Q Drops #674 through #679 from February 7, 2018

QCodefag.github.io ^ | February 7, 2018 | Q and Anonymous

[JockoManning]

Can you perhaps imagine why Q-Anon might have used that bit of hyperbole?

imho, he was saying in an 'in your face' sort of way--hey, folks, POTUS is the good guy--help us out here.

[LS]

I just don’t waste time with Q.

[magglepuss]

Look, I don’t post much on these q threads, but I read them all. Specifically, I seek them out. I find these threads fascinating. These threads are put up to try to unlock what Q is saying. You come on here and want to have a totally different conversation. If you want to do the whole, I doubt Q is real, then start your own thread! It is like trying to watch a movie with someone who wants to talk through the whole thing. Respectfully, I really do enjoy these threads, and you are taking some of that joy away with your constant interruptions.

[Fantasywriter]

I would never trust anyone enough to give them a pass for calling a mere mortal—a sinner like every one of the rest of us with the exception of Jesus—”our savior”. I just couldn’t/can’t do it. There is only one savior in my life, and his name isn’t Trump.

[Fantasywriter]

The Q threads should be reclassified as Caucus. That is obvious.

[magglepuss]

NO, then I would never have found them. There is just something really off about your constant interruptions. Either you have some of the worst social skills I have seen, or something else is going on. Please, stop coming to the q discussion threads, and start your own “is q real” thread.

[JockoManning]

Then to be consistent—though I share your aversion to that example—you would have to 100% forever avoid hyperbole in all your communications. Do you reach that level of perfection?

[JockoManning]

YOU
REALLY
DO
have the
CAPACITY
to
treat
the
Q-Anon
threads
AS THOUGH
they
were/are
CAUCUS THREADS
every time
you see them
and feel
such a fierce
compulsion
to throw
contrarian
rocks
at
them
...
You
COULD
consider
your
SCROLL
&
PAGE DOWN
buttons
as
YOUR
CAUCUS
BUTTONS
!

[Fantasywriter]

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7ls1ku/i_think_qanon_could_be_alex_jones/

[Fantasywriter]

I’ve explained my motives several times. They’re nothing like the motives that are ascribed to me.

[JockoManning]

Perhaps you could help us Jr Christians understand

how

your treatment of the Q-Anon affirmers and the Q-Anon threads fulfills Christ's orders to

DO UNTO OTHERS
as
YOU'D
have
THEM
DO
unto
YOU
???

[Fantasywriter]

Or perhaps you could start your own site with its own rules. There you could tell people which threads they could and couldn’t post on, and they would have to obey.

[JockoManning]

Somehow, I have a hard time conceptualizing what your motives are out of all your posts. Evidently, I missed them every time. No doubt my error. But I don't recall discerning or noticing your motives in those sentences.

Maybe your aversions, hostilities toward the Q-Anon posters overmuch overshadowed your motives?

Or maybe what you were asserting as your motives did not come across as really congruent evidence of true motives?

[Fantasywriter]

To be consistent, all I need to do is fundamentally question *anyone* who refers to a sinful human as our savior.

[Fantasywriter]

I abstain from name-calling, slurs, smears, ad hominem, lies and abscribing the worst possible motives to others. I’d be very happy if those who call themselves Christians would do the same in return

[Fantasywriter]

‘Maybe your aversions, hostilities toward the Q-Anon posters overmuch overshadowed your motives?’

I don’t have aversions or hostilities toward Q-believers. I do, however, get accused of many things for which no evidence is offered. [I.e.: if I were name-calling or insulting Q-believers, those quotes could be cut and pasted and used as evidence. But I don’t name-call or insult. I attempt to have rational, factual discussions.]

[JockoManning]

I noted one case where you were a bit insulting to 'Q believers.'

I realize that like beauty, insult can be int he eye (& psychology) of the beholder. Nevertheless ...

And the DO UNTO OTHERS bit?

[JockoManning]

I don’t have aversions or hostilities toward Q-believers.

I can appreciate that that is your intention and your perspective.

I suspect a poll of such Q-believers would indicate that you come across otherwise.

A very Christian value is to examine ourselves according to our impact vs our intentions.

[Fantasywriter]

My perception is that Q-believers take offense and attack at the least suggestion of disbelief. I’m stymied by the double standard here. If you look at the things that have been said to and about me, many are just awful. Yet only once that I’m aware of was anyone called on it. With me, if I convey my honest perception that Q-believers take offense very easily, it’s called out as an insult?

Whatever the standard, it should apply to both sides. That would genuinely be for the benefit of all.

I saw this on a reddit Q discussion. It claims to be a list of Q questions with some of them answered. Might be interesting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7b9e7d/all_of_qanons_questions_single_pdf_with_a_lot_of/

[magglepuss]

But I don’t name-call or insult. I attempt to have rational, factual discussions.]

---

You just insulted me! I sincerely asked you to stop with the off topic posts because they were really annoying to those of us who love to try to dissect q posts. I even offered a solution that you could start a thread of your own about q and if he/she is real. You basically said that you don’t care how annoying you are to the rest of us. You responded that I should start my own website where I can make the rules and make others obey. I don’t think it is too much to ask that you stop going off topic on all these threads. Have you ever thought that that is why some posters are not very kind to you?