So that means 94-96% of people will believe in Q the way you do once they’ve read the evidence?
Hm. Shouldn’t be hard to test.
Print out the Q posts, deltas, and whatever else you think is good evidence that quickly establishes Q’s credibility. Put together a recruiting packet.
Go to a public space. Some libraries may allow you but it depends on local policies. Set up a table with attractive advertising.
Spend a day or two spreading your evidence and answering all questions respectfully and completely.
Offer some means of turning interest into commitment right there at the table. Perhaps creating a GAW account would be a good option. Nobody who isn’t interested in Q would do that.
At the end of your test period, divide the number of people who visited your table by the number of people who took the committing action.
If the outcome is greater than 94-96%, Q’s hypothesis is supported. If less, then Q’s hypothesis is rejected.
Repeat at multiple different locations in order to gather good demographic data and build a more generalizable conclusion. Maybe recruit some other GAW members.
Total cost would probably be, eh, no more than ten bucks for printing and a couple of free days. I believe I remember you saying you were retired.
Shouldn’t be too much of an effort in order to establish your belief as falsifiable. Considering that if you’re wrong, and people don’t open their eyes when presented with the evidence, then that calls the credibility of the evidence you believe into question, and you should REALLY want to test that.
94-96% of people will wake up to the cabal and their election tampering and global control of information and finance systems.
Okay. But this evidence isn't currently available, correct? Because if it were, you could show it to 100 people and walk away with 94-96 eager new believers, right?
Q specifically wanted high IQ autists for a reason.
I think it's a haughty claim to assume that simply using the website 8chan was a sign of "high IQ autism." That leads to a circular conclusion. "Q only talked to high IQ people, and I listen to and believe Q, so therefore, I must be high IQ, and the people who believe what I do must also be high IQ."
People who have no opinions of your own who will gladly parrot whatever drops on TV at 4am that morning.
I admit it's incredibly frustrating to know how absolutely wrong you are about me and know there's no way you'll ever allow yourself to be convinced you were wrong. About anything. It's not a good trait for a researcher to have.
DEFINE NORMIE.
I really don't have time to re-have conversations with people who didn't read the first time, so this is it.
Normie, no matter where it is used, is a reference by an "in group" to refer to the "out group." The in-group members usually are referring to some marginalization they feel, which means they are superficially considered by the outgroup to be "not normal."
Incels use it to mean people who have sex. Comic book nerds use it to refer to people who don't read comics. Q people refer to it to mean non-Q people.
You can disagree. You're welcome to have a personal definition that differs. I do not really care. I am not spending more time debating the precise definition of slang.
So that means 94-96% of people will believe in Q the way you do once they’ve read the evidence?
Hm. Shouldn’t be hard to test.
Print out the Q posts, deltas, and whatever else you think is good evidence that quickly establishes Q’s credibility. Put together a recruiting packet.
Go to a public space. Some libraries may allow you but it depends on local policies. Set up a table with attractive advertising.
Spend a day or two spreading your evidence and answering all questions respectfully and completely.
Offer some means of turning interest into commitment right there at the table. Perhaps creating a GAW account would be a good option. Nobody who isn’t interested in Q would do that.
At the end of your test period, divide the number of people who visited your table by the number of people who took the committing action.
If the outcome is greater than 94-96%, Q’s hypothesis is supported. If less, then Q’s hypothesis is rejected.
Repeat at multiple different locations in order to gather good demographic data and build a more generalizable conclusion. Maybe recruit some other GAW members.
Total cost would probably be, eh, no more than ten bucks for printing and a couple of free days. I believe I remember you saying you were retired.
Shouldn’t be too much of an effort in order to establish your belief as falsifiable. Considering that if you’re wrong, and people don’t open their eyes when presented with the evidence, then that calls the credibility of the evidence you believe into question, and you should REALLY want to test that.
Okay. But this evidence isn't currently available, correct? Because if it were, you could show it to 100 people and walk away with 94-96 eager new believers, right?
I think it's a haughty claim to assume that simply using the website 8chan was a sign of "high IQ autism." That leads to a circular conclusion. "Q only talked to high IQ people, and I listen to and believe Q, so therefore, I must be high IQ, and the people who believe what I do must also be high IQ."
The last time you were challenged directly to back this claim up, you publicly failed. You're still welcome to demonstrate exactly what source I stole my SPECIFIC arguments from in that thread, since I am profoundly stupid and clearly not capable of doing this level of analyses without someone to help me with all the big words.
I admit it's incredibly frustrating to know how absolutely wrong you are about me and know there's no way you'll ever allow yourself to be convinced you were wrong. About anything. It's not a good trait for a researcher to have.
I really don't have time to re-have conversations with people who didn't read the first time, so this is it.
Normie, no matter where it is used, is a reference by an "in group" to refer to the "out group." The in-group members usually are referring to some marginalization they feel, which means they are superficially considered by the outgroup to be "not normal."
Incels use it to mean people who have sex. Comic book nerds use it to refer to people who don't read comics. Q people refer to it to mean non-Q people.
You can disagree. You're welcome to have a personal definition that differs. I do not really care. I am not spending more time debating the precise definition of slang.
Judging by this conversation, it’s obvious that his definition of normies is the same as the general consensus definition he just gave.