No, I'm not a "shill", as ransomnote has derrided me in her post, whatever that slur means.
I'ms still exactly who I say I am: a long time Freeper seeking the truth, and I'm willing to look at the evidence, and try to fairly evaluate it.
I am not a religious devotee of Q, that doesn't seem like a healthy attitude to me.
If this was a religious thread, I wouldn't present counter-evidence, because those are "Devotional Threads", they post at the top that they are for believers in that religion only (like Mormons on the Mormon thread).
Maybe you should petition Jim Rob to make your threads "Devotional" too, then you can ban people asking hard questions, or presenting divergent evidence, just like the hosts of the Mormon Devotional Caucus, Catholic Devotional Caucus, etc. can and do. Of course, you'd be admitting you are turning Q into a religion in doing that.
I don't think Q is a religion, it's just a very large psy-ops operation, so really the interesting thing is who's operation is it, and what is their motivation.
I think we've learned a whole lot about the origin of Q in the last few days, at least if you believe Microchip. There is a lot of evidence there, to be evaluated.
That might upset you, but it's still out there. I'm sure there are other people reading this thread who will enjoy getting the raw information and making their own decisions. (I do get some praise from others on the thread, as well as a number of PM's from people who don't want to post anything real on this thread because they see how rudley people not towing the entire Q-line are treated.)
Yesterday ransomnote asked me "please don't reply to my posts" but today you are calling me out (not by name, but by post number?)
Kind of a one way street. I am not to address you, while you are free to name-call me?
Is that how you really want to roll?
How about engaging with the evidence, for a change, instead of more ad hominem attacks and name-calling?
How about engaging with the evidence, for a change, instead of more ad hominem attacks and name-calling? Here's why, Jack. Because we are here to research and discuss the Qanon messages, not debate whether Q is real or not.
In most of our minds (mine for sure) Q is authentic. So here we sit, monitoring and researching his messages, learning about the derp state and watching events progress, knowing before the non-Q followers what is at least planned by the President and his team.
We are tasked with learning and spreading the truth. We don't have time to engage with the Microfaggots and Jack Blacks of the world over whether Q is a legitimate source of information. That's settled science.
You don't know what a "shill" is? Like you didn't know what 8chan was the other day?
Your feigned ignorance is obnoxious, goodman. Stop it.
You are not a victim. Every thing that gets said to you is well-deserved. You don't believe in Q. You never believed in Q. Everything you post is seeded with a negative spin intended to undermine our mission here. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it.
Also, do you realize how insulting it is for you to accuse us of being a "religion" or a "cult"? I think you do, and that's why you, and the other trolls do it.
Many people here are actually religious. For you to put Q in the same category as their religion belittles their religion. It's your (and the other trolls) way of calling us ignorant sheep following a cult of personality because we can't think for ourselves.
It sets you up as the wise, independent thinker who is here to guide us away from our foolish path.
Stop with the "religious/cult" mockery, goodman. It's not a good look for somebody that claims to be here "seeking the truth".
Anyway. That's my Jack Black comeback of the day.
Jack Black - #TeamMicroChip
Bagster
rnote: Actually, I wrote that post because I really wanted to know to which shill she was referring in her post.
Jack: No, I’m not a “shill”, as ransomnote has derrided me in her post, whatever that slur means. I’m still exactly who I say I am: a long time Freeper seeking the truth, and I’m willing to look at the evidence, and try to fairly evaluate it.
rnote: You are a “shill” because you spend alot of time (words) concealing what you are really doing here. If you were honest about your intentions when posting on our threads, you’d be a “troll.” You’ve never been who you say you are, and fairness is not on your agenda.
Jack: I am not a religious devotee of Q, that doesn’t seem like a healthy attitude to me.If this was a religious thread, I wouldn’t present counter-evidence, because those are “Devotional Threads”, they post at the top that they are for believers in that religion only (like Mormons on the Mormon thread). Maybe you should petition Jim Rob to make your threads “Devotional” too, then you can ban people asking hard questions, or presenting divergent evidence, just like the hosts of the Mormon Devotional Caucus, Catholic Devotional Caucus, etc. can and do. Of course, you’d be admitting you are turning Q into a religion in doing that. I don’t think Q is a religion, it’s just a very large psy-ops operation, so really the interesting thing is who’s operation is it, and what is their motivation.
rnote: Let’s see... you impugne our faith in God by suggesting we worship Q (false idols), while revealing the concept of true religion is, in your view, as undeserving in respect (baseless) as researching Q drops (again, in your view). Hence, the your world view is driving your comparison.
Were we to do as you want and embrace anti-Q sentiment as equally valid, we would lose our Q research threads (which is what you want). You have the rest of the forum to attack Q and those who research Q content - our Q threads are the only place we’ve been able to research Q in (relative) peace.
Jack: I think we’ve learned a whole lot about the origin of Q in the last few days, at least if you believe Microchip. There is a lot of evidence there, to be evaluated.
rnote: I think you use the word “we” condescendingly. Microchip is your personal agenda. This is a Q research thread. If your personal agenda has “a lot of evidence to be evaluated,” start building Microchip threads and evaluate it, and stop trying to hijack our Q threads (and our ping list) which took us 10+ months to build.
Jack: That might upset you, but it’s still out there.
rnote: What upsets me is that you hang on to our threads like a parasite, pretending to “play nice” while digging your hooks in, attempting thread take downs (e.g., pinging the board owner with a laundry list of complaints asserting our threads are systemically toxic), and now posting thread length fake “debunks” - all while (metaphorically) batting your eyelashes, insisting you are “just asking questions”, and playing victim when confronted.
Jack: I’m sure there are other people reading this thread who will enjoy getting the raw information and making their own decisions.
Rnote: Hurry! Start your Microchip threads right away! Don’t keep your public waiting! We’ll be here, continuing Q research and making our own decisions.
Jack: (I do get some praise from others on the thread, as well as a number of PM’s from people who don’t want to post anything real on this thread because they see how rudley people not towing the entire Q-line are treated.)
rnote: Red-pilling people about Q is much more important to us that the popularity games you play. On any given week, I receive both complaints and praise -it’s not possible to satisfy the naturally diverse opinions among hundreds of intelligent people.
Also, some are very busy and/or have been focusing on content instead of thread participants (e.g., the games you play), so they may not realize that trolls/shills are demanding we embrace anti-Q sentiment out of “fairness” as a means of destroying our Q research threads.
Lastly, there’s a reason you’ve invested some time in ingratiating yourself by posting legitimate content in brief spurts - it’s probably paying off now in a few little supportive pm’s you claim to receive. Score!
Jack: Yesterday ransomnote asked me “please don’t reply to my posts” but today you are calling me out (not by name, but by post number?). Kind of a one way street. I am not to address you, while you are free to name-call me?
rnote: I’ve always found it galling that you would actively undermine our threads and try to discourage our participants and then post to me chummy little comments like we’re collegial in our interests. I’ve not asked before because my own disposition is tranquil, and I avoid distressing others on the thread when possible. But your most recent thread take-down attempt, veiled as “input” and pinged to the board owner, wore down my patience.
Jack’s recent attempt to put an end to our Q threads wherein he uses issues with a graphic as (thin) cover for his insinuations about our group, our content, and our threads (i.e., claims we’re jepordizing the reputation of FR):
http://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3684149/posts?page=550#550
rnote: When I asked you to stop posting to me, I was asking you to stop your pretense of civility toward me - it’s a waste of my time. Note I never post to you because I am not interested in such pretenses, so my request isn’t one-sided. That doesn’t mean I must silently observe your further efforts to take down or erode our threads (e.g., your book report).
I am continually shocked by the delicate sensibilities of shills (e.g., your complaint that I “derided you) and trolls (e.g., complaints about how We treat our members, in between time they spend abusing our members). You’ve previously sneered that our threads are just 20 people doing unimportant research and expressed “concern” that our threads are heading into repulsive antisemitism, as if we deserve such insults(!), and now you’re complaining that I “derided” you and issued a “slur” you claim you don’t understand (i.e., shill). Really, Jack?
You are squatting on a Q research thread, trying to build your “anti” thread inside ours because we’ve already done the work to build it and our ping list (something you won’t/can’t do for yourself). Don’t like the ambiance here when you disrupt our threads? Build your own thread. Stop crying, you’re no victim.
Jack: Is that how you really want to roll?
rnote: Yes.