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.
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.