Anonymous ID: 74058e Feb. 26, 2019, 5:04 a.m. No.5392573   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2765 >>2868 >>3272

gotta admit, slept on it and having a bit of a hard time reconciling "do not add this" and "TRANSPARENCY is the only way forward"…

i can see how it's a path to "the choice to know is yours", but damn, it's already a struggle keeping up with here… pushing the addiction pretty much as far as i can (likely too much, even), and i know there'll be stretches when i can do so much less, as who knows exactly how much longer we're in this…

it'd be nice to be able to trust at least my qresearch family of brothers in arms to archive what happens fully, here at least, if not other archive sites.

but juggling that seems a very tricky thing…

 

i was around when it was first discovered and proven that Q did post anon sometimes, and am ok with that being kept on the low, but it was still out here - maybe not discussed much but a fact nonetheless, and not deleted or kept secret…

sorry fer the somewhat concernfagging, but, seems to me there's to many eyes on to put the cat back in the bag once it's out, and not quite sure if we should at all: it's a bit of a weird slippery slope.

Much prefer truth & transparency to a private club where we have to be here constantly and might miss a thing anytime because of it…

Anonymous ID: 74058e Feb. 26, 2019, 5:35 a.m. No.5392765   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2836 >>2878

>>5392573

 

>>5392646

what i have a problem getting my head around is going backwards\ignoring what we know…

that Q posts as anon and only BO\BVs know is not new, and ok, par for the course.

but when anons know it's Q?

are we supposed to just ignore it - worse yet, lie to other anons who ask?

it's quite the headache for the archivers, too… archivers tend to be completists, and also the enemy would logically not stop from archiving and analyzing anything Q, so… i dunno, am rather confusedanon from the logic at play, here

Anonymous ID: 74058e Feb. 26, 2019, 5:49 a.m. No.5392868   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2922 >>2957 >>2972 >>2975

>>5392811

i'm hoping for something like this… where at least an honest tracking is kept up on qresearch. Full transparency.

but not convinced it can be kept separate from other archives and outlets…

>>5392573 ,>>5392765

 

>>5392836

>archiving until the confusion cleared up.

well great, if\when you can… but now, when asked if new Q posts, do you include the non-trips?

 

Is it me being a concernfag about layers of anon involvement vs WhereWeGoOneWeGoAll?

Keeping things hidden doesn't sound like giving us the choice to know, if that choice means we have to be here every minute of the day… anons are already stretching their lives to do this… feels bad complaining, i know it's so little compared to operators, but still… i dunno. am confuse