Q posting.

would be logical for BO/BVs to only give a tripcode if proven legit and agreed to by anons.

would be logical for anons to not take "BO gave a tripcode" as only needed proof for it to be Q, especially when BO acted very shilly in the past.

and again, what makes you think a post like "Shall we play a game once more? Q" was actually done by Q and not by BO or intel folks or anyone, when there is no proof whatsoever?

just look at those actual Q posts acknowledging fuckery re the tripcode.

>>16594487

BO gave a secured password to the poster having made the recent "Q posts". when "Q" enters this passwort, it enebles him to post with a "name", like when BO posts and it says "BO".

question: why did BO do that if there are no proofs it´s actually Q? to whom did BO give that tripcode and who is not posting as Q?

>>16594498

I posted lb, got no answer but a lot of triggered replies like yours, so asked again this bread.

sure, asking why BO gave a tripcode to someone not having given any proof it´s Q is totally shilly.

and replying triggered af and calling my posts pasta is totally what legit anons would do, totally.