You’re repeating yourself. You said that a q post with the word qanon contradicts previous posts but I’m asking you how does it contradict the previous post.
I’ll tell you how it doesn’t by correcting your understanding:
In one post, Q is validating “QAnon” as being a thing and another Q post they denied “QAnon” as being a thing.
Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.
He tells you 1) yes it is a thing and 2) this is what that thing is.
Please link the post number that contradicts what I said.
E: to use a different subject:
unicorns don’t exist.
a unicorn looks like a horse with a spiraled horn on his forehead.
Both statements are true.
If you hear someone say they saw a unicorn, you know they’re full of shit.
If the media is talking about qanon, you know they’re full of shit.
We’re seeing different things from the same 2 Q posts. What I’m seeing in Q post #2598 is that Q is validating “QAnon” as being a legit thing because Q is replying to an Anon who pointed out the artist signed the painting “QA” (abbreviation for QAnon). Q replies to the Anon that the ‘Santa with the hammer’ painting is signed by “QA > ‘QAnon’ > Hammer” (quote from Q in that post).
In Q post #4881, Q is declaring that “QAnon” is NOT a legitimate thing. In #4881, Q says: “There is no ‘QAnon.’ 3”
I’m baffled re: why you’re not seeing how these 2 Q posts directly contradict each other.
You’re repeating yourself. You said that a q post with the word qanon contradicts previous posts but I’m asking you how does it contradict the previous post.
I’ll tell you how it doesn’t by correcting your understanding:
That’s false. Q specifically says in u/#q4881
He tells you 1) yes it is a thing and 2) this is what that thing is.
Please link the post number that contradicts what I said.
E: to use a different subject:
Both statements are true. If you hear someone say they saw a unicorn, you know they’re full of shit. If the media is talking about qanon, you know they’re full of shit.
We’re seeing different things from the same 2 Q posts. What I’m seeing in Q post #2598 is that Q is validating “QAnon” as being a legit thing because Q is replying to an Anon who pointed out the artist signed the painting “QA” (abbreviation for QAnon). Q replies to the Anon that the ‘Santa with the hammer’ painting is signed by “QA > ‘QAnon’ > Hammer” (quote from Q in that post).
In Q post #4881, Q is declaring that “QAnon” is NOT a legitimate thing. In #4881, Q says: “There is no ‘QAnon.’ 3”
I’m baffled re: why you’re not seeing how these 2 Q posts directly contradict each other.
They contradict each other because you want it to. You quote 4881 but then stop right where you wanted to.
Agree to disagree.