no more saving until you actually follow me.
FCS.
hey BO, quick question re the new Q drops.
is it still the same tripcode?
if so, how can you be sure it´s actually legit use of it?
if not same trip, on what basis (proof) did you provide it?
just seems odd to see Q drops after 2 years.
well, is it still the same trip or not?
can´t be the only anon that saw the many drops on "trip code compromised".
so it´s still the same trip and BO, BVs, bakers and anons are just fine and be like
>well, ok, two years no drops, trip code compromised in the past and boards changed often, but hey, BO baked it, so why even think for myself, must be legit anyway
?
BO,
you still around?
Imo anons want to know if Q drops are legit.
just having an old trip used after 2 years makes me doubt it´s legit.
and in case you provided a new tripcode, this anon is wondering how you provided it and made sure it´s actually Q (also bc of "no privat comms ever" - so obviously Q did not write you a mail and say "hey, I´m back. will use trip again.").
in the past Q did a lot of proofs to make sure anons see it as legit. deltas and knowledge of certain events and such, or the tippy top thing. new drops seem to not fit that well - kind of drops anyone could have written.
also, the "trip code compromised" drops in the past, all the different boards used bc prev. boards corrupted, Q calling out board admin and other stuff like that - I bet you member that.
oh, also, when I asked that a couple of days ago (in two breads in a row, not like spamming it for days) I got immeadiatelybanned.
>hey BO and bakers, just a question on the tripcode
<aaaaaah, how dare you, banned!
just seems especially odd.
war of information, ya know!? w/o deltas or any kind of proof, this anon would not bake it as Q drops and this anon just thinks it´s very strange to get banned for bringing attention to that.
ok, BO seems to not be around anymore, neither a BV. and baker does not reply.
so I guess I will just post my question over the next couple of days to make sure BO sees it.
and I hope BO won´t ban me again for asking if the Q drops are actually Q drops and legit - kind of the normal thing anons would do after 2 years of silence and after having had tripcode issues and shilly boards in the past.
maybe "Q" will be like
>yup, vaccines please!
soon?
just needs to be proven as legit. no way around that.
>It's been explained many times with evidance
if that is the case, I wonder why this "evidance" is not put into the globals.
if it´s been explained many times, why can´t you quickly explain it? why do you use an image that actually is not any kind of proof?
and why say "to the best of everyones knowledge"? who is everyone? you sure don´t speak for all anons, do you refer to the board admin team?
if there is no actual proof to show, I very much doubt Q drops are legit and I kind of wait for deep state shit to be put into Q drops.
>I believe that anons put together multiple such "proofs" upon tripcode Q's reappearance.
if you belive that, please refer me to a proof. bc no proof in global notables. BO not replying and even having banned me for asking the question.
and how would the pic be any kind of proof? you made a connection, but in no way does it proof or even suggest that it´s actually legit Q, that felt the need to do a ton of deltas and e.g. the tippy top thing in the past.
oh, BO, that is you (bc no "board owner" name showing up).
don´t you think it´s better to first wait for any kind of proof then to just add it as Q drops with an old tripcode Q did not use for two years?
details on the ban: I asked end of one bread how Q prooved to be legit, I asked again in the next bread and got banned (which to my knowledge only you and BVs can do) with the reason "btfo shill" - yeah, not exactly a based move. (and no, that´s not really what I am after, want to actually know on what basis I can decide for myself if Q is legit Q.)
and why the "feeling ok" question when I ask something pretty normal? is that really how you want to run this board? trying to subtle offend anons that dare to question your moves?
and again, baking Q as Q w/o any kind of proof after such a long time just is a strange move.
BO just explained that it´s still the same Q and he did not actually check if the person using the tripcode is legit.
again, trip code compromised in the past. boards compromised in the past. war of information.
just baking it with no proof whatsoever is a strange move.
why not put it in globals with proof? why not ask fpr proof? why not bake it as "maybe Q"?
why bake it as "yup, two years no posts, and many shill attacks in the past, but totally legit, I swear"? just not the way to do it.
in the past, Q did so many proofs to make sure anons know it´s legit.
there were many times the tripcode or boards were compromised.
Q called out board admin for acting shilly.
and now, after two years, a tripcode from Q is used - w/o any kind of proof whatsoever - and BO, BV, bakers are just ok with that?
seriously, how can you make sure it´s not some shilly actors trying to post bs as "Q"?
and if it was all shown publically, why can´t I find it in global notables and why can you not give any proof, other than an image showing that someone did something with the trip that Q used back then?
and again, getting an instand ban for asking this, is just shilly af.
>The owner of 8kun, Jim Watkins, made the notables and everything:
>>16581551 pb
the image that Jim provided shows exactly nothing. not even proof that it´s the same tripcode. just an image with barely no info.
but I agree, proof must come from Q, like done in the past.
and until Q gives proof it´s still/again legit Q - by deltas, by other things - bakers should not bake it as "yup, totally Q" but rather as "oh, hey, tripcode used again, let´s wait for proof to see if legit".
why not bake a global explaining this to newbies?
>Q´s trip was still active and now used again
>anons, who think for themselves, will wait for proof and see if legit, until proven by anons it´s baked as "maybe Q" or something
just way better than giving the impression that anons are stupid and will basically believe anything posted with a tripcode.
I see that 150+ UIDs are just ignoring it.
not anon like, not organic, quite shilly actually.
on a Q board anons should know to question things, this includes Q showing up after two years with drops again, but not giving any kind of proof. (would love to see proof)
sure, asking how Q made sure it´s Q is obviously not at all a post to be made on a Q research board, it´s totally a slide, bc why would anons even care if it´s legit Q, isn´t it enough if BO says so?
why even think for yourselves?
almost 200 UIDs. yet basically no one seems to care if Q drops are legit, on a Q board.
would real anons want to make sure it´s legit Q?
or would anons just totally ignore it and blindly accept what BO suggests?
does that look like researchers and people thinking for themselves (like Q suggested over and over again)? does that appear organic?
or does it look like a ton of shills acting roles, not daring to talk about certain things?
seriously, I am waiting for Q drops like "Trump is bad, Biden actually won, please take the vaccine" and other shit.
again, someone did that, using Q´s old tripcode.
anons do not know if it´s Q. bc there is no proof yet, at least no proof you could share or that is put into global notables.
what real anons do know: asking a question is never wrong. trying to find out if Q´s trip is actually used by Q and not by some shills is obviously what every anons wants to do.
>does that look like researchers and people thinking for themselves (like Q suggested over and over again)? does that appear organic?
>or does it look like a ton of shills acting roles, not daring to talk about certain things?
will make sure new eyes realize. will repost. often.
so you saying someone posted as Q and also did something only a BO can do?
is that what you say?
I did not put a post in meta. meta is usually filled with a ton of spam that BO choses to not delete.
also BO in the past often said he would not find the time to look into meta, a thread that, despite shilly spam, only get´s like 10 posts a day and BO could easily go check regularly for admin issues and such.
so, no, not posting it in meta, posting it right here to make sure new eyes and lurkers realize.
well, that pic does not show what you claim it shows. (not even mentioning it´s just a pic and easy to fake)
that pic seems to show that BO deleted a post and removed an IP.
how does that proof it´s Q?
it only proofs someone did something.
ok, I see that there are barely no actual anons around.
will just repost later.
indeed, anons do not know.
but it does matter much.
how could you seriously say it would not matter if the posts sold as Q drops are actually made by Q?
imagine being a newfag lurking, imagine seeing something baked as Q drop.
imagine not being aware how often tripcodes and boards had been compromised in the past.
imagine not realizing that back then there was a ton of proof that made it more than obvious it´s legit.
that is just not truthfull.
Q drops should not be baked as "Q drops" until there is proof. as simple as that.
someone does stuff using a trip that Q used a while ago. years ago.
so far there is no proof whatsoever that it´s actually Q. and neither "anons" nor BO or BV or bakers seem to care.
do you new shills even know what breashitting means?
will stop posting now anyway, but will repost.
but maybe explain to anons how the though if Q is legit or if the tripcode is just compromised again, like so often in the past, is something awefully shilly.
so you post that after I said I wan´t going to post more?
that is also a way to win an argument.
>If you listened to chatter back when, any Q after the jump to 8ch, and then later January 5, 2018, was allegedly fake.
whatever "chatter" means. but I know that Q continuously gave proof. the tippy top thing, airplane callsigns "Q" and "ANON" used by two military planes at same time, a ton of deltas, Q dropping something (like "truth is a force of nature") and Trump confirming shortly afterwards by basically tweeting the same thing.
so bc of overwhelming proof, shilly had a hard time to do "chatter", bc it was just obvious to anyone.
now, that is not the case, and the same shills who back then said "oh, those callsigns are just random and no proof at all" are now like "why do you even need proof? BO said it´s ok, so shut up".
>Mind you, this was WITH Q giving the direct proof you want now. There were plenty of other re-proofs after that, to the point Q razzed us for still needing moar proof.
yup, at the time that Q posted regularly, there were shills trying to make it look like fake. but right now, it´s quite the opposite, no proof whatsoever and "anons" ignoring it. not exactly anon like.
>But doubtfags and shills are never satisfied, are they? All "proof" here can be construed as subjective actually.
if an anon asks Q to work in the phrase "tip top" in a speech by Trump and couple of days later Trump says "tip top, tippy top" in a public speech, that can not be constructed as subjective "fake proof", it´s just very obvious.
>If you think the CIA can spoof any and everything, then Q hasn't been legit for a long fucking time. If ever. Your perspective depends on what the eyes want to see. And faith. Disclaimers won't change that. Humans are gonna human. And if you think anons give a fuck about "looking stupid" at this point, then you're not asking questions in good faith, and the sheep who need disclaimers to decide are gonna have a real rough time with shit more serious than "is this Q post legit?" Hopefully I'm making this clear to actual newfags, that nothing here is ever 100 percent, including (your) judgment. Use discernment and don't speak for others.
what you say is just not true. back then Q gave tons of proof. when a point was reached where there was enough proof, Q kind of called out doubtfags (which were shilly mostly), but still gave delta proofs weekly or at least often.
again, now there is no proof whatsoever that the tripcode that Q used 2 years ago is now used by actual legit Q - and "anons" ignoring it or fake arguing why it would not even matter if Q is Q seems indeed very shilly.
Q drops obviously have some kind of reach and importance, that is why anons, autists, researchers who think for themselves should not just accept everything but ask questions.
when Q shows up after such a long time, when boards have been run shilly often in the past, the first question any anon has is "is this actually Q?"
I see that "anons" in this bread want to make it look like that. including the "anon" that called me breadshitter when I did not post before the dough (that is what breadshitting means).
proof like pics attached did not happen, at least it´s not in global notables and so far, after many posts and many UIDs, not one anon can show any kind of proof.
until there is actual proof, Q drops are not proven to be Q drops and should not be baked that way.
a global notable on that would be appreciated and much helpful. (maybe Q, still same old trip, anons will wait for proof and check)
(but given that I got banned for daring to ask how BO can be sure it´s Q, I doubt that BO will make such a global.)
be careful who you follow.
think for yourselves. use logic.
I asked anon at the end of one bread, after seeing the Q drops, if it´s same trip and how anons know it´s legit.
bc end of the bread I asked again next bread, got banned (which only BO and BVs can do).
yup, quite shilly indeed.
I have nothing against more Q drops, but I really don´t want fake actors to use an old tripcode to tell anons bs.
and real anons just need to know it´s legit. so far, it´s not proven legit.
I get it that you mason cunts refer to speed and altitude when there is symbolic numbers, but the real question is:
how can you take anyone seriously that namefags? is this your first day here? is this actually your first day here to shill and you have no clue at all? a namefagging planefag has to be told to go fuck of right away.
Mr 30+ post refers to a namefagging shill as "hey, there planefag anon autist".
an anon would never do that. a shill who is here first day would.
other posts by same ID, see how shilly act like anons, when they are just glowing shills:
>>16800132 (obviously that "anon" does not like the question raised if Q is legit or if shills are using the old trip)
>>16800011 ok, will stop collecting posts now, bc 30+ post shill that adresses a glowing namefag as "hey, fellow anon" is actually thebaker.
shame. kys, shill. noone likes you and you are an obstacle to the future itself.
you looked back? you mean you actually klicked my ID and took few mins to go read all posts I made in this rather slow bread?
is it not about mason cunts? did Q not drop that, 30+ post clown baker that likes namefagging clowns?
funny, first almost 200 UIDs just ignore the most relevant stuff (if Q is actually Q),
shills get triggered and give bs replies,
new shills don´t even know what breadshitting means,
baker is a glowing shill and not only bakes but posts 30+ times, baker also replies to a namefagging shill as if it was an anon,
and now, shill team, who is loosing it again, is melting down and spamming bs.
kind of funny. no help for you scum.