TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -XV-

www.cracked.com...

Hanks talks to the radio host, and women everywhere swoon, but none so much as Meg Ryan, a journalist who writes him a love letter. In 2019, anonymously receiving a letter from a radio show listener usually means you've been doxxed by QAnon, but apparently this was still heartwarming in 1993.

I found this interesting, in that not only is a mainstream comedy site focusing their attention on Q , but also feel the need to show-horn that reference into a completely unrelated article.

And even more interesting to me is how they casually accuse Q of Doxxing.

Can anyone give me one instance of Q doxing anyone?



Respectfully,
~meathead

originally posted by: EndtheMadnessNow
a reply to: SamSmith85

You're twisting your own words.

How so?

I asked if Q mentioned it.

You linked me to an anon mentioning it and Q commenting on it.

Q never said anything himself.

I wasn’t trying to trap you, I just wanted to check I hadn’t missed it. Turns out Q never did but posted after it was already news.

originally posted by: Mike Stivic
www.cracked.com...

Hanks talks to the radio host, and women everywhere swoon, but none so much as Meg Ryan, a journalist who writes him a love letter. In 2019, anonymously receiving a letter from a radio show listener usually means you've been doxxed by QAnon, but apparently this was still heartwarming in 1993.

I found this interesting, in that not only is a mainstream comedy site focusing their attention on Q , but also feel the need to show-horn that reference into a completely unrelated article.

And even more interesting to me is how they casually accuse Q of Doxxing.

Can anyone give me one instance of Q doxing anyone?



Respectfully,
~meathead

I imagine they don’t quite get the meaning of doxxed. Also depends on what/who they mean by QAnon. People considered Q followers certainly do dox people. Depends on if you consider them QAnon.

a reply to: SamSmith85

No but Q plucked that comment from the thousands everyday on QResearch and confirmed it. Q could have just as easily let that post go by and do nothing in reply to it - instead Q confirmed the news before it was discussed anywhere in the MSM...now we see people discussing it today. See how that works?

a reply to: PokeyJoe

Yeah and you only focus on the ones he picks and not the ones he misses.

He lets it go - you say nothing
He comments after the fact - “he could of let it go”

So is Q less informed than that anon who posted? Or considering it was in the news already neither were ahead of anything, just repeating.

Also note how Q only confirms the rumour. If coats isn’t gone soon you’ll say Q never confirmed. If coats goes you’ll point back to it.

How do you not see through this?

a reply to: SamSmith85

That is a non answer..

The article clearly states "doxxed by QAnon"

Not "doxxed by QAnon followers"

So again I ask ,can someone here, give me a clear example of QAnon or Q doxxing anyone?

Respectfully,
~meathead

a reply to: tiredoflooking

Kinda hard when the only angle is lack of results.

It gets kind of boring to see the same old "I wonder what people who say Q is a LARP have to say now?" or "hope there's booms this week".

I mean we have the Coats thing that could have been a solid Q proof but instead someone else leaked it so we are back to lack of results.

I thought “We are Q”.

You tell me who QAnon IS then? As it’s consider a group by some.

My guess would be he meant the whole Q following and doesn’t mean doxxed more targetted.

But hey nit pick away. If only you scrutinised other peoples words the same. Waiting for that ak47 pic.

Q quoting people is confirmation... unless it’s something that doesn’t come true like arrests. Then it meant nothing. Lol

a reply to: Mike Stivic

Q hasn't ever doxxed anyone.

Unless you count calling out the child trafficking hotline Polaris foundation being part of the Clinton foundation doxxing.

a reply to: Mike Stivic

I'm guessing they just used it for its buzzyness.

a reply to: daskakik

If McCabe and Comey are indicted will you still call that a lack of results?

Will you say it's unrelated?

a reply to: SamSmith85

So no, you can't.

Your word salad is wilted . I'm sending it back to the kitchen..

Back to lurk mode.



Respectfully,
~meathead

Tomorrow the Gateway Pundit Will Release Damning Information Concerning the Clinton Foundation, the FBI, DOJ and More – Stay Tuned!!!

Interesting. My guess is it will be a conglomeration of things vetted across Q boards, but maybe an actual scoop.

a reply to: tiredoflooking

I may very well be tempted to say it is unrelated, depending on the details.

I mean if the indictments would have come down with or without Q, then you can't really give Q credit.

originally posted by: crankyoldman
Tomorrow the Gateway Pundit Will Release Damning Information Concerning the Clinton Foundation, the FBI, DOJ and More – Stay Tuned!!!

Interesting. My guess is it will be a conglomeration of things vetted across Q boards, but maybe an actual scoop.

Considering this article was dated yesterday, this comes out today?!

originally posted by: SKEPTEK

originally posted by: crankyoldman
Tomorrow the Gateway Pundit Will Release Damning Information Concerning the Clinton Foundation, the FBI, DOJ and More – Stay Tuned!!!

Interesting. My guess is it will be a conglomeration of things vetted across Q boards, but maybe an actual scoop.

Considering this article was dated yesterday, this comes out today?!

First part is already up on the Gateway Pundit site:

www.thegatewaypundit.com... i/

Its more of an intro to all the players and the scene than any of the meat and potatoes stuff. Seems that like starts tomorrow. Could be a big deal though.

a reply to: PokeyJoe

Thanks, guess I should have clicked the link to the main page.

POST REMOVED BY STAFF