The script hasn't even played out yet and your dooming. To remind you, GAW is a pro-'Q' forum.
And yes, there's a preponderance of evidence showing AJ is indeed a Mos proxy. I've followed AJ early on after William Cooper was murdered. I'm aware of Cooper's warning about AJ. I've watched AJ fold on previous lawsuits like the one Chobani lawsuit, to which AJ was absolutely correct, yet he still folded. Others as well. Why? Then the Sandy Hook lawsuits. The repeated same pattern paints a picture. His sponsors and network owners, along with his affiliation with a known Mos private Intelligence company, and other known Mos connections confirm it. Even his former wife is Yewish.
Anyone claiming they understand the 'Q' COMMS, other than standing united (ergo, WWG1WGA) and patriotic themes are charlatans. Q COMMs are an enigma to me. The COMMS are not meant for us, but are for other people in the know. We happen to be the field of battle where the COMMS are taking place in plain sight.
You used the word 'shill'. I never did. My personal policy is to never name call or use ad hominems. I never down-vote people either because it doesn't inspire debate, but acts as a stiletto. To me, its a useless and destructive function. Either up-vote a comment or not at all.
I suppose no one can 'prove' to you that AJ is a tool for Zionism, but he will never cross that line. I use to follow AJ for about 20 years now.It has been confirmed Adnan Khashoggi, who owns Genesis Communications Network is a Mossad Agent. Even Veteran's Today talks about AJ's growing complication of Israeli Connections. In other words-- Ya just can'r make this shit up.
Downvotes make sense when shills or pure doomhating get identified. Better to keep that stuff at the bottom, and signal to mods. Not a big deal, but sometimes worthwhile.
I've never used the down-vote simply because I don't believe in it. if I can't persuade someone in their discourse of thought, then I simply agree to disagree and move on. If someone comments with a prescient and interesting bit of information, I will up-vote. If someone posts something that is an outlier to the general discourse here. I simply move on. Lastly, I never name call or use ad hominems even after I am called names. To me, it only sours the discussion. I want to know what people think and why.
The question becomes-- Who determines who is a shill? You? Me? An on-line gang? The down-votes tend to be used for avoiding debate simply because someone disapproves what is being said. GAW is most definitely not a place intended for 'group think', gang-like behavior, or an echo chamber. I believe it is best left to the moderators to make this determination. Another consequence is the down-votes make it possible for certain alliances to attack a 'marked' individual. These alliances may even be pre-conceived by outside nefarious entities (ergo, paid infiltration groups). There's plenty of examples of forums being destroyed by these tactics.
You and other enlightened people post here with other rational lurkers wanting to learn. I certainly do. Each one of us are indeed-- 'We are the news'. That 'news' each of us brings through astute perspective and are incredibly valuable to me. I may not always agree, but certainly that person has the right to express it.
The script hasn't even played out yet and your dooming. To remind you, GAW is a pro-'Q' forum.
And yes, there's a preponderance of evidence showing AJ is indeed a Mos proxy. I've followed AJ early on after William Cooper was murdered. I'm aware of Cooper's warning about AJ. I've watched AJ fold on previous lawsuits like the one Chobani lawsuit, to which AJ was absolutely correct, yet he still folded. Others as well. Why? Then the Sandy Hook lawsuits. The repeated same pattern paints a picture. His sponsors and network owners, along with his affiliation with a known Mos private Intelligence company, and other known Mos connections confirm it. Even his former wife is Yewish.
Anyone claiming they understand the 'Q' COMMS, other than standing united (ergo, WWG1WGA) and patriotic themes are charlatans. Q COMMs are an enigma to me. The COMMS are not meant for us, but are for other people in the know. We happen to be the field of battle where the COMMS are taking place in plain sight.
You used the word 'shill'. I never did. My personal policy is to never name call or use ad hominems. I never down-vote people either because it doesn't inspire debate, but acts as a stiletto. To me, its a useless and destructive function. Either up-vote a comment or not at all.
I suppose no one can 'prove' to you that AJ is a tool for Zionism, but he will never cross that line. I use to follow AJ for about 20 years now.It has been confirmed Adnan Khashoggi, who owns Genesis Communications Network is a Mossad Agent. Even Veteran's Today talks about AJ's growing complication of Israeli Connections. In other words-- Ya just can'r make this shit up.
Downvotes make sense when shills or pure doomhating get identified. Better to keep that stuff at the bottom, and signal to mods. Not a big deal, but sometimes worthwhile.
I've never used the down-vote simply because I don't believe in it. if I can't persuade someone in their discourse of thought, then I simply agree to disagree and move on. If someone comments with a prescient and interesting bit of information, I will up-vote. If someone posts something that is an outlier to the general discourse here. I simply move on. Lastly, I never name call or use ad hominems even after I am called names. To me, it only sours the discussion. I want to know what people think and why.
The question becomes-- Who determines who is a shill? You? Me? An on-line gang? The down-votes tend to be used for avoiding debate simply because someone disapproves what is being said. GAW is most definitely not a place intended for 'group think', gang-like behavior, or an echo chamber. I believe it is best left to the moderators to make this determination. Another consequence is the down-votes make it possible for certain alliances to attack a 'marked' individual. These alliances may even be pre-conceived by outside nefarious entities (ergo, paid infiltration groups). There's plenty of examples of forums being destroyed by these tactics.
You and other enlightened people post here with other rational lurkers wanting to learn. I certainly do. Each one of us are indeed-- 'We are the news'. That 'news' each of us brings through astute perspective and are incredibly valuable to me. I may not always agree, but certainly that person has the right to express it.