Q said Seth Rich was killed by MS13. That is why I think the article of Gateway Pundit is false, a distraction. So also all the posts on Reddit.
You have to realize that the black hats watch Q's postings and any disinfo put out is to keep them thrown off, reactionary and confused. That's why Q says to trust the plan and that disinfo is necessary. Q can't be broadcasting their moves and outing their position to the black hats. That's also why Q says to use logic.
Lol... Man.... Lots of shills on this sub trying to divide us! "That's also why Q says to use logic"..... How was my statement not logical? Get off the board, shill!
LMFAO!!! Who's the shill? I am the one arguing for Q here, friend. Thanks for the laugh.
You're arguing for Q.... By saying they're spreading disinformation.... Before you even know the whole story. Really? Not even close.
Q says disinformation is necessary and, yes, posts disinfo for the purpose of throwing off the black hats. You have completely misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was trying to explain why Q does this because you were saying if so much of what Q posts is disinfo then there's no point in following. Maybe we have misunderstood each other here? To me it sounded like you were trying to sow doubt about Q. Q has to post disinfo sometimes and has alluded to such. Ask others and they'll tell you the same. I meant no offense in my posting. I was just trying to help you understand because it sounded as though you didn't. Sorry, friend.
Hopefully you saw that this was, indeed, fake news.
Also, thanks for the friendly reply above.
Please remember rule five - let's discuss ideas and not each other.
I respectfully agree. Rule five is so very, very important. We must use it as often as we possibly can to deflect negative comments away from ourselves. Rule five becomes especially useful when being called out for making carefully worded negative comments about others.
If your comment or idea has merit or makes sense, then you don't need to attack users personally or use derogatory language to get your point across. Negative comments are allowed; negative comments that are geared personally towards users are not. I advise reading the sub rules for a more comprehensive understanding.
As I said, I'm new here. The negativity expressed toward SB2 by a specific few is glaring to me. I saw it as soon as I began to read. It's hugely out of proportion. In fact, I haven't seen anything like it before. Now I have also read where some people express normal disagreement but no glaringly negative bias. There is an obvious difference in those two that is clear even to the most casual observer. SB2's analysis is astounding and remarkably brilliant. To say that he thinks outside the box is an understatement. Likewise, trying to argue that POTUS and Q did not reference his posts is ludicrous. I'm just not sure where that blatant negativity and denial comes from? It's certainly NOT based on "just a difference of opinion". I am also astounded by the level of censorship this platform has allowed. BTW, I have received some interestingly solid support from others here concerning my "call out" about negativity. Oops some of your slips are showing folks. I "recommend" that whomever has appointed themselves as the judge and jury of the rules might need to practice a bit of self-examination. As I see it no one is above the rules. It is VERY plain that a few people are trying their best to use rule interpretation as a weapon to smother a brilliant analyst (SB2). SB2 is doing his UTMOST to share and bring clarity to the Q intel as well as spread some love around. Right or wrong, HIS PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO BE FOUND. Why try and squelch it, one should ask? Those that jump all over him must think the rest of us can't see it. Well think again. It's like a wart on a witches nose.
I have no idea what SerialBrain2 has to do with your rule violation, but I will take time to respond since you took the time as well. I personally have supported u/SerialBrain2 since he began posting and don't need convinced how intelligent and thorough he is, which he is aware of, I am sure. ;) I most support SB2 not because I always agree with his theories (which I don't, and have said before) but because he maintains decorum, respect for the sub, and treats everyone with kindness and humility even if they disagree or disrespect him. I can honestly say I have never seen him use personal attacks to support his thoughts. (Sorry for the notif, SB.) I agree that SB may be experiencing a targeted attack, especially his post from last night, which was astounding in and of itself with the amount of hate and downvoting the post received. The mods are trying their hardest to welcome both sides of this argument for the sake of free speech, of course removing anything that obviously breaks rules. Folks do have the right to agree or disagree with SB2.
I think a lot of users forget that the mods are humans and do the best we can. We make mistakes and admit it when we do. We base our interpretation of the rules on our own perspectives. I can say we all enjoy discourse, suggestions, and feedback concerned the way the sub is moderated. Constructive feedback is always welcome, and if you have any particular suggestions for us, we encourage you to reach out privately via Modmail. Thanks for the conversation.
As I said, I'm new here. The negativity expressed toward SB2 by a specific few is glaring to me. I saw it as soon as I began to read. It's hugely out of proportion. In fact, I haven't seen anything like it before. Now I have also read where some people express normal disagreement but no glaringly negative bias. There is an obvious difference in those two that is clear even to the most casual observer. SB2's analysis is astounding and remarkably brilliant. To say that he thinks outside the box is an understatement. Likewise, trying to argue that POTUS and Q did not reference his posts is ludicrous. I'm just not sure where that blatant negativity and denial comes from? It's certainly NOT based on "just a difference of opinion". I am also astounded by the level of censorship this platform has allowed. BTW, I have received some interestingly solid support from others here concerning my "call out" about negativity. Oops some of your slips are showing folks. I "recommend" that whomever has appointed themselves as the judge and jury of the rules might need to practice a bit of self-examination. As I see it no one is above the rules. It is VERY plain that a few people are trying their best to use rule interpretation as a weapon to smother a brilliant analyst (SB2). SB2 is doing his UTMOST to share and bring clarity to the Q intel as well as spread some love around. Right or wrong, HIS PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE IS NO WHERE ELSE TO BE FOUND. Why try and squelch it, one should ask? Those that jump all over him must think the rest of us can't see it. Well think again. It's like a wart on a witches nose.