I think you are mistaking my request for open discussion for a sanctioning of SP person or information. It is very clear that “Q” did not call him. “No outside coms” is very clear.
And, he is a nutball. But the point remains that he, nice guy tho he is, is NOW a known disinformation source. How can we discern what is and is not disinformation,if we cannot discuss it openly?
As to my making the question why does Q pose Questions not answers in plain language. Answers are only data. Questions teach. A factoid is useless unless you first question and open your eyes, then you can take a data point and see many connections that the question exposed.
How best to wake a sleeper? With steering questions? Or a bucket of water over the head?
You misunderstand me Ransom. I realize SP makes the thread look bad if we embrace him because of his baggage, but I do not propose embracing him but simply discussing what he says while keeping in focus that he is a nutball.
I think censorship makes the thread look bad too.
I like SP, but his sources are bad, therefore his information is very suspect.
I dispise Byedung, but I discuss his statements too. And, frankly he also is a nutball also.
I think we can insulate Free Republic from ridicule from the non trolls by simply pointing out that alien girlfriends obviously put SP in functional mental patient territory. It certainly does not lend credence to his ability to figure out what is going on.
It also points out that embracing a story from a known compromised source is foolish and dangerous no matter how much we want it to be true.
Banning discussion to make sure we look good is straight out of the CCP playbook.
SRA is obviously not a thing that Q would look for to substantiate a source, it is something to look for to DISCREDIT a source. Mental scarring from derp manipulation of a source means they are victims, and their mental processes have been made manipulated intentionally.
They are victims, but disqualified from a security clearance as they may be unintentionally working for the derps.
Like SP.
Who I like very much. But if he was my uncle I would not leave my kids with him.
I too think open discussion is important.
One of the most delicious ways to cripple Truth, to the Derps minds, is to have it released by an obviously crazy, or foolish person, to taint said Truth
by association.
Some seriously good clues can be sifted out, when they are not careful.
~Easy
Jim Rob has not made a distinction. Have you addressed your concern to him? Perhaps he can clarify for you.
And, he is a nutball. But the point remains that he, nice guy tho he is, is NOW a known disinformation source. How can we discern what is and is not disinformation,if we cannot discuss it openly?
Very shortly, possibly even as I am typing this, the MSM/Sociall Media/Congress is going to feature people like him prominently, and him in particular by name, when reporting to the public that "QAnon" represents delusional beliefs. Parks is custom made for a psyop to portray Q information and those who follow it as people with fantasies incapable of discerning reality.
Parks.Is.A.Psyop. He only seems like a "nice guy." Nice guys don't support destructive propaganda campaigns.
Think I"m wrong? Doesn't matter. They will use him exactly the same way anyway. Can you hear it now, "...who claims to have fathered an alien love child, is now leading fact-free QAnon researches into deeper and deeper distorted reality...." I do think he's too "good" for them to pass up featuring his photo, his name, and "choice excerpts" of his prior claims of sex adventures with aliens.
I encourage any and all who support Q and the Great Awakening rush to your nearest social media or Internet platform and disavow Simon Parks NOW. It doesn't matter whether you think he's innocently insane or believe as I do, that he is a deep state psyop - the impact he will have will be the same.
As to my making the question why does Q pose Questions not answers in plain language. Answers are only data. Questions teach. A factoid is useless unless you first question and open your eyes, then you can take a data point and see many connections that the question exposed.
As in our previous exchange, I had hoped to avoid this information as it is irrelevant to the one under discussion. Now that you have offered your musings on that subject, let's not raise it again, agreed?
How best to wake a sleeper? With steering questions? Or a bucket of water over the head?
Chiding, taunting and luring people into listening to anything Simon Parks has to say is as helpful as swinging a full bucket of water into the skull (it hurts the movement).
You misunderstand me Ransom. I realize SP makes the thread look bad if we embrace him because of his baggage, but I do not propose embracing him but simply discussing what he says while keeping in focus that he is a nutball.
Again, I marvel at people who believe the only way you can disagree with them is if you don't understand them.
I think censorship makes the thread look bad too.
I think shilling makes the thread look bad.
*leans forward to rest chin on folded hand*
Tell me. Will you or will you not ask Jim Rob about your concerns regarding what you perceive is censorship?
Your answer lies with him - and it's almost as if you don't want to talk to him about this important matter. True "censorhip" would make FR look bad. When AJ was censored, Jim Rob dropped his objection to AJ specifically to support freedom of speech.
The fact that Jim Rob tolerated a Q thread and all the headaches it brings is powerful proof that he supports speech even if he disagrees with it.
Well? Knowing his demonstrated support for freedom of speech, will you speak to Jim Rob about your concerns?
I like SP, but his sources are bad, therefore his information is very suspect.
Discuss it with Jim Rob.
I dispise Byedung, but I discuss his statements too. And, frankly he also is a nutball also.
That ridiculous conflation is unbecoming of you. The MSM is not waiting to accuse the Q movement of following Biden.
I think we can insulate Free Republic from ridicule from the non trolls by simply pointing out that alien girlfriends obviously put SP in functional mental patient territory. It certainly does not lend credence to his ability to figure out what is going on.
1. It doesn't matter what you think given Jim Rob has provided us a framework which includes wacky conspiracies like "alien love child".
2. Nothing insulates FRee REpublic from ridicule and your suggestion that pointing out he's a mental patient leaves a smoking crater where it landed.
3. Did you read this before clicking "post"? It certainly does not lend credence to his ability to figure out what is going on.
It also points out that embracing a story from a known compromised source is foolish and dangerous no matter how much we want it to be true.
I'm confused - you're now arguing against yourself . Don't let me intrude, I like where you're goin' with this.
Banning discussion to make sure we look good is straight out of the CCP playbook.
OH PLEASE! PLEASE DON'T DO THIS!!!! Don't say ignoring crazy trash psyop content makes us look like theh CCP! That just makes you look shilly!
SRA is obviously not a thing that Q would look for to substantiate a source, it is something to look for to DISCREDIT a source. Mental scarring from derp manipulation of a source means they are victims, and their mental processes have been made manipulated intentionally.
They are victims, but disqualified from a security clearance as they may be unintentionally working for the derps.
Like SP.
Interesting analysis, Professor. However, we're not discussing SRA and neither is Simon Parks. Q is not discussing SRA with Simon Parks or anyone else. A person with SRA would not be strategically useful for Q comms.
In fact, Simon Parks might object to "bizarre claims" that he is a survivor of SRA. That's just the best excuse you could come up with to cover for his use in this psyop.
You're intent on shifting him from malevolent force into "innocent victim."
He's no victim. He's lying. He's a liar. He's working to damage the Q movement and the success of President Trump's communication plan. This makes him our enemy.
Who I like very much. But if he was my uncle I would not leave my kids with him.
1. I don't care if you like him. Like/Dislike was not part of my request that we not embrace an anti-Q psyop and, based on observed evidence (e.g., our threads), has never been the basis for Jim Rob's rules for his forum.
2. The bit about the uncle- I do wish you had left that out.
If you post to me another manipulative defense of Simon Parks on thread, I will try to help you obtain the most valid decision possible re your concerns re censorship by pinging your post to Jim Rob and requesting clarification.
That may be the best way to address your concerns because I don't believe you are willing to take the issue up with the boss, but intend to return again and again to the thread "concerned" about censorship, and we don't have time to keep coming back to this.