>>4696435

did you miss this post >>4686147 ?

I agreed to drop it. You continued things. I never would've acted like a concernfag if you didn't push me to explain things more in depth.

I literally told you I'd try to contain things to Voat. I then gave you a link so that you and other anons could observe what I was talking about here >>4689262

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but you first called me a namefag after proving I'm not, then you called me a kike for making a single post to reference what I meant by "let's see how things play out". Then you called me stupid because you felt guilty or inferior for not knowing you were being shilled at and made to look like a fool for falling for their tactics.

Now you're calling me a concernfag for defending myself from being called a kike because I… care too much.

You could've dropped it after my dropping the link here >>4689977 but instead you pushed me to explain myself by acting like a faggot.

So, let me say again: how about we drop this and see how things play out. This is the first time I've brought my concerns with Voat beyond Putt here to the board. The only reason I elaborated on the situation was because you fell to shill tactics, got disoriented, and lashed out at me. I pushed too much and over explained things. We both made this unnecessarily hard.

We should just carry on, anon. This is helping no one at this point.

Remember, anons are not divided. But, they certainly would have us be divided. It's good that we don't always agree. The multiple angles of understanding will strengthen us. Us butting heads will get us nowhere, however. I'm going back to my post, as you should.

>>4698578

Wrong.

>>4698558

Now you're just being a faggot.

>Now there's proof you're using alts. You used your concernfagging about Putt to try to push us taking an official position on v/GA.

No I didn't. Show where this happened.

>Nobody called you a namefag, I dont even know your name.

>>4683436 This comment you said you don't associate with namefags. Before I thought you were referring to me. Now I see you were talking about Neon. I'll concede this one.

>I'm not going to implicitly consent to the position you think we should have on v/GA. Nice try though.

That's fine with me.

>We're not on your team, we don't care about v/GA mods. BO obliged you by answering about Putt because it is relevant to our community. v/GA mods (as much as it triggers you) have nothing to do with us.

I have no team, faggot. Quit trying to put me on teams.

>It's already been established why your concerns are irrelevant.

I can see you think that. You can't just keep repeating that to make it more true…

>Until you try to convince the community instead of us you are just a faggot with an agenda like every other faggot with an agenda.

I don't want to "convince" anyone of anything. I was only ever here to pass along info, like I did.

Are you always such an antagonistic fuck? I never had an issue with you, BO, or any other BV. This is the first time.

Why are you unwilling to let this go, BV? I was willing to drop this YESTERDAY.

Stop acting like a fuck and agree to disagree like a man. Us hurling insults back and forth get all of us exactly nowhere.

Again, I have no agenda other than to pass on information I thought might be relevant. You don't think it is. I do. Boohoo. Let everyone else decide.

You're being oddly pedantic over this. This is the first time I've seen this out of you.

RealProtectVoat is some faggot named freshmeat. He's a very antagonistic individual that's never seemed to have Voat's best interest in mind. Why are you trying to pin other usernames or identities on me? I've never modded ANYTHING. I've never tried to get any mods from anywhere to do anything besides when I would fuck with GA mods to coax them in to outing themselves. I revealed my Voat username to you in the comments of that Voat post that BO linked to that night. Stop trying to suggest I'm people I'm not, or that I've done things that I haven't nor ever planned to do.

For the third fucking time - grow up and drop this shit. This going back and forth is making the both of us look like assholes.

>>4699349

Sure, he's being a faggot over this.

But, you fanning the flame will help no one.

Fuck off.

quit fucking acting crazy BV.

I'm not the other person posting here

>>4700011

Now let me pick this apart since you seriously have the audacity to continue this idiotic tantrum of yours.

>We dont know who you are.

I'm no one. Or anyone. A ghost.

>There is no we

Me and you, you fucking dickhead.

>Non starter, Q specifically asked for QRV, you think you know more than Q and that just shows how seriously you should not be taken. You are here to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Frankly, that's an angle I hadn't considered. I guess I figured Q didn't care enough about Voat, or figured anons who venture to Voat could fend for themselves. My concern, which appears to be alluding you still, is that Putt's new mystery partner is someone that should be of concern. If BO or anyone else on the mod team thinks it's nothing to worry about, I'm on board. I have no issue falling in line on this, but you keep pulling us back to the same tedious argument and for whatever reason you just won't put your dick back in your pants.

>Not my problem.

True. I appreciate your input, regardless.

>Look up 'Total Informational Awareness' and then come back and tell me Q doesn't know everything. Q could order the calculation of the time your dick gets hard in the morning.

I think I covered this well enough.

>A bit of shade is not harassment. We also don't need whatever gay version of white knighting you're doing here.

Maybe we interpreted what BO said differently. If that's all that was going on, my bad. I just figured BO wouldn't needlessly expend ammo like that…

>Whatever 'this' is doesn't effect us. Unless you are going to continue with your assertion that Q is leading his supporters to a honeypot.

You're right. It doesn't effect anons here at the research board or 8chan in general. QRV was made to be the DMZ to keep morons away from the board so they wouldn't annoyingly muddy things. I've specifically kept that shit (or tired…) for precisely that reason. Too bad you won't let this go for no one knows why… Also, the assertion wasn't that Q would lead anyone to honey or something of that nature. The assertion was that, considering the changes being made to Voat, maybe we should keep an eye on things. BO agreed with me. I never hesitated to back down with BO. I'm sure he understood that.

>We participate anonymously just fine, you're the only reason I ever bothered to talk to Srayzie.

I agree with you. I was talking about unsuspecting retards that venture to GA. Which, frankly, isn't a problem since it keeps their retardation away from here. The problem is when they use shit like this to pit the likes of anons like myself against BVs or the BO… like exactly the thing that appears to be happening. You know that shit was burried until a week later when Srayzie went looking for things to "be angry" about?

>If true they have no power here, or on Voat. Reread

I agree. I'm not worried about that, though. I'm worried about them trying to split up the movement, which is apparently not that big of a deal to you and not that big of a deal to BO. I was fine with that. I dropped it. All I did here >>4689262 and here >>4689977 was agree we should drop it. But, I also closed by saying I'll keep quiet (which I have done so far) and let you observe for yourself. That second post was me pointing you towards what I saw as a development, the thing I suggested you observe, which you didn't have to respond to. I planned to drop that link and exit. But, you continued this…

>Kek, but Q doesn't know about Putt's new partner amirite?

Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't care. Again, you made a good point with that one. Too bad you couldn't just ignore my "concernfagging", amirite?

>You are 5 months too late.

Shit, no one told me I was only allowed to do that five months ago.

>You are the one who alluded to Q leading his supporters to a honeypot, not me.

covered this already

>First posts made around the same time you showed up concernfagging to BO about Putt.

Not me. I did tell people to check this out, though. Want me to prove it?

>No no, these are you too. >>4689262 (You) >>4689977

Yep, that's where I said we should drop it. Good eye.

>You've been self admittedly concern fagging since you baited BO with the Putt Question.

That there's a strawman, fellas. I had no idea BO would say that. Even after I said he'd "helped me", he threw a link in the thread from that night saying something like "oh, you faggots want to talk shit about me? and then the link in the next line of his reply" I told BO that was me that made that post. BO responded that, yes, he knew and he was trying to get attention to my post. I never baited BO. I didn't ask him to comment about any voat user. You're putting words in my mouth. Fuck off with this shit.

(1/2)

>Then why are you here.

What?… you're the one that said we could discuss this in meta in that Voat comment, aren't you? I guess maybe I assumed that was you, but you did make the post claiming a response to my Voat comment earlier up in this meta thread here.

>Wrong this is why you were labeled a kike

Suggesting we stop bickering and instead keep an eye on Voat to observe my stirring the nest makes me a kike?

>Who the fuck is we?

Me and you, or anyone else that wants to observe for themselves.

>This is decent bait.

You thought there was a "beef". I don't give two fucks about Voat or any users there. I have no "beef" with anyone. Those shills hate me for exposing them. They have a problem with me getting in their way. All I do is provoke them to reveal their tactics after I alert someone I'm going to annoy them in to doing so. It helps me verify my info. I like demonstrations more than simply informing people. That seems vapid and annoying to me, so I SHOW THEM instead. Again, I thought you were keen enough to catch on. Sorry for overestimating you.

>This is arguably my post.

No, dickhead. My position. I said I would leave this alone, and that you should also give this up. I feel like I'm sliding and annoying other anons. Don't you? This infighting is exactly what they want. For the fourth god damn time, we should stop this. Admit you were wrong and that we've been a nuisance, just like I am doing right now: I have been an annoying dick. There. Now it's your turn.

>Let me quote you >That's why I told BO about my concerns with the site owner, PuttItOut bringing in a new partner. I was worried how the potential of Voat being pushed further and further to a honeypot would reflect on us.

OH

I'm not saying v/GreatAwakening is a honeypot… Damn. I didn't realize that's what you thought I meant, man. I was saying I was worried that Voat, as a whole, might be a honeypot. Again, I don't give two fucks about that sub or Voat in its entirety. I care about the uninvolved and innocent people we're directing there. Sorry for not explaining myself better.

>I'm still waiting on who the 'we' is in >we could always just let it go and see how it plays out

covered this many time. me and you, or anyone else that wants to observe what I do. both of us have dropped links in reference to what I'm talking about - my "methods" in dealing with trolls/shills at Voat. I saw a development and dropped a link to it, like I told you about.

>There is nothing the people you are fighting with can do to us.

Good. Glad to hear that. But, I'm worrying about innocent people, the normies/unsuspecting anons, who we send there.

>You're the one who keeps saying we know who you are.

No, you tried to suggest I was "the guy that bothered us about ProtectVoat". which is a user named on Voat "freshmeat" who runs the sub RealProtectVoat. I'm not that guy. I can prove it easily. Say the word. (I already revealed my Voat username in that Voat thread on QRV that started all of this)

>Is this why you don't know we can't see who the users on Voat are? Is this why you think we know who you are?

Hmm… maybe. I thought the owners of subs could see the usernames of commenters or submitters in anon subs on Voat. My mistake. Sorry about that.

>What does this have to do with QRV?

I didn't think the only subject we've covered in this back and forth only had to do with QRV.

(2/2)

>>4700623

Oops. I made an error here.

>>Then why are you here.

What?… you're the one that said we could discuss this in meta in that Voat comment, aren't you? I guess maybe I assumed that was you, but you did make the post claiming a response to my Voat comment earlier up in this meta thread here.

>Wrong this is why you were labeled a kike

Suggesting we stop bickering and instead keep an eye on Voat to observe my stirring the nest makes me a kike?

>Who the fuck is we?

Me and you, or anyone else that wants to observe for themselves.

>This is decent bait.

You thought there was a "beef". I don't give two fucks about Voat or any users there. I have no "beef" with anyone. Those shills hate me for exposing them. They have a problem with me getting in their way. All I do is provoke them to reveal their tactics after I alert someone I'm going to annoy them in to doing so. It helps me verify my info. I like demonstrations more than simply informing people. That seems vapid and annoying to me, so I SHOW THEM instead. Again, I thought you were keen enough to catch on. Sorry for overestimating you.

>This is arguably my post.

No, dickhead. My position. I said I would leave this alone, and that you should also give this up. I feel like I'm sliding and annoying other anons. Don't you? This infighting is exactly what they want. For the fourth god damn time, we should stop this. Admit you were wrong and that we've been a nuisance, just like I am doing right now: I have been an annoying dick. There. Now it's your turn.

>Let me quote you >That's why I told BO about my concerns with the site owner, PuttItOut bringing in a new partner. I was worried how the potential of Voat being pushed further and further to a honeypot would reflect on us.

OH

I'm not saying v/GreatAwakening is a honeypot… Damn. I didn't realize that's what you thought I meant, man. I was saying I was worried that Voat, as a whole, might be a honeypot. Again, I don't give two fucks about that sub or Voat in its entirety. I care about the uninvolved and innocent people we're directing there. Sorry for not explaining myself better.

>I'm still waiting on who the 'we' is in >we could always just let it go and see how it plays out

covered this many time. me and you, or anyone else that wants to observe what I do. both of us have dropped links in reference to what I'm talking about - my "methods" in dealing with trolls/shills at Voat. I saw a development and dropped a link to it, like I told you about.

>There is nothing the people you are fighting with can do to us.

Good. Glad to hear that. But, I'm worrying about innocent people, the normies/unsuspecting anons, who we send there.

>You're the one who keeps saying we know who you are.

No, you tried to suggest I was "the guy that bothered us about ProtectVoat". which is a user named on Voat "freshmeat" who runs the sub RealProtectVoat. I'm not that guy. I can prove it easily. Say the word. (I already revealed my Voat username in that Voat thread on QRV that started all of this)

>Is this why you don't know we can't see who the users on Voat are? Is this why you think we know who you are?

Hmm… maybe. I thought the owners of subs could see the usernames of commenters or submitters in anon subs on Voat. My mistake. Sorry about that.

>What does this have to do with QRV?

I didn't think the only subject we've covered in this back and forth only had to do with QRV.

I should have said that I'm worried Voat could be come or is becoming a honeypot, for all we know.

Still, as you've pointed out, I think Q would be likely to have said something if that's the case. BO didn't think it was a big deal, either. So, we should drop it.

oh my fucking god i'm sorry.

Didn't mean to double post.

the comment I wanted to leave:

>Damn. I didn't realize that's what you thought I meant, man. I was saying I was worried that Voat, as a whole, might be a honeypot

I should have said that I'm worried Voat could be come or is becoming a honeypot, for all we know.

Still, as you've pointed out, I think Q would be likely to have said something if that's the case. BO didn't think it was a big deal, either. So, we should drop it.

>>4700086

>>4700189

>>4700194

just now seeing you weren't talking to me.

oops

>>4700988

there's really no reason for us to have begun bickering, too.

not even sure why BV has been such a childish prick over this. all he had to say was, "i don't care." and never respond again.

I admit, I should've let it go too. But, hell, man, this guy has no reason to keep putting words in my mouth, calling me a kike, or acting like such a pompus asshole after telling me to come here to discuss what was being talked about on Voat, only to continually insult me and frame me for dividing or concernfagging.

It's looking like it's going to take BO stepping in just to get him to shut up and back down. I know I won't stop if he keeps coming at me. I have no reason not to defend myself.

all I wanted was to drop info for other anons… what a faggot this BV turned out to be

>>4701188

You dumbass.

That wasn't me.

I'd bet that was one of those faggots doing it to themselves.

Like I told you, I haven't said anything on Voat (on anon subs) since I posted here.

If there's a way I can prove it, you or someone else should let me know. I'm not sure there is a way I could.

Maybe I could show you my comment replies or something with that timestamp range on it so you know I didn't get notifications for the post I made.

Want me to do that?

>>4701287

I "supposedly" made. lol I should've been more clear.

Give me a half hour or so and I'll cook it up for you.

>>4701331

i don't care about you or your interaction with the BV.

>>4701398

I was showing you what they do and how they manufacture things. No, I didn't stop to consider that my pointing out to you on this platform would make them look more like victims on another platform.

Also, I tend to dabble in the art of perception. I'm more of the opinion that them looking like victims reveals their incessant need for attention. making them look like victims has worked wonderfully thus far. I suppose that's why they would do this to themselves, if that's the case.

You're clearly pretty aspie, too, man.

Next time something like this comes up, don't be such an assuming asshole. You've done just fine in my opinion up until now. Not sure what set you off today. Go get some rest so you aren't so gullible. Remember how those faggots tricked you. Thank me later.

You have a good night too, roody-poo.

>>4712070

If you are who I think you are, that message you left me is starting to make a lot more sense. I had a feeling you were only around to cause division.

What a faggot you turned about to be. I thoroughly regret ever helping you or giving you any attention.

Don't think I won't warn others to stay away from you now.

I'm glad you think we're all retarded.

Unfortunately for you, I'm pretty used to being underestimated. Sorry you can tell this won't turn out too well for you.

I mean, what real anon targets an entire intelligence agency regularly? Just so you know, you stupid ass shill, other anons have consistently warned me of how suspicious you are.

Remember what you said about your enemies never letting you know know you're winning? Consider this a warning from anons, letting you know you're losing.

Have fun hanging yourself within the decade in realizing you've never been close to anyone and that no one really likes you.

What a pathetic faggot.

That bait worked swimmingly, BV.

Thanks for your help.

Say the word and I'll fill you in, all right here in the open.

>>4717516

I essentially pulled a bait and switch on this fucking faggot that had been shitting up Voat.

I noticed he came here and was fucking with you.

He's the samefag from earlier.

Not gonna lie, I stand behind everything I said to you before. But, this dumbass tried to come between anons, and sent me a message after he saw our interaction here. He literally said to me, "Imagine if I said these things to you." Right then and there I knew he was a faggot.

The same dumbass that has been doing this shitposting about OG BV and all that, the one you called a shill, was this faggot that tried to single me out and cointelpro me.

I'd drop his username if you wanted, but it doesn't seem like there's much point. He's made himself pretty obvious.

He reminds me of Leafy. He pulled this lawfag larp shit where he tried to get people in this farcical trial or whatever through a bunch of private messages.

I guess I killed two birds with one stone with this one.

I'm also using this to verify some things for another anon in a transparent way.

I was wondering why you talked about Gabara being so smart, you stupid faggot. If you were smarter, you wouldn't have given away your methods by casting them on to someone else.