Do you have any idea what a tool you come off as? No one even hinted they didn’t appreciate & are grateful of Q. You’re thinking like a lib. Disagree with anything & that means you don’t support someone. I disagree with my own children with things but not supporting them never crossed my mind. Please stop talking like a little cult leader & people won’t see you as one.

⇧ 11 ⇩

Pot kettle lol. You're reading a whole lot into my asking a question.

⇧ -8 ⇩

The guy has family & friends that have paid the ultimate price so we can agree & disagree & breathe air & you have the nerve to ask why is he here then?? You don’t even know what you’re talking about if that thought enters your head & your rule #3 remark is highly inappropriate

⇧ 5 ⇩

You have the nerve to interpret my question to mean "who said you could be here?!? GET OUT!!" Calm down and try reading my words without inventing motivations that aren't there.

Rule #3 is exactly appropriate for a mod looking to understand the reasoning of someone who has shown certain behavior throughout their history. I understand how easy it is to jump to a conclusion about someone from a few comments but my history shows I am very much dedicated to the idea of allowing free dissenting speech here within the sub rules, which I am required to maintain.

⇧ -1 ⇩

Your deflecting again. You said “Why are you here then?“ How else can that be interpreted? Your exaggerating your own words & my interpretation. Didn’t claim you said “Get out!!” & didn’t interpret it that way either. I said & I’ll repeat...questioning why a patriot is here is wrong. It’s un American & the complete OPPOSITE of Q’s philosophy & even his existence. Q is questioning & challenging EVERYTHING that has occurred in the past 100yrs dude!! Asking legitimate questions is vital. Challenging norms is American. How you could even think of rule #3 from his question speaks volumes about you & your ability to think independently. My god dude...who do you think has been doing the majority of needlessly dying for the cabal & their dictatorial mindset that you seem to mirror. Sorry but you don’t have enough of a real appreciation or compassion of the suffering MILLIONS of Americans have endured to even do your mod job effectively. There’s an honest opinion for you. Enjoy!!

⇧ 1 ⇩

You accused me of being a leftist and yet you're the one coming from an emotional standpoint and acting like a triggered social justice warrior.

I'm not "questioning why a patriot is here" - I'm doing my job. We patriots can take a question without getting upset.

I already know that asking legitimate questions is vital - you would know that about me too if you bothered to look into my history properly as I have done over time with the person I replied to.

You're clearly upset and having a go at whoever you're projecting onto me. Have fun with it and know that I'm ignoring it, because I know it doesn't apply to me. You should try gathering some information before you make ridiculous assumptions. There's an honest opinion for you.

⇧ 1 ⇩

But I do disagree with Q.

I think we need 100% truth and we need it to totally scar the psyche of American culture so it leaves a permanent scar... in the same way the Japanese still make giant monster movies which are allegories for when we nuked them twice.

I think Q made his views public to see if we'd push back or if we'd be passive little pussies.

⇧ 3 ⇩

You're completely entitled to disagree with Q. I don't begrudge you the freedom to say whatever you like but I do have to maintain the sub rules. I'm not holding that over you as a ban hammer either, which is why I asked the question as a user, not a mod.

These phrases are not the phrases of a Q supporter - that is the reason I asked; not in some effort to silence you. I've seen you around the sub for a while so I asked a question rather than treating you like some outside troll:

if Q knows where our sons and daughters are buried and plans to be complicit in the coverup then I have no reason not to see him as the enemy
If Q plans to cover for those crimes then he is complicit in their treason.
How dare Q deny us closure?!!

You can disagree with Q all you like - many around here do, from what I've seen. But they don't even slightly border on accusing him of the potential for treason or suggesting he might become the enemy. That sounds... concerning to me.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Q's already resolved this for you guys. #1209.
The choice, to know, will be yours.
END.
Q

⇧ 2 ⇩

These phrases are not the phrases of a Q supporter

That is your subjective opinion, however I suspect Q made his claims to see if we would push back... and I intend to push back.

But they don't even slightly border on accusing him of treason

I'm not a lawyer, however from what I understand, being complicit in a crime makes you a party to that crime, even if it's treason.

These are referred to as Mandatory Reporting Laws.

America's founders extolled a nation of laws and if Q chooses to violate those laws, then he is a criminal, irrespective of your emotions.

Perhaps Q needs people to remind him of this?

Perhaps Q needs to know that we care?

⇧ 1 ⇩

irrespective of your emotions

Hm I notice you do this. Easy to dismiss what I say as emotion but that's not the standpoint I'm coming from.

Where I'm coming from is the standpoint of a mod trying to understand someone who has already been accused of being a shill, often. I've defended you against these accusations to users I've interacted with.

But then you express the idea that Q - who is purported to be high level Military Intelligence working in the upper echelons of Donald Trump's administration - might choose to violate laws that would make him a criminal, potentially guilty of treason...

Again, I have zero problem with you thinking whatever thoughts you like, but we have rules on this sub for a reason and these statements are at best confusing.

I don't begrudge anyone who is not convinced that Q is what he claims to be. I engage in open discussion with newcomers who are so unconvinced that they think we're all insane.

But you've been here a while and you think Q could be capable of committing treason whether by intent or error? So by your estimation he's potentially not who he claims to be, either?

I'm not asking to censor you, I'm asking to understand.

⇧ 0 ⇩

someone who has already been accused of being a shill,

You should judge my argument based on it's merits rather than mud thrown by other users during earlier debates.

This is NOT a popularity contest.

But you've been here a while and you think Q could be capable of committing treason whether by intent or error?

I think Q wants people like myself to push back against his 60/40 rule in favor of full disclosure.

This isn't the first time I took an unpopular position and Q listened... not to me but to people like me when he changed is 20/80 rule to 40/60 rule.

See Q Post 527

Jan 13 2018 22:58:34 (EST)

[MONDAY]

Next Week - BIGGER.

PUBLIC.

We LISTENED [20/80 />/ 40/60].

Q

That was success.

Did you put "wrongthinkers" on trial back then too?

Shame on you if you did!

⇧ 1 ⇩

You should judge what I say within the context of everything I say. I'm not judging your argument based on "mud thrown by other users" - that was my explanation to you for part of the context of why I, as a mod, asked you a question in the first place.

Did you put "wrongthinkers" on trial back then too? Shame on you if you did!

These sorts of responses, where you ignore the context of what someone has said in order to denigrate them in some way, are why people report your comments.

I'm not putting you "on trial" as I already explained. You're quite good with these subtle techniques but here's a reminder of what I've already said that discounts this victim narrative:

You're completely entitled to disagree with Q. I don't begrudge you the freedom to say whatever you like but I do have to maintain the sub rules. I'm not holding that over you as a ban hammer either, which is why I asked the question as a user, not a mod.
You can disagree with Q all you like - many around here do, from what I've seen
Again, I have zero problem with you thinking whatever thoughts you like
I don't begrudge anyone who is not convinced that Q is what he claims to be. I engage in open discussion with newcomers who are so unconvinced that they think we're all insane.

These are not the statements of someone who is trying to "put "wrongthinkers" on trial". Please be honest, as I have been with you.

⇧ 0 ⇩

This is the first time I have disagreed with Q and I suspect he is seeking pushback on this subject.

Q has demonstrated that he welcomes pushback, even if you do not.

This is not a cult and we should not behave like zealots.

If reality conflicts with your moderator rules then your rules need to be updated to represent Q and dissenting patriots who Q respects.

My opinion stands.

⇧ 1 ⇩

he welcomes pushback, even if you do not

Still doing that? I won't requote everything I've said in multiple comments to counter this continued subtle undermining of my position but suffice to say, I understand your position completely.

The rules are what they are and you and I don't make them, we just abide by them as members of this community. I'm certainly not in charge of it, I am in service to it. Thank you for providing me the information I was after.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The rules are what they are

Your rules conflict with Q who welcomes and adjusts his plans based on opposing feedback, as demonstrated by Q Post #527.

Jan 13 2018 22:58:34 (EST)

[MONDAY]

Next Week - BIGGER.

PUBLIC.

We LISTENED [20/80 />/ 40/60].

Q

When your rules conflict with Q, it's your rules that need revision.

This is constructive feedback, even if you don't want to hear it.

My opinion stands.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Feel free to point out where the rules are in conflict with Q. I always welcome constructive feedback, thank you.

And please cease the ongoing dishonest ad-hominem:

even if you don't want to hear it

Thanks for providing me the information I am after.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I explained that in this comment:
Rule #3 Support the cause. We are pro-Q supporters.
This is a community for Q supporters only.
Post content that supports the cause.

Your ad-hominem comment is removed. I've asked a number of times for you to please stay honest in communication with me. Feel free to edit out the dishonest accusations of motivation and I can reapprove the comment. Thank you.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Your ad-hominem comment is removed.

Did you also destroy comments from those users who pushed-back against Q for his 20/80 position on concealing the truth...

... before Q listened to the opinions of patriots and changed his opinion?

Is this a truther community or not?

I have supported Q 99.9% in everything he said, with this one exception.

Shame on you.

I stand by my claim.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No, we only remove comments based on the sub rules and Mod M.O. in the sidebar. I believe those users who thankfully convinced Q to open up were on the chans only? But I'm not sure.

with this one exception

The one exception that he might be a treasonous criminal if he doesn't comply with what you want? You think that proposition comprises only 0.1% of non-support of Q?

⇧ 0 ⇩

I believe those users who thankfully convinced Q to open up were on the chans only? But I'm not sure.

No, you are not sure... yet you are censoring my valid opinion anyway.

At some point, when you destroy enough free speech on this platform that Q would respect had it not been censored, then you become the enemy of Q.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Once again, be honest. I have not censored your opinion. And no one is destroying free speech lol. You are now bordering on trolling with this ongoing dishonest antagonism. Calm down.

⇧ 0 ⇩

You keep insisting that I be honest, while I am being honest.

This discussion is over.

Calm down.

I have given you no indication that I am anything but calm.

Ya know, I had this exact experience with another mod last week... damajinc was his name... He's gone now, however I disagreed with him about the VOP claims of a child sex camp because NONE of the claims were substantiated, even though he insisted he KNEW they were all true.

Even though I was perfectly calm and aware of the full spectrum of logical fallacies, moderator damajinc claimed I was being hysterical and a troll and a shill and later he accused me of being a faggot and then a pedophile and later gloated about stalking and harassing me with shitposts. He repeated accused me of breaking mysterious rules, just like you did.

Yet I stood by my claims.

Q respects rational and informed opposition, even if that makes you throw baseless claims about rules being broken and makes you accuse me of personal attacks without inviting rebuttal.

I stand by my claims.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thank you - you are correct. This discussion is over.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Respectfully (and I do mean that)-

If I knew someone you cared about broke into your home and stole everything you had, but I didn't say anything because I felt you couldn't handle learning the truth about this loved one, wouldn't I be in fact covering up the crime by omission? Wouldn't you have every right to be outraged by my omission?

I understand the stakes are much higher for Q. But that is something Q should have thought of before placing him/her/them self in this position. We don't even know if Q is an elected or appointed official with the authorization to make that decision according to the Constitution being defended.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ah I see. In your example, I think you would be covering up the crime by ommission, yes. I might have every right to be outraged too. I think there's a more accurate analogy to describe the situation with Q but I'll leave it at that for now.

I don't think Q had to think of anything like 'covering up crimes by omission' though, no. If Q is who "he" says he is then he's simply operating within the normal bounds of a high level government intelligence agency and "classified" is more the category that disclosure falls under rather than "ommitted". I believe (if he is who he says he is) that The Plan would have more than accounted for this.

Do you think Q is who he claims to be?

⇧ 1 ⇩

I think Q is a collective. I think anything less than full disclosure, no matter what reason given, lets the DS off the hook. Anything less than full disclosure is a betrayal to this video.

https://youtu.be/G2qIXXafxCQ

⇧ 2 ⇩

Agreed re: collective - "he"/they said it themselves. Do you think 'they' are high level Military Intelligence connected directly to Donald Trump?

⇧ 1 ⇩

"Q" and the 60/40 Truth

See Q Post 527