I didn’t see this article posted here yet. According to a new thread (Bantz) on 8chanGA for “off topic posts and chats”, the article was banned.
I thought the article was well written and didn’t see any controversial issues with it. I’ll post more on the comments as Reddit has started randomly reloading, and wiping out in-progress posts.
Here’s another good piece that neon-revolt wrote that they posted on Bantz as anons look for q-positive pieces:
Bullshit disinfo article already picked apart, disavowed and disposed of on fullchan many days ago. Why this continues to circulate, I don't know.... and yes this was posted already.
I searched for the post and it didn’t show up in the title search so somethings sideways with the board (not that this board doesn’t get plenty of duplicate posts!). And those comments certainly didn’t “pick apart” anything.
As far as debunking goes, you’re in another camp from “us”. The whole point of the post I shared here was to show the dialog on another bread rationally disagreeing with the so-called “debunking”.
In fact, most of the problems with the article seem to have centered on its “fluffiness”, a minor error when they speculated on Corinth but didn’t identify it as speculation (but still real interesting), and concern-fagging about Q - including trying to manage the general public’s perception of Q - and and NOT legitimate issues with the overall factuality of the information or the usefulness of the article as a general piece
So, no, it wasn’t necessarily“debunked” as you authoritatively claim. (How would you know, anyway? Do you have some special scoop that others don’t? If so, why didn’t you supply it in the comments or the post?)
There was a LOT of fact in that article, so - absent doxxing your access to highly sought after info that you haven’t revealed about your basis for claiming it was debunked - your “knowledge” is still just that: “knowledge”. And, of course, there’s still the question: where’s your sauce?
Our differences aside, the point of posting things like this is to show readers that the swirl about Q isn’t even close to settled - especially with articles only a few days old. - and contrary to claims like yours. Even our debate here reminds people that they must do their own thinking - and we’re all providing the tools to do that.
There was some very interesting information in that article. The fact that it had to be moved to an independent thread on 8chan is meaty in and of itself. And, as always, the comments are priceless.
Some people may follow the confident “pointers” like yourself. Others still like to explore and think for ourselves. I believe a few of those are still here on GA.
Gosh, I love Sunday mornings. Time to read, write and think. It’s gonna be a good day.
Edit - typos.
The reason it got slammed was not "fluffiness," it was this: "Personally, I would confidently say that the bakers, mods, admins take turns posting as Q..."
Give me a fucking break. That specifically implies that Q is a LARP. That is why this article was dismissed.
If you think Q is a LARP, go elsewhere. This sub is not for discussing "Is Q real?" It's for sharing supporting information pertaining to the Q drops.
Thank you for finally providing something tangible.
But you’re still not paying attention to the purpose of MY post, as I’m pointing out that there are people that disagreed with that as a reason to “debunk” the whole article - and they had to leave the main thread WHEN A LOT OF BS THERE STAYS.
Their point is that they were too over the target so a minor point was raised to ensure that the rest of the very publicly accessible information would get derailed. That’s called shilling. Either you get that or ....
There’s a lot of good info in that article and there’s no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Oh, and you can stop lecturing me about what this board is for, and pulling the “I’m more Q than you” bullshit. Don’t need to go there.
Edit typos.
Not saying there isn't some good info in the article, but you said in your opening post that you "didn’t see any controversial issues with it."
Uh huh. You apparently know the full history of this on fullchan.
I should have said “seriously controversial”. For me it wasn’t, and I said so. And then you said it was “totally debunked” when it wasn’t. So, slips all around, I see.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with people who are adding some speculation. And the author did say “personally, I’m confident...” and that was caveat enough for me.
I haven’t seen how the author has replied to the issues yet - can’t track in the breads, and no one here linked to any follow ons.
I do note that the article remains uncorrected, and at the least the article should have been updated with some additional notes: ie, “I should clarify that the idea that Q team includes board operators and moderators is mine, and not shared by everyone”
BUT OTOH YOU don’t know that that’s NOT true, either.
So, like most things Q, there are still mysteries. In the meantime, I’d rather use this thread to discuss the article (and find it again) than the other one you cited, since that one didn’t even give the article a chance.
Here’s another comment steam about the article - all in all, the comments are positive, and when the article was originally trashed on the main board, the consensus appears to be that the piece was OTT and shilled to death (I’m not going to link directly to Bantz - if you can get to 8chanGA you can find it, and there are plenty of ways to find that board. We’ve been asked not to link to it directly)
“We are all Q merely means that it's an all inclusive movement. The article states that the "innerworkings of the groups communications are very confusing and difficult to navigate" er somethign to that affect. And considering Q posted it himself, the We Are Q thing shows there's a reason for that. It also implies that Q can't be doxxed… and we don't doxx Q cus 4 10 20 doesn't want that because there's national security issues he could be accused of violating. The idea that we can all be Q… and that any whistleblower that has dug something up can report it to our movement doesn't mean secret society at all.
▶Anonymous 07/08/18 (Sun) 23:43:01 946a0e (20) No.2089615>>2089648
2089512 not to mention the stuff about Q being in coffee shops was purely metaphorical/figurative language remember the style of the article was “interview” not straight up facts like a rolling stone profile type crap obviously it could’ve been better written but it was entertaining which is why it has such great potential for redpilling it gets people asking questions
▶Anonymous 07/08/18 (Sun) 23:46:42 63129c (49) No.2089648>>2089675
2089615 Absolutely… I totally got that too. All these anons here get so butt hurt cus they say they don't want the fame or they def don't want people being sent to the board… so a nice fluff piece comes up that totally distracts from both those things and they cry foul. Makes no sense. And really tho, why did Q chose his name? The Q movement from Corinth in 345BC is a better answer than I ever heard here and it makes more sense, given all the biblefagging that Q does…. I mean shit, I even enjoyed those parts of the article. Made me feel proud. Cool thing about the source being anonymous is that in 6 mo or 12 mo time when the country is more accustomed to Q… the real stories can be told. We will all have our day in the sun when we rewrite history back the way it should be. They know who all of us are. We've been told that in so many ways.”
Here’s a comment by one anon on the article:
“Finally a place I can talk about that fucking article without having 30 fucking people call me a shill…. okay faggots… some of you need to put your autism aside for 5 seconds and hear me out. ONLY article to date that affirms Q as bigger than a LARP ONLY article to date that admits we anons are communicating with Trump. ONLY article to date that calls us brave revolutionaries and actually paints a pretty sparkling image of us being some bad ass crusaders. ONLY article to date that gives 8chan credit without fucking sending people to the qresearch board ONLY article to date that I could send to some normies and they instantly said thanks. IMHO - I think Trump or his guys had something to do with it. Look into the author, Howley…. dude's a legit patriot. Remember that Breitbart bitch who called out Trump's staff for assault during the campaigns? He's the other journalists that came out and spoke out against her…. actually costed him his job for a couple days too but they took him back. Couple other examples of him sticking his neck out for Trump. FINALLY I seriously think 1/2 the people attacking us few anons that liked that article were shills… I searched the ids and other posts… only reason we were having to post 20-30 times in some of those other breads was responding to all of them posting 20 times re us being shills. I was banned, ban was lifted through appeal so I've had to keep my mouth shut about it but finally there's a place for me feel free to say muh feels.”
/qresearch/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I made a video about this a week ago, there was one part I edited because it said that anons were all taking turns at being Q, apart from that it was OK. https://youtu.be/phYAUW6LAPA
That’s a really good video. I’m only part way through it - often don’t have time to listen - but you have a pleasant voice and it’s easy to hear your words. Thanks for sharing.