Happy New Year BO/BV

Getting a 404 on Bread 5752: “Standing So Strong They Can’t Even Edition”

https://8ch.net/qresearch/res/4510152.html

https://sys.8ch.net/mod.php?/qresearch/res/4510152.html

Able to get in via sys link (which is good cuz I think this might be my favorite bread ever, and this post/gif may have to become a mainstay in my sides workout, >>4510245 ) but thought you guys might wanna know in case thread can be fixed for other anons to enjoy. Crazy night, things were moving so fast I didn’t realize BV was mixing it up in there with the ban hammer on those disgusting pron shills. Good shit man.

Thanks for keeping the dream alive.

>>4552326

My goal is championing our culture and crushing our enemy, MOS/JIDF. Was favorite bread bc we won big on both fronts, big morale boost. If you’re an anon whose opinion on what's good for QR differs from other bakers', learn to bake. If you’re BO/BV, just ask me to do or stop doing whatever you need, I’ll honor it. Your house your rules.

>>4566939

Appreciate your response, BV, but very confused by it tbh. Spent all day writing a response in search of clarification and decided it's better to table it while I take in more data, if not just move on.

I will say this. I'm 100% patriot acting in good-faith in support of QR, God & Country. My support for BO is in service of same and is genuine. No disrespect for your work personally, you BV’s have been solid for months, but your office has sheltered two bad actors who used banning/censorship and larp/discrediting against us. BO is the only constant. We’ve been thru too many betrayals to trust to blind principle like children. We know mods have authority, we know authority can be abused. We trust BO with it because of his demonstrated skill & character.

I know some JQ-pushing "anons," like this one, >>4558737, are spammers thus acting in bad faith. But I don't understand what's being argued by your Appeal to Authority/Consensus Cracking concern. I legit don't understand what you're asking me to do, and it's blackpilling af to learn that everyone expressing support for me has shown evidence in their post history of being a bad actor. This is at odds with my read, and throws all my instincts into question. My first impulse was to ask for evidence but I already know it would be dismissed as arguing with ill intent, like you told this guy:

>>4569826

Is he one of the bad actors with a history of daily support of Freddy-style disruption too? Fug.

I'm also thrown by why you couldn't use a trip to tell me these things yet still referenced the behind-the-scenes mod's view of IP histories to justify them. How is this not Appeal to Authority? Would providing data not be a better tool to our thinking for ourselves?

Finally, why was there a BO/BV posting ban histories and expressing being comfy on bread 5752 if it's known by you guys I was only participating in feeding known bad actors? Or are you speaking as an Anon in that analysis and not for the mod team?

Link to 5752 is still 404'd btw. I'll assume BO is down with all this unless he says otherwise, and go from there. Prolly best for all of us if I take some time off. Thanks for holding down the fort.

>>4578320

I'm just getting on and seeing all this. Ty for taking the time to do it. I have some IRL to get to atm, will look thru data in more detail and comment on it later tonight if I think would be useful to us.

>it's not your fault

Thanks for that. I'm still responsible for my actions, however steep the challenge. Fool me once, right?

Truly sorry for the trouble.

>>4578515

>I also noticed you're always in a hurry to put in notables with BO calling out the Mason kike but didn't bother to put >>4558737 in notables

I did actually put that one in notes, but on cursory glance thru the data, it’s clear I mistook shills for anons. That's on me. As for the missed notes, I had good-faith reasons, not sure if explaining them matters at this point. Maybe later.

>>4578881

>You get the benefit of the doubt until it becomes apparent you are not here for the truth

Here only for the truth, but I know my methods cause tension & can alienate, and it's clear I'm fallible in my judgment. Did it for the good of the order, but when I'm wrong, I own it. Summoning a mantle of bravado always comes w/risk of flying too close to the sun.

>further action will be taken

I've said b4, I'll do or stop doing whatever staff asks me. It's the only action needed. But I'm in no position to dictate terms, kek. You guys'll handle things how you think best. If you do ban me, I won’t hop or evade it. No desire to go where I’m not wanted.

Sounds like what's being asked is that bakers

a) include all notes that at least 2 anons nom that aren't obvs fake/irrelevant/unsubstantiated factual claims, including general diggs on catholicism/freemasonry even if the posts claim those institutions are the central/controlling arm influencing world events and not Jews/Israel, bc we unbiased

b) stop baiting shills. Specifically: don’t shitpost at them, don’t put known-shill posts in notes just for lulz/examples of stupidity, use little to no ((( ))) & other J-taunting idioms in notes summaries, bc too much heat for too little benefit, most anons claiming to appreciate are fake anyway

c) don’t reject a nomination while expressing opinion of “must be a shill” bc too hard to tell who’s who, risk of alienating real anons too great

d) don’t reject a nomination just bc contains advice to purchase/use a product or give financial/health advice unless obvs repeat spam/advertisement w/no otherwise edifying exposition/content

e) don’t reference “Mossad Massacre” or “The Triggering” bc was fake, why advertise shills took baker for a ride

f) don’t reference or post BO/BV links/caps to bolster any argument other than clarifying logistics of post itself (when/what/who), but esp. not to fuel/push the “We are pro-discussion of JQ” argument bc BO/BV position is support of free speech, neutral re: content, and such practices commit/encourage Appeal to Authority fallacies and other avenues shills exploit

Still planning on taking a step back for a bit. Gives me time to reflect/study and removes a problem from everyone else's plate. Will hope Q posts sooner than later so we can move on to happier things. Thanks again for all you do for us.

>>4585307, >>4585576

Honestly thrown by all this. If BV called you out as a shill, he likely has a hash history to prove it. Would like to see it actually, would be good to add that data to this discussion, so anyone else that stumbles in here knows what you're raising a flag over is fake. Anons really were banned by AFLB over the JQ, no need getting 'em stirred up over fears of more if clarifying data can quash it.

If you are a legit anon tho, ty for the support and for standing up for the truth. If you're a shill, well… redacted bc I keep my word

>that isn't true. I was there that night. This guy has posted pictures of some blatantly obvious shills and hasn't mentioned all the other anons who appreciated the sight of a baker not walking on eggshells around the JQ. I see no proof that "Everyone" who supported you is a shill.

I'd like to believe this, to know I'm not a total eejit, but have yet to study the data moar.

Fucking spy games man. I'm wore out behind it. Fuck I gotta run…

>>4588679

>Only if you promise to shoot yourself.

kek BV

been shitposting in general

still haven't reviewed hash data

I will, just nursing feelz atm

>Baker has been a strong ally to us

Nothing but, warts and all. Glad same page.

>required more information to make a decision about specific things

That's it right there. ty.

>They are still free to make their decisions about their conduct.

Evidence supports.

Will point out that while staff had these concerns about me, I still showed up to bake and BO still checked me to bake and allowed me to bake unimpeded.

I didn't ask for this.

I keep trying to set it down,

but who else will carry it?

Dudes, I'm so tired

My whole life, these mindfucks.

The worst possible thing you can do to somebody

More than anything, I hate them for what they do to our minds.

All I want is to stop it happening to others

I can't even stop it happening to me.

Saving grace is I don't give up.

But I do get tired.

also drunk

Current baker seems a little suspect

I handed off to 'em but didn't ask for a check/monitor.

I should have

>>4757850

Hey if you're that baker, it was just that I came back and saw all the anon complaints and the crazy Hollywood stuff in notes, besides the many shill slides going. When you replied to mine and the many other concernfag posts accusing us of being JIDF shills it raised another red flag. Notes buns later looked good, but at the time I posted this, I wasn't sure what was up. Apologies if I misread the situation.

>>4772968

Okay thanks

Also don't want to scream overmuch into said abyss, kek.

Just wanted to raise the alarm is all.

AB's over there, so there's a replacement baker if you need. I'm close by too.

>>4950350

Do you realize how obvious you are, even with the IP-hopping, to just camp out in an admin thread waiting for any chance to push your "BV suppresses the JQ!" wedge-issue assignment?

He doesn't appear to be discouraging inclusion of JQ-related content in notables here:

>>4952150

>l concur, I think the bread has been tasty lately.

Might this response indicate the incident you're trying to stir up suspicion and division around…

>youll have to be pulled aside for questioning.

…doesn't fit your reductive narrative? Providing info to aid bakers discretion isn't the same thing as controlling the narrative. Quite the opposite.

That response def doesn't support this part of your narrative:

>The JQ must be carefully monitored.

We are a free speech board, staff don't comment re: subject-matter of content, only whether a given post tracks with a history of spammed content, which bakers are encouraged but not forced to consider when assessing its value

>We much criticize all equally.

Said no mod or baker ever. I believe the word you're looking for is fairly, i.e., notables are ideally accorded equally unbiased consideration under our standards of relevance and accuracy as to input criteria, but there are no output requirements for bakers to note equal quantities of either support or criticism for various persons, institutions or POV's which may be in conflict.

We no bias, we no quotas

>Right now questioning the vatican is trending

Now you're being ridiculous.

>>4964923

>so have you guys figured out that all of these faggots obsessing over "jews" and "mujhjoos" and all of their constant and obnoxious involvement in this are merely Palestinian shills?

All? That's quite a revealing categorical. You've reduced the complexity of our Good vs. Evil struggle to

>Muslims v. Jews

>Besides Palestine, Jews dindu nuffin

>Only lying Muslims complain about Jews

In order to arrive at this conclusion?

>Ignore all claims of Zionist wrong-doing

Nice try faggot

There are many evil persons and institutions which do wrong to many people and nations. It can be proven that one of those institutions is Jewish Zionism. We're here to expose cabalists and stop their destruction wherever the evidence points us. No group is exempted.

>>4989117

Ty for the hash info earlier. Didn't want you to miss this:

>>5073311

>Yes, I LARPed as an NSAanon for some keks, sorry lmfao

>>5073526

Yup. All good. You as well I hope.

>>5131692

Ah, shoulda known it was you all along.

No substitute for genuine brotherhood, faggot.

You shit on yours, and you're not gonna poison ours.

>Logical thinking, eh?

Yeah, that gets us pretty far tbh.

But we have more than that going for us.

You wouldn't understand no matter how it was explained.

And for that you have my pity.

I actually asked for Q's help, have been a little undone.

>>5274980

Comms back open. So relieved.

>patience