///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

EDITED Q: IMPERATIVES/INJUNCTIONS/SUGGESTIONS/ORDERS. NOT COMPLETE TEXT, MUCH MISSING

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ImperativesQ

pastebin.com/hJQH8brU

Anons!

Started something the other day: we were talking about tasks, so i thought i'd go and take the raw Q file and remove all the questions, to go and take just the orders/tasks/injunctions.

Interesting results, but turns out the process is not so simple as just taking out questions, because a lot of lines won't make much sense.

Of course a lot of info is lost anyway, but that's the point: to isolate just when Q told us specific things to do…

So i tried to take out as much as possible but also leave just enough in that it can be read/understood.

Sometimes i left a little bit more in because the drops were just too good/important, but this is NOT A BEST OF Q.

There is MUCH MISSING in this selection of crumbs, it is not at all complete (as some anons seemed to have thought of first draft of this project).

Copypasted here would make 9 posts of wall-of-text, so here's the pastebin:

ImperativesQ

pastebin.com/hJQH8brU

Doing this, i was once more shown how much it's instructive to be re-reading early crumbs now: lots of details that jump out and make you think (wait how did we forget this part? this is YUGE!)…

I strongly recommend you do the same/a version for you: download the latest raw txt file (pastebin.com/3YwyKxJE), and go through it, deleting extra lines. Make your own best of. Or focus on a specific subject/topic.

But having a focus/mission will help you go through the entire thing, and you definitely will get a fresh read on the entire Q drops (warning, it's pretty damn huge at this point), you will read things you forgot, you will find nuggets…

baker

previous incomplete version is in bread listed as:

>>393187 , >>393188 , >>393189 , >>393191 Separated list of Q orders/tasks/injunctions

Please remove/replace with this post and/or pastebin link, thanks!

>>409962 (last thread)

<WE CANNOT AUTHENTICATE Q

re-read crumbs, this is not true.

many very specific instructions regarding precisely that.

just a few examples:

>Be READY.

>FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT.

>Side-by-Side Posts vs. Actual News.

>Show: Future PROVES Past.

>Are you prepared?

>SHOW the WORLD.

>SHOW the WORLD the TRUTH.

>OPEN THEIR EYES.

>The 'proofs' are important. 'Proofs' provide new 'eyes' ability to question.

>This board in the coming months will be spread & discussed across ALL PLATFORMS.

>Important to be prepared.

>LEARN AND SPREAD.

>BUILD PROOFS.

never forget:

MAJOR players here to distract, create doubt, and alter the direction.

keep in mind that means any and all anons so that can include bakers, unfortunately

>>410035

ok thanks! (sorry, i didn't look for the proper terms, ctrlfed the pastebin/imperatives and didn't see it so reposted, all good/roger wilco)

>>410054

and here's a convenient fresh new option/shortcut/TL;DR for those who want to re-read crumbs but don't have the time for the whole thing (it's still pretty big, but not as much as the complete works of course):

>>409663 Q TASK LIST (Separated list of Q orders/tasks/injunctions)

pastebin.com/hJQH8brU

>>410209

>WHY TREAT IT LIKE CLASSIFIED INFO?

to preserve the illusion? it would be too damning?

We've all seen those news montages of local news parroting the same expressions, those are quite eye-opening… i guess it would be too much damage if the 0 script leaked

>>410270

snugcomfypepe, now available without creepy pedospirals on blanket

>>410699

vaild scepticism/points…

i tried to insist on the incomplete nature of this particular reading/selection.

it is mostly meant for people who have read the entire thing, not to replace the complete text, but i see the objections raised…

the thing is, the complete crumbs are a HUGE body of text at this point. Trying things to help us know it better. Reading it all is best, but takes much time. Transversal angles/reading/views of the text can be constructive - but as you point out can easily be distorted/destructive as well, so we must be wary