I don't lie here, but you insist I do, because if I'm not, then that might mean I actually do know what I'm talking about, which means you might be wrong.
I get it. But it's hard for you to be intimidating on the internet, especially since you've already made attempts to scrape my IP address and so forth. I'm more interested in talking than in dick-measuring contests, which tend to be where you want to go with this when you start puffing up your chest and calling people "boy."
"Can you explain how your theories are falsifiable and testable?"
"Well, you see, it's all a system..."
"Can you prove to me your predictive algorithm works the way you think it does with this analogous data?"
"You should read this article on..."
"Are you willing to make a specific prediction about a future event date using Q posts, which you claim you understand better than most?"
"If you just see all the connections made between the deltas..."
The only other people who are this dodgy when asked to directly, empirically demonstrate and test how their beliefs under a condition where they could potentially fail are religious people. People who believe nonfalsifiable, religious theories that don't require testing to believe, only faith.
I have given you, and will continue to give you, chances to prove through falsifiable and testable conditions that you understand things as well as you claim. You always deflect. You always avoid the question. You NEVER take a position that could eventually be proven wrong through direct observation.
Do you understand why scientist-types might not take someone seriously who claims to have all these mechanisms to understand the truth, but refuses to actually use them in a testable environment?
"Sure, I can talk to dead people."
"Yeah? My grandfather is dead. What was his middle name? Ask him."
"Oh, the spirits are tired today... and there's lots of psychic blockage..."
See, yet another thing you do that makes me question your commitment to this movement.
"Don't question me. I am an authority on this subject."
Doesn't sound very Q of you.
I don't lie here, but you insist I do, because if I'm not, then that might mean I actually do know what I'm talking about, which means you might be wrong.
I get it. But it's hard for you to be intimidating on the internet, especially since you've already made attempts to scrape my IP address and so forth. I'm more interested in talking than in dick-measuring contests, which tend to be where you want to go with this when you start puffing up your chest and calling people "boy."
"Can you explain how your theories are falsifiable and testable?"
"Well, you see, it's all a system..."
"Can you prove to me your predictive algorithm works the way you think it does with this analogous data?"
"You should read this article on..."
"Are you willing to make a specific prediction about a future event date using Q posts, which you claim you understand better than most?"
"If you just see all the connections made between the deltas..."
The only other people who are this dodgy when asked to directly, empirically demonstrate and test how their beliefs under a condition where they could potentially fail are religious people. People who believe nonfalsifiable, religious theories that don't require testing to believe, only faith.
I have given you, and will continue to give you, chances to prove through falsifiable and testable conditions that you understand things as well as you claim. You always deflect. You always avoid the question. You NEVER take a position that could eventually be proven wrong through direct observation.
Do you understand why scientist-types might not take someone seriously who claims to have all these mechanisms to understand the truth, but refuses to actually use them in a testable environment?
"Sure, I can talk to dead people."
"Yeah? My grandfather is dead. What was his middle name? Ask him."
"Oh, the spirits are tired today... and there's lots of psychic blockage..."