Taking a quick glance at your comment history, annnnd thanks sweetheart, but I’m good. Never been to PW, and been here longer than you. Take your brain dead takes to conspiracies.win
Interesting interaction. A few things come to mind.
One, OP has made a rather limited contribution to GAW, if votes are anything to go by. Not that this necessarily pertains to the validity of PM's hypothesis, but it's something that is noticeable.
Two, my personal rubric for zeroing in on truth involves the triangulation of three separate axes: one, inspirational aka internal, via the heart and intuition, two, scripture, text, written (revealed) expressions of truth, and three, real world experience and evidence.
OP's reasoning seems to be missing a certain grounding in the third area. Op appears to have drawn certain conclusions based on looking at various data points but seems to be buying in heavily into belief as if fact.
Leaps of logic
i.e.
I dunno m’am, You provided nothing of value about Barron’s potential. It’s like me saying “I think so and so is a murderer” and then I send you the Wikipedia page of famous murderers. That’s not research, it’s reaching.
Response:
Thats akin to saying well trump didn't ever publicly or directly confirm that Q was a military op so there is no proof its not just huge larp.
This connection makes no sense to me.
There is plenty of proof that Q is not a larp, regardless of anything Trump has or has not said.
However, is there any tangible proof that Barron T is "Q"? Or is "the main person" in Q? Or that Barron is a genius? And has been since forever?
You are right to point out that OP failed to offer anything beyond stating that prodigies exist.
And then, OP got very snarky. Very.
But let's go full speculative here: Maybe PandaMoon17 is in fact Barron Trump! Maybe Op is attempting to reveal to the board who he really is! Maybe Op's insight is completely on point and pretty much everyone else is .... retarded.
There are some things out there that none of us can really ever know. There are stories within stories, ideas and worldviews, and what we choose to ingest and then use to formulate our beliefs is part of our own personal creativity. But the question is, how well do our beliefs match and align with reality? Can we even know what "reality" is? Ultimately, we have to make choices and then stand up for those choices, and be responsible for those choices. At some point, (in my view), reality will kick in and then it's crunch time.
OP obviously has certain beliefs and a certain interpretation of many of the datapoints that a lot of us have access to. I think it is noticeable, however, that a large majority of those who chose to engage with this post are not in agreement with Op's beliefs.
(Notably, despite the post being stickied, it didn't get even above 100 ups, which is a bit unusual.)
Calling something or someone retarded because of the implication that its impossible for someone that young to be that smart and capable is....retarded.
Saying my comparison doesn't make sense doesn't prove that it doesn't make sense. All things being equal you didn't prove Q wassn't a larp you just said that you don't think it is. I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But I'm not gonna try and prove it in a court of law. Maybe you are, and I would obviously fully support your effort.
As for u/lithopedion, I was just calling out his misdirection that he tried to use in order to say that I was trying to prove that Barron was on some normie list of child prodigies when it was clearly just an simple disproving of his assertion that no one that young could be Q. He knows that. I know that. You know that.
Honestly, whats so difficult about this? Trump called him 17 when hes 18.
People post speculative 5 and 6 year deltas that are less clear than this until they are blue in the face and everyone gets a hard on for it, including me!
Kill the messenger much?
I'm allowed to be snarky and sarcastic when people call me retarded with 0 argument and when people imply that I'm just a low effort hopium salesmen. I was doing research on how bad the death shot was before any one on this board started talking about. Big deal. So and so's account is older than mine. Big deal.
Barron is Q or at least one of the Qs on the team. Trump said it. It's as clear as him doing an air Q at a rally.
I stand by everything I said about the general vibe of GA now as well.
Calling something or someone retarded because of the implication that its impossible for someone that young to be that smart and capable is....retarded.
I don't know if he asserted that it's impossible. Personally, I understood your assertions as simply having no credible available evidence. Is it possible that Barron was a 9 year old genius who could design or operate something like the Q program? What's the threshold or standard here? is it 'possible' if it's only 1% possible?
Frankly, if your claim that this is the case is because Trump said his son was 17 in 2024. Jeepers. Yeah, no, I agree with litho: it's pretty retarded.
Disclaimer: I NEVER use 'retarded' in my online or offline discussions. I only use it here because it's another word for stupid. To me, your viewpoint is stupid. (I'm not saying you are stupid, just the claim.)
in order to say that I was trying to prove that Barron was on some normie list of child prodigies
Sorry, I disagree and think you have misconstrued this completely. He was saying "where is the evidence?" The fact that child prodigies exist is not evidence that Barron Trump was a child prodigy.
Your entire argument seems to revolve around "Well, it's possible, because child prodigies exist", but where is the evidence that Barron Trump was such a prodigy?
5 and 6 year deltas that are less clear than this until they are blue in the face and everyone gets a hard on for it including me.
Well, congrats to you. I certainly do not. I find a lot of that stuff almost as speculative and as reachy as your post here. I don't think it advances the cause, something I alluded to in my initial response to litho.
I'm allowed to be snarky and sarcastic when people call me retarded with 0 argument and when people imply that I'm just a low effort hopium salesmen.
Not zero argument. But you can justify your behavior however you want. I've made my own viewpoint clear. (you became abusive)
Based on the further discussion, I would not characterize you as just a low-effort hopium salesman. But I think the stuff you are dealing in isn't anywhere near as productive or well-grounded as you seem to think it is.
Hey, that's allowed. The board has it's purpose, and that's why any of us can post our views. I'll just repeat that I find both your discussion style and arguments completely unconvincing. Hey, maybe I missed the point, or maybe you're just not great at articulating reasoned arguments.
Thanks for the dialog, in any case. Moving on now.
But wait.... maybe there is a point of agreement: it seems we both think that the board is not as wonderful as it could be (or even maybe once was). Possibly, we may disagree on the details, but perhaps we could still focus on making some effort to improve the quality here.
To the statement that you don't agree with me: fair enough. I was never abusive though. Most of what everyone has been saying is opinion, especially you.
I also do not agree with most of what people on this board assume to be true or false.
You conveniently never addressed my real points about logic and statistics.
My post was unstickied about 15 mins after I started posting my rebuttals and replys.
In general I see a lot of this pointing of the "you're not doing enough research" finger without the person pointing that finger doing any actual disproving or research to the contrary.
By the way, if the few arguments i do have in this thread are so unconvincing which arguments of the people who disagree with me are so convincing to you and why?
Taking a quick glance at your comment history, annnnd thanks sweetheart, but I’m good. Never been to PW, and been here longer than you. Take your brain dead takes to conspiracies.win
Interesting interaction. A few things come to mind.
One, OP has made a rather limited contribution to GAW, if votes are anything to go by. Not that this necessarily pertains to the validity of PM's hypothesis, but it's something that is noticeable.
Two, my personal rubric for zeroing in on truth involves the triangulation of three separate axes: one, inspirational aka internal, via the heart and intuition, two, scripture, text, written (revealed) expressions of truth, and three, real world experience and evidence.
OP's reasoning seems to be missing a certain grounding in the third area. Op appears to have drawn certain conclusions based on looking at various data points but seems to be buying in heavily into belief as if fact.
Leaps of logic
i.e.
Response:
This connection makes no sense to me.
There is plenty of proof that Q is not a larp, regardless of anything Trump has or has not said.
However, is there any tangible proof that Barron T is "Q"? Or is "the main person" in Q? Or that Barron is a genius? And has been since forever?
You are right to point out that OP failed to offer anything beyond stating that prodigies exist.
And then, OP got very snarky. Very.
But let's go full speculative here: Maybe PandaMoon17 is in fact Barron Trump! Maybe Op is attempting to reveal to the board who he really is! Maybe Op's insight is completely on point and pretty much everyone else is .... retarded.
There are some things out there that none of us can really ever know. There are stories within stories, ideas and worldviews, and what we choose to ingest and then use to formulate our beliefs is part of our own personal creativity. But the question is, how well do our beliefs match and align with reality? Can we even know what "reality" is? Ultimately, we have to make choices and then stand up for those choices, and be responsible for those choices. At some point, (in my view), reality will kick in and then it's crunch time.
OP obviously has certain beliefs and a certain interpretation of many of the datapoints that a lot of us have access to. I think it is noticeable, however, that a large majority of those who chose to engage with this post are not in agreement with Op's beliefs.
(Notably, despite the post being stickied, it didn't get even above 100 ups, which is a bit unusual.)
u/PandaMoon17
Calling something or someone retarded because of the implication that its impossible for someone that young to be that smart and capable is....retarded.
Saying my comparison doesn't make sense doesn't prove that it doesn't make sense. All things being equal you didn't prove Q wassn't a larp you just said that you don't think it is. I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But I'm not gonna try and prove it in a court of law. Maybe you are, and I would obviously fully support your effort.
As for u/lithopedion, I was just calling out his misdirection that he tried to use in order to say that I was trying to prove that Barron was on some normie list of child prodigies when it was clearly just an simple disproving of his assertion that no one that young could be Q. He knows that. I know that. You know that.
Honestly, whats so difficult about this? Trump called him 17 when hes 18.
People post speculative 5 and 6 year deltas that are less clear than this until they are blue in the face and everyone gets a hard on for it, including me!
Kill the messenger much?
I'm allowed to be snarky and sarcastic when people call me retarded with 0 argument and when people imply that I'm just a low effort hopium salesmen. I was doing research on how bad the death shot was before any one on this board started talking about. Big deal. So and so's account is older than mine. Big deal.
Barron is Q or at least one of the Qs on the team. Trump said it. It's as clear as him doing an air Q at a rally.
I stand by everything I said about the general vibe of GA now as well.
An interesting take.
I don't know if he asserted that it's impossible. Personally, I understood your assertions as simply having no credible available evidence. Is it possible that Barron was a 9 year old genius who could design or operate something like the Q program? What's the threshold or standard here? is it 'possible' if it's only 1% possible?
Frankly, if your claim that this is the case is because Trump said his son was 17 in 2024. Jeepers. Yeah, no, I agree with litho: it's pretty retarded.
Disclaimer: I NEVER use 'retarded' in my online or offline discussions. I only use it here because it's another word for stupid. To me, your viewpoint is stupid. (I'm not saying you are stupid, just the claim.)
Sorry, I disagree and think you have misconstrued this completely. He was saying "where is the evidence?" The fact that child prodigies exist is not evidence that Barron Trump was a child prodigy.
Your entire argument seems to revolve around "Well, it's possible, because child prodigies exist", but where is the evidence that Barron Trump was such a prodigy?
Well, congrats to you. I certainly do not. I find a lot of that stuff almost as speculative and as reachy as your post here. I don't think it advances the cause, something I alluded to in my initial response to litho.
Not zero argument. But you can justify your behavior however you want. I've made my own viewpoint clear. (you became abusive)
Based on the further discussion, I would not characterize you as just a low-effort hopium salesman. But I think the stuff you are dealing in isn't anywhere near as productive or well-grounded as you seem to think it is.
Hey, that's allowed. The board has it's purpose, and that's why any of us can post our views. I'll just repeat that I find both your discussion style and arguments completely unconvincing. Hey, maybe I missed the point, or maybe you're just not great at articulating reasoned arguments.
Thanks for the dialog, in any case. Moving on now.
But wait.... maybe there is a point of agreement: it seems we both think that the board is not as wonderful as it could be (or even maybe once was). Possibly, we may disagree on the details, but perhaps we could still focus on making some effort to improve the quality here.
In any case, best wishes for the coming week.
To the statement that you don't agree with me: fair enough. I was never abusive though. Most of what everyone has been saying is opinion, especially you.
I also do not agree with most of what people on this board assume to be true or false.
You conveniently never addressed my real points about logic and statistics.
My post was unstickied about 15 mins after I started posting my rebuttals and replys.
In general I see a lot of this pointing of the "you're not doing enough research" finger without the person pointing that finger doing any actual disproving or research to the contrary.
By the way, if the few arguments i do have in this thread are so unconvincing which arguments of the people who disagree with me are so convincing to you and why?
I called you retarded for saying Barron was Q, and we don’t ‘need any Q proofs’ for that one. That is why you are retarded, miss.
Trump said that. Not me. Again, you can't blow your load to air Qs and shit on this without some cognitive dissonance.
Nice research! Thanks for looking up all the ebbidences and "contributing" your important deboonking of me.