Baker
Don't know who keeps making all the top text RED, especially the "no violence" statement, which we've argued over again and again.
Plz make the statement below BOLD rather than red text.
Ty for baking for us, baker
>Q Research supports attacking terrible ideas with better ones. We believe the use of violence only proves a bad argument. We are researchers who deal in open-source information and informed opinion. We neither need nor condone the use of violence in our work here.
Perfect, thank you baker.
Also, as much as we honor our marines, you might wanna make the following newly reinserted statements regular text, or remove them entirely.
>VINCIT OMNIA VERITAS
>SEMPER FIDELIS
>WWG1WGA
The reason being: the top-of-dough formatted as below was a hard-won compromise btwn the "MAKE VIOLENCE STATMENT MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAR!!" crowd and "Get rid of that shit it's gay" crowd, a compromise which BO approved of at least twice. And just for aesthetics, making all text into header text means nothing is emphasized–also gay.
Again, ty for baking and for helping resolve this flame-up of an old argument. Appreciated.
STANDARD/AGREED-ON TOP-OF-DOUGH:
Welcome To Q Research General
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Q Research supports attacking terrible ideas with better ones. We believe the use of violence only proves a bad argument. We are researchers who deal in open-source information and informed opinion. We neither need nor condone the use of violence in our work here.
Q Proofs & Welcome
etc.
Baker, please either use the word "force" as in the cap below, or use the word "violence" as in my last post, which is how it's been the last couple weeks.
If we continue re-litigating this issue and allowing slight changes TOWARD MORE EMPHASIS ON WE-NO-VIOLENZ, it encourages more of it. It is a waste of time. The best thing to do is to revert to text we were all comfy with, under BO's approval. This is the purpose of compromises, so both sides stop fighting a battle no one can "win" without the other fully losing.
The extra underlining is gay, and using the phrase "force or violence" is redundant (uber gay).
Yes, I was there that night. We all expressly wanted the word "violence" out, and anons came up with the "force" statements. It was a compromise with this OTHER replacement which BO also liked:
"Fuck violence: because we don't need the physical plane to skull-fuck you."
But in fairness, the argument came up AGAIN a couple weeks or so ago, and while BO at first reiterated that the entire "we no violenz" crap was gay, after continued shilling bread after bread, he finally said he didn't care if we swapped "force" for "violence."
Personally, I'm for putting the "force" language back. The "violence" ppl are shilling for the MSM, trying to make us apologize for stuff we didn't do and couldn't even if we wanted to (we're internet researchers, what are we gonna do, copypasta someone to death?). We should use our language, not theirs IMO. Oldfags agreed then, and prolly still agree now.
And if the "violence" crowd pulls the swap for redtext again, I'll put the Skullfuck comment in next time I bake. A truce is a truce ffs. Only cucks let the other side keep breaking it without consequence.