wasn't there a consensus that there is no consensus?
oh, ya, that's not possible.
still sliding the 'no Q clock' dealeo.
why is that so important to you?
I exited the board right after someone said 'oh, ya, we voted and . . .' 'there is no Q clock'
clearly there are things that go on here that are for some and not all anon.
it's always been that some did not 'get' the clock.
others seemed very devoted to it.
I always figured that if it were something, it wasn't for me.
so that being said: your devotion to clogging up breads to shill 'no Q clock' seems suspect to me, has no purpose that I can ascertain, and really is an obsession.
anon, this person has slide this 'clock doesn't tell time' topic for a couple of days, at least, by now.
and to be correct: every time the Qclock (or the anon clock?) is posted yes, it does tell time.
there is always a time put in with every post.
so, in fact, the Qclock does tell time.
the thing that bothers me is the 'oh, there was a consensus' bit that was pulled last night.
Should I link the post?
>>18753918 (pb)
if that doesn't convice anon that the person who is saying 'the clock doesn't tell time' is just a shill, a newbie, sliding this because he/she/it thinks he has a clever way to gaslight the board, I would ask the anon to ask this person:
"What is it that you want to tell time?"
(a personification of time).
this slide has gone on all night?
enough.