>>17584631 (lb)
>You claim Q made a bargain and promised to do something
You claimed Anon said Q made a bargain and promised to something, so the burden of proof is on you to confirm that what you're claiming Anon said Q allegedly did or did not say, is in fact what Q did say or did not say, then prove your hypothesis of inconsistency correct.
You can't alienate your own theory as if it's only originating from outside yourself.
You're referencing the outputs of your own statements as needing to be proved or disproved by others, even though the SOURCE REFERENCE you invoked, Q, via the drops, is OSINT.
CTRL-F the word "promise" in the Q drops and post all the results you find here, then compare and reconcile with what you claimed Anon allegedly said.
You're playing a game of invoking your own negation, then labelling other Anons without evidence as allegedly introducing what only you are in fact saying, then you pivot to shifting the burden of proof on any and all sources of dissent from what you always had a burden to prove.
The burden of proof is on you to show what you are claiming is sourcing Anon, is in fact sourcing Anon. Show where Anon wrote "Q made a "promise".
You're trying to cover your own lack of civic responsibility by projecting your own flaws onto Anons and then attacking them for not proving what you falsely claimed they said.