>>4426817, >>4426828, >>4426833
Doing great, baker
Really glad to get some new bakers stepping up.
Also grateful for the Night Watch Baker
who's been so steady over graveyards lately.
And of course all our solid regulars. Respect.
A deep bench of bakers keeps QR comfy indeed.
And must surely be a good Christmas prezzie
for Q team and our beloved Prez
who put so much into the plan
and into our research group.
Godspeed frens.
Different levels of masons are given different levels of knowledge.
The outer levels are there for the appearance of legitimacy in the public eye
and recruitment for higher levels.
If you made this apparent to them
either in word or by your moral compass:
>And by my God, I mean the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You did not make the cut to advance.
Good for you.
Most are shills, but the asshats that call themselves anon and do this do exist.
Attention-hungry forever-children.
Wish they'd exist elsewhere.
>>4427143, >>4426923, >>4427254, >>4427262
Predicting habbenings on certain dates makes up look ridiculous.
Future-proves-past means to create proofs AFTER events prove Q's signaling was legit.
It's for purposes of building credibility.
The more we project into the future and miss
the more we erode that credibility
>Truth is, I could care less if it is in the notables,
Fair enough. You didn't self-nom.
My "not notable" reply is for those that do.
Notables are not endorsements, but there is an understanding that they've gone through baker/anon screening. Our detractors have this understanding, and so do newcomers. If we lower our standards of "sure, why not" to appease feelz w/easy trophies, that's exactly how we appear. If the world can't take our work seriously it makes it difficult to take the Q movement seriously.
As a rule, we should be very stringent and conservative regarding dated predictions. If the prediction is an analysis based on real events – e.g. expected out comes on upcoming hearings. But to make dated predictions based on number play and cryptic signals should not. Fun to play and get your idea out there in case it proves true, but spit-balling should never be notable.
>The only entities who go out of their way to declare things "NOT NOTABLE" or "FAKE AND GAY" are the shills.
Untrue.
Many anons call out "fake & gay" when shills or newbs try to get bs or fluff in notables. We're just trying to make our standards transparent, so that we can uphold those standards together.
Not saying "sky will fall" – that's a strawman.
Could as easily go the other way:
will the sky fall if something ''doesn't" get noted?
To pathologize a desire to do good work as you just did is an (((Alinsky))) tactic.
So is using someone's rules against them.
>>YOU GLOW
But by their projection will we know them.
Again, wasn't criticizing you.
Was criticizing elevating it to notable.
>Your argument is moot when things that are much less noteworthy than all the connections to January 19th are put into notables
This is also a bullshit argument.
>ME: Let's apply standards
>YOU: "But if you can't always apply them you should never apply them!"
We're here to use logic, not feelz