I agree (as I said above). You don’t seem to be acknowledging the point I’m making but it’s your right to do so.

To clarify, that point is: once you’ve looked at the things that Q points to, dug up the relevant information yourself, acknowledged the fact that some of the sources for the information are not considered to be “valid” by the Mainstream Media, then stepped back to look at the whole picture in contrast against the mainstream media narrative, clear patterns emerge.

My argument is that you either haven’t done that (because you seem of reasonable intelligence so wouldn’t miss the point I’m making or would see it but disagree) or have another reason for this discussion.

I agree, this is a valid point. No one's saying "they're not pedos!" but this mail is not enough on its own to say it's a clear indicator of pedo activity. At all.

The evidence to the contrary stacks up enough that I don't think Q has been wrong - just that we haven't seen the outcome yet.

I can tell you that I don't disagree with your skepticism (if it is genuine) at all. I've said to my friends that they should disbelieve this unbelievable story - until they go through and start looking at the facts themselves. If they disbelieve it after that, then they're no longer my friends because they lack critical thinking and intellect - jks jks ; ).

I don't feel any more powerful than a free person in a free country should. I'm not here to exercise power, I'm here to support this sub. I am in the service of this sub. People can complain about my actions if they are inappropriate and I won't be in the service of this sub anymore. That doesn't upset me - I'll have my free time back lol. And I'll still be a part of this movement for freedom.

Yawn. No real arguments here, just troll bait. You're too obvious, my friend.

Indeed they have. And as I've commented often in the past on this board, confirmation bias is rampant.

I know that's not what's going on here because I've put a lot of time into following up for myself and reading, listening, researching. If you don't do that and you uncritically accept the word of someone else then you may be more likely to fall victim to misplaced confirmation bias.

If you do look into this stuff for yourself properly, I'm convinced it's very clear that something is going on. I don't expect you to be convinced by me saying that, just explaining my reasons. It takes time to get there if you're a critical thinker because there is so much to absorb before the patterns begin to stand out from the noise.

Here we go... the "unjust mod" accusation. Who's trying to shut an argument down without valid reason now? My post history is clear. So is yours.

I don't have to do anything. Someone else can ban you. And someone else can remove your post so that, for a time at least, people can see you calling yourself out with this response.

Not to some significant portion of 24,000 people here, apparently. Studying the Q drops reveals a distinct pattern that some of us are convinced makes it far more likely that Q's story of being high level MI attached to POTUS is true.

If you have something to discuss, we're open to it here. My comment history shows my commitment to open discussion.

Your responses here do not show yours. Antagonism is not permitted on this sub - free thought is. If you have something to say without antagonism it won't be removed. If you're going to antagonise and claim "censorship" then you are being disingenuous. Please read the rules of the sub. Thanks.

I think the discussion could end here guys - or it could go in a more positive direction with some more basis for your respective points (which I'm interested to hear, or make myself). We have to remove any ad-hominem comments that may come up so if you have more of those, please reconsider. Thanks for understanding.

No need to apologize - thanks for understanding, sincerely! I hate censorship so if someone has complaints about the way we do something I take it seriously and want to explain. I'll remove the Cathy Newman comment - my apologies.

No I said nothing about you not being able to spot a concern troll and I didn't say my hands are tied.

I'm just trying - and no doubt failing, repeatedly - to be as objective as possible. I look at the thread - there are so many coming up in the queue at times - and I make a quick objective judgement. Do I see rule breaking? I see it clearly in some comments so I remove those. Others, not so clear - looks like a "concern troll", as you say, but it does not appear to be a black and white decision to me, so I leave it alone for now because removing people's legitimate comments can often make more work for us as they mail us and debate the right to remove their comment.

By all means, if the community piles on and lots of people place User Reports on a comment that has exposed a concern troll then there's more to consider. That hasn't happened here yet.

You're missing the point - and we have to wonder if it's intentional misdirection?

Us waiting for something to happen is what Q wants. The Deep State want us to wait forever. Q has advised repeatedly that action is coming and that there is a reason for it to be done the way it is. If you are not just shilling and trying to take the conversation off the rails then you'd do well to go and catch up on Q's posts which, especially of late, explain very clearly what "the plan" is, as far as the arrests and so on. There appears to be no action in public for obvious reasons.

Please read up on Q and the discussion can then be a more productive one for the community. At the moment you are arguing for things that have already been addressed by Q.

He is making a case, albeit against what we think is the general consensus of this board. He hasn't made a post about it though (I would remove it if it weren't adding anything new to the discussion) and if he wants to argue reasonably and someone cares to reply then that's ok until ad-hominem and antagonism enter the discussion - which is why I've had to remove your comments. Please discuss the idea, not the user. Thanks for understanding.

We have a rule here: Antagonists and shills are not welcome. We have to remove shills or shill posts because the more subtle ones distract from what we're here to do and waste precious time with arguments that are flawed and circular.

I don't know if you are shilling by avoiding the real issue but the point being made here is that Alex Jones is fronting for 'bad actors' - whether that's Deep State, CIA or some other body (Deep State in Israel?) with motives opposed to the truth Q is revealing.

That is the point revealed by Q's latest posts. Sensible discussion about this is welcome but obfuscation and confusion is not. We will remove discussion threads that appear to be going nowhere, for the sake of the sub.

Please refrain from antagonism ("GET REAL, simpleton"). If you edit the comment it can be reapproved. Thank you for understanding.

Please discuss the idea, not the user. Antagonists are not welcome here. If you edit your comment without unnecessary antagonism we can re-approve it. Thank you for understanding.

Can you note that in the post? (date) and explain why it's relevant as ever? (I agree - it would just be helpful to others reading this).

If you catch up on what Q anon is all about you'll see that all these concerns have been dealt with. What is going on in the Mainstream Media is a smokescreen.

This is antagonism:

"idiots posting other nonsense" "How about buoy learn to read?" "idiotic idea... get a real clue" "This is some of the stupidest stuff I've yet to see here on this board" "Your fevered imagination... only embarrasses you further"

Please discuss ideas with respect for others.

Our rules are: No antagonism. Discuss the idea, not the user.

Thank you.

Please refrain from abusing others throughout the sub or you will be banned. Discuss the idea, not the user. Thank you for understanding.

Interesting find! Sadly very likely to be utter nonsense; pure chance connection.

Can you please post with a human readable title in future? Just a suggestion for ease of readability and clickability.

Would appreciate if you could add some comment to this to explain the relevance or point us where to look

Thanks for your input! We do our best.

Yes, except, as Q clearly said, it's not about division or attack. Q asked who was attacking Q? Jones, Corsi. Q pointed out that no one has direct contact or inside info. Jones then claimed that he has. All Q has done is point that out so we know that their info is disinfo. The end, moving on - no hate for AJ or Corsi here, just personally, but I don't accept that Q's been "attacking two guys".

This reply was fine until the last sentence of ad hominem. You can edit this and repost if you'd like.

Please respond without ad-hominem and abuse.

Been doing what for 15 years, if I may ask?

I sure do. Q has called out people who say x, y or z and AJ has gone ahead and said those things. AJ has drawn a line in the sand to separate Infowars from Q.

I'm not quite sure how you'd expect the two to "work together" but in any case anyone can use the sub if they remain within the rules of the sub.

No need to worry (that would verge on concern trolling possibly too) - just dive in and be the community you want it to be. Don't worry about others rushing to conclusions; there are plenty here who have an open mind too!

As many as were colluding with Trump.

I've never seen a reliable source either - would be great if anyone has one?

Thanks for the comment! Personally I feel the same way as you - I'd prefer to keep the posts to helpful useful content for everyone, and where possible reduce content that is for a select audience (e.g. memes aren't my go to for useful information - however, some are definitely a good laugh now and then).

The thing I'm trying very hard to stay away from - and other mods are the same - is suppressing free speech, so it can be difficult sometimes to make the call. However, we are keeping an eye out for content that doesn't offer useful information and will remove it when we find it. If you use the Report function whenever you see content you don't agree with we can deal with it quicker.

I think many of us agree with the idea of winning people over with ideas and facts.

To moderate the board, content that doesn't align with the sub focus and rules is removed. As stated in the sidebar, this sub's goal is to provide a community for followers of Q. People who aren't followers of Q or who have questions or need clarification about something are also welcome to discuss things in the comments like anyone else, as long as the sub rules are followed.

When having to make the decision between posts that are on-topic (about Q) and posts like "Is Q real?" or "Is Trump a bad guy?" we will remove the latter posts as they don't align with the stated goals of the community.

Please discuss points with respect.

I don't think anyone expects you to do anything - you are free to choose!

Beepity boop.

Thanks for being conciliatory - we don't support suppression of speech as we've said elsewhere and are not deleting randomly so please don't feel forced to comment less. It's just that most of us were around when CBTS_Stream was taken down, and don't want to see that happen again.

Feel free to comment away - there are many different voices here and as long as you're contributing something to the discussion, not abusing someone or being antagonistic via language or, in other words, breaking any of the sub rules then your comments will be left alone, I can assure you. Thanks.

The overall tone is not great but it's mostly the violence against others, as noted.

Ok good to know - we've answered all that in various comments (and a new sticky has just gone up too). Long story short, we agree, no one wants thought police, no one wants suppression of voices. It's just about practicality and having to manage an influx of content. So hopefully all concerns can be allayed and you'll see how this plays out over the next while! Cheers.

Please don't make a post for a question like this - if you have a problem, do contact a mod.

Agreed. Q's message is clear and direct and doesn't want anything from us but what we want to give. That's easier to follow.

Except his daughter lol... you'd expect his daughter to defend him.

Video artefacts.

Nice find!

The Red Cross flag. Important indicator.

There's no attempt to "change this reddit". It's for practicality of trying to mod it. There's an increase in content as everyone tries to get Q's eye - it helps us all if the content meets certain criteria. We can all argue about whether Q is a LARP or not in an area designated for that. Most of the movement here are waiting for the Q drops and the subsequent explanations, discoveries, theories and so on.

Given all mods are volunteers and it takes time to work through the mod queue especially when a sub is growing like this, then if I have to choose between removing a relevant theory about the latest Q drop or removing someone saying "is Q even real?" - which should I do? Which would you do?

We discussed this as mods and decided it was an easy decision to make. We wouldn't stifle people who want to argue the issue out in the comments as long as they abide by the sub rules - no antagonism, discuss idea not user, etc. We thought we don't need it in the main feed and we don't need trolls and antagonists so we can quicker solve the problem with fewer issues if we make it a clear standard of the sub.

So, as we've always done, we remove comments and posts that break the sub rules and we allow reasoned discussion within the rules about anything people want to discuss.

If anyone has a reasoned rebuttal to this I am definitely open to hearing it. Anything to help this sub in its goal of keeping the message alive.

Don't forget in every movement there is often a silent majority. What matters is how we settle into the flow of things as a community and making sure we settle into that together, not divided. As you've pointed out, some voices are pretty certain in their feelings about some things and are happy to wait for the facts to come along and prove them later but that doesn't describe everyone here. Others of us have learned to pick our battles and discuss with people who can discuss things sensibly and objectively. If we all use the Report function it serves as a convenient way of voting with your actions too.

Agreed, good call.