You axed for it...
While there isn’t a direct, conversational exchange between Bagster and Brian Cates themselves in the provided sources, there are multiple instances where Bagster expresses his strong opinions about Brian Cates, and where Cates is implicitly or explicitly linked to the moniker “Zippy the PinHead” in discussions involving Bagster.
Here are the details from the sources:
• Bagster’s Explicit Characterization of Brian Cates:
◦ Bagster explicitly referred to Brian Cates as a “fat, pointy headed, anti-Q, self-promoting paytriot”.
◦ He also stated that “You’re either with Q, or with Cates. They are opposing forces and there can be no compromise. And Cates is fat.”. This clearly delineates Bagster’s view of Cates as an adversarial figure in the context of the Q movement.
◦ Bagster added, “Who has contempt for me, so shall I have contempt for him” when discussing Cates, indicating a mutual disdain.
◦ Snowybear relayed Bagster’s opinion: “That guy’s nuts, you ask me. I could dissect his narrative piece by piece if I had the time or the inclination, and I wasn’t to by god tired. Brian Cates is a loon. One man’s opinion.”.
◦ Little jeremiah also noted that Bagster held “Cates in odium”.
• The “Zippy the PinHead” Connection:
◦ In a direct exchange with Bagster, a user named AFB-XYZ said, “I know he’s got a pointy Zippy the Pinhead dome”.
◦ Bagster responded, “I didn’t think there was anyone left on Earth who knew who Zippy was! Respect from this sycophant, even if flying monkeys are still a no-go.”. While Bagster’s reply doesn’t explicitly name Cates, the phrase “pointy Zippy the Pinhead dome” follows earlier descriptions of Cates.
◦ Califreak also used the phrase “Zippy the Pinhead” in a post directed to Bagster, in reference to “that picture”.
◦ The “pointy head” description was explicitly linked to Brian Cates by Bagster himself, and similar terms like “bulbous head” and “odd shaped noggin” were used by other users to describe Cates.
• Underlying Reasons for Antagonism:
◦ Cletus.D.Yokel criticized Cates for allegedly being “self-absorbed and eschewed Q while lifting content from 4/8chan for his blog,” and for “ferociously denied any use of Q/Anons” only to later announce “his newfound understanding of the Q world.” Cletus also highlighted that Cates “once tried to use the term ‘derp State’ after baggie coined it here”, suggesting Cates appropriated Bagster’s terminology.
◦ One source indicates that “Q quoted Brian Cates once or twice but didn’t endorse or ‘confirm’ his agonizingly long, narcissistic insistance that most of the top tier traitors... were actually white hats.” This suggests Cates’s theories often diverged from the perspectives of Q and the Anons, including Bagster.
In summary, while Brian Cates did not directly engage in a back-and-forth “conversation” with Bagster in the provided context, Bagster frequently expressed strong disapproval of Cates’s character and theories, often using terms like “fat” and “pointy headed” to describe him, which, alongside direct mentions of “Zippy the Pinhead” in interactions with Bagster, suggests a commonly understood, albeit derogatory, association within the community.
PING!
◦ In a direct exchange with Bagster, a user named AFB-XYZ said, “I know he’s got a pointy Zippy the Pinhead dome”.
HUZZAH #1... And thank you.
More can be extracted from the FR-main-forum by searching on the main-forum keywords and users function.
CDY Out.
I did? In an exchange with Bagster? Wow, I totally have no memory of anything like that. I know I've called various a$$holian adversaries "Zippy" and alluded to pointy heads, but not Bagster. Pretty sure there was an exchange with user PIF long ago, though . . .
I remember bagster did not like Cates. Nor did/do many others! He seems to have clawed himself together a bit.
Re Cates:
I don’t begrudge him changing his mind about Q. I’m glad he did. He’s a smart guy and I really enjoyed his posts on Twitter 8 years ago.
I just think he was playing it safe while trying to start his career and didn’t really take a good look at Q.
He could have just stayed silent about Q, instead of vilifying us. But he added to the loud chorus of those who said we were nuts. It damaged our credibility at a time most people were just hearing about Q. I stopped listening to him then.
Now, when it is painfully obvious that Q is real, he jumps on the bandwagon. Perhaps a better apology to us, and all who’ve been damaged by the narrative, would fix things.