fkn idiots feeding the eeespammer so much, have to go take out the namefilter so i can see it again to Filter ID+ the StockholmSyndrome "fans" >>1672520 and those that think telling it to go away could ever work >>1672541

>>1672654 i disagree… reposts and "guys what do you think of this new thing i just found?" sure don't, but i found

>>1672641 to be an interesting and clearly informed take on it. I certainly have no interest in wasting that much time on them, so anon's sacrifice is welcomed on my part

>>1672689

thank you for the time and info, anon! hope i'll be around to catch updates if/when there ever are any more

>>1672719

a tough one, there's just no good shortcut to Q.

the images caps can be nice, but if you're not sure how much he'll read… if he gets curious enough/hooked, though, who knows?

it can be good to have the spreadsheet open on the side

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Efm2AcuMJ7whuuB6T7ouOIwrE_9S-1vDJLAXIVPZU2g/

• QMap PDF (Version 9.2.0 [updated 5/13]) >>1403707

could have been good but the link is dead, here is an (i think) latest version i had around - post not going through, too big/sorry

for re-reading i also often like the raw simplicity of the txt archive

• Q Raw Text Dump: pastebin.com/3YwyKxJE

>>1672910

Great! Do insist that it's not black & white, there are many ongoing levels of reading to it. It's a game but not a game, that kind of thing… if you can slip in the concept of plausible deniability if he doesn't know about it already, it can help immensely: it's supposed to be ambiguous and that the public isn't immediately convinced. Can seem counter-intuitive, but clearly that's part of the plan. I think it has a lot to do with the choice to know, but who knows all the reasons?

Best of luck, and i'm confident that if he's a mininum of an artist/creative/curious individual, there's good chance he can find much of interest here…

>>1673003

>There is no need for newfags to come here, it's akin to a 5 year old entering a PHD lecture or NASA project and expecting that to work out.

Very well put.

Simple question of workplace and efficiency, basically, that "guys we have to (x) anons" just don't seem to get. Or it's just low-energy shilling that's working, since we're responding.

//

>>1672923

>She threatened to out them all.

for what it's worth, i'm getting the opposite vibe from her: cult, possible handler. controlled op

>>1673192

>DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO?

did you see her instwatters etc?

<We KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

do you know who she is?

warnings & threats can have multiple meanings

>>1673223

>What this means, I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think most anons have clued in yet to that fact.

good point.

collective grieving of the concept of democracy as we know it/as it's hustled won't be simple