/qresearch/ -  Q Research

>>21679579

> BO will not reply, as he stated.

Didn't you say that to someone else?

Not a little, though I have not been told that way,,,

Thanks,

It's okay.

No problem.

I think it makes sense to speak up.

I do not force those who cannot speak to speak.

But that does not mean that do not say what feel is wrong.

Or, it does not mean that do not ask questions that have doubts about.

The other issue that will come up is that the deletion of my post combined with one of someone else's will create a story.

Or they may be identified with someone who behaved radically somewhere else.

That's why I'm making this statement here.

In some cases, characters are coordinated without their knowledge and without permission.

It's like Smith in MATRIX.

Smith Coordination tactic？

Well, you might say this.

It's your fault for speaking up,

So they coordinate.

Now which is worse?

Or which is the problem?

If you have a problem with a post or a statement, why don't you just point out that there is a problem?

Another Perspective

Some of them even call them ignorant without giving them access to a lot of information.

Well, this strategy may be possible, but I don't think this is the best way.

Isn't that why communication in an anonymous environment is so important?

I think it also protects the anonymous system individual.

'Restoring Power to the People'

The first step in restoring power to the people is for them to have access to a wealth of information and the opportunity to speak freely.

And is this the best situation now?

I wonder if we can make it even better.

>>21676881

tx anon, replied to you here:

>>21678932

>>21679176

>object to censorship

need to be more specific, please.

>>21679579

BO replies to normal inquiries. Will not reply to those he has replied to MANY times once concluding that it does no good.

>>21678550

Thank you for writing.

if you were posting in Japanese on the General thread, your post might have been mistaken for one of Vatican Shill's. He often changes languages, then spams anywhere from one to 20 posts.

>>21678571

the poster i'm responding to is a longtime shill from my perspective, well known to us. would not say "will not convo" to most anons.

>>21678625

If you want to welcome Japanese to QR, no problem. Please make sure welcome is both in Japanese and English - and keep it short so it's obvious that it's not VS spam.

HOWEVER - because of the split re Japanese perspective (why there are two separate threads), if you are directing posters to your thread, this may look like you are using General to win the advantage, whether or not that is the intention.

Do not know the best way to resolve this conflict, hope both factions can somehow reconcile. Wouldn't it be better to discuss differences on one or both of the Japanese threads?

>>21680018

>Didn't you say that to someone else?

Have often said to Doge on this thread and even banned him temporarily several times. Also said to DOAR shills after they asked the kinds of questions that are unending. Have CLOSED this thread sometimes when those kind of questions were the main kind posted. May happen again, who knows?

META is supposed to be a place to talk about board matters, especially about baking, notes, and digs. Some anons like to voice objections to our taking out spam and muh joos or similar and personal attacks on anons, including admins. Or using deleted-all-posts-in-this-thread for those who mix the former with more substantive posts. One tactic is to post spam (etc) and also Q posts (or something else of value), then to show up here complaining that Q is being deleted or that Q's tripcode is blocked.

That's all BS and they know it. No apologies for these policies.

>>21680113

>Didn't you say that to someone else?

Sorry, this is my misrepresentation to be exact,

I wanted to say that I was not told that the BO would not respond to me.

>>21680048

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Understood.

I'll think about it once.

I'm basically too busy with my own research to come up with words to dialogue,

If any words/questions (even harsh words) etc. come up at all, I will speak.

This time I had the very opportunity to do so, but…,

Where I thought there might be an opportunity for dialogue, I did self-accountability because the post was erased.

Dialogue is about this movement.

Therefore, some of my questions are scathing.

No more problems.

Thank you for taking the time to see us.

And, Ty, always.

o7

>>21680022

I literally posted them, scroll up. I have hundreds. I expect a logical explanation.

>>21680427

Wow what a coincidence!

Just the thing to pique my interest!

Now the question.

Is this an assertion that you are one of those 10?

Why didn't you post it using the tripcode?

Wouldn't that be a more reliable way of confirming Q?

>>21680427

I know you have posted this a few times, have you not?

Then why don't you post another new and further proof before you post the same thing?

I would rather see that!

>>21680669

That means more like 10 seconds +/-, which is closer to the number of posts!

Let's say once 10 seconds +/- is determined by the TRIP code,

What do you do after that?

Logical question that comes at this moment > So what?

>>21680658

>>21680669

>>21680695

Oops, my bad, I got a little too inquisitive!

The subject was about censorship, wasn't it?

bye

>>21680427

Nowhere there does the Less than 10 mean you

>>21680427

Admins very seldom delete regular posts by mistake and never on purpose

Unless the poster also has OTHER stuff that's not OK - like insults about Jim W, for instance. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS - can result in all posts deleted per thread.

Thought there might be a way to pin it down and wrote a reply to that effect but then realized it wouldn't prove anything

Suspect you may be same poster as above

most anons never have a problem with their posts being deleted, unless they are really spam (etc) or it looks a LOT like a shill post (same memes etc)

If this happened a lot, we'd be deluged with complaints, which - despite efforts to encourage anons to complain about "censorship," we are not.

You can accept this or not. Have pursued other such claims and so far NOT ONE TIME found bad deletes.

The guy who complains about censorship is ONE GUY who's been doing it since Spring. If you are not that guy, suggest you look carefully at what you're posting and check board rules to see if there is a problem (see Globals or Dough Resources thread).

>>21681137

was on regular server

>>21680022

Why are you targeting individual anons?

>>21673425

>>21680048

>>>21678571

>

>the poster i'm responding to is a longtime shill from my perspective, well known to us. would not say "will not convo" to most anons.

TARGETING OF INDIVIDUAL

>>21682353

>>21682356

Your post presumes individuals are targeted. They are not. Posts that violate board policy are targeted, along with posts from those who mix ordinary posts with shill posts, using the ordinary ones as a cover. Frequent flyers are obviously recognized over time.

>>21682466

Oh, let me ask you something,

I'm trying to tell you in as roundabout a way as possible what I think is strange,

The reason for this is that I think it would be very damaging to directly tell someone, for example, who is active in a face to face manner, that something is not right.

That's why I try to tell them in a roundabout way.

Sometimes I think it is meaningless to tell others what is right or wrong in the first place.

but I do think that disagreeing and pointing out problems can prevent new problems from arising and lead to improvements.

I've been angry and hurt more than a few times when I've been abused here on QR, but that's also why I feel the importance of the opinions here.

Wasn't this place where you choose what you want to see and what you don't want to see in the first place?

I don't think it's a good idea to expose individuals so openly, but I do think that pointing out problems and opinions in an articulate way can help to clarify problems and prevent further problems from arising.

I know that my post may have been a bit harsh in some cases, but if it is correct, I think you can stand up for it, and if it is out of context, you can just ignore it.

I posted this post because I would like to get BO's thoughts and opinions on the subject.

No offense.

>>21682492

Excuse me for the sidebar.

>>21682492

Add.

I think Line of Fire is something that inevitably happens in this free speech space.

>>21682492

Not 100% sure I know what you're asking, but BV who watches the international threads informed me of a request to have certain posts removed from QAFJ thread, i think they were removed but don't know the details. (I thought they were on General when reply above.) If this is the situation, then it would appear that those who run that thread were not receptive to whatever was posted.

In any case, my general reply to the question about how to resolve a difference of opinion is this: nobody can force someone else to change their mind once it is firmly set. You can try but it is difficult. You think your ideas are correct; they think theirs are correct.

To reconcile requires finding something about which both sides can agree and using that as a starting point for discussion. This is assuming the both are motivated to reconcile.

Good luck and Godspeed,

o7

>>21682573

Thank you for taking the time to visit with.

God bless you too.

o7

>>21682604

yw.

>>21682466

You are avoiding every question, and providing no logic as to why the censorship of INDIVIDUALS here. As stated, I have hundreds of examples, so should I post them all, or are you going to answer basic questions now?

>>21682466

Just as a side note. You say "Frequent flyers are obviously recognized over time." This is true, but as core anons, we have been here over a longer period of time than you, and it is you and your team players who are recognized by us, not the other way around.

>>21647673

Why hasn't the Q Map/Graphic on this board been updated to include Q's last posts? It's been years. Why haven't you as the Board Owner of QR, who we all would imagine to be the greatest advocate here for Q, updated the Graphic for almost 4 years?

>>21689321

Excuse me for the sidebar.

If it were you, could you update that?

If so, why didn't you do it?

I am a man of action before words, so I don't know what you are thinking, so could you please explain it to me?

>>21690706 edit

A man of action rather than excuses.

>>21690706

To further clarify, why don't you do it first?

Wouldn't that be more constructive as well as on the record?

Don't you think if you could present that wonderful technology to the BO for comparison and review, it would facilitate time rather than you lamenting here?

If you don't have the skills to do that then you'll just have to take a different approach, won't you?

In that case you would have to show that your logic is valid.

Of course, what arises here is a difference in perception and perspective on validity.

And what can be done if even at this point it is difficult to understand each other?

Send spam with the exact same story?

Update the logic?

Or?

>>21690706

No one can update it because the entire thread is locked with "placeholders" filling it. Do you understand? The threads are locked, and no one can update them Except Board Owner.

And it's been almost FOUR YEARS. Unacceptable.

We can all update them on our own, but the Only one who can actually update the Thread on this Board is Board Owner.

It's sad and highly illogical.

>>21690726

Here's the thing. We as Q researchers want a) the information Q said to keep updated, to stay updated (such as the resignation list, which hasn't been updated in over a year), and b) no censorship.

There is simply no excuse for the QR Board Owner to not add Q's last posts to the Graphic Thread… for YEARS. Let that sink in. And then the Board Team censors those who question the irrational behavior.

>>21690931

Go to the threads and look at them and then come back here. They are locked, remember? Take some time and look at the pinned threads here, consider the problems, then come back.

>>21690931

Additionally, there is only Silence on this very basic issue from the one person here who should be the most vocal in support of what Q instructed us to do and maintain in order to be able to progress.

>>21690931 ID change.

>>21691918

yeah

I guess only a limited number of people can edit where it's locked.

Did you do that graphic update yourself?

If it's locked, why don't you make a thread to do it, and if the thread was deleted, why don't you do it in your own catalog?

That would clarify the obvious issue, wouldn't it?

This map was abandoned by people who abandoned Q, clearly.

^Facts matter？

If there is an action you think is necessary for Q, then do it.

If you can do it, so be it.

Of course, I am also against censorship.

>>21692331

>This map was abandoned by people who abandoned Q, clearly.

^Facts matter？

This means you think so, doesn't it?

The fact that it is your opinion?

Why don't you do it before you say it?

It's a job you found, and if you do it, don't you think you will have contributed to it?

If you do something that you think is justified and you are interrupted, don't you say something then?

That seems more logical to me.

>>21691918

>>21692397

Now the question.

Why do you need to lament here when there are things you could be doing right now?

I am thinking about maximizing and besting this movement as soon as possible.

In this context, I see an opportunity to promote the movement by expressing my opinion on statements such as yours.

>>21692621

You're obviously not on board with Q's instructions to keep the graphic updated. End of story there.

>>21692862

I'm not in the business of making graphics.

Are you done talking?

If you think it's great, do it.

Graphics to me is interpreted in a different way.

>>21692930

>>21692621 me

>>21692862

I think I would clarify things if I really thought it was important.

Why end the discussion in the middle?

Doesn't that mean it's that important to you?

or？

>>21692986

What is the need for transparency and disclosure of confidential information?

I'm sure clarification is included here.

>>21693013

How’s it going, Board Owner?

>>21693626

I'm not the BO here.

Comfortable or worse, it still isn't perfect.

>>21693013 me

>>21693679

ID change.

>>21691918

>>21647673

Update the graphic, unlock the thread. Simple.

>>21694019

You've come full circle.

I said if that doesn't work, you'll make it.

I'd say it's more about what happens from there.

Which is simpler?

Because wouldn't that make the issue more obvious?

>>21691918

>Board Owner should immediately release the Board

Not going to happen

>>21694169 edit

I said if that doesn't work, you'll make it.

I said it's better to do it yourself before asking someone else to do it.

If you think the deed is constructive.

>>21694226 add.

It seems to be a bit repetitive.

Don't you think things would go faster if you worked to solve what you think is the problem first?

This time your claim is to update the GRAPHIC.

In this case, if you bring the updated GRAPHIC, there is no need to ask for this.

Rather, I can pinpoint what you want.

And if they deny it here, then the problem becomes clear and improvements can be found.

If there is a problem on the side of the denial, that will be revealed as well.

It may also further clarify what is right and what is wrong.

I think that dialogue to solve critical problems leads to new possibilities.

But obviously some things never reach the level of dialogue.

^This may involve individual perspectives and ideologies.

But I suspect that when you accomplish something, if it is justified or constructive, it creates an opportunity for someone else to derive further truth.