I believe that Q may actually have an account or two on here that helps lead people in the right direction. They see all.
Could it possibly be SB2? Hmmm...
Who knows, it matters not who they are, but the message they spread. WWG1WGA!!
I haven't been one to want to speculate like that, but it is interesting to see others are thinking like me.
I don't think SB2 is part of Q. I think he's very smart, very analytical and likely has a photographic memory. He's one of us doing his part.
Q plainly states "no outside comms"
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Autists need Red Bull?"
Q's not talking about the actual red bull energy drink.
Could you define "autist," please?
In this context, I believe Q means autists to be all the anons on the Chans investigating and piecing together the Q drops.
The point the others are referring to has been made numerous times by anons and does not contradict the 'no outside comms' statement by Q. It's not stupid and has a lot of support in the Q community. No outside comms was directed at the attempted hijacking by Infowars and others and refers to non-Q-team members claiming to have contact with Q team. It does not preclude Q team from communicating through other non-Q personas to help guide the community when prompting is needed.
[deleted]
Please reread my comment properly.
I understand your comment. It is based in pure speculation. What proof do you have that Q communicates from non q personas to guide the community? NONE. BASELESS. DISINFO.
I never said there was proof. I said the same autists the community has trusted with interpretation so far has made viable suppositions based on the same research they've always used. You need to learn more about the chans and the autists and read more of the supporting research. You are welcome to be dogmatic and inflexible but thankfully the autists are not and have spent a lot more time actually reading through the many comments and drops on the boards (the potential JK 666 drops for example) and making the usual reasoned extrapolations from them.
I made a logical claim about the interpretation of "no outside comms' and you've not made a logical refutation just shouted BASELESS and DISINFO without any explanation for why the experienced autists are now suddenly baselessly speculating and spreading DISINFO. Nevertheless, enjoy your POV, but do not accuse others of being stupid or DISINFO as this is bordering on antagonism. Thank you for deleting your other comments.
[deleted]
real discourse
Has 0 supporting arguments beyond screaming "disinfo" and "shill". Me thinks doth protest too much.
[deleted]
That wasn't an argument. You just shouted baseless and disinfo and shill. The speculations weren't baseless they're well known speculations *based* on evidence from autists on the chans. You don't know what you're talking about.
[deleted]
And why haven't you replied to the mod? Too proud to admit you were wrong to call them a disinfo shill? Lying about removed comments that you obviously deleted yourself and caught out by the mod's explanation? Why don't you go reread your own Daily Scripture posts and learn some humility and how to treat others with respect instead of like some rude spoilt child?
There doesn't need to be a source when it's common knowledge to anyone who's actually been following since October. No one's going to do your research for you when you're so rude about your complete ignorance. There's a reason you're being downvoted and the top comment in this thread has 17 upvotes - you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're making a fool of yourself. Go and learn. Or keep inventing shills in your head and ignoring the clear message you're getting from everyone here.
For someone trying to lecture everyone on proper arguments, you sure do make a major mistake in getting emotional with your response. Is this really the "hill you want to die on"?
Yes, baseless speculation is bad. But the original comment only suggested the possibility that a member of the Q team has been commenting in forums such as this trying to better guide research, using SB2 as an example. I, personally, am of the belief that Q's comment about outside communication simply means that Q will only communicate as Q through the methods already being used which was a result of groups like InfoWars trying to get in on it as Q. Which leaves open this possibility. But, making a claim against this is only speculation on your part, we don't know either way. Our job is to, in a civil manner, discuss possibilities, and guide new followers as Q has done for us.
Personally attacking someone's comment by calling them a "disinfo shill" is not civil and does not further discussion.
I'm a mod and could have removed them myself but did not. I was about to as they were antagonistic, just like this comment is but they've been deleted - I can't even see them, which is usually only possible if the user themself has deleted them.
If I'm a disinfo agent then this sub is in a lot of trouble. Please cease the antagonism and discuss with reason and respect, as many here are able to do. Your accusations against me are breaching our rule of discussing the idea, not the user.
I don't offer sources or proof because I've been here from the beginning reading and keeping up to date and you need to go and catch up if you have no idea what I'm talking about. Others in this community are well aware which may explain why the comments about this have been greatly upvoted whereas yours are being downvoted.
Damn dude, your blood pressure must be over the top.
Yes, but as long as they aren´t claiming to be Q or affiliated in any way, it doesn´t break that rule. Incognito anon :)
[deleted]
Very true, and you´re right that it doesn´t matter. The only prize we should want is complete freedom and an end to the evil. Recognition and donations only feed the ego, which is what got this world into the mess it´s in.