I noticed this moment was an odd one. Crowd didn't react much to him referring to that one General (or whatever his title was). Made me think he was hinting at how most people likely think we know all the important people in the military. The "TV Generals".
But that there are other important people we don't know of and are never publicly visible.
“Reading between the lines with discernment” is the lazy person’s excuse for not persistently exercising their logic and reason with patience until answers are revealed.
My comment is general, not pointed to anyone in particular.
Purkiss is certainly busy… that no one can argue against. But laziness manifests itself in many ways, does it not? Either way, I’m not here to judge the contributions of others. I was simply making an observation based on my experience.
Why? Because in my experience, following purkiss’ poor advice to “read between the lines” and “use discernment” leads to poor outcomes and undesirable issues.
Do I have the right to express my opinion freely, or no?
Banned for questioning some folks’ GAW crush? That would be a new one… (not your threat, but don’t have time to respond separately).
Anyone else uncomfortable with the little fiefdom some users have set up for themselves around here? It’s… icky.
Did you even read the OP before chipping in? I am QUOTING the OP.
So it appears you disagree with purkiss as well. I’d watch out… you might be the next victim of the loyalty test if you don’t watch what you say. 😂😂😂😂😂
You only have the right to express your opinion freely on this board if you follow the rules and support Q.
If you're a "doomer or a shill", then you will be given a temporary or permanent ban. Those are the rules. Doomers don't have the right to express their opinion freely on this board. Again, read the rules.
Given that you attempted to downplay President Trump quoting Q, I'd say that qualifies you as a doomer.
Good reasoning. I agree. I’m usually pretty critical because when I was a newfag I embarrassed myself to myself with my confirmation bias. I usually hit the brakes now.
0h dear, we have a positivist, demanding objective proof. Let me help you: We don't live in the 60s or 70s anymore. The interactions between people cannot be scientifically measured, no matter how you try, except for perhaps counting them.
Positivists tend to invalidate ethnographic content that tells a story, for example. Reading between the lines is known as finding meaning. It is an accepted practice academically under the banners of post-positivist constructionism, for example, so why the resistance?
I don’t reject it as a part of the process, I reject the idea of it as a process in and of itself.
I was attempting to make a general observation, but let’s bring it back to the original issue: Q may be posting again. Purkiss, with the certainty that only purkiss can project, asserts that those employing this “meaning finding” practice can categorically know that it is indeed Q.
In my opinion, this is foolishness. The idea doesn’t even fit the paradigm Q laid out, which is to think logically, question everything, gather evidence, and use our faculties of reason to determine the veracity of a thing.
Am I saying purkiss’ conclusion is false? I am not.
Am I saying that purkiss’ methodology for discerning truth leaves much to be desired? I am.
What I will refer to here as the “purkiss effect” is pretty simple. Purkiss has learned, either consciously or unconsciously, that projecting certainty attracts those who are uncertain. It meets a psychological need for both them, and him/her/it.
Am I saying purkiss should stop? I am not. We are each doing our best, and deserve to be treated with dignity, which means we deserve to be allowed to pursue the truth in whatever ways we see fit, unless they are causing an imminent threat to the well being of our selves or others.
Am I saying there is a better way? I am. And I would invite people to consider that assertion, and study it out, and make a determination for themselves.
Thanks for your thoughtful response and questions. I hope this makes my position more clear.
You sit here calling others lazy, but what have you done?
Purkiss at least reads, and researches the Q posts and brings us what he's found.
Until today I don't think any of us knew who you were. If you're jealous of his contributions why don't you do something about it instead of just sitting here pointing fingers.
Nothing irritates me more than people criticizing other's work when they don't bother to contribute anything real themselves.
You do realize that my post history reveals little to nothing about me?
While some choose to be keyboard warriors, others choose to engage in other ways, and use sites like this as a way to gather intelligence, relax, and engage in some interesting conversations.
If you judge a person by their post history, that is your prerogative, but it is a poor way to measure a persons contribution, in my opinion.
This was regarding posting, you're putting other people's research efforts down while appearing not to do any research of your own.
This wasn't against you as person I have no idea who you are.
I might not always agree with or like something someone does but I can at least
appreciate their efforts. I absolutely hate cooking and my daughter loves it. If she makes something and it doesn't turn out well I still appreciate her work, and I'm grateful to have something to eat.
I’m sorry that you can’t seem to understand the basic premise of the argument, but I just don’t have the time to continue this conversation. Best of luck!
Trump also mentioned Space Force, then paused, and seamingly off script said something like, "they're going to end up being very important."
They have something to do with GME and ATMs..
EDIT: here https://nitter.net/gospaceforce/status/1505907077599969280#m
EDIT2: and this https://greatawakening.win/p/142BTCB4Iz/march-madness-big-week-coming-qs/c/
Why do you think that?
I noticed this moment was an odd one. Crowd didn't react much to him referring to that one General (or whatever his title was). Made me think he was hinting at how most people likely think we know all the important people in the military. The "TV Generals".
But that there are other important people we don't know of and are never publicly visible.
ie. Q-Team. Essentially.
Makes sense. Generals have work to do, not sit and preen on tv all day.
“Reading between the lines with discernment” is the lazy person’s excuse for not persistently exercising their logic and reason with patience until answers are revealed.
Purkiss80 is the opposite of lazy.
Purkiss80 never sleeps like most of us that know.
My comment is general, not pointed to anyone in particular.
Purkiss is certainly busy… that no one can argue against. But laziness manifests itself in many ways, does it not? Either way, I’m not here to judge the contributions of others. I was simply making an observation based on my experience.
Requested deport on you. GET LOST.
Why
Why? Because in my experience, following purkiss’ poor advice to “read between the lines” and “use discernment” leads to poor outcomes and undesirable issues.
Do I have the right to express my opinion freely, or no?
Banned for questioning some folks’ GAW crush? That would be a new one… (not your threat, but don’t have time to respond separately).
Anyone else uncomfortable with the little fiefdom some users have set up for themselves around here? It’s… icky.
This isn't 'reading between the lines'.
This is President Trump quoting Q's last post before he went silent.
Did you even read the OP before chipping in? I am QUOTING the OP.
So it appears you disagree with purkiss as well. I’d watch out… you might be the next victim of the loyalty test if you don’t watch what you say. 😂😂😂😂😂
You only have the right to express your opinion freely on this board if you follow the rules and support Q.
If you're a "doomer or a shill", then you will be given a temporary or permanent ban. Those are the rules. Doomers don't have the right to express their opinion freely on this board. Again, read the rules.
Given that you attempted to downplay President Trump quoting Q, I'd say that qualifies you as a doomer.
Oh, a loyalty test. I see.
No, an intelligence test. You failed.
Good reasoning. I agree. I’m usually pretty critical because when I was a newfag I embarrassed myself to myself with my confirmation bias. I usually hit the brakes now.
Purkiss contributes a heck of a lot more to this board than you. People with glass houses should not be throwing stones!
Guess it depends on how you define “contribution”.
As I said, my observation was a general one.
This purkiss syncophancy from the peanut gallery is a weird response, though. Who is purkiss, exactly, and when did he/she/it become above reproach?
0h dear, we have a positivist, demanding objective proof. Let me help you: We don't live in the 60s or 70s anymore. The interactions between people cannot be scientifically measured, no matter how you try, except for perhaps counting them.
Positivists tend to invalidate ethnographic content that tells a story, for example. Reading between the lines is known as finding meaning. It is an accepted practice academically under the banners of post-positivist constructionism, for example, so why the resistance?
I don’t reject it as a part of the process, I reject the idea of it as a process in and of itself.
I was attempting to make a general observation, but let’s bring it back to the original issue: Q may be posting again. Purkiss, with the certainty that only purkiss can project, asserts that those employing this “meaning finding” practice can categorically know that it is indeed Q.
In my opinion, this is foolishness. The idea doesn’t even fit the paradigm Q laid out, which is to think logically, question everything, gather evidence, and use our faculties of reason to determine the veracity of a thing.
Am I saying purkiss’ conclusion is false? I am not.
Am I saying that purkiss’ methodology for discerning truth leaves much to be desired? I am.
What I will refer to here as the “purkiss effect” is pretty simple. Purkiss has learned, either consciously or unconsciously, that projecting certainty attracts those who are uncertain. It meets a psychological need for both them, and him/her/it.
Am I saying purkiss should stop? I am not. We are each doing our best, and deserve to be treated with dignity, which means we deserve to be allowed to pursue the truth in whatever ways we see fit, unless they are causing an imminent threat to the well being of our selves or others.
Am I saying there is a better way? I am. And I would invite people to consider that assertion, and study it out, and make a determination for themselves.
Thanks for your thoughtful response and questions. I hope this makes my position more clear.
You sit here calling others lazy, but what have you done?
Purkiss at least reads, and researches the Q posts and brings us what he's found. Until today I don't think any of us knew who you were. If you're jealous of his contributions why don't you do something about it instead of just sitting here pointing fingers.
Nothing irritates me more than people criticizing other's work when they don't bother to contribute anything real themselves.
What do you know about what I’ve done or not done?
Nothing.
Have a good night, stranger.
You do realize that everyone on here can see your post and comment history.
You do realize that my post history reveals little to nothing about me?
While some choose to be keyboard warriors, others choose to engage in other ways, and use sites like this as a way to gather intelligence, relax, and engage in some interesting conversations.
If you judge a person by their post history, that is your prerogative, but it is a poor way to measure a persons contribution, in my opinion.
This was regarding posting, you're putting other people's research efforts down while appearing not to do any research of your own. This wasn't against you as person I have no idea who you are.
I might not always agree with or like something someone does but I can at least appreciate their efforts. I absolutely hate cooking and my daughter loves it. If she makes something and it doesn't turn out well I still appreciate her work, and I'm grateful to have something to eat.
I’m sorry that you can’t seem to understand the basic premise of the argument, but I just don’t have the time to continue this conversation. Best of luck!
It won't ever let me watch a video on telegram. Anyone know why? When I click play it just opens another tab of the same thing
Same
I hope Milley's bitch ass heard that part.