Replies

Don't be so sure you know what "Q wants."

I'm not, It was speculation, for the sake of discussion.

And did you really defend the media blackout of Q as a source by referencing their "all in" on deep throat as a source?

Yes, let me try again to explain my position on this:

If Q wanted to be like Deep Throat he could go to any of several dozen reporters (maybe even Woodward, who is still reporting at the Post) and say "I am Mr. Q and I work at Agency Y, and I would like to tell you things.

Then, after Woodward or whoever checked out Mr. Q (and tried fo find a second source for the most spectacular claims) you would have stories being published by Named Reporters. This happens every day in Washington, and it is simply NOT THE SAME as reporting on what a completely anonymous person on 4chan says.

Come on now, Bagster, Think logically.

what a completely anonymous person on 4chan says.

In the spirit of accuracy in media, let's agree that Q doesn't post on 4chan, but 8chan.

I just think it's recockulous that you are defending journalistic ethics. It's just a simple fact that deep throat was used as an "anonymous" source and all of the journalistic world used him as a source, based on Woodward and Bernsteins alleged contact with him.

If we want to draw comparisons, for example, a reporter could interview me and I could report to him what Q has told me. Then I become the source, you see? Journalism!!!

There are many ways to report "news".

It's a mistake to compare the journalistic ethics of a left wing/deep state media that used "Deep Throat" as a source but fails to even ATTEMPT to investigate and report on Qanon as a source. Surely, you can see that.

In other words, ethics shmethics.

I'm not, It was speculation, for the sake of discussion.

A better writer would make it clear whether he is speculating or making an assertion.

And, for the record. This is not what speculation looks like.

Q doesn't want reporters writing stories about him, he want's anons decoding his messages, he wants them to spread to secondary web sites, like Free Republic and Twitter and Gag and You Tube.

I think that if you followed Q (and if you did, you would know about the 4chan/8chan thingy) you would have a better grasp on "what Q wants." That's all I'm saying, Jack.

Maybe the concept of "journalist" didn't even exist exactly at that time. The Missouri School of Journalism was the first J school in the world, and opened it's doors in 1908.

I wasn't aware that there was no such thing as "journalism" until a "Journalist" school was started. However did people spread the news before that happened?

Just like a philosopher doesn't need to have a degree in philosophy to be one (for example, I'm a philosopher), a "journalist" doesn't need to go to so called "journalist" school to be a "journalist" He just needs to function as one.. You need to stop letting the enemy define the terms of engagement, goodman. And being their mouthpiece.

This is easy stuff, Jack.

Think logically.

(wall of text just for No Doll. In my defense, you have to when arguing with Jack Black.)

Plus, I think after all the effort and work Jack puts in busting our balls, he deserves a good argument once in a while. Dontcha think? Fair is fair. And I'm a kindly man.

Bagster

@Jack Black:

No, *you* think logically, Swamp-boi.

Q has been chased off 4-chan before now; in the early days, _something_ about Q's authentication got compromised, and someone from the other side made fun of one of his code strings, alleging it was a technical term related to model railroad track gauges (or something similar, I don't feel like looking it up at the moment).

Q's *FIRST* response was "Did they get to you, CodeMonkey?" followed shortly by a curt, terse communication: "Board compromised."

Q's next announcement a bit later was that he was the only and legitimate Q, and would forthwith CEASE communicating on that board -- which would prove things were still secure (i.e., a bad guy, could at that point, easily falsify Q entirely by posting) -- but that *didn't* happen.

Q also mentioned Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs -- the Seven Dwarfs apparently being CIA-owned/run supercomputers used to try to break Q's electronic security (presumably they were specialized computers used in cryptography).

And there were later messages about "rig for silent running" and "if we go silent do not panic. Realize that we are in control etc."

So Q is *very* concerned with keeping his / her / their identity(ies) remain hidden for now. Whether for fear of [187], blackmail, kidnapping, calumny, I don't know. But you're acting like Q is solely concerned with proving legitimacy to swamp-dwellers; and, at that, doing so according to desiderata which *you* have defined. Ones which (quelle surprise!) would render Q ineffective at his strategy, and make him/her/them far more easily neutralized.

Learn Q's comms.