Why not post to the people you have the problem with NOT me. Was just standing up for the right for people to have differing opinions. Your reaction was not acceptable. Unless a person requests being removed they should stay. The fact that you don’t even have the manners to address the post to a person you are talking about was once grounds to be removed from FR.
Will ask Jim if that still stands
Jim are we allowed to speak poorly of a person without posting their name in the TO box (enlightened1)
Twice now ransom note has posted to me. First when she apologized to enlightened 1 and now when she justified the removal of name from her list. (She has neglected each time to post enlightened 1 name in the TO box
I was simple stating that no one but you have the power to remove a person and this should be an open forum with multi ideas if we are truly to be brainstorming as long as the person doesn’t break the rules
Please
Clarify so it doesn’t happen again.
HM, we’re not seeing arrests and the destruction of the deep state, who have the habit of murdering large #s of us in their persistent False Flags when they sense an attack. That’s distressing, they don’t even seem to be slowing down: in fact, they’re *re-consolidating*, *re-constituting* their Cabal, traveling all over the world, re-inventing themselves, right under our MAGA noses.
This is a PROBLEM, and if we don’t see our fight taken to THEM, we fall in on ourselves, and our coalition fails.
Taking a name off a ping list doesn't prevent them from posting. Enlightned1 is, as far as I know, perfectly free to post in these threads.
I've asked a few people to take me off ping lists (personal preference on my part), and I'm able to post at will all over the place.
I sense a failure to have meeting of the minds here. From my perspective, ransomnote has been exceptionally gracious and even unnecessarily apologetic - meaning apologized even though no wrong done.
I never spoke poorly of enlightened1.
In post 518, I said of enlightened1:
“Enlightened1 has contributed to my knowledge of Q and of world events in the past and has shown no hint of lack of patriotism. When I wrote about disinformation campaigns, I truly meant those who don’t honestly believe but utilize for the purpose of harm. When writing, that naturally excludes enlightened1 in my thinking, and all those with the honest opinion. My purpose in writing was to express an opinion counter to enlightened1 re is or isn’t Q moot at this point. I apologize to enlightened1 for writing without sufficient care - enlightned1 deserves more than that”
When you asked me if I was going to “kick you off too” I explained I wasn’t kicking Enlightened1 off the ping list, I believed they wanted off because they said in post #183 Q had been compromised and “If you want to continue to follow it, then be my guest.” That sounded like they weren’t following anymore and I didn’t want to annoy them with pings or miss their request to be removed from the list.
I have no objection to enlightened1 remaining on the ping list and have already asked them to let me know if I was mistaken in assuming they want off the list.
I don’t share your opinion as to whom I am required to maintain on my ping list. I wish we could agree on more.
You asked, “Why not post to the people you have the problem with NOT me” and I would respond it seems to be that you are advocating on behalf of enlightened1. Perhaps we could allow enlightened1 to advocate for themselves from this point forward and the thread can resume its of research on Q.
My observations and understandings are that most authorities hereon are more bothered by such petty complaints than they are by the offender.