"...no outside coms..." I always took that to mean Q drops will never come from another source. We were both assuming, as far as I can tell, but there was an issue with a 'fake Q' of some sort when that dropped, as I recall. What Musk is doing there is a proof, (a work of anons), and not "coms".
Of course, some people wouldn't be able to cope with a Musk anon, because they can't get passed some past deed or other. That reminds me of many of the tactics I've seen used to cast shade on President Trump. If I don't buy it when it's done to Trump, I can't reasonably treat Musk that way, either. People change. The change is not always public-facing. Musk changed in some way and that change was evident when it split the leftist wife out of his family. There's evidence to be recognized in his situation.
How about current deeds? Saying Twitter will accelerate his creation of the X "everything app" (oh hello technocratic feudalism, China-style), or how Starlink plays perfectly into the technological control grid desired by our enemies? There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical besides some "past event"
Any set of tools can be abused. This is a freshman business discussion known as "business ethics" or "engineering ethics". Recognizing the risks of a design but pressenting those risks as the purpose of the design is fallacy: assigning motive. Any instrument can be used abusively, but we're not going back to the cave just because someone might get an owwie while we're on the journey.
Or maybe he was q all along
You poor, poor, people.
Remember when everyone on this board used to scream "no outside comms"?
We could remind each other of that more often.
"...no outside coms..." I always took that to mean Q drops will never come from another source. We were both assuming, as far as I can tell, but there was an issue with a 'fake Q' of some sort when that dropped, as I recall. What Musk is doing there is a proof, (a work of anons), and not "coms".
Of course, some people wouldn't be able to cope with a Musk anon, because they can't get passed some past deed or other. That reminds me of many of the tactics I've seen used to cast shade on President Trump. If I don't buy it when it's done to Trump, I can't reasonably treat Musk that way, either. People change. The change is not always public-facing. Musk changed in some way and that change was evident when it split the leftist wife out of his family. There's evidence to be recognized in his situation.
How about current deeds? Saying Twitter will accelerate his creation of the X "everything app" (oh hello technocratic feudalism, China-style), or how Starlink plays perfectly into the technological control grid desired by our enemies? There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical besides some "past event"
Any set of tools can be abused. This is a freshman business discussion known as "business ethics" or "engineering ethics". Recognizing the risks of a design but pressenting those risks as the purpose of the design is fallacy: assigning motive. Any instrument can be used abusively, but we're not going back to the cave just because someone might get an owwie while we're on the journey.
Wow, cognitive dissonance much? 😆😆😆
It's called integrity, not "cognitive dissonance". You should try it out someday.
If you don't know the person or people behind Q how do you know what's an outside com?
Haha. If you don't know the person or people behind Q how do you know what's an inside com?
I'm not claiming it's inside. I'm saying we don't know.
So your saying the sink is Q?
20% public
So you dont think that anyome could read this site, read the q posts and set up comms for us to follow?