>>4483008

I'm in the process of compiling all the msm articles I can find on Q. There's over 150 now.

Yes, they want to make us look like crazies, nazis, and dumb-asses. But for the most part they don't even use evidence to do it–they just use our anti-Satanic narrative plus "muh joos" memes.

The anti-Satanic stuff freaks out normies but potentially redpills them–maybe in a big way in the future.

The muh joos memes are from shills. The MSM may know this but don't care. It's a good weapon for them to use, as you say.

But they don't even bother looking much at what we say here, although they could. They play so fast and loose with the truth that they are always associating Q movement with stuff that happened before Q (like pizzagate) or lizard people from Icke–I kid you not.

>>4483063

I've known a lot of young, idealists types who believe in socialism–until they have direct experience. Then they have a decision to make.

>>4483411

Whatever you are trying to post, it has to be done in a way that communicates with those who don't have as much background as the poster.

I have the same problem in that I like to go deep. But often, that means anons look at my stuff and don't understand. So there's no interesting interaction.

One thing I try to do now is break ideas into more manageable units, doing one thing at a time. It's not my native style, but it works better. (I would rather synthesize but it's just too hard for people to follow on this kind of image board).

When you do your decodes, do you try to explain what they mean in words? Do you try to explain why it matters? It may seem obvious to you, but if people ignore it, then it's not obvious to them.

I hope this helps.

>>4483423

Gosh, maybe I'm missing something, but seems like there's now a big push by shills to get notables for shill posts. Last night, shills were pushing the baker hard, he gave a couple notables (benefit of the doubt?), and then anons in the next bread said, What the hell are you doing, Baker?

It's like the shills are trying to gang up on bakers and gaslight them.

The stuff that's getting pushed on this page doesn't look very notable.

>>4483489

Man, I feel for you.

The material is complex, and those of us who are not numbers fags will find it challenging. You are in pretty deep and it's hard for others to follow.

Your second post is an admirable and well-organized attempt to explain. But as I say the material is complex. And I'm not sure how to make it suitable for a forum like this; some of your fellow anons obviously appreciate it, but they may not be baking. A baker will also look for material that is accessible to the majority of anons.

Certain material–like the Q clock–will get memorialized as notable in part because it is central to Q culture, even if the Baker is not a clock fag. But notice, that stuff doesn't get discussed by non-clock fags much. You have to have background, and I arrived later.

In some ways, a blog or twitter thread is better for your ideas, because you can break it down easier. Another anon recommended an alternative forum that (I would guess) works somewhat differently. But didn't say which one. That may be something to check out.

Don't think people here don't appreciate your efforts. It is just hard sometimes to "go where no anon has gone before."

>>4483563

Let me get this straight. You ask for nominations and/or sauce, and get neither. So you say no–which mean you are a "weak" baker.

I am impressed by the way you keep patiently asking for an explanation as to why this material is valuable to Q Research. Top Kek, Baker!!!

>>4483495

Not creepy, see below, plz.

>>4483469

Totally agree, anon. POTUS just gave them a stern warning not to pull a fast one.

>>4483516

I didn't like what went down last night–or tonight. Baking is the hardest task here IMO and if we can't shut the shills up, at least we anons can let them know we're here and that we back you up, whatever you decide. Godspeed, Baker.

>>4483565

Thoughtful reply, anon. I have a similar outlook. Think POTUS is both sincere about his faith and able to attune to his inner voice. He doesn't have to be perfect, just "good enough" to follow the path and get the job done.

>>4483573

He seems reasonable enough to me, new or not. A more "experienced" baker might just say GTFO. Isn't that true?

>>4483621

Yes, it's good when bakers explain. that's why I like your approach. But even when they don't explain, it's no reason to blow up the way people do. I get frustrated too but it's all just part of the movie. (Q forgets to tell us we're not just watching, but participating–Kek!)

>>4483648

>>4483674

Yes, people don't use the word "synchronicity" here much but there's all sorts of synchronicities around numbers here. The focus on "logic" makes me laugh sometimes; I'm perfectly capable of logic, but it's always trumped by intuition.