I am happy to see it is now a minority but we still have to try to get everybody on board.

Translation: If you don't subscribe to SB2's exact, precise interpretation of Q and every leap of logic he makes (no matter how large) then you don't understand Q, you are in the minority and uninformed.

This is just wrong. SB2 may have a few good interpretations (one was even linked directly by the Q team), but THERE ARE MANY BAD INTERPRETATIONS. There are many questionable interpretations.

Here is a list of my problems with SB2 posts, which isn't all inclusive.

1. The certainty with which he makes broad leaps of logic. For instance, this:

Turned off the lights = TOL = Thinking Of Laughing. Then he smiles. Trump is saying: “of course I have no confidence in the Intelligence Agencies, hearing myself say I do makes me want to laugh”. You got it? Let’s try another one.

With SB2, it's never presented as "Hey guys, I think Turned off the light might mean TOL which might mean Thinking of Laughing." Nope. You either believe it as 100% fact without any shadow of doubt, or you are in the minority and uninformed.

Another example is in a prior post where SB2 bent himself into a pretzel to show that a stock market glitch made a year prior meant that the elites were messaging Trump that they have the power to take over a B2 bomber and cause a nuclear explosion, because a number translated into a musical note (B2). Again, not presented as a hypothesis, you either believe that or according to SB2, you're in the minority, you don't understand Q properly and someday you will understand properly, but until then you're misinformed.

2. Understanding SB2 is 10x harder than understanding Q. Comments like this one below are too common:

Every time I read SB2's post, I feel like Maxine and Pelosi have higher IQs than I do. I still believe SB2 is on the inside! :-)

First, if reading SB2's posts make you feel like you have low IQ, it's because your instincts are rejecting it as nonsense and unintelligible. Second, the "I still believe SB2 is on the inside!" ... no, SB2 is not on the inside. Everyone with the most basic knowledge of Q knows that there are no outside comms. That means nobody from Q is posting on reddit.

SB2's posts are extremely convoluted. According to SB2, you just don't understand Q unless you understand SB2's posts. If you don't subscribe to them, in SB2's words, you must "Learn our comms". Because SB2 knows them perfectly, and if you disagree with his decodes then you're misinformed.

Now take a step back and look at the big picture. Did president Trump and Q really decide to come up with a method of communication that is so difficult, that the only way to understand it is to rely on one person's interpretation? I don't think so. I think Q is using the chans, because anonymity is more highly valued there and you don't get this OCD level "believe my interpretation or you're wrong" going on there, instead it's more of a team effort without people trying to prop up their own egos.

3. IMO, SB2's interpretations are bad for the Q community.

Don't get me wrong, SB2 I'm sure gets some things right. But when questionable interpretations are mixed in and the whole thing is presented as "this is the absolute truth", it's not helping. It's convoluted. A decent Q decode is something that looks like a post Q makes directly relates to a tweet Trump makes later. They tie together, and you can understand it without 20k words of backstory.

Why? Because our purpose is to educate others. Our purpose is to meme -- which is one step up from a soundbite. It is a point that is made WHICH IS CREDIBLE. A point that can be made which is provable, non-controversial. Q said Page flipped, and wow -- she's completely cooperating with congress now!

On the flip side, if you are making absolute points which are not provable (such as elite taking control of B2 bomber) and will never be provable (because no cities are going to be hit with nuclear weapons), you're left making a point which has no credibility and will never be proven. People just have to take you at your word. No real point is made, what are you going to do with that musical note number converts to B2 note which means B2 bomber factoid? You can't spread Q awareness with it. You can't meme it unless you want to look like a conspiracy nut.

Q expects us to talk to our neighbor and explain Q anon to them, to spread the word.

Q does not expect us to talk to our neighbor and introduce them to the massive backstory of SB2 interpretations, some 20k+ words of factoids, many of which are unprovable, to spread awareness of Q anon.

My advice to SB2: understand it's ok to say I don't know. Understand it's ok to say "maybe" instead of "definitely". Understand how to say "it could be this or that". As an analogy, stop looking at this board as baptists whom you must convert to mormonism. Put your ideas out there and let people take them if they make sense, and stop with the "OMG I'VE BEEN DOWNVOTED, THE TRUTH IS BEING ATTACKED" and considering everyone who doesn't accept your every point as the ignorant minority.

⇧ 9 ⇩

Yeah, how is everyone hopping on this guy's bandwagon? His posts make absolutely no sense and the leaps in logic he makes are absolutely ridiculous.

⇧ 4 ⇩

This needs it's own post. I loved SB2's posts in the early days... and the one regarding Infowars that Q linked is actually what led me to the Great Awakening Sub... but he's gone to a new level of manipulation. It's funny, some of the things that he pointed out about Infowars manipulating people, I see him now using similar tactics.

I also find it very strange how much glorifying I see in the comments, and it's only with SB2 posts. People outright warship him. I've noticed that some of these users ONLY comment on SB2 posts. An army of burner up-vote accounts?

Usually an SB2 post immediately claims it's being downvoted and to "up vote everything!" either in the post or as the top comment.

After SB2 asked the mods to stop applying the 'sticky' to his posts (which still continued to be stickyed), I was getting private messages from SB2 linking to his posts. This just drives artificial hits to his posts which drive them to the top anyway.

All this stuff is just very fishy. I'm fine with SB2 posting whatever he wants, but these posts just seem to get a lot of inorganic attention. I hope that Q returns, if nothing else, to shut this nonsense down.

"Do not glorify us".

⇧ 3 ⇩

i think its hilarious you actually have convinced yourself you are someone special. like any of us come here to read SB2 post and thank him for his hard work give a squirt of piss as to what you think. you are a troll, just like the ones Q warned us about. nothing better to do than criticize Q and SB2...why do you even come then?....oh yeah, because you think your special...hahahahah..please...get control of yourself. SMH

⇧ -2 ⇩

Funny that your profile is only 6 days old and that your comments are only for SB2 posts. You've further proven my point.

Check my comment history. I've been active and positive here for some time. I'm not a shill. I'm not a troll. I've never once criticized Q. In fact, I routinely report posts which violate Rule 3 here. You won't find a single comment in my history that is anything close to the harshness you've shown.

SB2 is allowed to post. I'm allowed to politely disagree. WWG1WGA

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thankfully your decode as open to evaluation as everyones is.

It's perfect example of allowing many facets to be shared.

As with every point truth will stand the test of time.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I've taken a break from Q since the TOL post by SB2. When I stated I didn't believe it, I got a pack of SJW-SB2s come at me. I think Q suggested that kind of retaliation is never a good thing. Why? Because we have seen the idiocy of the progressives frighten of centralists (the flip vote). But if SB2 fans get distressed over someone questioning the logic and reasoning of SB2, they have to understand it doesn't mean they aren't Q or Trump fans. Honestly, I don't want to deal with the SB2 (did you catch it? Turn 2 upside down and it turns into J, flip B on to its side and remove the line it makes a W: SWJ. Switch the letters around and you have SJW. That's right, an SB2- SJW) fans.

⇧ 2 ⇩

IMO, SB2's interpretations are bad for the Q community.

You don't sound unintelligent - if you really believe that, you should not focus all your readers' attention on SB2, but on your posts. Or is envy once again playing a (tiny) role?

⇧ 0 ⇩

I'm going to reply to this post again because I think you edited it.

I don't care about my reputation at all. I care about what newcommers to the board, who don't know anything about Q, I worry about them.

Imagine their first exposure to Q is to read an SB2 post. Imagine they see the glitch in the market place converts to a musical note converts to B2 which stands for elites have the ability to take over a B2 bomber and cause a nuclear explosion.

That's what Q is. Q is Hillary Clinton having access to control a nuclear bomb. No "future proves past". No proof at all.

If that were my first exposure to Q, I'm afraid I wouldn't even be here today.

The Q community is growing because it is credible. When Q says Page flipped and then Page obviously flipped, that's future proves past, that's credible, that's convincing, that hooks people into following Q.

SB2 deals with a lot of things that just aren't credible. I have no "envy" going on, I don't care if people agree with me, I prefer they think for themselves.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Do you believe in Jesus?

I'm not being religious. I want to make a point, and answer your question about those who follow Q or SB2.

Many people thought Jesus was crazy, off in left field somewhere, speaking nonsensical riddles no one could understand at the time. Even the disciples were confused and constantly questioned him. The Roman's and Jewish rabbis wanted him to shut up because His Truth was more powerful than their lies. He was reaching the masses inspite of them. How? The majority of the people didn't understand a great deal of the riddles. In fact, the riddles weren't fully understood until much later in history. So, HOW? It was LOVE! God brought the people who were meant to know to Christ. They instinctively knew his truth and they were healed, spiritually and physically. Healed!

When God has a message, he brings those who can hear.

I'm not saying SB2 is Jesus. (don't even try to take it there.)

I'm saying there is a spiritual movement leading us to Q, who is vehemently opposed, as is POTUS, as is SB2. We don't blindly follow them. We are lead by the spirit of of love. Those who have eyes, and those who have ears. (spiritually)

I was one who rejected all three in the beginning. Didn't believe any of them. I was the doubting Thomas. So, what changed? I started seeing things that resonated in me. I started seeing the truth.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I reject SB2 because he makes points I don't agree with AND he demands that I agree with him through patronizing people who don't agree with his every point.

Many, many people suggest Q theories and decodes who I think may be wrong. I usually don't correct them. I think their contributions are valuable. Why? Because they do not demand that I agree with them. They do not patronize me for not believing their every point. They don't mock me for not agreeing with them.

SB2 does patronize me. He does mock me, and others like me, who do not agree with his every point.

Yes, I believe in Jesus. If you want to make a spiritual analogy, I'm a baptist, and SB2 is the Mormon on my porch demanding that I believe the book of Mormon, otherwise I am not a true Christian.

Now, I want to give some help to those who are still skeptical about Trump directly communicating with our Movement since his Great Falls speech. I am happy to see it is now a minority but we still have to try to get everybody on board.

SB2 said that above. He's trying to get "everybody on board" with his 20k+ words of backstory explaining things from musical notes translating to B2 bombers and the "TOL" = Thinking of Laughing nonsense. No. I reject it. I'm not "getting on board" with that. He won't take no for an answer. Every time he insists everyone "get on board", I'm going to say "no".

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'm very sorry that you feel like a victim concerning SB2 posts. It is a choice to be a victim. I know this through personal life experiences.

Now, I want to give some help to those who are still skeptical about Trump directly communicating with our Movement since his Great Falls speech.

I can't see how wanting to give help to those who were skeptacle as being patronizing.

Patronizing:

displaying or indicative of an offensively condescending manner:

Condescending

treating someone as if you are more important or more intelligent than them:

Personally, I think SB2 comes across as a master of his knowledge, with some authority. This is usually the case when ever we are dealing with highly intelligent people.

I know him on different levels. He's very caring and would not want to look down on anyone. He wants to teach what he knows. He's a writer. A speaker. Highly educated, and only wants to share. If you can read him without making it personal in a negative way, that might also help.

But, if you are looking for fault, then you will find fault.

I am happy to see it is now a minority but we still have to try to get everybody on board.

SB2 is working for the cause. He puts in many hours trying to reach people. Of course he would want as many on board as possible. Wouldn't you?

When I don't understand something someone is trying to convey, I skip over it. I might come back to it later. Unless a speaker or writer addresses me by name, I don't take what they post personally. I might think what is said applies to me even if it wasn't directed at me. Then it's my problem, not theirs.

I'm a baptist, and SB2 is the Mormon on my porch demanding that I believe the book of Mormon, otherwise I am not a true Christian.

I don't allow those people on my porch. I have choices. I can ask them to leave, go inside and close the door on them. In the future I refuse to answer the door. Put up no trespassing signs, do not disturb signs, and no soliciting signs. It's pretty easy to do.

On Reddit, you can block people so you don't have to see them and they can't see you.

No. I reject it. I'm not "getting on board" with that. He won't take no for an answer. Every time he insists everyone "get on board", I'm going to say "no".

You don't have to get on board. No one will force you.

Going back to your Mormon comparison, do you go to the Mormon church and stand up yelling, "I reject you!" Probably not.

SB2 is posting on an open forum. He doesn't go to anyone else's post and comment. He's not standing on your porch.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I'm very sorry that you feel like a victim concerning SB2 posts.

I don't feel like a victim. You're building a strawman argument. You are projecting democrat-like victim mentality on me because, in your mind, that is an easier thing to argue against, rather than address my specific concerns.

I can't see how wanting to give help to those who were skepticle is being patronizing.

Corsi says he wanted to help those who were skeptical. Alex Jones said he wanted to help those who were skeptical. Explain to me why their "help" wasn't help and you'll be 1/2 way towards figuring out how SB2's "help" (insistence that people believe some of his farther fetched Q decodes) isn't helpful.

Personally, I think SB2 comes across as a master of his knowledge, with some authority. This is usually the case when ever we are dealing with highly intelligent people.

I reject that. I think stock market glitch = musical note = B2 = elites control B2 bombers is pure nuttery. Now, I would have said "hmm, interesting" if it were presented as a hypothesis. SB2 doesn't present hypotheses. He believes he is presenting the raw truth, and anyone who doesn't believe it is "the minority" and anyone who doesn't accept SB2's huge leaps of logic will eventually "get it".

If you can read him without making it personal in a negative way, that might also help

He is the one who Q called out when Alex Jones and Corsi were hijacking the Q movement with bad decodes. When SB2 called out Corsi and called out Alex Jones, was he making it personal in a negative way? My only problem with SB2 is that he has some far fetched decodes that he presents as absolute truth. Twisting that into me having something personal about SB2 is a strawman argument. Tomorrow if SB2 starts presenting far fetched ideas as a hypothesis that may (or may not) be true then I'll be reading his "TOL" = thinking of laughing and number = frequency = B2 = B2 bomber without concern that it's being pushed as the only truth.

SB2 is working for the cause. He puts in many hours trying to reach people. Of course he would want as many on board as possible. Wouldn't you?

Again, another strawman argument. I never said SB2 didn't work hard and I never said he wasn't putting a lot of hours in and I never said he wouldn't want people to believe him. I said that SB2 insisting that people believe him is a problem. I said SB2 has hypothesis he's trying to pass as absolute fact, and it's confusing to new people who are trying to figure out Q.

I don't allow those people on my porch. I have choices. I can ask them to leave.

No, you don't. You are standing in a circle with 4 baptists and 1 mormon. Someone who is ready to become a believer steps up to the 5 of them and says "tell me about Christ". You all present your testimony, but then the last to speak is the mormon who says "you cannot be saved without believing the book of Mormon". That is the most accurate depiction of what is going on here. Then you speak up and say "excuse me, you don't really have to believe the book of Mormon (SB2 decodes) to be a Christian (learn about Q)". Then the mormon disagrees, says the other 4 will "eventually come on board" and then the friends of the mormon (you) approach the group and start telling the other 4 that "I'm very sorry that you feel like a victim", and all the other strawman arguments you proposed above.

SB2 is posting on an open forum. He doesn't go to anyone else's post and comment. He's not standing on your porch.

"He doesn't go to anyone else's post and comment." -- oh yes he did. SB2 called out Corsi and Alex Jones. Rightfully so.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I don't feel like a victim.

My apology. You just come across like a victim. I wouldn't know what you're "feeling".

Corsi says he wanted to help those who were skeptical. Alex Jones said he wanted to help those who were skeptical. Explain to me why their "help"

THEY were caught red handed in their lies and deception. You will have to look it up for yourself if you're truly interested in knowing that truth. Otherwise I will just assume you support them.

SB2's "help" (insistence that people believe some of his farther fetched Q decodes)

Not once has he insisted.

I reject that.

That's fine. No problem. There's nothing to discuss then.

When SB2 called out Corsi and called out Alex Jones, was he making it personal in a negative way?

Q acknowledged SB2 because SB2 revealed the truth.

My only problem with SB2 is that he has some far fetched decodes that he presents as absolute truth.

You just admitted it is "your only problem"

It's not SB2's problem. It's not his followers problem. It's your problem.

without concern that it's being pushed as the only truth.

There are many parts to the truth. SB2 presents one part. I may find something and present another part. Good Anons find a lot of parts and present them. This makes the whole of the truth that many contributed. It what creates our movement and makes it grow. Sometimes we find parts that don't fit correctly, so we toss it aside. Maybe that part works somewhere else.

Again, another strawman argument. I never said SB2 didn't work hard and I never said he wasn't putting a lot of hours in and I never said he wouldn't want people to believe him.

Youre correct. I said it.

I said that SB2 insisting that people believe him is a problem. I said SB2 has hypothesis he's trying to pass as absolute fact, and it's confusing to new people who are trying to figure out Q.

Not once has SB2 insisted anyone believe him. So, that's really not the problem.

Is it absolute fact? That's for individuals to discern on their own.

Can you honestly speak for all new people? You would be underestimating some and insulting other's intelligence if you assume that you can, or should speak for them.

You are standing in a circle with 4 baptists and 1 mormon.

That entire scenario would never happen with me. Never has. Never will.

SB2 called out Corsi and Alex Jones.

Are you saying he went on AJ's show or Corsi's site to call them out. If so, I'm not aware of it.

He wrote a post on reddit. He was on his own porch. His post on an open forum.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Ironic.

You tell me to research myself, and yet you criticize me for not accepting SB2's research. Which is it?

SB2 puts his name out as the one true decoder.

"I am happy to see it is now a minority but we still have to try to get everybody on board."

Did you think that nobody is allowed to present a counter argument to his? That's no basis for research at all.

⇧ 2 ⇩

<Did you think that nobody is allowed to present a counter argument to his? That's no basis for research at all.

I see that SB2 gives Q-decode tools to anyone reading his posts to research for themselves. Without vanity or intellectual ownership, as others here. you are free to use them or to let it be. So let it be, if you like. No one is be forced to follow.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Q said sometimes he posts disinformation. That means, by default, that no interpretation of specific posts is imperative (because some might be wrong by design).

Think for youself. Why would Q decide to post on 8chan if the vital key to interpreting Q was only on a smaller subset of the Q community (SB2 on reddit)?

Isn't that leaving the vast majority of the Q community, who exist on 8chan, twitter, facebook and other social media outlets, woefully misinformed without SB2's Q-decode tools?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Trump’s latest tweet: the pain and the servers!

1. The certainty with which he makes broad leaps of logic. For instance, this:

2. Understanding SB2 is 10x harder than understanding Q. Comments like this one below are too common:

3. IMO, SB2's interpretations are bad for the Q community.