Yeah, I don’t have many other ways to explain this, so I will try to be very direct.
lol, write's a book:
The outside world, including QHC, does not care about what is in the Q posts. The Q posts are not a threat to anybody.
Just gaslighting BS, because if so much as 1 person in the outside world cares (and we know because we can see evidence of it), it shatters their point.
What the outside world, and QHC, care about is what people who believe in Q believe in.
Just more bs, but maybe true about QHC, but whatever, right? we already know it's a Qult (even the name indicates it's a Qult)
Which is not necessarily the same thing as a direct translation of Q.
the usual waste of space filler-words assumptions
Some people take literally what you assume to be disinformation by Q. Sometimes vice-versa. Some people have different motivations assigned to Trump’s vaccine support and build entire new theories based on that.
No point even looking at this assumption, waste of space.
And some people who believe in Q have used Q’s philosophy to justify examining every other theory. Including lizard people. Why not? Could the Cabal not cover that up?
More gas-lighting, sticking to the lizard people. Personally, i'm like woah this guy is lost
To be perfectly clear, Zeitreise, your theory on what Q “really meant” is one of thousands. And nobody else is less of a Q believer than you for finding different answers to Q’s questions, since Q never directly answered most of them.
Partially correct, but just more hot air useless words, since Q did answer a few questions directly. Their problem if they don't want to bother correcting themselves.
If you’re refusing to accept that different, potentially valid conspiracies that Q may have revealed that you simply are unable to see, then you either believe yourself to be smarter than every other Q researcher alive, or you’re simply wrong.
This is the personal attack. laugh at it, it's based on bs.
So, are you the smartest researcher on this board, Zeitreise? Is there even a point in having a research board over any topic you’ve investigated?
Here's the appeal to emotion, user is emotional, trying to ramp up the personal attack. Personally i'd avoid it.
Now here's how i'd respond to the entire post
It doesn't sound like you sincerely know much, or really want to know much about the Q movement. That's ok though, but you waste so much time using too many words, and make weak points based on your misunderstanding. Can't you make your point concise and to the point, without fallacies?
Hey, I won’t assume you actually wanted an answer to this post since you were demonstrating how you would respond, but I am happy to type up a thing to this if you’re actually interested in discussing it.
I wasn’t intending to be pedantic, and apologize if that’s how I came off. I was simply asking if you were interested in a response or not. It’s not easy to read nuance in text.
It was hardly that word your tv taught you, nuance.
It was quite clear. But to help clear up your nuance, if i wanted to respond i'd have responded to you directly. As you can see above i was responding to another user, taking apart what you said, to help them (possibly others), to quickly identify bs, weak spots, and fallacies, and point out how there was nothing of value worth discussing or responding to, since ultimately it was a personal attack on a user here, adding nothing to the community.
dunno, this is C5's area but lets analyze.
Yeah, I don’t have many other ways to explain this, so I will try to be very direct.
lol, write's a book:
The outside world, including QHC, does not care about what is in the Q posts. The Q posts are not a threat to anybody.
Just gaslighting BS, because if so much as 1 person in the outside world cares (and we know because we can see evidence of it), it shatters their point.
What the outside world, and QHC, care about is what people who believe in Q believe in.
Just more bs, but maybe true about QHC, but whatever, right? we already know it's a Qult (even the name indicates it's a Qult)
Which is not necessarily the same thing as a direct translation of Q.
the usual waste of space filler-words assumptions
Some people take literally what you assume to be disinformation by Q. Sometimes vice-versa. Some people have different motivations assigned to Trump’s vaccine support and build entire new theories based on that.
No point even looking at this assumption, waste of space.
And some people who believe in Q have used Q’s philosophy to justify examining every other theory. Including lizard people. Why not? Could the Cabal not cover that up?
More gas-lighting, sticking to the lizard people. Personally, i'm like woah this guy is lost
To be perfectly clear, Zeitreise, your theory on what Q “really meant” is one of thousands. And nobody else is less of a Q believer than you for finding different answers to Q’s questions, since Q never directly answered most of them.
Partially correct, but just more hot air useless words, since Q did answer a few questions directly. Their problem if they don't want to bother correcting themselves.
If you’re refusing to accept that different, potentially valid conspiracies that Q may have revealed that you simply are unable to see, then you either believe yourself to be smarter than every other Q researcher alive, or you’re simply wrong.
This is the personal attack. laugh at it, it's based on bs.
So, are you the smartest researcher on this board, Zeitreise? Is there even a point in having a research board over any topic you’ve investigated?
Here's the appeal to emotion, user is emotional, trying to ramp up the personal attack. Personally i'd avoid it.
Now here's how i'd respond to the entire post
It doesn't sound like you sincerely know much, or really want to know much about the Q movement. That's ok though, but you waste so much time using too many words, and make weak points based on your misunderstanding. Can't you make your point concise and to the point, without fallacies?
Hey, I won’t assume you actually wanted an answer to this post since you were demonstrating how you would respond, but I am happy to type up a thing to this if you’re actually interested in discussing it.
But you assumed by replying even though when it was clear, and you noted, i was sating how i would respond.
I wasn’t intending to be pedantic, and apologize if that’s how I came off. I was simply asking if you were interested in a response or not. It’s not easy to read nuance in text.
It was hardly that word your tv taught you, nuance.
It was quite clear. But to help clear up your nuance, if i wanted to respond i'd have responded to you directly. As you can see above i was responding to another user, taking apart what you said, to help them (possibly others), to quickly identify bs, weak spots, and fallacies, and point out how there was nothing of value worth discussing or responding to, since ultimately it was a personal attack on a user here, adding nothing to the community.