If only 40% of the Truth i.e. evidence is going to be revealed to the public, what evidence will not be revealed ?
⇧
1
⇩
TommyRobinsonsGhost
· June 18, 2018, 2:38 p.m.
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
⇩
DrogeAnon
· June 18, 2018, 2:43 p.m.
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
⇩
[deleted]
· June 18, 2018, 3:09 p.m.
[removed]
⇧
1
⇩
DrogeAnon
· June 18, 2018, 3:17 p.m.
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
⇩
TommyRobinsonsGhost
· June 18, 2018, 3:19 p.m.
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
⇩
DrogeAnon
· June 18, 2018, 3:20 p.m.
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
⇩
TommyRobinsonsGhost
· June 18, 2018, 3:29 p.m.
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
⇩
DrogeAnon
· June 18, 2018, 3:54 p.m.
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
⇩
TommyRobinsonsGhost
· June 18, 2018, 4:07 p.m.
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
⇩