>>1725091 (pb)

Our happiness really makes them angry. Just as Ronald Bernard explained. Amazing.

>>1725342 (pb)

As far as the proofs go? I'm missing out on the basic premise, though it does look as though this strategy was pointed at by "Q" yesterday

Question: What is the point of proving to anyone that "Q is real?"

1. If the pointers lead to important revelations, who cares who is the informant?

2. If it were meant that Q be revealed, the official sources could just reveal it. What's wrong with that? Why is it up to us?

3. We know Q is real but why do we care what anyone else thinks on the subject?

4. Any of the info Q has "We have everything" could be made public in any case, right? Isn't that what EO's are about?

5. Don't the anons create the information flow anyway - using the drops. Drops are never meant as proof. Anons supply proofs. What's the point of "proving" Q ? I'm missing something. Would "proving Q" enhance persuasion by providing an "authority" element?

We seem to be working under the assumption that it's important for people in general to know Q is a real informant. Why? Makes no sense to me. Are we supposed to encourage people to become diggers themselves? Or is it enough to just supply ordinary red pills; with no reference to "Q?"

Considering the board is not user friendly as it stands - how will it be functional when masses of people , millions - which is what broadcast news reaches - pop in. Is that what is insinuated? How long will a bread take? 3 seconds.

Seems to me likely there will have to be migrations, splits? The concept could stay the same but there would have to be a multitude of boards?