Hope this is allowed! I've browsed on this site for a while, even had another username where I engaged in some fairly civil debates with other users before I was banned due to not being a Q follower.
Interested in having a friendly discussion with anyone who's up for it!
A bit about me:
I'm a mechanical engineer working in product marketing I live in a major city, Chicago, and have pretty much only voted democrat I am a homeowner I have followed conspiracies for a while based solely on my own curiosity, and by and large found that a lot of the major ones (pizzagate, Q) don't make a ton of sense, but I'm not here to argue that. I think we're just gonna have different opinions on it.
All said, happy to have a casual AMA! Not interested in flamebaiting or arguing
I didn't come into it looking for a crime at all.
I know it might come across as a strange question to ask, but I've found that it is outrageously useful. I would HIGHLY recommend you adopt it into your own practices, it really helps with understanding WHY certain pieces of information are getting dropped into the collective consciousness... Aliens now. Why?
WHY. Why make a statement that doesn't need to be made?? It goes back to one of the messages I sent you: what doesn't belong. 3 oranges and a binder, we'll use... Why is there a binder at all? That's how I viewed that statement... It doesn't belong... or does it? Is there a connection at all? Is this relevant in a way that we have no idea about?
To answer your question "why wouldn't you look at the timeline of events early on in your research" is because the timeline builds itself from the back. In that I mean that I asked my question and looked for connections, and then tied things together. Well, I should say, the things tied themselves together. I just asked the question and pulled the thread.
I mean, if you look into the why anyone says anything I don’t know how you don’t STOP researching.
I definitely don’t have any children in my basement by the way.
Why did I write that? Seems odd. But it would be silly to look into everything someone said because at some point you need to start with the basic facts rather than work backwards. If you start with a conclusion, and then start seeking things to support that theory, it’s an easy way to fall into a pattern of confirmation bias
I'd like clarification on this statement. Are you making the argument that I am NOT starting with basic facts?
I never started with a conclusion. I started with a question. And then followed the trail of facts.
You are guilty of misrepresenting my process. I would like clarification. Your assumptions are outrageously incorrect.
I’m making the argument that you appear to start with an idea, and then afterwards seek out facts to support it.
I would argue that the question you asked was rooted in suspicion, so wouldn’t you naturally try and seek out things that would support nefarious subtext?
I find your supposition that I am conducting my research in any way other than fully in integrity to be beyond unacceptable.