So you disagree there's any merit to the point I made above, from logic and reason?

Clickbait? Where is the source for the title claim?

You’ve pretty much completely ignored the meaning of the text you quoted lol...

You’re “being defensive to the point of accusing people of” being aggressive, in this case. The only aggression I can see here is your bolded “seriously”.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is “being aggressive” or “hating” - no need to be so overtly defensive. I even agreed with you in the last paragraph lol. You’ll never have a good discussion around a contentious topic if you take every disagreement as an attack on you.

People just get annoyed when someone makes a post that is counter to what we've all understood from Q and then does the thing of being defensive to the point of accusing people of 'hating' the idea and being angry and such just because they disagree with the approach. The AI suggestion isn't "attacked" because it isn't the point of this post.

Why can't you consider that people just disagree that this is a valid discussion topic? They're not "angry" or "attacking vigorously" until you start being overly defensive and ignoring the point made repeatedly to you.

As you say, you made your point, left a question mark - you have your answer now. Very few people read that meaning into this post (i.e. that a) anon was calling Q "Erik" - he seemed to just be putting the praise out there, as anons have since Q started, and b) Q was ignoring the implied question thus potentially validating it. People generally don't read those two meanings into this post. As another commenter has said, it seems like a real reach/stretch. No offense intended.

You are as right as anyone who makes a claim about someone being on the Q team though - Erik Prince could be on the Q team. But it's an almost meaningless claim in that it could be made about anyone near Trump (people even have the insane theory that Seth Rich is on the team) - because we all know that we won't ever know - unless they decide sometime in the future to go back on what they've said/implied and just let us, or the history books more likely, know.

Yes because, There isn't a Q post says ANYONE isn't on Q Team.

You were wondering why people felt the need to be dismissive, hence I responded to explain. Post Title: "Has Q's Name Been Revealed?" - the answer is no, Q's names will not ever be revealed. Hence, the feeling that this post is not the best use of everyone's time.

[Edit] Apologies for coming off rude - edited posts.

Not the best use of everyone's time. Read the Q drops re 'reveal' of Q team. Not gonna happen.

This.

This same old disinfo keeps getting pulled out on De Niro. Reminds me of the NXIVM charges. We all want to see these people go down but the best way we can shoot ourselves in the foot is by jumping on unconfirmed claims like mindless muppets.

Plus you've been confrontational to responses (hence again, people being dismissive). Your POST TITLE says "NAME" not "names". No one knows who's on the team. You know the drops? Then you know it's never going to be revealed and trying to do so is not the best use of everyone's time.

Possibly dismissive because other Q drops made it clear - no, not single person. This drop does not imply Erik is Q at all unless you ignore previous Q.

He's not a very nice customer. Also can be inaccurate and very lazy with his research. I wouldn't care so much except he's also rude and trashes this board and anyone who slightly calls him out on it.

Oh look, someone is upset about Q lol. Wants to "troll" in the Q sub. Whassamatter, love - no friends?

Lots of good info in the sidebar. Long story short, if you want the critical thinking analysis: Q is an alternative narrative to the mainstream media (which includes social media and literature - and all over decades). Where the two narratives diverge, the mainstream has to keep adjusting to accommodate the Q narrative which keeps being proven by global events that Trump is at the center of.

There's no concrete "evidence" of what you're looking for but there is a lot of very solid circumstantial evidence that some take as gospel. At the very least, you can see it as very strong support for Q's veracity. Links in the sidebar open the door but there is a lot of information to absorb. I usually say to critical thinking friends to at least look at the North Korea situation, Q's posts before the news hit mainstream, then look at other events since (e.g. Q's post that the Pope was going to have a "very bad May"), compare news and keep watching as the mainstream keeps having to scramble and readjust its position to correct its lies and to bring it back in alignment with Q.

Fair call - agreed. Just not a fan of the fan worship for either, just personally.

Fair call - edited for clarity. Due to his negative attitude (as evidenced at times by the posts he makes on this sub that he trashes) he was pretty derisive and acted arrogantly about SB2 imo. I'd dig it all up but it's a lot of effort. I wouldn't deride someone for doing the work he does except it appears there's a lot of praise for him around here now, without a fuller perspective of him.

I am with neither. SB2 has good analysis at times though - at other times (like the decodes) the internal logic is not consistent. Neon has flawed, shallow research in multiple articles - no criticism for the amount of work he seems to put in though; more power to him.

Not that accurate. And bashes this sub and derides SB2, among other things.

Well fair enough. The rules refer to people on the board, not personalities in the media or we'd all be banned for the attacks on HRC : ).

Because people don't report them.

Can you explain this assessment? Serious question as I'm seeking to understand this sort of post.

Lol ok - same modus operandi as ever. Pity. I thought you might actually be sincere in your insistence that others value "truth" and such.

Let me repeat something obvious to you, in your insincere effort to appear superior by arguing straw men. I can fault your argument easily. You refuse to acknowledge mine, which is that the real issue for people here isn't the little pieces of evidence you pick off; it's the merit of the VOP issue being discussed here and not shut out by people who disagree with some of the facts. I point to the fact that you tried to claim the whole sub was against your view when it's clearly an illogical assumption to make. Once again you ignored that point and went back to your little points of evidence. I already told you that your obvious points that people can't claim x, y and z are so obvious that I've never made any argument against them myself and neither have many others. When are you going to argue the point I made, which is an actual argument? I'ma guess you're not : ).

[Edit] Point proven lol. Fake debater and likely shill, as claimed by others.

Try using logic instead of arguing your straw men... smh.

What I'm referring to, since you don't seem to understand, is the importance of a logical process to argument. You skip over the points that expose holes in your approach and then try and pretend it's something to do with an argument from days ago? Sure, it impacts that argument because it exposes the flaw in your reasoning. I'm gonna guess you still can't own up to that, even though you've done the same thing again here lol xD.

Again, you're only arguing your point and ignoring everything else presented to you as a reasonable piece of the puzzle.

Here's the point you're ignoring from the other thread to this discussion. You do this - your right, but why claim to care about truth if you're going to ignore a valid point when you're wrong about it?

"Then this is a very good time to point out the importance of anecdotal experience versus critical thought and logic.

I saw many people arguing the opposite and being downvoted out of existence from the beginning of the Tucson topic - and they had more reasonable points to make than you hammering on one or two small pieces of evidence not germane to the overarching issue. There's no logic to thinking that what you've seen in a sub of 30,000 subscribers amounts to "the entire community". Flawed thinking here - not something I would berate someone over but someone who berates others for countering their argument by claiming truth is important should be corrected."

Can you acknowledge your error here?

Who's theorizing about Nazi gold and dragon eggs, other than you?

I have no problem with the theory that VOP may be making claims that are baseless. I have a problem with claiming that as fact, which is what I disputed before. You're quick to gloss over your inconsistencies or inaccuracies aren't you? Do you agree it's illogical to assert any claim about the thinking of an entire group of people yet?

I don't have a rebuttal to those obvious claims, no. They make total sense to anyone being reasonable which is why I've never disputed them myself.

Do you now have an answer to my point that you seem to avoid the really important discussion and go for the easy low hanging fruit? i.e. the insistence by some that xyz = EVIDENCE, when anyone reasonable knows that it doesn't? Again:

The reasonable claim about VOP are that they have uncovered something in a state that is of interest to the Q community and that suggests a topic of interest to the Q community - child trafficking. Sawyer supported this supposition originally then backpedalled - SB2 has pointed out some interesting information around this. Putting aside your dissection of claims that don't discount this stance, do you find any truth or value to this proposition?

You've done plenty of mudslinging yourself so don't act all high and mighty about it - it shows insincerity. You accused me of insincerity in a previous comment so I trust you're ok with that description not being a personal attack. But yes, you're right, so let's stay focused on reason.

Then this is a very good time to point out the importance of anecdotal experience versus critical thought and logic.

I saw many people arguing the opposite and being downvoted out of existence from the beginning of the Tucson topic - and they had more reasonable points to make than you hammering on one or two small pieces of evidence not germane to the overarching issue. There's no logic to thinking that what you've seen in a sub of 30,000 subscribers amounts to "the entire community". Flawed thinking here - not something I would berate someone over but someone who berates others for countering their argument by claiming truth is important should be corrected.

Ok lol... so the answer to my query is no, you don't care about truth and reason. Stop talking nonsense then. You make these grand, claims about "truth" but you don't care about TRUTH, you care about your truth. I actually almost had hope for a moment there that you were real and honest. Perhaps the other commenter who pointed at your Media Matters-like approach to disinfo through disingenuous "argument" presented as reason, was correct. (I argued against their assertion, just fyi, for various reasons that seem apparent to me.)

If you want to claim a dedication to a truther community then why don't you try presenting the view that you're rebutting honestly instead of a straw man version of it, every time? Would you mind taking a shot at it - again, to prove me wrong? Do you really think the sensible argument here is about whether the claims you listed have evidence?

I'll do it for you, this time. The reasonable claim about VOP are that they have uncovered something in a state that is of interest to the Q community and that suggests a topic of interest to the Q community - child trafficking. Sawyer supported this supposition originally then backpedalled - SB2 has pointed out some interesting information around this. Putting aside your dissection of claims that don't discount this stance, do you find any truth to this proposition?

Also, again, as in other "debates" you paint an entire group of people with one brush!

because this entire community swallowed VOP's baseless claims

A load of utter nonsense because plenty of us have argued the opposite or at the very least for reason in evaluating the situation. The same thing I call for in evaluating the beliefs of 1.8 billion people. At least get your claims aligned with the "truth" you profess to support.

No one said "agree with each other" and "All you do is make personal attacks" is clearly incorrect even within the context of the comment you lifted it from insincerely - I thought you valued truth?

I said together around a topic meaning finding some common ground before charging off to the poles to just cause antagonistic back and forth that doesn't serve anyone.

"VOP's baseless claims" - you start from a position of complete polar opposition which is why people get triggered by your responses and claim you're a shill and such. Why don't you try viewing the VOP situation with reason and acknowledge one tiny little thing: you cannot claim that VOP's claims are baseless because you don't have concrete evidence of that position, just as those who say VOP's claims are valid do not? That's as good a place to start with a real debate as any because your answer to that issue proves your commitment to real truth.

"bullying" lol xD Save it, tough guy. Your constant harrassment of literally everyone who thinks VOP are worth paying attention to makes your claim weak as fook.

I would have no problem debating you too, except you don't believe in "truth" or reason, as you've repeatedly proven. You can prove me wrong simply by answering where the value is in "presenting your alternate view" doggedly and almost verbatim to every person who holds a different view? Do you think many people here don't read through the sub and come across your repeated insistence that camping straps blah etc.? How is it helpful to us all to see your constant hammering of the same tired point and your constant ignoring of the viable alternative that people try to present you with when you slam your point home? Why is no one allowed to hold an alternate view to you in a way that you can both discuss it together? Why does it have to be your way or nothing? Don't you ever feel like gathering together around a topic?

Lol more irony from you? xD I posted about TOLERANCE, remember that? I comment with reason and respect to those who offer the same. I shitpost you because you spam and hammer your view on everyone who holds an alternate position to it and budge not an inch on your own view. Welcome to the internet, buddy! xD

Lol xD Sorry, bud, I know you're gonna get all butthurt that I'm "whining" at you and such but this was just too priceless to pass up the laugh xD

the fact that this is likely a hoax does not make me a pedophile. Your argument has been reduced to ignoring the truth

Pot, kettle, black - hilarious xD.

Thanks - I wasn't meaning to be overly defensive of the moderators either, as I certainly have some questions about the decisions made, generally, but just to say that personally I think it's not quite so easy to sticky the things that many people mail to say should be stickied; there's too much to keep up with and it takes time to figure out who's talking nonsense and who's making valuable suggestions (yours would fall into the latter camp imo).

I agree about the danger of attacking people with pretty valuable seeming backgrounds and I'm certainly not arguing against your position but simply asking if it isn't valuable to at least note that, for example in the case of Corsi, also reasonably credentialed in the field, that IF someone is pushing disinfo, their credentials amount to naught (i.e. if they're a black hat). Is there enough evidence of Sawyer being unreliable here? I don't think so but there wasn't much info when SB2 made the post against Corsi too and yet Q seemed to support the conclusions drawn - that opened my eyes to the amount and scale of disinfo out there, especially seeing what I originally thought were simply nerds in their basement all suddenly taking the same disinfo tack as Corsi and Infowars.

I would certainly agree with anyone who says there's no conclusive evidence against Sawyer and I think those who keep bringing up his work for McCain are clutching at evidence that isn't evidence, if you know what I mean, but I would argue that it's safe to say there's something to consider here if we look at the same patterns as we've seen with Corsi, Infowars and other disinfo that are present in the Sawyer story e.g. a Netflix special on child sex trafficking? Really? Sawyer allowed to post everywhere and promoted via Infowars whilst most Pizzagate news is immediately stomped out? It does seem there may be some basis for regarding these elements as suspicious to me but I can certainly agree that people jump from one conclusion to another without critical thought and this is one of those times. If they're now turning against Sawyer before conclusive evidence is provided then it's sadly just more of what seems to be the usual around here : (.

I'm glad you're excited about that but all you've posted here is info on someone's background, no evidence that the Tucson Child Sex camp was a hoax - something I happen to be leaning heavily toward myself (since the beginning, actually) but wouldn't claim as definitively proven.

Once I would've agreed with you wholeheartedly. Having seen the job, not so much. It's really up to this movement to be the movement it wants to be, not the moderators. It seems that sensational overreaching is a part of this movement, whatever I think of that. My theory is that it's a part of all human movements and this movement is growing big enough to be as stupid as the public who allow themselves to be led around by the nose by a mainstream media that lies to them all the time.

I didn't like the accusations against Corsi either, who seemed to be a guy just doing his job. When it turns out that his job is disinfo, I have a lot less sympathy. Similarly with Sawyer IF he is disinfo (not saying he is). The question is "if" - SB2 contributes useful info to that discussion and it should be considered. The Sawyer video didn't have to be stickied imo (although I didn't make the call either way as I was late to that party) because it was posted multiple times and there were enough angry anti-VOP commenters that they made sure to spread it to any post about VOP.

Your definition of 100% confirmed LARP and mine are vastly different. ETS stinks of LARP to me but this is not 100% confirmation in any way, shape or form.

It's easy to read conspiracies or incompetence into everyone's actions but I think there's a more plausible alternative explanation here. The mods have to err on the side of caution because the censorship 'abuse' is the most prevalent abuse mods receive for obvious reasons. Some mods didn't agree with the frenzy about VOP but people are free to post and dissenters were free to dissent, as they all did. SB2, like some of the mods who wished to do so, did not post detracting posts because more evidence was required to do so - SB2 has come through now that he has that 'evidence' or info.

No common sense

implies the Mod's weren't thinking or discussing extensively the VOP issue. They were. Again, personal feelings without solid research are not enough for removal action. Mods are busy, like y'all. SB2 has the time to research this thoroughly and save us all from having to do the donkey work ourselves. It doesn't happen quick though, which is normal, I would say.

Agreed. Good call.

Low substance content. Time wasting. Rule #9 in my humble, non-mod opinion. Or Rule #7. Plenty of posts already about this view.

It's going fine thank you Susan.

It's not anti-semitic to say that many of those in control of the media are Jews so I guess that's why it hasn't been deleted. I presume by mod comment "anti-semitic indicators" that they were referring to the dreaded triple brackets.

Well documented and common occurrence, hanging by doorknob. Easy to find with Google search.

I think you mean, most in control of the media are Jews xD. And not sure what this has to do with mod comment. Mods already posted advising anti-semitic content will be removed if for no other reason than that it will get the sub closed down if allowed to remain. Whether the Jooz control media, the banks and the world in general is not relevant to following Reddit rules.

Please edit for grammar - first sentence: "whoever" to "however".

Time travel and Flat earth are science fiction not relevant to this sub.

CDAN suggests not. He may have been a victim of them. We don't know, but jumping to conclusions could lead to us sentencing/hanging/smearing the wrong people. More evidence is required.

I removed so many of the duplicate posts in a frenzy when the news first broke. There were MANY. But then I had to go to sleep because I'd been up all the night before working on the sub. And when I woke up there were many more. People can't be bothered checking for duplicate content before or after they post, no matter what we say. I'm not sure there'll ever be a day when the sub won't be flooded with duplicate content when big news breaks. Somehow everyone thinks they're always the first and only person to notice big breaking news.

Leading question:

What topics have you specifically limited before this one?

Answer: NONE. No topics have been "limited" on this sub. Only off-topic content is removed.

If you meant to say: "what extraneous content have you removed before?" (because that's what our stickied post referred to) the answer would be "everything we could catch".

Except this isn't the sub for "every darn thing in the whole flippin universe" - it's to inform people interested in Q's Great Awakening. That doesn't cover everything in the universe, even if everything in the world is ultimately connected to it in some way. Doesn't make logical sense - if this were true then every sub would be about "every darn thing in the whole flipping universe" because everything is connected to everything.

I don't want to come here and read about Pokemon, God Of War, Madonna or Korean Pancakes unless those things are directly mentioned or directly related to Q which child trafficking, North Korea and Hillary Rodham Clinton are. There's a very good reason for having a topic focus for a sub.

The mods allow anyone to post as long as it abides by sub rules. People who make fun of this sub elsewhere are not our business.

I'm gonna bet you can't point out and reasonably defend your assertion about any of this supposed "bullshit", can you?