gatekeepers don't get to say what is or is not a 'psyop'
opertional anti shill is what I call it.
it just shows who the bitches are.
anyone who isn't that isn't put off by me.
I do this all the time, they should know me by now. Carry on.
So is it finally time
that the US has decided
to stop Panda-ing to the chi-chubs?
>>9986240 (lb)
anon just tells me 'no, you're off base'
I can accept that.
He's doing his thing, I'm doing my thing. We don't damn each other to hell. I think this is an anon.
another point, no one has proven that those are real videos. But it has been reported as news that they are real.
What we do have as information is a direct statement from Our Beloved President.
He was loath to call out these forces. They forced the hand of authority. He could hold them back no longer. The cogs start to turn when we hear the abuse the stories. There are a type who just say 'now. This is now. ' and the others will be 'ya, OK.'
and the dudes in the larp costumes pretending to be antifa do reap the bitter whirling squally winds of change.
and yet no ne of them will give us a 'missing' list.
and what if those weren't Feds, but some unknown group?
anon know the deal about bakers.
we had a truce with them for many many months.
About 21 days ago a new bitch team was given the reigns.
That is what I saw.
Then last week on Friday bitch team tried to smear the board by putting out the 'wayfair ships kids in boxes' crap meme here.
and the bitch baker put it right into notables.
anon saw.
we : the anon and the bakers had a truce.
clear?
not all use of 'we' is (1) telling people who or what they are as an operational action of operational conditioners of say, a psychology department of a crap-ass college or university gate-keeper group.
(2) directing people what to do or how to do things.
the use of 'we' to describe a condition of obvious shared experience is OK in that code of 'use of the we'.
but that's not your point.
all of them or just some of them?
I describe the condition of what was, you fail to hear.
I've kept records of the goings on here for over two years. I think I probably have abetter handle of describing this place than you do.
but whatever, pretend that I don't matter, as if my word is void. It only makes me know that I am righteous to keep saying it over and over: the shills set us up last friday.
the same group is still here.
they will do it again.
and by 'us' I mean 'this board, the anon here'.
clear?
yes, of course.
but you'll still pretend to misunderstand something (a guess) and not accept that righteous anon are here everyday taking notes on a lot of the bullshit that is going on to explain to the future what you, the shills, either did or tried to do.
it's called 'archive off line'
I'm doing real work here.
you're being terse.
if you have something real to say to me please do.
instead of this cryptic thing you do 'my we'
i reject that I can't use we.
I don't reject that it shouldn't be used to tell anon what to do or what to think.
I use it as an observation, in my natural way.
I do not direct others what to say do or think.
so you telling me abut my 'we' is you using a gatekeeper rule, overly applied, to restrict my free speech through a badgering.
clear?
you are the badger what you do is suppression of free speech and that, to many, is a violation of other's rights.
so you are a violator of others rights by your 'You we is confirmed' in a lot of people's eyes.
you have such strict standards but your method is off the cuff.
you try to put the noose on me.
We see what you do (we meaning 'the aware anon who aren't on your stupid baker-shill team)
anyway I got shit to do.
you know that you need to be told.
you don't rule this place.
this place is not an exclusive hangout for the small crowd that pretends to rule the board.
it's for the whole world.
I just reviewed your post and thought. 'is he agreeing with me?'
I never know who the anon are, anon. I don't assume to know either.
ty!
be well in all the ways you know how to, and even other ways that you have not found out about yet!
it tells me that Twitter blocks it, but other than that . . . not sure why I need to know twitter blocks except that they must have a twitter link in it.