I was going over the drops again and I don't think I've ever seen this question asked here: Is there any part of the Q universe that you disagree with?
For me, its this:
No coincidences
I personally believe in coincidences: I think they happen every day and we all experience them, and I think it's wise to recognize coincidence as a possibility. Like Ian Fleming wrote: *If it is once, it's happenstance, it can happen. If it is twice, it is a coincidence. And if it is thrice, it's a conspiracy." I think coincidences CAN be exposed as intentional, but arent automatically a sign of a greater scheme.
Hope I dont get banned for this, just interested in where everybody's head is at. Does anyone have that one Q bit they disagree with?
I think "future proves past" is what's called a thought-terminating cliche: a good line that ends the argument and can't be disproved (like "The Lord works in mysterious ways" or "Let's agree to disagree").
I think it’s really powerful when paired with a clear example (e.g. Hawaii middle test, Lord’s Prayer change), but also used to justify coincidence as comms or proof.
Something I believe (but really hate!) is disinfo being necessary. Yeah, I know it is, I get it, comms are open for the world to see... but has felt like a cop-out on occasion (or a thought-terminating statement, if you prefer).