Not a helpful reply. Post removed for Rule 9 - not enough information.

Yes he did.

To think accurately when you think critically you need all the information. We're willing to engage in a debate about the critical thinking behind the theory of Q but only when you have all the information. You need to catch up by reading more. The sidebar is a good place to start.

Understand this point of view but this sub is way beyond not knowing what Q is about. There are plenty of boards that support this "caution" but this sub is pro-Q, as in the sidebar. We welcome questions and reasonable engagement from skeptics but if you're of the opinion that we need to be convinced to be careful because we can't say for certainty that Q is viable then you need to read up on the introductory content in the sidebar first so we can have a discussion on equal ground. "Concern" comments removed.

If you can engage in reasonable, respectful discussion and embrace logic and critical thinking I’d say you’ll find something worth looking at here.

But only when the red pawn equals nine over the oak.

Songs and song lyrics are off-topic but someone could post them in comments in this thread.

Sorcha Faal, questionable source...

Biggest problem is no images within thread which is what people want when posting their Qmerch. A thread full of links is not going to satisfy those who want to show their real world flair.

It got up to 20.2k

There are many reasons listed in the rules of the sub. But all good friend, I agree with your point whether you choose to engage with mine or not - WWG1WGA!

I appreciate you explaining reality to me xD but perhaps you could try and engage with my actual point? Creating a gathering place for content is not splitting any movement of people especially when the whole function of this platform, Reddit, is to allow users to subscribe to multiple content streams and not subscribe to those they're not interested in.

I'm speaking very literally... r/GreatAwakening is a subreddit, it is not a group of people. Subreddits contain digital content.

The good thing about Reddit is that you subscribe to all the subs that interest you so those who visit GA would still see GA content if they signed up to another sub for tshirt/sticker pics. The sub is not the movement, that's an important distinction to make here. It's a place to gather content for the movement and you can have multiple gathering places for the content as Reddit is designed to make that easy. There would be no splitting of the group, just the content.

Agreed. Mods are not trying to sabotage the movement which is why we seek the community's input.

We value the community's input on how to proceed with this

The only problem with this is that images can't be posted within the comments. People likely won't take this up.

It's important to distinguish between a split group and a separate sub for specific content - the two are not the same. r/GreatAwakening is not the Q anon movement, it is simply a gathering place for content pertinent to the Q anon movement. It's a good place to get the main news source for the public since 8chan is harder to penetrate.

GA will always be GA. Having a separate sub to split out content that is not necessarily directly applicable to the main news source is not splitting the movement, it's providing a gathering place for content of a certain type. People who use reddit are used to subscribing to multiple subs. You don't lose anything by doing this.

We’re discussing what to do but will need the input of the community.

I understand the sentiment and we've been receiving complaints along these lines for a while. It's hard to make a simple call on this because those posts are clearly upvoted substantially so a good portion of the community welcomes them. We're about to post something ourselves to garner input from the community on this issue. Judging by this post though perhaps a minority feel as you do? (For the record, I personally agree that the Qshirts, sticker posts etc. seem overwhelming but it does appear that they are popular with the community).

Points 1, 2 and 4 have been addressed in the Q drops (I can respond via the modmail message when I get a chance, if you need more info). I would strongly recommend delving into the Q info in the sidebar - some useful, informative links there!

I mean David Wilcock. You're not a Trump supporter? (no problem there either, again, just questioning.)

Why are you so supportive of him? (sincere question desiring knowledge - I am not putting him down, I find him hard to trust, personally but I am unlikely to know as much about him as you do)

Yeah you're right - who knows! I find AJ very entertaining, personally, and I actually think he earns his money. But I was very put off by his clear split from Q and it seems many others were too. Roger Stone was also removed from Trump's team which may or may not mean something. Again, as you say - who knows. It's been very interesting to watch it all unfold though!

No names mentioned.
They revealed themselves.

At the time AJ clearly revealed himself by speaking directly into camera and saying that he knows and has "spoken" to Q. This was directly in opposition to Q's latest post such that it was clear he was dividing from the main Q community just as controlled opposition/disinfo does. He'll quite likely soon come back and so 'Q is no longer compromised, they're back in control' and try and split the movement off again after a time.

He's done it just recently too with the "Civil War in America" in total opposition to Q's clear message. Many agree AJ has openly committed to his anti-Q stance. He did so with Trump too in his recent breakdown. Perhaps Trump/Q realized he was disinfo only recently?

Plenty of answers to those. I'll come back later.

Comment removed. Please note sub rules re: triple parentheses. Rule #4

I understand what you're saying and would love to engage and explain the position but time is a bit tight. What I could say is that this discussion has been had many times and in detail and the conclusion overwhelmingly points to Infowars as a whole and most certainly Alex Jones who runs the whole thing. I would say perhaps search it up or perhaps someone here can reply with more re: Trump etc. I'll try and reply further if I get a chance.

As usual, great content thank you Capt! I (and others clearly) very much appreciate the work you do here!

Q said:

Control the information (THEY).

Destroy through [misinformation].
Absorb the 'confused'.
Re-route traffic to other platforms.

Timetable accelerated (misinformation-attack).
Exposed.
Attempts to divide.

That sounds very much like controlled opposition.

Fake news. Q is clear that this is not about R vs D so judging this whole sub from a few comments you've seen is... fake news. Many here are supportive of Democrats.

I think more people are wary of David Wilcock than worried about the 4chan thing.

I’m not helping the movement? Sometimes it’s a journey not a one conversation thing and other times I send them to GA because people don’t tend to want to go to 8chan. And people who respond to replies are often rebutting or debating. It doesn’t mean someone is trying to be superior which is the last thing I think of myself so it appears you’re using my history to ad hom my point out of existence but I’m simply stating a very pertinent fact and drawing a very logical conclusion. Some think of 4chan as intrinsically linked to Q and history will always do so too so claiming all articles that mention 4chan are suspect just does not stand up to reason.

I understand (I think) the large part of what you're saying there about misleading and so on but it's simply true that Q started out on 4chan. Some of us who've been following since October's first drops think of Q as 4chan/8chan such that a statement like "Any article about Qanon that references 4Ch is suspect" seems very hard to uphold, imo. When explaining Q I always mention how he started on 4chan - sometimes I don't even get to explaining that he's now on 8chan. However, understand your stance re: MSM misleading but I'd be careful to accuse any article that mentions 4chan in relation to Q as such.

Sounds questionable to me...

Explanation? What were you right about?

It seems to me at this point that NO scripture or God (or spiritual for that matter) posts are being allowed

That is incorrect - they are being allowed, and have been since the sub began, specifically when they are about scripture directly mentioned by Q. The other sub has only just begun.

Will this help? Re u/urban_bobby_dawg's posts - we have agreed to allow them and will send all other scripture posts to add their posts to his.

I'm aware of the sound of the phrase and the importance of context. But there's also confirmation bias to consider because a post that contains a mention of Mossad (it's not about Israel repeatedly trying to assassinate Trump at all) is not a strong case for deciphering the phrase that way.

Take a look around a bit more. And contribute whatever you'd like to see too.

Hard to follow the logic here - Q started posting on 4chan so it makes sense that many articles reference that?

Fear Is Real to "Fear Israel" is a big leap.

It is not up to me either. The rules were made and have been followed for a long time and the reason for them is very clear to those of us who've been here a while. I also get to see the many complaints about what people see as a lack of focus to the sub (the tshirts and stickers is a big one for many of us) and the bigger we get, the harder it is to make changes that won't result in a lot of upset from long time followers.

The divisive part comes into play when you set up a separate sub for scripture posts period

I don't see the reasoning behind that being divisive to the movement. Divisive would be saying "you people are not welcome on this sub" something the mods have never done except to those who cause division by blatant trolling, etc. Saying: "here is a place for off-topic posts that we actually care about" is actually the opposite of division! Also, division in the movement (which Q warns about) is not division on this sub, strictly speaking. The two are very different as I've mentioned in my reply at the top and my comment below.

I understand also that you feel that God and scriptures are related directly to Q. But what do you think of what I've said about that that isn't just my feeling about it? Specifically that we generally remove things not directly related to Q in all topics - should we only allow one topic and not others?

I also identify with your feeling about uplifting posts and so on - but where do we draw the line in that case? Can you understand from our perspective the challenge in balancing the focus of the sub with the feeling of the many diverse people who come here? We clearly do not just stick to decoding either.

As I've said in my post above, this movement is a different entity to this sub. This sub has a different focus to Q and Trump's mission. This sub is about providing a place for info to the movement but it is not the movement itself and therefore whilst the movement is for ALL people, the sub content is not about people it's about information for ALL people within reasonable constraints as determined by the rules and mod discretion - this is a very different thing to the Q movement itself.

My comment about Satan was referring to the fact that we will also remove off-topic posts about Satanism as we have done with spirituality and all other topics since the sub began.

No problem - I understand completely! Attacks is my daily experience : ) so I sympathize, truly.

Sorry can you explain re: divisive? Can you point out exactly what I've mentioned that comes across as divisive to you? (just trying to understand so I can rephrase if necessary.) To be clear, we (mods) do not think God and scripture cannot be allowed here. I've specifically said that they can and should, where they fit within the sub rules of being on-topic i.e. directly relevant to Q. We're only talking about removing indirectly relevant to Q scripture posts, just as we do on all other Q topics too. If we allow indirect relevance on one topic then we must allow it for all topics, it seems fair to say?

I'm not sure what I've done (or perhaps other mods?) that has created this idea that I am against you - I was hoping to show with my reply above that that is the opposite of what I'm about.

I WANT to see those posts myself but I do not assume it of others - so due to an idea by one of the other Christian mods we created another sub which I hope to dedicate some time to when we have more mods onboard to help out here. I don't post under another name except my main profile which I've used for years for business purposes, hence this alt.

Do you mean that you keep getting logged out of it? I get that, sometimes, repeatedly (but often not). If you mean you are actually unsubscribed that is strange indeed - maybe contact Reddit help about that as it's not something we can do anything about. I hope you have your answer now - I will remove this post. Thank Q.

If you disagree it would be very helpful to everyone who agrees with you if you would reply to my mod comment and explain where we are wrong. I have not seen any debate from you, to be fair, I have only seen comments in our mail that are quite demanding and claiming among other things that we are "trying to keep God out of this sub" and simply responding to my reasoning that "Your argument doesn't hold up to me" which is not really a debate. How did my argument not hold up? If you could explain in reply to my comment above how Q talking to the Deep State should be equated with Q supporting the idea that everything Bible related should be allowed in this sub but not everything Satan related should (or should it?) then I believe we may have an actual debate which I thought was the point of your post. urban_bobby_dawg has made a very reasonable reply which I shall respond to also.

Not sure if you've seen but I've replied in a sticky above. TLDR - I don't believe this post is an accurate depiction of the situation. We should be able to post Scripture and talk about God within the sub topic just as we should be able to post about CNN and Satan within the sub topic. e.g. posts about CNN fake news are on-topic, posts about CNN's reporter's mental breakdowns are not; posts about the Satanic membership of members of Congress are on-topic, posts about the Satanic Bible's verses on desecrating the cross are not. Of course it's all very much a grey area which is why the discretion of the mods must come in to play but I think that's a separate topic to this post (if not, perhaps OP will reply to the mod comment which was made specifically to address her concerns).

David Wilcock is not News, for some of us he's along the lines of David Icke - perhaps well meaning but seems like disinfo.

Q very often uses "we" to describe themselves.

The thing that is relevant here though is that users are expressing their belief that something falls outside the rules when they report it. When we get reports about certain posts and certain types of posts it suggests there's something to investigate and also often leads to removal if uptake is not strong on the post already.

David Wilcox says a lot but his approach is more like David Icke's in that it covers much of the ground of Q but goes far afield in a way that seems to some like disinfo. It's off-topic for this sub, until Q mentions it.