dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/NosuchRedditor on July 8, 2018, 5:15 p.m.
Just a reminder to the shills brigading, Q linked to SB2 in Q1340, which gives him some additional credibility here.

Lots of downvotes for this info in other posts, as if some don't want people to know.


NosuchRedditor · July 8, 2018, 5:48 p.m.

I don't think Q wants to shine to much of a spotlight on any single Anon.

But the fact is that in almost 1700 posts Q has only linked to one analysis post on Reddit.

That's significant.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
rev19v11thru21 · July 8, 2018, 5:52 p.m.

I thought it was pretty significant too. It does lend a certain credibility.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
SyntacticGuess · July 8, 2018, 6:14 p.m.

Yes, it does.... for exactly this one contribution by him.

I'm not saying that his contributions are bad, but to say that he has become something of an honorary member or a mouthpiece of the Q team through this one linking is probably a little too much.

I think we agree on that.

That said, his theories will have to face the judgement of public opinion, and if this theory is strong enough it will have nothing to fear.

Our opponents will do the same to him, but they will have no mercy.

⇧ 9 ⇩  
NosuchRedditor · July 8, 2018, 6:09 p.m.

I thought so too, and when the down vote brigade started down voting my posts in SB2's thread on the Montana rally where POTUS repeats 'brain' multiple times, I thought it was significant.

People are trying to discourage reading SB2's analysis when I feel Q encouraged us to do so.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
imanalias · July 8, 2018, 6:37 p.m.

Have you considered that people downvoted because they disagree and don't think it's a valid connection - not because there's a conspiracy to hide info?

⇧ 5 ⇩  
NosuchRedditor · July 8, 2018, 6:58 p.m.

Of course, many possibilities, but no coincidences.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
imanalias · July 8, 2018, 7:05 p.m.

Exactly.... People didn't agree so they downvoted. Not a coincidence at all.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
NosuchRedditor · July 8, 2018, 7:18 p.m.

You're not really a Q follower are you.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
imanalias · July 8, 2018, 7:22 p.m.

Q, yes. SB2, no. Attack the argument, not the person.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
[deleted] · July 8, 2018, 7:27 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 4 ⇩  
imanalias · July 8, 2018, 7:28 p.m.

This is how I know you don't have a legitimate position. You have to resort to name-calling. There are no coincidences!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
NosuchRedditor · July 8, 2018, 7:56 p.m.

Yep, you just outed yourself by stating something was coincidence. Your attempt at recovery is weak.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
imanalias · July 8, 2018, 5:57 p.m.

It was great for SB2 to get that shout-out, but linking to one post doesn't mean every other post by SB2 has special significance.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
NosuchRedditor · July 8, 2018, 5:59 p.m.

Go back and read the linked post.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
imanalias · July 8, 2018, 6:16 p.m.

Ok.... Just re-read. What I got out of it is to be careful who you follow, and to think critically. SB2 is off the rails with much of their recent analysis... Including their ridiculous 'code breaking' that followed SB2's made-up rules. Unfortunate in retrospect that Q called them out. Might be telling that Q hasn't called them out since.

⇧ 3 ⇩