I’ve been talking with the Q community since the 8chan days. I probably have more time around this than a lot of current GAW users. And I look at every piece of evidence that comes through, as far as I am able.

I don’t like the idea of making a giant thread with me tearing down Q, because that’s not really why I hang out here. I am just trying to see how we both look at the same piece of evidence and come to different conclusion.

I personally haven’t yet been able to prove Q is anything other than one of many trolls back in the 4chan days who claimed to be an anonymous insider. I don’t think that the “coincidences” are infinitesimally unlikely. I think that you guys are just interpreting anything that might seem related to a vague prophecy as being confirmed (confirmation bias).

How many different times have people here said, “watch the water” in response to a random news story involving water? Charles Flynn, the hospital ships off Cali, the Evergiven, flooding, and even the Texas ice storm.

And when none of those actually turned out to be anything productive for Q, it gets memory-holed until someone find that particular interpretation of “watch the water” useful again.

That’s why I’m trying to focus mostly on the smoking gun for Q. Because people have claimed a LOT of proof for non-falsifiable entities like Q or God by citing what they interpret to be a string of unlikely coincidences, rather than them seeing and interpreting non-events according to a worldview that is based on faith.

And downvoting doesn’t bother me. I have a thick-enough skin to handle disapproval. :)

I’ve been talking with the Q community since the 8chan days. I probably have more time around this than a lot of current GAW users. And I look at every piece of evidence that comes through, as far as I am able.

I don’t like the idea of making a giant thread with me tearing down Q, because that’s not really why I hang out here. I am just trying to see how we both look at the same piece of evidence and come to different conclusion.

I personally haven’t yet been able to prove Q is anything other than one of many trolls back in the 4chan days who claimed to be an anonymous insider. I don’t think that the “coincidences” are infinitesimally unlikely. I think that you guys are just interpreting anything that might seem related to a vague prophecy as being confirmed (confirmation bias).

How many different times have people here said, “watch the water” in response to a random news story involving water? Charles Flynn, the hospital ships off Cali, the Evergiven, flooding, and even the Texas ice storm.

And when none of those actually turned out to be anything productive for Q, it gets memory-holed until someone find that particular interpretation of “watch the water” useful again.

That’s why I’m trying to focus mostly on the smoking gun for Q. Because people have claimed a LOT of proof for non-falsifiable entities like Q or God by citing what they interpret to be a string of unlikely coincidences, rather than them seeing and interpreting non-events according to a worldview that is based on faith.