Then the deletion and banning of the B post are the additional verification that makes it highly probable, to the point of certainty, that these posts are valid by the person or persons that post with the Q trip.
The "B post" was a fraud post created by people who had access to the inner workings of 8kun. Why would anyone believe that removal of that particular bit of evidence constitutes "probable, to the point of certainty" proof of real Q?
That is the last post that any rational person should point to as proof of anything Q related, except for the fact that a Q post can be, and has been forged! And, personally I want to see that "B post" returned to the board as a permanent record of that fact.
The "B post" was our first warning that something fucky was going on. And now, several month later, we coincidently get this as "very probable, to the point of certainty* proof of Q? We need to expect, demand better proof.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, same on me."
The "B post" was a fraud post created by people who had access to the inner workings of 8kun. Why would anyone believe that removal of that particular bit of evidence constitutes "probable, to the point of certainty" proof of real Q?
That is the last post that any rational person should point to as proof of anything Q related, except for the fact that a Q post can be, and has been forged! And, personally I want to see that "B post" returned to the board as a permanent record of that fact.
The "B post" was our first warning that something fucky was going on. And now, several month later, we coincidently get this as "very probable, to the point of certainty* proof of Q? We need to expect, demand better proof.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, same on me."
First you would have to take into account the history surrounding the move from 4chan to 8 kun.
Then place the B post on that timeline.
Then consider what changes have been made, and their impact.
Now you are set to consider the vlaue of removing a b-post.