Anons getting the picture yet?

Want to know why your great diggs are disregarded and ridiculed? Bakers dismiss notables and call the information a slide only to then post said information on their twitter accounts to take credit and gain a following. Now anons know why when you work your ass off on a great dig you are ridiculed and accused of being a slide. It's so bakers union fags can post the info on twitter and take credit. STRANGE ISN"T IT.

>inb4 "anons" jump down my throat and ad hominem attack

>inb4 you have to go back Linda

>inb4 fuck you REEEEEE

>>8740295

Good, that's how it is supposed to be, anons digg and contribute, it gets put into notable for other anons to build off of. It isn't supposed to be denied and called a slide for the bakers to then post on their twitter accounts. If you want evidence of how upset they just look at the responses. I exposed fuckery and they are trying to build a consensus to shut it down.

>>8740284

>>8740290

>>8740301

>>8740339

>>8740387

>>8740444

>>8740364

>>8740379

Building a consensus 101

1. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

1. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

1. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

>>8740490

Brilliant, 2 fold effect, the treatment for their "disease" is being bought up to treat COVID19 which means the supply will be taken from them.

4d chess, THE CURE WILL SPREAD WW

>>8740635

>>8740644

>>8740716

>>8740789

>>8740284

>>8740290

>>8740301

>>8740339

>>8740387

>>8740444

>>8740789

>>8740863

Totally organic that "anons" would rush to defend a baker that was caught demoralizing anons, calling them shills, and accusing them of sliding the board with research to only then take said research and post on his own twitter.

How does taking credit for another anons work (not mine) disparaging it and then posting it on your own twitter fit in to WWG1WGA again, cause I missed how that type of behavior is good for Q research? You idiots may have a point is the CDC shit was my research but it wasn't.

Notice how none of them are disputing the evidence in the graphic, just attacking the messenger.

1. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

1. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

>>8740948

Not my diggs

fag.

Just proof positive that bakers are using other people work on twitter to gain a following.

>>8741021

> (anons don’t care about famefagging)

Which is proof the baker in question isn't an anon, he's IET 17 on twitter