Anonymous ID: 85e697 July 7, 2018, 2:35 a.m. No.2067804   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7811 >>7827 >>7832 >>7837

>>2067784

I agree. Like slowly boiling frogs, over time, more articles like this will wrest the movement into the wrong hands. If they wanted to really "talk to anons," they should have come here, identified themselves with proof, and asked questions on the board. This way we would have a real record of it.

I think that article is bullshit, BTW.

Anonymous ID: 85e697 July 7, 2018, 2:57 a.m. No.2067921   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7940

>>2067892

That is not what the fucking article says, does it?

Q posts. Q's history is known. To say that anons post as Q is untrue and can be verified by a moron.

There is no point in saying anons post as Q.

Logic Much?

Anonymous ID: 85e697 July 7, 2018, 3:05 a.m. No.2067959   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>2067940

Q does not need to have plausible deniability, for fucks sake.

Try using your brain.

Q does not need to be hidden by "anons."

Q's posting history speaks for itself.

Your argument does not make any sense.

Anonymous ID: 85e697 July 7, 2018, 3:15 a.m. No.2068019   🗄️.is 🔗kun

This is laughable. Now anons are misquoting Q like how Sunday preachers on TV take biblical quotes out of context. Priceless.

 

Good night, fags, shills, niggers, and morons.

 

Here's a nice picture I thought was cute.