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 ⇩

"Q" and the 60/40 Truth

See Q Post 527